for me, fisher by a wide margin. of course my age(68) becomes a obvious reason for same. Chess wise his games reveal simplicity, elegance and depth hard too match. I've been at this a long time,and understand defining terms-THE BEST,GREATEST--are difficult for all of us ...dialogue makes for interesting chess info.
Who was the all time best
Sort:
To bad Fischer was so anti everything ,he certainly was no class act away from the chess board , I think that a few fellows like Alekhine & Capablanca would have beaten him also Kasparov & Annand .Thats just my opinion though.
Karpov (I change my mind).
He came out of nowhere, dominated post-Fischer, pre-Kasparov.
Would have ruled the chess world for a quarter of a century in the modern era whether or not Fischer beat him in 1975 (he would have swept Kasparov in 1984 and chess history would be vastly different).
No, can't do it...still gotta go with Capablanca, in spite of overconfidence and hypertension.
Yes Capablanca was special ,who else never lost a single chess game in over 8 years ? Thats a strong argument for Capablanca you may be correct.He died so young what a loss for the Chess world.One can only speculate what he would have done had he lived to be real old.Good pick .
I think there are really only 2 names that deserve to challenge for that title and the picks are obvious. Fischer and Kasparov. I know its the classical choice for most players. Just look at these players though in their prime.
Mar 27, 2011
0
#67
KASPAROV! No one in history comes even close. This discussion is ridiculous
.
I think Fischers anger towards his own country ( U.S.A.) & his terrible attitude against just about everyone had to effect his game ,he was a twisted cry for help to be sure.Hi friendship with terrorists etc.hated Jews.Had to have his own way against Spassky in the rematch which he was losing until Spassky being the gentleman that he was let Fischer have his way & played him in a stuffy little room.When Fischer was a young boy Max Euwe played 3 games with him ,it would have been 3-0 for Euwe but when Max defeated him Fischer was so sad that Euwe being the kind soul that he was took pity & let young bobby win a game then draw a game. Spoiled Fischer was always getting his way.What a miserable man,banned from the USA etc.he was a lousy blow for chess & humanity.
Karpov deserves more credit. Kasparov is more than a decade younger and was able to learn from Karpov's games and he barely eked by Karpov all those years. If Karpov could have learned from playing against Fischer, this wouldn't even be a debate.
Therefore Karpovblanca is best, with AleKasparhine and Morphischer tied or just below. Maybe Spassky for talent, based on those stories of his profound laziness.
soldierpiper wrote:
Yes Capablanca was special ,who else never lost a single chess game in over 8 years ? Thats a strong argument for Capablanca you may be correct.He died so young what a loss for the Chess world.One can only speculate what he would have done had he lived to be real old.Good pick .
He didn't lose a game in 8 years but then he played something like five events in these years and three of them were very weak. He wasn't that young when he died, almost 55.
dannyhume wrote:
If Karpov could have learned from playing against Fischer, this wouldn't even be a debate.
But what if Kasparov could have learned from playing against a Karpov that had played against Fischer?
Mar 27, 2011
0
#73
are we talking about best chess player? best politician? best national man? best human? or what?
daniel rench is my idol! i love him oh so much
1) Me 2) Some Russian guy
dannyhume wrote:
Capablanca was the best ever. He is Cuban.
Fischer might be second, but I only say that because he is American...if he was Russian, he'd just be an average-level world champion GM who, without the backing of the Soviet machine, crushed all the top GM's of his time (Russian and non-Russian) with incredible ease, except Karpov, who might actually be the 2nd-greatest ever, except that he lost to Kasparov repeatedly, which would therefore make Kasparov the second greatest ever, except that Alekhine beat Capablanca in a world champion match but has an overall negative against Capablance, so that makes Alekhine the 2nd greatest ever, though I am sure one could reasonably argue that Morphy was the best ever, but I only say that because he is American and that automatically bumps him up arbitrarily a few notches, because if he was European, he'd be no different than any other 1850's/60s top-level chess master who crushed every other master without even trying with incredible ease. So 3 Americans in the top 3, maybe, if you see it that way, just a matter of opinion. Capablanca is still number one, fact. He is Cuban.
Well done that was quite halarious
fabelhaft wrote:
soldierpiper wrote:
Yes Capablanca was special ,who else never lost a single chess game in over 8 years ? Thats a strong argument for Capablanca you may be correct.He died so young what a loss for the Chess world.One can only speculate what he would have done had he lived to be real old.Good pick .
He didn't lose a game in 8 years but then he played something like five events in these years and three of them were very weak. He wasn't that young when he died, almost 55.
Thats young in my books :)
fabelhaft wrote:
dannyhume wrote:
If Karpov could have learned from playing against Fischer, this wouldn't even be a debate.
But what if Kasparov could have learned from playing against a Karpov that had played against Fischer?
Direct learning is more enlightening than indirect.
Karpov would have learned just enough (from playing/preparing for Fischer several times) to whitewash Kasparov the first time they met...an advantage Karpov cannot claim today thanks to Fischer's unfortunate cowardice. The psychological advantage in those several close matches between K and K would now be nil. Eventually the old will lose to the new, so Kasparov would win the title it in later years, maybe even from Karpov, but it just wouldn't be the same and Karpov's dominance would shine more clearer than today, because people would say that he beat Fischer and Kasparov and dominated chess for 1+ decades.
Left guessing, I guess.Please excuse my commenting, there have been so many conflicts in the period and dob info does give some possible clues.
What are you on about ? Cripes man just say what it is you are getting at ? What s all this fuss about dob & clues ? Very strange sort of comment> we are talking about who,s the best chess player & why we think they are.You are talking like you been reading to many Sherlock Holmes books, you must admit you sound off the wall with your comments?