We can't compare anyone or anything anymore. The new will always beat the old and the new will do it at a younger age.
That depends on what you compare. Steinitz was greater than Nepomniachtchi is even if the latter plays better chess.
Sadly, it isn't Kasparov, Fisher, Capablanca, Alekhine, Anand, Lasker, Carlsen or any other human. It's probably between Rykba and Stockfish
Houdini is better than both of them, the chesslogik engines probably are as well.
it's the same as who's your favorite Daddy or Mommy.
nevertheless, capablanca was pure talent.
it's the same as who's your favorite Daddy or Mommy.
nevertheless, capablanca was pure talent.
There's a difference between favourite player and best player though. Karpov was better than Bronstein but I like Bronstein much better. For all time greatest I'd never consider Bronstein in the top 20 (but Karpov as top 5), and for favourite I'd never consider Karpov in the top 100 (but Bronstein in the top 5).
No doubt Kasparov.
Check this out the top 10 greatest players in history
http://listverse.com/2009/09/06/top-10-greatest-chess-players-in-history/
Very good link, interesting article I agree with most of it except Fischer (I'd put him 3rd, and Anand instead of Botvinnik)
Every one of these champions are all outstanding & it is something for Alekhine to play so strong when drunk like a skunk. When I do that my games look like crap.Alekhine no doubt is the greatest of all time .
Fischer had a couple of great years, but to me it isn't enough to beat Taimanov, Larsen, Petrosian and Spassky to then retire to be compared with players like Lasker and Kasparov. Carlsen has a long way to go before he can be mentioned in the same sentence as such players, but for someone that often is described as not ready yet, with potential but needing time etc, he has had very good results. He must have won a dozen top tournaments since Anand last won one, and Anand is a legendary player. Even Kasparov at his best rarely won as many tournaments, with such a big margin, as Carlsen has done frequently as a teenager.
I'm assuming you know nothing of Kasparov, his peak rating is still the highest one, about 40points away from the fellas that are currently fighting for number 1 spot. One shouldn't forget either that during 9 years and 9 months he was first, or shared first in every (classic) tournament he played in, untill Ivanchuk stopped him at Linares in 1991.
There are alot of dominant perfomances if you want to look at individual tournaments aswell.
I think Kasparov was the greatest player in absolute terms, but I think Fischer was head and shoulders above his contemporaries in a way that Kasparov didn't achieve. In the July 1972 FIDE rating list, Fischer was 125 ELO points ahead of the #2 in the world (Spassky)!!!
For Kasparov to have dominated to an equal degree, the #2 in the world when Kasparov was at his peak of 2851 would have to have been rated no more than 2723.
I'm assuming you know nothing of Kasparov, his peak rating is still the highest one, about 40points away from the fellas that are currently fighting for number 1 spot.
That must be it, I know nothing of Kasparov. To me Lasker and Kasparov are the greatest players ever, but that has to do with a combination of longevity and strength. Carlsen is often referred to as a player with potential that isn't ready yet and needs to mature etc. But look at Carlsen's best streak, when he was sole winner in 5 of 6 super tournaments, and scored a higher TPR than Kasparov ever did in his career. That's quite good for a teenager that needs to improve. Players like Anand and Kramnik have never been close to do something like that in the 20 years they have been active.
If Carlsen could get similar results the following ten years it would be hard to place him lower than 10th on a greatest player ever list. Korchnoi and Keres were great players at their best, but how often did they win when the top players were present? If you pick Spassky's or Petrosian's ten best tournament results in their very long careers, isn't Carlsen's best tournaments already clearly better? Just the fact that you can list Kasparov's best tournaments 1994-96 and realise that Carlsen's 2008-10 were better is incredible. So I think Carlsen is underestimated.
I think Kasparov was the greatest player in absolute terms, but I think Fischer was head and shoulders above his contemporaries in a way that Kasparov didn't achieve. In the July 1972 FIDE rating list, Fischer was 125 ELO points ahead of the #2 in the world (Spassky)!!!
For Kasparov to have dominated to an equal degree, the #2 in the world when Kasparov was at his peak of 2851 would have to have been rated no more than 2723.
Being ahead of Spassky is a different thing than being ahead of Karpov. If Fischer had kept playing he would never have been 125 points ahead of Karpov.
One thing is certain, Fischer did more to better the playing conditions for all and brought serious money to top level chess and he is the ONLY one who did ! So, as far as a lasting positive contribution to elite chess Fischer is the greatest, by far.
I think Kasparov was the greatest player in absolute terms, but I think Fischer was head and shoulders above his contemporaries in a way that Kasparov didn't achieve. In the July 1972 FIDE rating list, Fischer was 125 ELO points ahead of the #2 in the world (Spassky)!!!
For Kasparov to have dominated to an equal degree, the #2 in the world when Kasparov was at his peak of 2851 would have to have been rated no more than 2723.
Being ahead of Spassky is a different thing than being ahead of Karpov. If Fischer had kept playing he would never have been 125 points ahead of Karpov.
Fischer also might have continued improving, since his highest rating was in the last year that he played professionally (1972). And to repeat again, Fischer was 125 ELO points higher than the World Champion and #2 in the world at that time. There is no way to spin that as anything other than amazing.
And to repeat again, Fischer was 125 ELO points higher than the World Champion and #2 in the world at that time. There is no way to spin that as anything other than amazing.
It is amazing, if it is a greater achievement to be 125 ahead of Spassky on one list before retiring than to be ahead of Karpov for dozens of them is another thing. The margin Steinitz had was also amazing, but Karpov is one of the greatest players ever and it's difficult to be far ahead of him for many years.
Whats truly amazing is that Karpov's best rating was still less than Fischer's best ! Its silly to think that Fischer would not have broken 2800 had he played another 10 years, he was less than 20 points away even back before rating inflation ! Its very conceivable that he would have broken 2900 !
Whats truly amazing is that Karpov's best rating was still less than Fischer's best ! Its silly to think that Fischer would not have broken 2800 had he played another 10 years, he was less than 20 points away even back before rating inflation ! Its very conceivable that he would have broken 2900 !
Why not in 1981: Karpov 2690, Fischer 2910? That would have been many times the distance he had to Spassky in 1971 (50-70 points). Sounds much considering that Karpov was so much better than Spassky and crushed him in 1974 in the same way Fischer did in 1972. Larsen and Taimanov avoided draws to try to get closer and it ended up with Fischer gaining enormous amounts of rating points, so he even lost points against Spassky. Staying 125 ahead would have been impossible, maybe the 50-70 points of 1971 were more "normal" and it could well have returned to that a year or two after 1972 if Fischer had been interested in playing.
Kasparov is most likely the strongest chess player off all time over all. Had Fischer played for say a decade, and he played as well as he did for the year or 2 he was active he may be on par with Kasparov, but we will never know how well Fischer would have played after he went into seclusion, sadly he is dead now so it will forever be a mystery.
Kasparov is the has been.
Fischer is the never was.
Carlsen & Anand are the best current players
Kasparov is most likely the strongest chess player off all time over all. Had Fischer played for say a decade, and he played as well as he did for the year or 2 he was active he may be on par with Kasparov, but we will never know how well Fischer would have played after he went into seclusion, sadly he is dead now so it will forever be a mystery.
Kasparov is the has been.
Fischer is the never was.
Carlsen & Anand are the best current players
Agreed.
How much did Karpov's rating go up from the time he became WC (1975 ) to 1985 ? I cant find any ratings on him before 2000 or so.....
Carlsen has proven himself a great tournament player but he has yet to prove himself in match play against elite players and until he does he certainly doesnt have the chess credentials that Anand, Kramnik, Topalov have........
No doubt Kasparov.
Check this out the top 10 greatest players in history
http://listverse.com/2009/09/06/top-10-greatest-chess-players-in-history/