greatest of all time.

Simple really.  Robert James "Bobby" Ficher is the single greatest chess player ever.  He was the youngest Grandmaster ever (until Judit, that is) and was the first guy to get over 2800 ELO rating.  He absolutely wipes the floor with the other contenders for the best.  And, he's the only champion to have never lost a world championship match!

A simple diagram will explain this entire thing.

Fischer>>>>>>>>>Spassky>Petrosian>Botvinnik>Tal, Smyslov and Bronstein, and Euwe, and Keres, and Reshevsky>Alekhine>Capablanca>Lasker>Steinitz>everybody before him.

Now, could somebody show me proof where Karpov, Korchnoi and Kasparov have shown themselves to be better than all of these guys Fischer is better than?  No proof?  Well than, obviously Fischer is the best!

This has been discussed many times in these forums:

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-players/who-is-the-best-alekhine-or-fischer

 http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-players/what-is-your-opinion-about-robert-fischer

 http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-players/bobby-fischer

 http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-players/bobby-vs-paul

 Anyways....

 He . . . was the first guy to get over 2800 ELO rating.

 Fischer's highest rating ever was 2785. Gary Kasparov was the first guy to have a rating over 2800, and 2 others have done that since (Anand and Kramnik).

 He absolutely wipes the floor with the other contenders for the best.

 Fischer himself said that Paul Morphy was the best chess player of all time. Fischer said that nobody alive would be able to beat Morphy in a match.

A simple diagram will explain this entire thing.

 Fischer>>>>>>>>>Spassky>Petrosian>Botvinnik>Tal, Smyslov and Bronstein, and Euwe, and Keres, and Reshevsky>Alekhine>Capablanca>Lasker>Steinitz>everybody before him.

 This is quite silly, really. Tal actually beat Fischer more times than Fischer beat him.

 The problem with comparing modern players to players like Capablanca, Lasker, and Steinitz is: Capa, Lasker, and Steinitz didn't have books written by Capa, Lasker, and Steinitz to learn from - they invented new ideas and wrote the books! Later players were able to study these books, learn from their ideas, and improve on them. If we could take any one of these players in their prime, time-travel them into the modern age, and let them study from all the new books written in the last ~100 years, any of them would be as good as any modern GM.

 could somebody show me proof where Karpov, Korchnoi and Kasparov have shown themselves to be better than all of these guys Fischer is better than?

 As mentioned in the above paragraph, it's very difficult to compare modern players to players 100 years ago. I think that it is generally agreed that Karpov, Kasparov, and Korchnoi are better than players 100 years ago - simply because more and better chess books are available now, and modern players have computers to study from. Give these tools to players 100 years ago, and they'd be just as good as anyone.

No proof?  Well than, obviously Fischer is the best!

 This is a logical fallacy known as the "false dilemma".  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Quite right... big blue is current champ, until someone perfects a better thinking machine.

As for humans i don't know since i don't read chess books. i have heard of morphy, fischer, and kasparov. I like morphy but my vote goes to kasparov... he's an all around guy. in the biggest, grandest chess game ever called LIFE, he beats them all hands down. So he's my guy.

fischer had several disadvantages, first their where fewer grandmaster thus fewer tournaments, also because of problems with playing conditions he had a few 18 month breaks from regular chess. also he quit young so if fischer kept playing i think he could have a rating over three thousand when he died

Just to be clear: I'm not saying that Fischer wasn't the best player ever. I agree that in his prime he certainly was the best in the world in his day. However, I think it's impossible to compare players of different eras because there are so many variables. (And I also wanted to correct several mistakes the original poster made).

fischeryouth wrote:

if fischer kept playing i think he could have a rating over three thousand when he died

That's probably wishful thinking. Kasparov was world champion for 15 years and his highest rating ever was 2851. Most of Fischer's opponents had lower ratings than most of Kasparov's (keep in mind that your rating goes up by more the higher rated your opponent is). Even if Fisher played for another 15 years, it's unlikely his rating would have ended up being much higher than Kasparov's.

Plus, there's no guarantee Fischer would have kept playing as well as he did in his prime. In his rematch with Spassky in 1992, wikipedia says:

Fischer won the match, 10 wins to 5 losses, with 15 draws. Many grandmasters observing the match said that Fischer was past his prime. In the book Mortal Games, Kasparov is quoted: "Bobby is playing OK, nothing more. Maybe his strength is around 2600 or 2650. It wouldn't be close between us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Fischer#Spassky_rematch

The modern chess greats are in a better position than their predecessors because they have the advantage of hindsight. They have studied their games, strategies and tactics and with the benefit of modern computers and new analysis of opening theories they are far stronger.

We would just compare apples with oranges if we do compare them.

It's like asking who would win if the unbeaten heavyweight boxer Rocky Marciano fights with Lennox Lewis while in their prime? By today's standard Rocky is just a Cruiserweight while Lennox is a giant. A  28 year old Rocky would have been beaten badly by a 28 year old Lennox.

claypot wrote:

Big Blue is the greatest chess player of all time.

Can anybody dispute that?

heheheh

 Big blue is probably the greatest chess computer of all time but not a chessplayer (human). :)

The greatest champion of all time is the reigning champion. It is as impossible to rate chessplayers historically as it is boxers or runners. Training methods improve, better lines are discovered, tactics and strategies develop with time. There is a case for Steinitz being the greatest champion because he brought a deeper strategic understanding of the game, that is he contributed to the game's development in a unique way that no subsequent champion has.

But this is my own opinion. I see greatness not as shear strength over the board but as the contribution of the individual player to the development of the game as a whole. Fischer certainly helped popularise chess in the US, where it is still seen in a poor light, but to my knowledge he didn't contribute very much to our subsequent understanding of the game.

lanceuppercut_239 wrote:

Just to be clear: I'm not saying that Fischer wasn't the best player ever. I agree that in his prime he certainly was the best in the world in his day. However, I think it's impossible to compare players of different eras because there are so many variables. (And I also wanted to correct several mistakes the original poster made).

fischeryouth wrote:

if fischer kept playing i think he could have a rating over three thousand when he died

That's probably wishful thinking. Kasparov was world champion for 15 years and his highest rating ever was 2851. Most of Fischer's opponents had lower ratings than most of Kasparov's (keep in mind that your rating goes up by more the higher rated your opponent is). Even if Fisher played for another 15 years, it's unlikely his rating would have ended up being much higher than Kasparov's.

Plus, there's no guarantee Fischer would have kept playing as well as he did in his prime. In his rematch with Spassky in 1992, wikipedia says:

Fischer won the match, 10 wins to 5 losses, with 15 draws. Many grandmasters observing the match said that Fischer was past his prime. In the book Mortal Games, Kasparov is quoted: "Bobby is playing OK, nothing more. Maybe his strength is around 2600 or 2650. It wouldn't be close between us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Fischer#Spassky_rematch

 For now its true because he is already old.And he's not even active in tournaments.

Paul Morphy is the best of all time. He won 80+% of his games on chessgames.com Fischer is in the 70s. Kasparov is 60s. Tal is 60s. If you look at some of paul morphy's games you will be astounded at his brilliance and HE ALSO made all his moves almost INSTANTANEOUSLY!! He spent 12 mins before sacking his queen by taking a bishop for a MATE in 12!!! Who else can find a mate in 12 in 12 mins that starts with a queen sacrifice. He did it in the finals of the American Chess Congress which was the biggest tournament in America at the time as well.

@tactician prodigy, some sacrifices does not require calculation, there is this thing called institution,

In my opinion kasparov is the greatest chess player off all time, whenever I read a chess book or an interview to a gm, I always see kasparov being mentioned by them as the greatest chess player of all time. Most GM today, thinks that kasparov is the greatest

maelith wrote:

@tactician prodigy, some sacrifices does not require calculation, there is this thing called institution,

In my opinion kasparov is the greatest chess player off all time, whenever I read a chess book or an interview to a gm, I always see kasparov being mentioned by them as the greatest chess player of all time. Most GM today, thinks that kasparov is the greatest

 Uh, "institution?" Last time I checked that word meant "an organization, establishment, foundation, society, or the like, devoted to the promotion of a particular cause or program."

I think you're thinking of intuition.

Bobby Fischer was a very intelligent, cunning and an interesting gentleman (yes, gentleman). He was very good in all aspects of the game from the opening to the endgame, from the positional theory to the tactics, from the attack to the defence and even pshycology. He not only intimidated his opponents, but also disturbed them and even tricked them to his advantage (like Spassky playing in a small basement or enclosed room). He also forfeited the championship to make sure that he will be hailed "undefeated" since  Karpov was actually a big threat (believe it or not) and even beat Spassky more convincingly (even if you don't count the scores of the first two games of the WC match in Reykjavik). Kasparov on the other hand, was also great in all parts of the game (and even made POSITIONAL brilliancies like Fischer) but is considered greater since for one, it is harder to become a great player now compared to the past as computers and manhours have changed things, there is better talent and lastly, much of the concepts have already been unlocked and even a patzer can gain access to lots of these. Unfortunatley, he lost his title due to:

1) Kramnik prepared and played very well and Kasparov bearly even prepared

2) Kasparov did not play professional chess in a LONG time

3)His opponent just won 2 games, then forced to draw the rest without Kasparov having the chance to come back

There have been many great players throught history who have their own strengths and weaknesses (like Fischer was a little rusty {very little} on attack and defence, Kasparov in the endgame {again very little}, Tal {whom I consider with these greats} in positional play, Botvinnik in tactical calculation, Alekhine in his maneuvering, Petrosian in his lack of risks [I'm not criticizing him in any way] etc....) and several unknowns like Nehzmetdinov or Bent Larsen or even the modern swashbuckler Emory Tate (whom I just heard of today!). And you guys just criticize them on how entertaining their games are or how much material did they sacrifice or how high are their ratings. All these people (and many more like Paul Mophy or Emanuel Lasker oreven Karpov whom you guys consider less dominant than Fischer) excelled at this game we all play today, and without them, most likely, chess will not be like how it is today (yep, even without Deep Blue). For this, they should all be praised and thanked for their great contributions and Legacies that they have left us with.

Fischer was with no doubt a great player,but honestly..he used lots of schemes and little mindgames, complaining about lights, then the cameras, then the public.Fischer would not even fit my Top 5.

bobbyfischer forever,

   Fischer did not "wipe the floor" with either Tal or Geller.

oh well there has been a lot of great players and is hard to evaluate one above another, it's simply a very especulative matter and  ultimately a matter of taste I think, so i'll say Karpov because I love his positional play.

Smyslov!

The blind lead the blind. You're referring to Deep Blue, which clearly isn't the greatest chess computer of all time, which (as of now) would be Deep Rybka 3 running on the fastest, best-tuned machine you can build, which "wipes the floor" with every human player of today, and performs at least equally to every other program. Furthermore, there's nothing in the standard definition of chessplayer that stipulates that it has to be a human...

Too bad Fisher was totally psychotic. Other than that, he might have been around the strength of Kasparov, Anand, Kramnik, (Capablanca), and in my personal opinion, (along with Capablanca) Magnus Carlsen. Fisher's way overrated, why bother making more useless threads about him? 

Fischer would be up their in the top 3 or 4,what place within that group is open to debate.

What makes Fischer stand out i think is he won the world title more or less on his own.

In a time where champions had a support team of excellent players Fischer did it on his own.

But is he the greatest of all time?

Would Fischer have beaten Capablanca,Alekhine,Lasker or Morphy in their prime?

It's a shame we will never know because like many sports you cannot compare champions/players from different times to each other.

Chess has changed since the 1960's.

In snooker Steve Davis was ahead of his time he won many tournaments then other players caught on to how he trained and played like him.

Fischer was the same,he stood out but the rest of the world copied him.

I am glad fischer stoped playing when he did, i can remember the greatness not a decline.