I believe that as time progresses so does the skill-level of players due to the fact that nowadays GMs have access to ridiculously strong engines, more theory than in previous years, etc and with the likes of Bobby Fischer... yes he was a good player but I think a lot of his advantage was in mind-games and unnerving his opponent but I believe if they all knew all of the same modern theory, mind-games aside, etc and all in their individual primes I'd say Garry Kasparov is the best player of all time because he has mind-boggling calculating abilities.
Who is the greatest chess player of all time ?? Bobby Fischer ??

Yeah, yuree, but ya gotta remember, Tal was one of the nicest, humblest players ever to make GM. He was constantly complimenting his opponents and downplaying the quality of his own games.
One of the many outstanding qualities about Tal's play is that he himself didn't consider his moves to be that spectacular or unusual.

Tal never won a single game from an adult Fischer . All of Tal's wins were against a 15 y o Fischer and after that he never managed another win against Fischer .

An example for yeres30 to show that blunders in WC matches do happen from time to time. This is actually a far, far worse blunder than Carlsen/Anand though, since it drops a rook due to a beginner queen fork of king and rook:
It's game 5 of the WC Candidates match between Taimanov-Fischer in 1971.

Bobby Fischer was best. If he had todays level of information to work with he would also be the best of this generation, such was his work ethic.
"In Caracas in 1970, Karpov lost to Ivkov and Kavalek"
Another one that wasn't a worthy World Champion, then, if he lost to Ivkov and Kavalek as a teen. I guess it as usual turns out that only Fischer was a worthy World Champion, and that he never hung his bishop against Spassky.
An example for yeres30 to show that blunders in WC matches do happen from time to time. This is actually a far, far worse blunder than Carlsen/Anand though, since it drops a rook due to a beginner queen fork of king and rook:
Why are you even bothering with this intellectually incompetent troll? He's just a NN with no chess career to speak of who has an obsession with referring to Carlsen and Anand as "patzers". Just what you'd expect from a jealous loser.

The incredible thing to me is that he thinks he's making a valid point by showing that Carlsen made a bad move. In eleven games in this match, Carlsen made maybe three discernible mistakes. Even though he didn't play his best this time, the level of play was extremely high.
Spassky's play in 1972 was surprisingly poor by comparison. He forgot his own preparation and made several blunders.
I agree with Reb btw that Fischer at his best was better than Tal. Fischer was the best the world had seen until Kasparov came along. I still think that Karpov would have become world champion, I just don't know when.
But if you want to talk about blunders in World Championships, take a look at Fischer-Spassky game 2 or any game from Fischer-Karpov 1975. At least Carlsen had the courage to show up.

yeres30 wrote:
Carlsen may be today's world champion.
But in one game, Carlsen - get this - got mated in one move in a Rook ending, a mistake most beginners make.
Then there is his famous blunder against Anand.
Well stated!!!!
Those kind of blunders are not worthy of a world champion.
You are wrong.
A world championmatch is first man to 6,5 points, and if you are as good as Carlsen you are allowed to make one or two gameloosing blunders during the total match and still win the WC match.
If the blunder is a beginners blunder or a subtle GM -blunder doesnt count. One game lost is one game lost. Nothing less, nothing more.
Anybody who can defeat the winner of the candidates in a WC-match is worthy. I can´t.
In my opinion beside preparation for a tournament,knowledge of openings, middle and end games, the no 1 attribute of all great chess players is their phenomal memory.
Bobby Fisher did loose at the age of 12 against Kenneth Warner.
He was only 12 and lost many other games in his youth and who has not at a younger age?
At the same age of 12 on November 26, 1955, Bobby Fischer gave his first simultaneous exhibition He played 12 members of the Youth Group (age 7 to 12) of the Yorktown, Chess Club (Yorktown Heights, New York) youth at the Manhattan Chess Club. He won all 12 games, eliminating the first player in 50 minutes and the last player in 2 hours and 20 minutes. Fischer had White in all his games.
He already at age 12 wanted to show that as white he or almost always played 1.4 and over his career all of his opponents prepared for Bobby's 1.e4. Did he intentionally planted this 1.e4 is all that he plays in all of his opponent's head or was it a strategy that Bobby had no bearing on except that he liked playing 1.e4.
Not easy to answer what a 12 year old kid thinks.

The incredible thing to me is that he thinks he's making a valid point by showing that Carlsen made a bad move. In eleven games in this match, Carlsen made maybe three discernible mistakes. Even though he didn't play his best this time, the level of play was extremely high.
Spassky's play in 1972 was surprisingly poor by comparison. He forgot his own preparation and made several blunders.
I agree with Reb btw that Fischer at his best was better than Tal. Fischer was the best the world had seen until Kasparov came along. I still think that Karpov would have become world champion, I just don't know when.
But if you want to talk about blunders in World Championships, take a look at Fischer-Spassky game 2 or any game from Fischer-Karpov 1975. At least Carlsen had the courage to show up.
Ouch!
That was cold!
LOL
The incredible thing to me is that he thinks he's making a valid point by showing that Carlsen made a bad move. In eleven games in this match, Carlsen made maybe three discernible mistakes. Even though he didn't play his best this time, the level of play was extremely high.
Spassky's play in 1972 was surprisingly poor by comparison. He forgot his own preparation and made several blunders.
I agree with Reb btw that Fischer at his best was better than Tal. Fischer was the best the world had seen until Kasparov came along. I still think that Karpov would have become world champion, I just don't know when.
But if you want to talk about blunders in World Championships, take a look at Fischer-Spassky game 2 or any game from Fischer-Karpov 1975. At least Carlsen had the courage to show up.
Ouch!
That was cold!
LOL
No, it was just a garden-variety fallacy. Before the bolded claim can have any legitimacy, it needs to first be established that Fischer's 1975 forfeit had anything at all to do with "courage". And the only way to do that is to find a statement from Fischer on the matter which confirms it, something along the lines of, "I didn't show up in 1975 to defend my title because I was afraid."

SmyslovFan wrote:
Yeah, yuree, but ya gotta remember, Tal was one of the nicest, humblest players ever to make GM. He was constantly complimenting his opponents and downplaying the quality of his own games.
One of the many outstanding qualities about Tal's play is that he himself didn't consider his moves to be that spectacular or unusual.
That is why GM Tal was well like and admire, he was incredible and a genius chess player.

Fischer was the best player because he had no trainer, work incredibly hard to become the best player and well rounded player ( he could attack well, play positional position well and incredible endgame player); Bobby did this against strong grandmasters. This is why Fischer is best player of all time, the rest of the current champions had trainers.

Fischer was the best player because he had no trainer, work incredibly hard to become the best player and well rounded player ( he could attack well, play positional position well and incredible endgame player); Bobby did this against strong grandmasters. This is why Fischer is best player of all time, the rest of the current champions had trainers.
I think that reason is kind of lame...it isn't as if Fischer just discovered all his chess knowledge...the guy read hundreds of chess books and of course received guidance from fellow American GM's(such as Larry Evans, among others). Fischer may not have had the backing of an entire regime such as Soviet GM's during the USSR days, but to say that he was "all alone" like some say is an inaccurate exaggeration.

Fischer was the Rambo of chess. If he wanted to catch a flick instead of show up for some dumb chess game, he'd hit the road.

Fischer was the best player because he had no trainer, work incredibly hard to become the best player and well rounded player ( he could attack well, play positional position well and incredible endgame player); Bobby did this against strong grandmasters. This is why Fischer is best player of all time, the rest of the current champions had trainers.
I think that reason is kind of lame...it isn't as if Fischer just discovered all his chess knowledge...the guy read hundreds of chess books and of course received guidance from fellow American GM's(such as Larry Evans, among others). Fischer may not have had the backing of an entire regime such as Soviet GM's during the USSR days, but to say that he was "all alone" like some say is an inaccurate exaggeration.
Even if he was alone, that's hardly a reason to say that he was the greates player of all time. But I do go with Fischer.
@PhoenixBlueflame, maybe you might not know this but GM Tal said of Fischer, he (Fischer) was a super Grandmaster and the rest of us are regular grandmasters. GM Tal had great respect for Fischer.