Who is the greatest chess player of all time ?? Bobby Fischer ??

One can't make a fair comparison between Fischer and Karpov by mainly looking at Fischer's last cycle and Karpov's first.

I think the comparison is better when you realize that Bobby basically quit chess when he was 29.  And he had exiled himself for much of his mid-20s - peak years for many masters.

Fischer railed against what he saw was Soviet "cheating" (taking it easy on one another in the tournament, and favoring a chosen player or two; i.e. collusion) in the Candidate's tournaments - a charge that was later essentially admitted to - which brought about the Candiates knockout matches.

Personally, I think titles should be won or lost in match play.  It is a truer test of skill.

Vassily Ivanchuck (when sober) is the strongest player ever.

Fischer at his peak (1971-1972) was better than anyone else in history at their peak. Judging from his overall career, he was not as good as Kasparov, and arguably a few other players.

i am biased for me the one who showed me the beauty of chess and the depth of its fun is Michael Nekhemovich Tal .

I would advise anyone unfamiliar with his games to look at them and see why i am a fan of Tal

Talfan: Did you really misspell his name...

It's Mikhail Nekhemovich Tal. You'll find nothing on Michael Tal.

Les4chess, you may want to look up Fischer's record against Tal. 

Yes, as Tal said, when Fischer played Tal, Tal "was still Tal, but Fischer was not yet Fischer."

But, Fischer's main weakness throughout his career was facing chaotic positions. Fischer scored poorly against Geller, and had difficulties against Korchnoi. Fischer was the greatest player alive in 1972, but that was in part due to Tal's poor health. Tal later went on to create two of the longest unbeaten streaks in chess history. (Yes, after Fischer retired! Tal's best sacrificial days were behind him in 1972, but he was still young and he produced many memorable games.)

Karpov and Kasparov played in the era of the great closed tournaments, which continues today. Fischer played very few tournaments in comparison to today's players, and fewer still where he routinely faced the best players.

Fischer would have been severely tested by Karpov in 1975. It's not at all clear to me that Fischer would have won then. I believe that Karpov would have been world champion sooner or later, perhaps in 1978. 

But no matter, Kasparov came along and set all the standards. Robert Byrne, who played both Fischer and Kasparov, stated that Kasparov was the much better player as early as 1985. Kasparov's all-time rating record was only broken last year. 

I would include Tal in the top-5 of all time.  And during most of his career he was unhealthy.

Tal's intuitive sacrifices were very difficult to refute over the board!  In chess, we play not only the board, but against the clock, and against a living person.  There is a psychology behind an unexpected sac, and Tal was not known as the "Magician of Riga" for no good reason.

I honestly do not know where to begin and have a feeling that you do not see things in the way I do.

I am not saying players today are inherintly better. Andersen could perhaps be just the same as a super GM today if perhaps say, thousands of games were played before him to give him a better idea of what to do.

Oh wait those old players were the ones playing the games that give modern players the foundation.

Have you tried guessing the move in a morphy game. After you feel proud that you are able to finish off his nice attack remember that modern players have seen and studied these games and ideas and will no longer allow them to happen.

Try guessing the move in a Kramink topalov.

Its easy to play computers best moves when it is a mate in two.

Another way to put it, what is easier to grasp old concepts upon which current idea's are built. Or new concepts that have been expounded upon from the old.

twin you are right i got Mischas name wrong but it is a small thing thank you for pointing out my error

Careful about making accusations like that on the public forums. You could be muted for saying something like that.

And, on top of that, Les4chess's Online and Standard ratings have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Interesting JGambit, have you actually tried to go over move by move games between say, Capablanca compared to games by Karpov? I think you're missing my point, great players play gr8 w at chess, doesn't matter the opponent necessarily. The question is how strong were his moves in his games, not the results. Compare a NM destroying a field of players 1600 and below. NM dominates the field, but the question isn't his results, but in each game, how strong were the moves he played? Did he play at a 1800 level, without much thought but enough to whip any competitor, or was he playing at an GM level, finding great moves with great accuracy. The opponents play doesn't matter so much as the players play in question. If someone is playing more objectively good chess then it could be said they may be objectively stronger than someone below them in the analysis, even if from different era's.

Thank For All Of Your Comments !!

#1, #2, #3.

Chess has objectively good and bad moves, sometimes great moves. A move that can cause problems for your opponent may or may not be a good move as that is subjective to who's playing. Engines can be a great asset in terms of finding these out as engines can now beat the best players and can look over games 24/7/365 tirelessly. You can look over IM Ken Regan's work on this (which isn't his primary work but is a side benefit of his work with his anti cheating method). I think it makes sense and see it as the best way we can attempt to determine who the greatest chess players to play are, if that is even possible.

In terms of near perfect engine-like play, Fischer in the 1971 Candidates is just about as good as it gets.

Better than any players since Fischer as well ?  Interesting . 

I wonder if Karpov used computers much ?  We know Kasparov did but what about Karpov ?  

This is a good question -- Steve, I know that your baseline computer matchup analysis has typically excluded play from the computer era because of its intended use.  Does this statement pertain to analysis of games from across all eras, or just pre-computer-era Grandmaster tournaments?

Deep Blue.