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

It was something on that chess mentor lesson

chess mentor is gay; it's tells too much, doesn't show enough; on top of that you can simply look up the master games and simply play the moves; that's why you see folks in here with a 2250 on CM, and 1400s on all other styles.  Mabye the best chesser ever was Philador, so far ahead of his time, he's practically the only name known from the era.

Chess Mentor is actually really good, it helps you improve, give you insight, etc.

This is a pretty vague appeal to authority... (according to sources).

Thank for all of your comments!

I'll settle this   ;-)   Greatest of all time has to take longevity into account.   I think Kasparov gets the nod, followed by Fisher who was the greatest at his peak.  Capablanca was also totally dominant at his peak, but also didn't have Kasparov's longevity.   For those who think Fischer was afraid of Karpov, his withdrawl from chess had nothing to do with Karpov.  Fischer would have blanked the great Karpov like he did Petrosian.  he was a better all-around player & equal to Karpov in strategic, positional play.

Nice bump MKO

There have been many great legends in the chess world , and for me comparing different players from different eras would be wrong.

But if I am preparing a list of all time greats , Bobby Fischer certainly wouldn't be at the top of my list ,not even in the top five for me. Longevity for me is a very important part of any chess players career . A slump in form for some part of his career then is inevitable , and how the player then picks himself up is what is amazing to watch in chess greats .

Fischer would rank nowhere when you consider these things.I am not concerned with whatever reason he had for quitting so early . Some might argue that he would've crushed Karpov and in coming years Kasparov had he continued , but assuming that would be absurd since Fischer ran away.

Who knows what would've happened in Fischer vs Karpov match . Maybe Fischer would've beaten Karpov easily , or maybe ( opposite to what you all think ) Karpov would come strong at him and beat the maniac to become the next world champion .

What then , people would remember Fischer as a player who was at the top for sometime but then fizzled away . No one would even mention him as the best player ever or whatever( except for some Americans I guess ) .

Frankly I am quite tired with this Fischer thing and people assuming he's the best ever or whatever . He is just a guy who chickened out(for whatever reasons) and Karpov became a worthy world champion and one of the best ever , time and again proving himself . So stop living in your delusional world , and accept the fact .

Fischer was the greatest ever...

Until Kasparov won the World Championship and held the highest rating ever (1990). I do believe that Karpov would have  become world champion even if Fischer had defended his title, probably in 1977, definitely by 1981. 

Kasparov was the greatest ever...

until Carlsen finally won the world championship while maintaining the highest ratings in history (2013).

Fischer was the best in history for 18 years. Kasparov was the best ever for 23 years. 

Chess players continue to improve. I don't think we'll have to wait 23 years for someone to eclipse Carlsen as the greatest ever.

Many chess players are amongst the greatest. The real question is who was the first to lay down the opening principles that we all know today.

No question about it it was Paul Morphy evryone after him studied his games and where able to establish many variations of openings. So no doubt when nothing existed he created the opening principles do I need to remind anyone what they are:develop your back pieces, not necessarily all of them, try to control the center the a3 and h3 moves are almost useless in the opening phase, castke and when developping pieces either tru to constantly put pressure on your opponent ready for n exchange or do protect any piece developped.

It seems that every new generation thinks their world champion is the strongest. Everyone has their favorite but 3 names are being tossed around more than any other: Fischer, Karpov, and Kasparov.

Since it is impossible to organize a Kasparov or Karpov vs. Fischer match, it would seem that the answer to the question "Who is the strongest chess player of all time?" will forever be a matter of personal opinion. And it is, of course, but I believe there is a way one can investigate the matter fairly intelligently and objectively: By comparing how Karpov and Kasparov have fared against the same opponents Fischer has played.

Case study #1: Mark Taimanov

In 1971 Taimanov was Fischer's first opponent in his candidate's matches for the world championship. Fischer beat him 6 - 0. Taimanov couldn't even achieve a single draw against Fischer.
In 1973, Karpov played 4 games against Taimanov, all ending in a draw. Karpov couldn't beat Taimanov a single time. Karpov played 2 more games against Taimanov after that. Once in 1977, when Karpov had been world champion for 2 years already. That time Taimanov, at 51 years old, beat Karpov. Their final game was in 1983, when Karpov won.

Case study #2: Bent Larsen

Larsen was Fischer's second opponent in the candidate's matches, also in 1971. Larsen, too, lost all his games to Fischer with a final result of 6 - 0 for Fischer.
From 1972 - 1981, Karpov played 14 games against Larsen. Result: 8 draws, 4 wins for Karpov, and 2 for Larsen. True, after 1981, Karpov was able to beat the aging Larsen more convincingly, but let's also remember that, like Taimanov, Larsen, who was born in 1935, was declining in strength as a player, while Karpov was getting stronger.

Case study #3: Tigran Petrosian

Petrosian was Fischer's third and final opponent in the candidate's matches, again in 1971. Unlike Fischer's first two opponents, Petrosian was a former world champion. Fischer beat him 6.5 - 2.5, with 5 wins for Fischer, one for Petrosian, and 3 draws.

From 1971 - 1983 Karpov played Petrosian 15 times. Result: 13 draws and one win each. They never played each other again after 1983. Again, Petrosian, who was born in 1929, was declining in strength during his encounters with Karpov.

Case study #4: Viktor Korchnoi

Viktor Korchnoi is generally considered to be the strongest chess player never to have become world champion. Fischer has never played a match against Korchnoi but they have played against each other 10 times in various tournaments. Result: 4 draws, with 3 wins each. However, 6 of their games were played when Fischer was between the ages of 17 - 19 and nowhere near his prime, while Korchnoi, being 12 years older than Fischer was definitely closer to his.

In 1978, Korchnoi, at the age of 47, now past his prime, played against Karpov for the world championship. Karpov, 27 at that time, was only 2 years younger than Fischer was in 1972 against Spassky. Result: 21 draws, with 5 wins for Korchnoi, and 6 wins for Karpov. Obviously Karpov was no better than equal in strength to the aging Korchnoi.

It is obvious that Fischer was far stronger than Karpov and, had he not retired from competitive chess, would have had little trouble defeating Karpov in 1975 and 1978.

And what about Kasparov? Kasparov became world champion in 1985 by defeating Karpov. We cannot compare Kasparov to Fischer by looking at opponents they both played, since they were far too old by then, or never played against Kasparov. However, it is noteworthy that Kasparov has played against Spassky 8 times between 1981 - 1990, with Spassky obviously long past his prime. Result: 4 draws and 2 wins each.

We can also compare Kasparov with Karpov. Their lifetime match score is 73 - 71 in Kasparov's favor. A paltry 2 point difference. Even though they have very different playing styles, they're obviously equal in playing strength.

These comparisons speak for themselves. Clearly, Fischer was far stronger than Karpov or Kasparov.

Well stated.

"These comparisons speak for themselves. Clearly, Fischer was far stronger than Karpov or Kasparov"

That was a long post with many "obvious" and "clearly" to come up with an incorrect answer.

Throw in Tal, Geller or Spassky instead of Taimanov and Larsen, who were picked as the first two examples just because Fischer won 6-0 in those matches, and you get a slightly more serious comparison. But then Kasparov of course lost a couple of games as teenager to Spassky, and those games are considered Quite Important, while Fischer's results at the same age against Korchnoi are irrelevant because he was a teenager.

Wuehler post#174.

Appreciate a technical person that brings facts to the table.

Here are mine to add to your post.

For many people the test of being the greatest is the test of time. Are people 100 years old the greatest? Absolutely in terms of longevity and this is where it stops.

With the advent of computers many of the past world champions would have lasted as long if not longer than Kasparov as chess world champions. They had to spend many hours to analyze many lines of play, today in a few minutes and not hours you can see how a given line of play develops. For me longevity is not a criterion. If it is for some of you people fine with me as we all have our own opinion I simply do not agree. I do not deny at all that those that are the best today have tremendous memory skills, excellent playing skills and are hard workers to improve their game. All I am saying is where would they be without computers and help form the best to attain the highest level quickly. As I recall Magnus Carlsen took lessons from Kasparov, except in the Russian chess philosophy sphere no where else does this happen.

I believe that tournaments result at the highest level, blitz or standard chess is an additional way to compare chess world champions.

Adding to Fisher performances: at age 20, Fischer won the 1963–64 U.S. Championship with 11/11, the only perfect score in the history of the tournament or any tournament to this date as of 2014.

He scored 8.5/10 at Philadelphia to become the youngest-ever-junior champion at age 13. A unique record that has yet to be eclipsed or be met to this date in 2014.

Unofficial World Championship of Lightning Chess (5-minute games) was held at Herceg Novi. Fischer annihilated the super-class field with 19/22(+17=4-1), 4.5 points ahead ofTal, he lost only 1 game. He played every single game in less than 21/2 minutes, just try it against any competitor even the ones weaker than you by 200 points or more and see the results you will get and then understand what a genius he was.

The Interzonal was held in Palma de Mallorca in November and December 1970. Fischer won it with a remarkable 18.5-4.5 score (+15=7-1), 3.5 points ahead of Larsen, Efim Geller, and Robert Hübner, who tied for second at 15-8. Fischer finished the tournament with seven consecutive wins.

Fischer won tournaments at Rovinj/Zagreb with 13/17 (+10=6-1), and Buenos Aires, where he crushed the field of mostly Grandmasters with no losses: 15/17 (+13=4). Fischer had taken his game to a new level.

The record books showed that the only comparable achievement to the 6-0 score against Taimanov was Wilhelm Steinitz's 7-0 win against Joseph Henry Blackburne in 1876 in an era of more primitive defensive technique. Quite a remarkable achievement in my book.

Fischer won a strong lightning event in New York in August 1971 with an overwhelming score of 21.5/22, which are only one draw and no losses.

In the early 1970s he became one of the most dominant players in history--winning the 1970 Interzonal by a record 3½-point margin and winning 20 consecutive games, including two unprecedented 6-0 sweeps in the Candidates Matches. He became t


Only former World Champion Petrosian, Fischer's final opponent in the Candidates matches, was able to offer resistance in their match played at Buenos Aires. Petrosian unleashed a strong theoretical novelty in the first game and had Fischer on the ropes, but Fischer defended with his customary aplomb and won the game. This gave Fischer a streak of 20 consecutive wins against the world's top players (in the Interzonal and Candidates matches), the second longest winning streak in chess history after Steinitz's 25-game streak from 1873 to 1882.[38] Petrosian won decisively in the second game, finally snapping Fischer's winning streak. After three consecutive draws, Fischer swept the next four games to win the match 6.5-2.5 (+5=3−1). The final match victory allowed Fischer to challenge World Champion Boris Spassky, whom he had never beaten before (+0=2−3).

Second in my book is José Raúl Capablanca y Graupera, from Cuba.

Capablanca was also phenomenal: in 1922 Capablanca conducted some simultaneous exhibitions in the United States. His best performance was when he played 103 opponents in Cleveland, winning 102 games and drawing 1 game. Wow! He also only lost 36 games in his entire life. 

Karpov would have beaten Fisher?! Well not sure, here is a recount by Judith Polgar:

A few years ago, this was in 1988, I did play two, six games matches against Karpov, the man who succeeded Fischer as World Chess Champion and won more tournaments than anyone in history. We tied 3-3 in both.

In 1988, Judit Polgar's flabbergasting 12.5/13 result was good for a 2694 performance, when she was barely twelve years old. To better put this in perspective, you need to realize that in 1988, only two players in the world had even 2700 ratings: Kasparov and Karpov.

When some people say that there are no rules to prevent women to play with men they are right in 2014 but it was different years ago.
 
In 1990, Polgar was once again at the fore, and though many had hoped to see Judit playing in the men's team, the FIDE rule forbidding women from participating in men's team competitions was still in effect, another residue of sports misogyny.  In chess, it took Judit Polgar to start trampling the prejudices with a stream of results that could not be ignored. Hungary takes the team gold medal, but all three Polgar sisters won the individual gold medals for best board one, best board two and best board three.

Bottom line is give me a performance that matches or beats Fisher playing chess, no religion, no personalities just chess performance.

Bobby was very smart, he always said 1.e4 best by test as Morphy played. He would always play 1.e4 as white and had everyone believe that this is all he knew. Actually Fisher was very smart as what he did is directed the attention of all the players in the world in his time to believe this and study the opening that he was playing. Many attempted to study Fisher’s games because of his unsurpassable knowledge in this opening. He had all of his life a plan in mind and as young as I would say 14 years old he played 1.e4.

What this did for Fisher is to give himself time to work and analyze all of the other openings and he was very familiar with them.

I think personally that this is one of the best hoaxes or bluff ever pulled off in chess, as everyone believed it even the Russian team preparing Spassky for the championship in 1972.

What people miss is what Fisher had achieved in matter of months before the 1972 championship, with all of the tournaments that he won playing anyone with different openings. And especially at the Mallorca tournament playing every single game in less than 2 and ½ minutes and winning high hand over everyone. Why did not anyone see this just a few months before the world championship tournament? Because everyone believed that Fisher plays only 1.e4.

Fisher was a visionary chess player and if not of his extravagant requests he might have been the longest chess player to win the world championship.

Bottom line is Fisher was a combination of talent and hard work.

Bobby Fischer taught himself Russian and began reading all the Russian chess books and magazines, to get an insight into the training and development of Russian chess players.

One time, a friend of Bobby's asked him if he would give him a chess lesson. Bobby said sure and told him to go home and read MCO (Modern Chess Opening's Encyclopedia) from cover to cover. Usually this is just a reference manual where chess players can research specific opening line. Fischer specified he read the entire book including variations and the lines he did not play. The guy came back to Bobby exhausted a month later and said he was ready for his second lesson. Bobby told him "go home and read it all over again” I have not done this personally.

Fischer would have beat Kasparov in a match, because no one has ever approached the dedication Fischer had for Chess. Fischer would have studied until he could beat any challenger.

You have facts on performances achieved by other chess players showing their supremacy, just post them I am not an encyclopedia and do not know everything but is curious on additional contributions to try to determine the best chess player of all times.

Morphy and Capablanca were certainly among the most natural talents of the game. With Carlsen it's not so clear, since he was coached by the strongest player of Norway, GM Siemen Agdestein, right from the very start.

Fischer was the greatest, no trainer and achieve greatness on his own. The first player to break the 2700s level and Bobby's 2785 Elo. Karpov even when he was playing against Kasparov his rating was a low 2710 Elo, very sad ten years and he could not surplass Fischer's 2785 Elo.

Bobby Fischer