paul morphy, he made beating masters look like taking candy from a little kid
Since morphy died in the late 1800s and terms like master and grandmaster wern't around until the early 1900s I'm not sure what you mean. Sure he beat everyone, but there were no chess pros back then.
Surely if there had been stronger players in Morphy's time we would know how strong he was. Like Alekhine said, Morphy was born too early.
The first response to topics like this should contain these two links:
Chessmetrics
and
Analysis by Rybka
I don't think statistics will solve this. I choose Morphy because he never worked at being a chessplayer. Fischer had talent but also an enormous capacity to do solo study and work, also Kasparov. Morphy refused to be called a professional chess player, calling it a pastime, not a job for gentlemen. Would Alekhine or Kasparov call it a pastime? Morphy beat almost everyone considered the best in U.S. at the time. In Europe they scoffed, saying U.S. didn't have any players worth their salt. Then Morphy went to Europe and beat everyone there, including Andersson (no mean talent in himself) and Harwitz. If you look at his matches closely, you notice he never started off well, sometimes losing the first couple of games, then he just adjusted and no one could stand a chance. He wasn't really an innovator, an original thinker like Nimzowitch, he just played incredibly accurate moves 99% of the time. People still play over his games today to learn how to play chess, and i mean that in the broadest sense. Unfortunately, we never really get to know the man personally or what led to his psychological breakdown. With Fischer, we know quite a bit about his awful family life, something he was never able to escape. To restate my theory, I don't think anyone could play chess with the ease that Morphy did and so he gets my vote.
Any injections?
P.S. I'd like to learn more about Winawer from the gentleman from Poland. Are there any english books on the man?
Probably John Doe possessed the greatest innate chess ability, but sadly he was never introduced to the game..
I don't think statistics will solve this. I choose Morphy because he never worked at being a chessplayer. Fischer had talent but also an enormous capacity to do solo study and work, also Kasparov. Morphy refused to be called a professional chess player, calling it a pastime, not a job for gentlemen. Would Alekhine or Kasparov call it a pastime? Morphy beat almost everyone considered the best in U.S. at the time. In Europe they scoffed, saying U.S. didn't have any players worth their salt. Then Morphy went to Europe and beat everyone there, including Andersson (no mean talent in himself) and Harwitz. If you look at his matches closely, you notice he never started off well, sometimes losing the first couple of games, then he just adjusted and no one could stand a chance. He wasn't really an innovator, an original thinker like Nimzowitch, he just played incredibly accurate moves 99% of the time. People still play over his games today to learn how to play chess, and i mean that in the broadest sense. Unfortunately, we never really get to know the man personally or what led to his psychological breakdown. With Fischer, we know quite a bit about his awful family life, something he was never able to escape. To restate my theory, I don't think anyone could play chess with the ease that Morphy did and so he gets my vote.
Any injections?
Look up Capablanca's life and chess career, let me know what you think.
"Who is the best," is purely subjective, and far from any objective findings. It is opinionated and cannot be answered. You can't go on stats and world class rankings for chess either, because different champions played in different eras, with different opponents.
Opinions are still fun to talk about.
jeff sarwer was a great natural talent
Yea, Capablanca was another natural talent who could instinctively pick out the best moves without much calculation. I read somewhere that he didn't own a chess set, and of course this was before computers. the only topic on chess he liked to read about was endgames. he recommended all players study endgames first and openings last. I would choose Capa as #2 all time talent. Morphy with a slight edge. Can't decide on a third, tho I lean to Kasparov and Fischer. Funny how nobody has mentioned Karpov, maybe because he outlived his reputation.
NEW! STANDINGS:
#1 Capablanca
#1.5 Morphy (more and more and more love for this guy; might overtake the number one spot)
#3. Tal
#4. Fischer (some recent praise)
#4.5 Kasparov
#6 Reshevsky (the Tal and Shevsky fans have been a little quiet . . .)
#7 Alekhine
With all the recent votes for Morph, it's tough to say whether he or Capa belongs in the top spot. Since Capablanca been getting some recent press as well, we'll give him the edge for now.
Fischer seems to be gaining in polls: USA USA!
Winawer is an interesting candidate. The only time I ever see this guy's name is when someone plays the French against me . . . but seriously, let's hear more about him!
And kalle99's comments about certain champions, i.e. Capa and Spassky being LAZY, is hilarious. LOL Even though Fischer studied a lot, he did mention in that Youtube excerpt of him that he looked down on people with solid chess skills that "worked like dogs" to obtain it.
And it is sad that Karpov may have "outlived" his hype and mystery. His style of a slow-advancing attack and then a sudden break-through/crazy outflanking skills is really something to behold, like nothing we've ever seen! I guess the adrennaline junkies in the chess world prefer Kasparov Fighting Chess.
I'm not sure it would be a known player. Best Chess player ever is probably some guy who's played in the park daily for the last 50 years that nobody knows. Pointless speculation aside, I'm going for Kasparov.
Sultan Khan. He was illiterate and therefore couldn't read any chess books.
Given this, I also think he has a winning record against both Lasker and Capablanca.
He won a single game against Capablanca, when Capa was well past his prime. Hardly a good yardstick to judge from.
I doubt there are many players here who are really in a position to judge for themselves, but from what I've read of expert opinion and player biographies, I would put Capablanca and Morphy as tied first, with Reveshsky as a close second.
Fischer
To the best of my knowlege no one has ever matched Fischers, Taimanov 6-0, Larsen 6-0, then The nearly impossible to beat Petrosian 6.5 to 2.5 With 5 Wins. In his run up to the Spasski match.I think it speaks to just an Amazing level of Talent.
So my Choices would be Fischer and maybe Cappa a very close 2nd. Pretty sure I read once, Cappa went like 8 years at one point without a loss in serious play. Even for the 20's thats so hard to imagine.
1. Fischer (Fischer had everything in my opinion. Enormous talent. Kasparov also said when Fischer died that Fischer probably was the greatest talent in the history of chess. Kasparov also said Fischer was a real "warrior").
2. Morphy and the lazy Capablanca! (Cant separate them)
3. Kasparov
4. Alekhine
5. Tal
6. Spassky (very talented He preferred doing other thing than training chess..he was VERY LAZY but he lived on his talent.)
7 . Anand
8. Karpov
9. Kramnik
10. Steinitz
I chose Fischer
I exclude Emanuel Lasker despite that he was worldchamp for 27 years . He would simply be defeated by all the above mentioned players in a match. I am sure (Lasker defeated Steinitz but Steinitz was over the hill and far from his peak when he faced Lasker.Steinitz also had mental problems). Reshevsky could very well be on this list. He was really a prodigy. He didnt care too much about theory. He just sat down and played sound positional chess and feared no one over the board. He was also a fantastic fighter. A last note : Maybe we can put Carlsen and Nakamura on this list in the future...God knows.