Who Was the Greatest Chess Player Ever...???

[Cyropaedia]

Now for something completey different.

OK, who was the greatest chess player ever...??

My personal vote goes to the nineteenth century's Paul Morphy. No other champion dominated his contemporaries the way Morphy dominated his peers.

[ChessExpert]

"Who Was the Greatest Chess Player Ever...???"

That is a hard question. I haven't personally played through a game from each of the "greats." Even if I had, it's a challenge to to really appreciate some of these games. And then also, it's hard to place them in the context of their time.

Kasparov has recently coauthored a series of books on his predecessors. I glanced through one book and it's not bad.

I've played through some of Capablanca's games against Marshall. I was impressed by what he called "little combinations." Just when Marshall, the attacker, seemed on the verge of a breakthrough, you'd realize Marshall had nothing because of some little trick. I imagine Marshall was left shaking his head.

Alekhine beat Capablanca, but ducked return matches.

Botvinnik had a good run, but he had the benefit of being the pick of the communist party.

Keres was always second, but might have been suicided if he had been first ahead of Botvinnik.

Fischer took on the Russian machine and won. That was just phenomenal. As white, he seemed unstoppable. It must have felt like putting your arms out to stop a bulldozer. When Fischer was young, Tal would bamboozle him. In Fischer's prime, no one (of the time) could match him. But once Fischer won the World Championship, he took his marbles and went home.

Korchnoi never got a fair shake. The Soviets were afraid he would escape if given the chance. That's what eventually happened, but he was past his prime. He still managed to play world championship matches, but always fell a little bit short of a young Karpov and team USSR.

I am very impressed by Kasparov. He has always played an exciting game that entertained and impressed players of all levels. As World Champion, he has played tournaments and matches for many years. He risked his reputation by taking on all comers. This included every young hot shot who grew up playing Kasparov games and who wanted nothing more than to defeat "The Man." With Kasparov at the top for so long, I think many players became blase about the latest brilliant game by Kasparov.

Considering Kasparov's awesome talent, his consistently high ratings, tournament and match victories, and competitive spirit, I vote Gary Kasparov to be the Greatest Chess Player Ever. Fischer is second because of his demonstrated strength, run-up to the world championship, and victory in the world championship. He could probably have remained World Champion for many years, but we will never know for sure.

[ChessExpert]

Chat forum? What's that?

Agreed, Words mean things. Maybe you can give me the proper meaning of the word "fundamentalist." I think Vince Lombardy wanted his players to get back to fundamentals - tackling, tackling, and tackling. But I suspect there is more.

[Cyropaedia]

Interesting.

Had Fischer stayed I think he could have taken on Kasparov and won. Also, Kasparov, like Karpov and the rest of the old Soviet players had an organization/systems to help,train, and support them. Fischer and Morphy had none of that. They had to do it all on their own. People in this day and age really don't appreciate what Fischer accomplished in taking on the "Big Red Machine" and actually winning.

That's why I use the criteria that I did. Had Kasparov actually grown up in Morphy's time and actually had to climb to the ladder all on his own (without the support and training of the Kremlin) does he still rise to the very top and become World Champion? I doubt it. Sorry, I don't see him as a nineteenth century player and actually beating Morphy.

Who do you was the most naturally gifted player off all time? Morphy, Capablanca, Tal or Fischer?

[A CA Guy]

Who Was the Greatest Chess Player Ever...???

It was a tie between the Pope, Thatcher and Reagan against communism.

They were by far the greatest chess players of the last few decades.

[ChessExpert]

"Who do you was the most naturally gifted player off all time? Morphy, Capablanca, Tal or Fischer?"

Another hard question! When Tal was young, he really was "the magician from Riga." His original, distinctive, and path-breaking talent does bespeak of natural ability. Capablanca has often been credited as the greatest natural talent. Self-taught, one must give him a lot of credit. It can be hard to distinguish between hard work and talent. I think Fischer worked hard to climb the mountain, and it paid off. Is that natural ability? Anyway, it is HIS ability. As I said before, his play with white was awesome. He appeared unstoppable. How to distinguish between home preparation and natural ability, I don't know. Of course, I have heard the Paul Morphy name, but I have not gone through his games, nor do I know his story - so I will have to pass on him. Samuel Reshevesky is easy to overlook. Helping to support his family at age 8 by playing chess may have given him a "practical" approach. As an adult, he would annotate one of his games for Chess Life & Review each month. At the time, I was not so impressed by his column. Thinking back, the annotations had a delightful illogic. Something like, "My opponent made a mistake ... he stands better ... he resigns." I imagine that Sammy was writing on the fly - no time for editing - meeting his contractual obligations - receiving payment, then going on to the next game or family/religious event. No time to look back. By contrast, Ficher's 60 Most Memorable Games have the quality of logical necessity. It may have felt like that over the board too. Do you remember that Larsen and Petrosian each got a break in their match with Fischer with a doctor's signature that they had high blood pressure (never before or since). It is hard to know how far Reshevsky, or Reuben Fine, might have gone if they had believed that they could make a decent living playing chess only.

I think I read that Kasparov studied Alekhine. From looking a their games, maybe that's true. They are both practical attackers. Perhaps not magicians like Tal, nor as inexorable as Fischer. But they each racked up a high score against strong competition (Kasparov especially). I can't take Kasparov out of his 20th century element. But he did extremely well in his environment. Maybe he would have done well in another?

[Mr. Jeeves]

I agree:

1. Kasparov
2. Fischer
3. Alekhine
4. Morphy

Each was somewhat less far ahead of his peers than his predecessor, because the state of chess knowledge kept advancing and the depth of opening theory required for success kept reducing the advantage of natural talent over the decades. Each had a great rival, but Morphy was able to wipe out Anderssen, Alekhine won a hard victory over Capablanca then ducked him for the rest of his life, Fischer took a while to catch up and then establish dominance over Spassky, and Kasparov never established convincing superiority over Karpov. But put Kasparov or Fischer in Morphy's time and they would have achieved the same result Morphy did.

Kasparov's natural talent coupled with his vast theoretical knowledge makes him the best of all time - he would have edged even the 1972 Fischer in a match, IMHO.

[Cyropaedia]

I agree: Kasparov Fischer Alekhine Morphy

I gotta disagree with you there. Alekhine over Morphy? And no Capablanca. True, Alekhine was finally able to score a big victory over the Cuban Grandmaster but Capablanca simply got lazy (his one real flaw). Alekhine then avoided him for the rest of his life. That tells you everything you really need to know about Alekhine as a "champion". It had the effect of making his great "victory" a somewhat hollow one (in my eyes).

[newgeezer]

Maybe you can give me the proper meaning of the word "fundamentalist." I think Vince Lombardy wanted his players to get back to fundamentals - tackling, tackling, and tackling. But I suspect there is more.

Actually, that's not so far off.

Here's the Merriam-Webster definition. It works for me:

Main Entry: fun·da·men·tal·ism
Pronunciation: -t^&l-"i-z&m
Function: noun
1 a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching

In general, it means the literal (normal, simple) reading is the right one. It also means the proper application of the fundamental principles does not evolve over time; what was true 200 or 2000 years ago remains true today. I hold to that regarding not only the Bible, but also the Constitution. Thus, "words mean things." :)

[Liberal Classic]

Cool thread.

[ChessExpert]

Your hypothesis that time at the top keeps getting shorter makes sense.

It could be explained by increased competition due to: more players worldwide, better organization for matches, and faster transmission of information. (One can now follow some tournament games live as they are being played - Internet Chess Club. I download about 2,000 games every week - The Week In chess.)

Your hypothesis finds support in facts that you noted. And consider the long reigns of Steinitz, 28 year, and Lasker, 27 years. We probably will never see that again.

http://www.chesscorner.com/worldchamps/worldchampion.htm

[ChessExpert]

"True, Alekhine was finally able to score a big victory over the Cuban Grandmaster but Capablanca simply got lazy (his one real flaw). Alekhine then avoided him for the rest of his life. That tells you everything you really need to know about Alekhine as a "champion". It had the effect of making his great "victory" a somewhat hollow one (in my eyes)."

Well said. Natural ability is important. So is strength, complete with drive and hard work. Finally, I have to put weight on competitive spirit. Ducking your chief competitor earns a big demerit.

[ChessExpert]

Oooh. So you are one of those scary "fundamentalists."

Liberalspeak is so barren of intellect. Let's get back to basics; there's nothing wrong with fundamentals or fundamentalism. The question is, which fundamentals? Though shalt not steal - no problem. Kill the infidels - problem.

[Nova]

A vote for one of the greatest players who was also the best chess author and instructor of all time, Ludek Pachman.

[ChessExpert]

I hope you realize that I spoke in jest when I wrote:

'Oooh. So you are one of those scary "fundamentalists."'

I did not mean to offend.

By your rational and logical definitions, I am (or aspire to be) a fundamentalist too.

[newgeezer]

Thou shalt not steal - no problem. Kill the infidels - problem.

Yes, some fundamentalists give fundamentalism a bad name. These days, the casual observer hears "fundamentalist" and jumps to thoughts of brainwashing, suicide, terrorism, murder, or worse. But, the truth is, the fundamentalist Muslims are the real Muslims; they're the ones who, like me, take their book seriously instead of watering it down with popular culture (e.g. political correctness). The difference is that the Author of my book is not the author of theirs.

[Netheron]

Not to mention the fact that Alekhine had a very hard time staying out of the Alekhol.