Mine would be Kramnik, also the "most" in the title is redundant.
I think the best player ever was Alekhine. No one was so good in chess tactics like he. He won against Keres, Lasker, Nimzowitsch, Tartakower, Capablanca, Tarrasch and many other great players.
nicolachess, Alekhine was good, but I think Capablanca was simply better. Capablanca had a lifetime plus score against Alekhine (+9 -7=33) and Capablanca simply didn't prepare for the World Championship match, and Alekhine knew that if Capablanca were to get a rematch, he would not be so lucky, as Capablanca would have had more preparation, and he would probably lose. In fact the same thing happened to him against Euwe, where he lost his title due to his lack of preparation and alcohol addiction but soon got over it and beat Euwe in a rematch. Alekhine was a great player none the less, one of the best in history.
Bobby Fischer. Legend.
...
...
...
(gap)
Then Carlsen, Tal, Kramnik from Candidates 2018, Kasparov, ...
...
...
...
(gap)
Then Carlsen, Tal, Kramnik from Candidates 2018, Kasparov, ...
Mikal Tal. He was the god of tactics. Most of his games ended in a beautiful tactical sequence.
@Groove_And_Chess
Fischer beat the three Soviets he played (Taimanov, Petrosian, Spassky) by a combined score of 25 to 10. Carlsen basically tied both Karjakin and Caruana and I personally think breaking the tie by rapid games was a travesty. Carlsen just never wiped out his opponents because, like Karpov, he just draws too many games. I believe that if he'd played Vishy when Vishy was 30 he might well have lost. Chess is a young man's game and Vishy was well past his 40th birthday when he lost the two title matches to Carlsen.
There is absolutely no way that Fischer would have lost to Karpov. Why do you think that? Karpov beat an over-the-hill Korchnoi by a single point. Fischer would have destroyed Korchnoi. The two greatest World Champions ever were Morphy and Fischer because they didn't beat opponents in matches by one or two points. They annihilated them. I don't care how "fit" you think Karpov was in 1975. The only reason Petrosian got 2.5 points against Fischer's 6.5 points was because Fischer caught a cold early in the match but still insisted on playing. Fischer utterly TOWERS over his opponents.
Fischer beat the three Soviets he played (Taimanov, Petrosian, Spassky) by a combined score of 25 to 10. Carlsen basically tied both Karjakin and Caruana and I personally think breaking the tie by rapid games was a travesty. Carlsen just never wiped out his opponents because, like Karpov, he just draws too many games. I believe that if he'd played Vishy when Vishy was 30 he might well have lost. Chess is a young man's game and Vishy was well past his 40th birthday when he lost the two title matches to Carlsen.
There is absolutely no way that Fischer would have lost to Karpov. Why do you think that? Karpov beat an over-the-hill Korchnoi by a single point. Fischer would have destroyed Korchnoi. The two greatest World Champions ever were Morphy and Fischer because they didn't beat opponents in matches by one or two points. They annihilated them. I don't care how "fit" you think Karpov was in 1975. The only reason Petrosian got 2.5 points against Fischer's 6.5 points was because Fischer caught a cold early in the match but still insisted on playing. Fischer utterly TOWERS over his opponents.
my favorite player is me
Right now, I really like Anand and MVL. Two very exciting players, their credentials says so.
Magnus Carlsen
@Eleuthero
I can fully understand why Fischer is your favourite player, but you are talking about why he is the greatest ever here. This depends on how one defines greatness. Is it the highest peak, longevity, consistency,...?
Did Fischer and Morphy (who is not considered an official WC by the way) peak way above their contemporaries? Yes. Did they do it only for a short period of time? Also yes.
This leaves a lot of "Could've"s and "Would've"s. For example:
"There is absolutely no way that Fischer would have lost to Karpov."
What makes you so sure? By 1975, Fischer basically had not played tournament chess for three years and Karpov was super strong and solid by that point. Also to note: If you look at Karpov's game record, drawing too many and not winning enough games definitely was not a problem. There is a reason he has won the most chess tournaments of anyone ever in top-level chess. Also Korchnoi was not a slouch by 1978, definitely not over-the-hill.
"The only reason Petrosian got 2.5 points against Fischer's 6.5 points was because Fischer caught a cold early in the match but still insisted on playing."
I feel this is a bit harsh towards Petrosian, he was a Former WC after all. Of course, Fischer played great chess in that match and beat Petrosian convincingly, but to say that he would have annihilated him (as he did Larsen and Taimanov) if he hadn't had a cold is a bit much in my eyes.
You can (and did) make a very good case for Fischer as the GOAT. But it is not as clear as you make it sound. One can also make good cases for Lasker, Alekhine, Karpov, Kasparov,... Also @Groove_And_Chess 's case for Carlsen is very good if he stays WC for a few more years.
I can fully understand why Fischer is your favourite player, but you are talking about why he is the greatest ever here. This depends on how one defines greatness. Is it the highest peak, longevity, consistency,...?
Did Fischer and Morphy (who is not considered an official WC by the way) peak way above their contemporaries? Yes. Did they do it only for a short period of time? Also yes.
This leaves a lot of "Could've"s and "Would've"s. For example:
"There is absolutely no way that Fischer would have lost to Karpov."
What makes you so sure? By 1975, Fischer basically had not played tournament chess for three years and Karpov was super strong and solid by that point. Also to note: If you look at Karpov's game record, drawing too many and not winning enough games definitely was not a problem. There is a reason he has won the most chess tournaments of anyone ever in top-level chess. Also Korchnoi was not a slouch by 1978, definitely not over-the-hill.
"The only reason Petrosian got 2.5 points against Fischer's 6.5 points was because Fischer caught a cold early in the match but still insisted on playing."
I feel this is a bit harsh towards Petrosian, he was a Former WC after all. Of course, Fischer played great chess in that match and beat Petrosian convincingly, but to say that he would have annihilated him (as he did Larsen and Taimanov) if he hadn't had a cold is a bit much in my eyes.
You can (and did) make a very good case for Fischer as the GOAT. But it is not as clear as you make it sound. One can also make good cases for Lasker, Alekhine, Karpov, Kasparov,... Also @Groove_And_Chess 's case for Carlsen is very good if he stays WC for a few more years.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.