Is Bobby Fischer the best chessplayer of all time?

He was the master of the game at his time and it was maybe one of the most important period of time in chess history because there existed already a lot of theory about the game. All what followed in the decades after Fischer was not fundamental theory anymore but more variations of openings. Fischer stopped playing when he was at his peak. Even in his youth he was able to crush famous Russian GM when he was traveling to Russia to know more about the Russian chess school. There are rumors that he beat some of them 6:0 and stuff like that even before he was a famous player himself.His style was versatile and creative he had no real weaknesses in his game. What is your opinion?

Carlsen is better i think ( just if we imagine games between them) but the norvegian have luck of been more helped by technologies and internet, he had easily access to knowdledges, especially since informatic and program machin. But who was the more talentuous ?

Its a little bit like football and comparing messi and pele.
At the age of pele, knowledges in theory for optimal physical preparation was very bad, plus i dont know about illegal products.

A very good player and a gentleman otb, but alas batshit crazy.

That's what J.H. Donner predicted: "... it doesn't take much insight into human nature to predict that Fischer will not be world champion for long. His quirks, moods and whims will turn against him at the moment when he has reached the top. He'll hit out hard, but at nothing but thin air."

I think Capablanca is one, but the most complete chess player, but it is difficult to compare by the differences of times, Kasparov is brutal, now with technology the thing gets even more difficult, Karjakin, Carlsen, even Anand are much more instructed in Chess that Bobby.

Fischer beat Spassky 17 to 11. Karpov beat Spassky 14 to 1. Kasparov beat Karpov 28 to 21. For those who don't understand math ask your teacher...

Karpov is my vote for best chess player in history... Carlsen and Kasparov would be a toss up for 2nd and 3rd spot... Fischer gets the 4th spot. I believe that the Karpovian stlye of positional play is the most effective but it takes great mental stamina and nerves of steel to be successful ... Karpov had those qualities in spades unequaled by any other player.

Yep, Bobby's the man. If he had Stockfish today, he'd be rated 3000. Karpov was amazing. And Tal as the most clever, tricky attacking player OAT.
Carlsen will have to hang onto his title for another 10-12 years to be considered the GOAT. Let's see what Fabiano has to say about that.
Bobby wasn't so crazy...that's media, fake news. He had an almost double IQ as many on here...he saw things others didn't see, and will never see. He saw how crooked the gooberment is/was. He just wanted his privacy. He was the first multimillionaire by playing chess. . . how crazy was that?

I vote Paul Morphy.

@shhhh as much as I love Paul Morphy, he only played chess to kill time until he was legally old enough to practice law. He never wanted to be known as a chess player by profession as he found that insulting. He graduated law school before he was able to legally practice and his uncle urged him to compete locally and abroad to kill time as he had shown talent in the game at an early age. As soon as he was old enough to practice, he stopped playing. So if he had access to the technology today, there is no saying he would take the time to use it to his advantage being that his goal was to be a lawyer anyway. This is unfortunate and tragic as I think the world of chess would have benefited from a larger catalog of his games to study. Morphy was definitely ahead of his time and was literally a game changer.

A lot can be said about Fischer and what he accomplished on paper in such a short time. I'd like to think if Fischer existed in our modern world, that not only would he have access to better technology, but he would have access to better medicine etc etc.

Fischer answered this question himself, in an interview available on YouTube. His answer is in fact quite good. As he observes, it depends what you mean by "best". Since he benefits from all the theory that developed by the fifties and sixties when he was playing, he could of course beat greats from the past like Paul Morphy if you revived him and sat him down across from the chess board. But what Paul Morphy was able to do at the time WITHOUT the benefit of later theory was phenomenal. So if "best" means "strongest player ever", the "best" players will tend to be the most recent. If it means "most skilful at innovating, improvising, and winning with the theory available at his time", the Bobby Fischer is a candidate for that appelation along with Morphy in the 19th century.

Bear in mind that today GMs learn from powerful computers. They know more than Bobby Fischer did, and the best could probably beat him today. So one has to be less ambiguous about what one means by "best".