who do you think is the best player

@jonesmh I appreciate the reply. No argument here. Even if he practiced as an amateur (btw, the story also goes that he was never taught the rules or even basic tactics - he learned how to play just by watching when he was only 4.)

If I recall correctly, the claim is - as a professional player - he did not spend his offtime studying the latest openings or the games of his upcoming opponents... something that almost every other person on that list was known to have done. That alone amazes me. How true it is, we'll never know for sure but I do remember comments about people who were close to him wondering why he spent more time cooking than playing chess - including his wife Olga who confirmed that he never practiced when he wasn't competing. One could argue that his wife might have 'covered' for him and exagerrated her point but she was very honest about other things (almost to the point of "ball busting") and I had the sense that she was being honest. She even made a point of recalling that the Duke of Windsor asked her if it was true that he never practiced and she confirmed: "Never."

Maybe that chenged later in his career when he started losing more. I believe he started getting flagged a lot more as he aged which might have motivated him to spend some time learning the new openings that were becoming more popular so he didn't waste time calculating known positions during games. I can't imagine that he didn't get that advice from fellow grandmasters trying to help him.

@sfumatosauce
I appreciate that your last post wasn't a defensive rebuttal.

Until Alekhine was successfully beating the elite in the opening, there was no need to really study. Once you reach the top, there's nothing left to learn, so I agree that as an adult he didn't need to study. From The Immortal Games of Capablanca, "He never bothered to study the game systematically, because he did not need to." I believe this to be true as an adult.

Alekhine, and perfected by Botvinnik, taught the world that you need to study your opponent. This wasn't needed before, so this avenue of study was practically useless.

Capablanca deserves to be on the best list from many of his accomplishments. However, in my personal opinion, is that Reshevsky was from the same mold but had harder competition and more theory.

@jonesmh Not to mention that simply getting the games of his opponents would have been a lot more involved than logging into chessbase. :) That said, there is something to be said for having the reputation for not training, which implies that other players of his time were doing so to a greater extent. Thanks for the perspective.

Carlsen is the best right now

1.A fish
2.A lizard
3. A Zero
...
999999999. A human

@sfumatosauce and @jonesmh

Some players have what we call: natural talent. Kasparov or Fischer, for example, are not in that list!

Anand, Carlsen and Capablanca have that 'natural talent'.

I would use one word to define what means natural talent: speed.

Capablanca had same natural talent than Anand or Carlsen.

Try to imagine how fast Carlsen analyzes a position today in blitz games. Capablanca had the same speed! The story tells how much he got bored playing classic games with his opponents thinking an eternity and him playing like a blitz .

(that's what anand did when he was young! which kasparov says: "anand is just a coffee player" is funny, because that 'coffee player' had top class player strenght!).

For these players, real time analyzys is not hard. For example, Kasparov (known for his astronomical preparations of 25 to 30 moves) was once refuted by Anand in 'real time'. When you think about it, it means that Anand, in 2 hours, has refuted hours and hours of preparation from one of the greatest players in history!

We have to understand that chess, although it is possible shortcuts with study, is a logical game and, at the right speed, anyone can find the best answer 'on-the-fly' or 'in real time'.

What natural talent can't to do is to overcome the collective knowledge of humanity. At times the collective effort discovers new ideas and these moments often bring about big changes and the old talents need, perhaps for the first time, serious study.

@jonesmh

Quote: "Alekhine, and perfected by Botvinnik, taught the world that you need to study your opponent. This wasn't needed before, so this avenue of study was practically useless."

Alekhine learned this from someone else, whom he admired.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1011905

Alekhine comments this game in "My best games from 1908 - 1923", an exhibition game and a short draw. You see the respect for his opponent.

@jupp53
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudette_Colvin Yes, I make mistakes too.

Thanks for the correction.

@jonesmh

You're welcome. There are always predecessors and so it is no mistake imo. I'm absolutely shure Lasker was not the first, only the first one always quoted. And there's no doubt Alekhine and Botwinnik added new dimensions, as Euwe did too.

Claudette Colvin was new to me. Thanks for that!

The best chessplayer of all times was Erwin Wackernagl from Biebelsried, who played on the 2nd February 1922 112 blindfold games simultaneously against himself and -believe it or not- won all 112. Soon after that success he decided to rest on his laurels.