Who had the best opening, middle game and endgame ever?

lol

As expected, this thread has been a virtual invitation to the blowhard. 

Opening: Kasparov, Fischer, Alekhine Middlegame: Tal, Kasparov, Fischer, Morphy. Endgame: Capablanca, Fischer, Rubinstein, Lasker, Smyslov, Karpov. All rounders: Kasparov,Fischer, Capablanca, Karpov

You guys haven't heard of MAC TORZAR "THE GREAT"?? with an ELO of 3498?

i dont believe capablanca is in top of the list in endgame part.just look at his endgame with menchik: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1258259

even club players dont make such mistakes in rapid games.

You serious bro?

about the game or club players? 

tesla1 wrote:

he was good specially in his era.but not in top of the list.examine the game and judge with yourself.

-said no chess expert ever

i dont know about others but this game is mentioned by fischer and he questioned capablanca mastery in end game.this is another matter people like to stick to their old beliefs and cliches.

Fischer and others agreed, Capablanca's skill was not really in technical endgames. His skill was in recognising which endgames were winning and steering the game toward those positions. 

In the Capablanca-Alekhine World Championship match, Alekhine outperformed Capa in technical endgames, winning and drawing a couple of classics that are now in most endgame books. 

Yeah, Capablanca was good in the endgame, but he was not as great as his contemporary, Rubinstein. 

For opposite colored Bishop endings, the great master was Vladimir Smagin (also transliterated as "Simagin"). He coached one of the greatest technical endgame players of all time, Vasily Smyslov! 

also capablanca seemed to have a good feeling to find the only moves.

About the Alekhine-Capablanca even Alekhine admitted that Capablanca did not prepare well for their match while Alekhine performed rigorous(lol) training for the match. Hmm.. I don't know why but take time to look at this  http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3455.
Also about tesla's posted game, Capablanca won in the endgame, I don't see how that prove that Capablanca is not a great endgame player. 

moves indicate your strength.you can blunder and win since your oponent is very weak too.you didnt spend time analyzing that endgame.you just saw the result.the fact he won doesent mean he played well.he won since his oponent was very weak and didnt use her chances.

Oh sorry, I didn't know you can beat Capablanca since he only wins games against noob opponents.

 ad hominem fallacy+straw man fallacy.

i said look at his moves not his result.results dont necessarily mean a player has played well.because maybe he has played with a weak player.in this game capa blundered and his oponent blundered too.both of them overlooked simple moves.

i understand he played a long time ago but this doesent justify such mistakes.so i dont see a reason why capa should be in top of the list.

when did capa prepare well?after all what was the standard of preparation 90 years ago?

chess is a big waste of time, get a life y'all.........