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

lol...Okay, maybe I was wrong about that "blowhard" thing. 

tesla1 

i replied to you before mvtjc.i never said he wasnot great, he took the game to endgame when he had a slight advantage.

i just said he isnt in top of the list.not the best endgame player since he lost some important endgames and blundered easy endgame tricks.

yes i think from playing style rubinstein was more the endgame man then Capablanca was. But thats just my half baked opinion.

Of course, his genious in hundreds of games against great players must be neglected because of a single game of rapid. "mistakes" and "blunders"? please tell me more about the other games and please tell me about him commitingmore mistakes than other world champions.

Btw tetsuo can you please stop posting stupid irrelevant comments? Tesla and I are arguing if Capablanca must be listed as one of the best. While you comment bout how Rubinstein is greater which I see no connection with.

can you stop manipulating me, i said capablanca probably is not on top because of rubinstein, how is that irrelevant?? 

lol, your logic is way too out of this world, it's like saying Kobe is not a great player because Jordan is greater. Btw I don't know why I listen to the comments of patzers when even great gm's admire and study Capa's endgames.

I never said Capablanca is not a great player... but ofc your argument is also fautly to say mao tse tung was not a communist, because he definetly said he was.

Mao Tse said he was himself, but you said someone is something and that someone is Capa but you are not capa, omg maybe you are trolling me now or you just lack logic to a great degree.

ok thx  ;)

he didnt have many wins against great players of his era in endgame.

how many wins did he have in endgame against lasker,alekhine botvinnik euwe or rubinestien?

he usually gained advantage in middlegame and then simplified into a superior endgame.

look,i know he was an endgame expert but you overestimate him under influence of those cliches.i have never refused he is among the best but not at all the best.

his game against menchik was a classical one not rapid or blitz.as i said many times before we cant underestimate his great technique but i prefer fischer,karpov rubinstien botvinnik and smyslov and kramnik(in no particular order) but i believe he is in top 10.we need to understand chess is improving and naturally karpov has better endgame technique since he lived in a diffrent era.

Again tesla, I don't disagree with you about "others are better than him"part, what I disagree on is when you posted he is not a great endgame player and you quoted what the psychotic anti-semite freak(fischer) said.

when it comes to chess,his comments are important and his comments in that article is by no means like a psychotic.you cannot ignore all of his comments because he said some stupid things.he has simply written his views and read again his comments.fischer never refused he was a great endgame player but commented he had undeserved reputation of the greatest living endgame player.

and read his interview in 1960,mvtjc:

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/fischer3.html

Torán: Who has been the best player of all time?

Fischer: Capablanca was possibly the greatest player in the entire history of chess.

well ofcourse any person can change his mind during years but i want to imply your comments about his personality is again exaggerated.

Okay...

Well back to topic, isn't Kaspy the greatest in the opening??

Haven't read all the posts so apologies if these GMs are already noted.

For endgame, I'd go with Capablanca followed by Rubinstein

For middlegame, I'd go with Alekhine for his incredible combinational vision

For opening, would probably go with Kasparov (hard to pick an old-time GM when opening theory has advanced so much; thinking the best GM for the opening phase of the game would have to be relatively current.)

To say that Capablanca was one of the greatest players of all time and to say that his endgame technique wasn't great is not a paradox.

Capablanca's strength was in recognising winning positions before the game reached the technical phase! Many players, not just Fischer, pointed out that Capablanca was basically lazy and that he didn't study the game as much as others. His opening play would be torn apart by today's grandmasters, and his endgame technique showed weird holes.

Capablanca's brilliance was in quiet positions. He always knew exactly where to put his pieces. His logical approach was so overwhelming that Capablanca started talking about the draw-death of chess. Thank heavens the dynamic school of chess arrived when it did! Alekhin, and especially the Soviets (Botvinnik, Keres, Bronstein, Boleslavsky, Smyslov and others) showed the world the limits of classical chess.

Yes, Capablanca's game resembles a computer, but that shouldn't be a compliment! Capablanca didn't know how to compete with the likes of Alekhin, Botvinnik and Keres. He had negative scores against both Botvinnik and Keres. This wasn't just due to an age difference, it was due to the new style of chess they brought to the chess world. 

Again, Capablanca's games are brilliant. They serve as a great paradigm for how to plan in chess, and how to exploit small advantages. But the next generation learned from him. One of the most important lessons they learned was to be dynamic and seek imbalances from the earliest possible moments. That is how they circumvented Capa's feared draw death.

Wish there had been a rematch of the Capablanca/Akekhine world championship. Irving Chervev devoted an entire book to his endgames; haven't studied them nearly as much as I should but know his ability to play endgames was highly regarded as recently as a few decades ago