Agreed. ^^^
Who was the Greatest Chess Player of All Time?
Sort:
Agree with Bigfat, but if I had to pick Kasparov is likely the GOAT.
Jan 19, 2019
0
#24
Greco. He didn't have the shoulders of giants to stand on. And face it, he'd wipe anybody in this forum off the board.
SeniorPatzer wrote:
BonTheCat wrote:
In fairness to Carlsen, he's only got the system he's playing under. I wish the format could have been different or that they would change it to a better one, for him to 'rehabilitate' himself!
By the way, I see that FIDE has at least partly adopted 'my' (I'm sure I wasn't the only advocating this) idea of organizing large giant Swisses for places in the Candidates Tournament, or rather, one big Swiss with 100 players invited by rating with one place up for grabs. I would have preferred more places being awarded this way in order to reduce the arbitrariness in the Candidates selection, but at least it's a start.
I think Botvinnik was a great World Champion. But not in the discussion of greatest of all time He had Bronstein at a distinct disadvantage. Also Tal was ill in the rematch WC. Smyslov beat Botvinnik as well.
But I do give huge credit to Botvinnik for coming back all the time and longevity and building up the Soviet School as well as being a professional engineer. That's very difficult.
That being said, I'm so glad Kasparov did not drink the Communist Kool-Aid that Botvinnik adored.
As a person, Botvinnik doesn't appear to have been very nice (Genna Sosonko and many others have written about this). However, as a chess player, he was basically an amateur from 1948 onwards and played too little to stay really match sharp. Otherwise, I don't think that neither Bronstein nor Smyslov would have drawn against him in 1951 and 1954, respectively. It's very difficult to say how he'd coped later on had he played with the same regularity as his competitors - I mean he hadn't even played against Tal when he sat down to face him in 1960 (despite Tal participating in all the USSR Championships from 1956 onwards). However, if you want to learn positional play in general, and QP (d4 v d5) positions in particular, Rubinstein and Botvinnik are the bees' knees.
As regards Kasparov, Mark Dvoretsky once made a very interesting comment about Karpov and Kasparov: The Soviet system served them both incredibly well. Karpov as the man of the (Brezhnev) system , and in his era, given all resources available to him. Kasparov as a man against the system (and a Gorbachev man), and as such, the darling of the Western world to his own great benefit.
My top 5 are Magnus Carlesen, Garry Kasparov, Bobby Fischer, Anatoly Karpov, and Vishy Anand. Just my 2 cents!
Who cares?
It would be Alpha Zero she taught herself how to defeat anyone all by herself with no help other than explain the rules in 4 hours.
....not me.
Jul 14, 2023
0
#32
1m811 wrote:
It would be Alpha Zero she taught herself how to defeat anyone all by herself with no help other than explain the rules in 4 hours.
Dude, computers don't have pronouns. We're talking about the greatest chess player of all time. Alpha zero isn't a human and isn't the best chess engine either.
I'm coming round to the view that it's Carlsen. He is such a complete player, and in an era of intense competition and much greater strength in depth (especially players from India and China now), he still remains dominant. He's also better in the endgame than Kasparov ever was.
I don't think matching to computer moves is a meaningful metric, because so many of the opening lines played today were actually found by computers in home prep. So naturally modern games show a closer correlation with computer moves than those of previous eras.
Also we should not forget that a player may choose a less than precise move to unsettle his opponent, get him out of book, and so on. The computer knows nothing of such sporting tactics. In that respect Carlsen is like Lasker, the former champion I think he resembles the most.
Jul 15, 2023
0
#35
And bell: “…Computers have increased the quality of chess players as a whole- one could argue even an 800 or a 1200 today is better than an 800 or 1200 from 30 years ago. …”
No need to argue, it is true. OTB play has changed.
30+ years ago if you played a player rated 1000 you just played simple moves and waited for them to hang their queen on move 5.
Today a 1000 knows 20 moves of theory in the Marshall Attack. So now you have to hope to hang on until the endgame. Then you get them. Since all they play is blitz online, the endgame is a mystery.
No need to argue, it is true. OTB play has changed.
30+ years ago if you played a player rated 1000 you just played simple moves and waited for them to hang their queen on move 5.
Today a 1000 knows 20 moves of theory in the Marshall Attack. So now you have to hope to hang on until the endgame. Then you get them. Since all they play is blitz online, the endgame is a mystery.
Fischer is the greatest because the gap between him and his contemparary chess players is the greatest gap ever. Never there was a difference as greater between the number 1 and the rest.
And his reign was not so short as you think, because since 1962 until 1972 HE WON ALL the competitions but two tournaments where he got two seconds places, and in one of them was winning but he retired without playing the final games.
Bobby Fischer refused almost sistematically in playing in the candidates competitions, so he was a king without crown almost a decade. So the number one in the world during almost 13 years.
vfonvnofCPO wrote:
Fischer is the greatest because the gap between him and his contemparary chess players is the greatest gap ever. Never there was a difference as greater between the number 1 and the rest.
And his reign was not so short as you think, because since 1962 until 1972 HE WON ALL the competitions but two tournaments where he got two seconds places, and in one of them was winning but he retired without playing the final games.
Bobby Fischer refused almost sistematically in playing in the candidates competitions, so he was a king without crown almost a decade. So the number one in the world during almost 13 years.
The tournament thing isn't true. He played 3 Olympiads in this time period where he came 2nd, 2nd and 8th on first board for the US. He came 4th at the Carucao candidates in 1962. Plus the two tournaments you're talking about where he came 2nd. It's also a pretty misleading statistic as Fischer did not play many tournaments during this period and he certainly wasn't playing many tournaments against the best in the world. You also can't just say his reign was somehow longer as you'd have to do this for heaps of players to have this be a justification for Fischer's GOAT status. Players had very good results before or after they won the title and in several cases players were hampered by things outside of their control (WWI & WWII, sickness, bias, etc).
JohnHS wrote:
I would also like to point out that Magnus is a far more active player than Fischer ever was, making it harder for him to achieve a large rating gap between him and #2, like Fischer did. He doesn't just get a big gap and keep it by not playing. When you are that high rated, it is hard to preserve your rating if you play a lot.
Carlsen is nothing ! He will never be Like Morphy , Tal or Fisher !!
They invented their own Moves and strategies !!
Since there was no Computer to suggest the right move ......
Tal and Fisher had to Discover by themselves
which move was the winning move , what position was Better .....
Understand silly !!!
There was no engine Telling you : ' +1.5' the white is Better or The Black is Better !!
So they evaluated opening positions , Finals !
They were TRUE Geniuses .
Carlsen would be nothing without the Help of a Chess-software !
Had Carlsen lived during Tal's era ......
surely He would be shocked at his sacrifices ...coming OUT of the Blue !!
Carlsen would have never won a single GAME against Paul Morphy !!
All modern Players after Karpov [ 1980 ] can check their moves with the aid of a software !!
They can have the solution of a position shown in 2 seconds ......
It would have taken weeks to a chess-player Before 1980 !!
Think of that SILLY !!!
It takes 10 Carlsen to make one Fisher
12 Carlsen to make ONE TAL
100 Carlsen to make One Paul Morphy !!
I understand that ...... Bcause I am INTELLIGENT
I Told you that ..... Because I want people who are not so .... to understand !!
Ciao
jo90ways wrote:
JohnHS wrote:
I would also like to point out that Magnus is a far more active player than Fischer ever was, making it harder for him to achieve a large rating gap between him and #2, like Fischer did. He doesn't just get a big gap and keep it by not playing. When you are that high rated, it is hard to preserve your rating if you play a lot.
Carlsen is nothing ! He will never be Like Morphy , Tal or Fisher !!
They invented their own Moves and strategies !!
Since there was no Computer to suggest the right move ......
Tal and Fisher had to Discover by themselves
which move was the winning move , what position was Better .....
Understand silly !!!
There was no engine Telling you : ' +1.5' the white is Better or The Black is Better !!
So they evaluated openings , positions , Finals !
They were TRUE Geniuses .
Carlsen would be nothing without the Help of a Chess-software !
Had Carlsen lived during Tal's era ......
surely He would have Been shocked at his sacrifices ...coming OUT of the Blue !!
Carlsen would have never won a single GAME against Paul Morphy !!
All modern Players after Karpov [ 1980 ] could check their moves with the aid of a software !!
They can have the solution of a position shown in 2 seconds ......
It would have taken weeks to a chess-player Before 1980 !!
Think of that SILLY !!!
It takes 10 Carlsen to make one Fisher
12 Carlsen to make ONE TAL
100 Carlsen to make One Paul Morphy !!
I understand that ...... Bcause I am INTELLIGENT
I Told you that ..... Because I want people who are not so .... to understand !!
Ciao
Most of the moves today are memorized, and computers analyze and tell players in practice sessions which moves are the best to play for any given situation, so todays players are more or less ranked on their ability to memorize. But the greatest of all time, in my opinion, is an illusion. if some of the older champions had access to todays technology, who is to say they wouldnt be better? comparing era's, is like comparing apples and oranges. the truth is all the players mentioned here were incredible.