Who is the best chess player of all time??

Originally posted by masscat
Each WC took the knowledge of his predecessors and expanded on it and each generation has greater knowledge than the one before it. Therefore Kramnik is the best…has to be. He beat Kasparov who beat Karpov who maybe could have beaten Fischer who beat Spassky who beat cow that tossed the dog that worried the cat that killed the rat and so forth.

From a recent Fischer interview:

"In chess so much depends on opening theory, so the champions before the last century did not know as much as I do and other players do about opening theory. So if you just brought them back from the dead they wouldn't do well. They'd get bad openings. You cannot compare the playing strength, you can only talk about natural ability. Memorisation is enormously powerful. Some kid of fourteen today, or even younger, could get an opening advantage against Capablanca, and especially against the players of the previous century, like Morphy and Steinitz. Maybe they would still be able to outplay the young kid of today. Or maybe not, because nowadays when you get the opening advantage not only do you get the opening advantage, you know how to play, they have so many examples of what to do from this position. It is really deadly, and that is why I don't like chess any more."

Morphy and Capablanca had enormous talent, Steinitz was very great too. Alekhine was great, but I am not a big fan of his. Maybe it's just my taste. I've studied his games a lot, but I much prefer Capablanca and Morphy. Alekhine had a rather heavy style, Capablanca was much more brilliant and talented, he had a real light touch. Everyone I've spoken to who saw Capablanca play still speak of him with awe. If you showed him any position he would instantly tell you the right move. When I used to go to the Manhattan Chess Club back in the fifties, I met a lot of old-timers there who knew Capablanca, because he used to come around to the Manhattan club in the forties -- before he died in the early forties. They spoke about Capablanca with awe. I have never seen people speak about any chess player like that, before or since.

Capablanca really was fantastic. But even he had his weaknesses, especially when you play over his games with his notes he would make idiotic statements like "I played the rest of the game perfectly." But then you play through the moves and it is not true at all. But the thing that was great about Capablanca was that he really spoke his mind, he said what he believed was true, he said what he felt. He wanted to change the rules [of chess] already, back in the twenties, because he said chess was getting played out. He was right. Now chess is completely dead. It is all just memorisation and prearrangement. It's a terrible game now. Very uncreative.

Originally posted by synesis
From a recent Fischer interview:

"In chess so much depends on opening theory, so the champions before the last century did not know as much as I do and other players do about opening theory. So if you just brought them back from the dead they wouldn't do well. They'd get bad openings. You cannot compare the playing strength, you can only talk ab ...[text shortened]... . Very uncreative.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3468

Originally posted by Sam The Sham
OK, synesis, you got it. If Fischer thinks that, then we have no business saying different. I'm not being sarcastic, I mean it. It's good enough for me.

Originally posted by synesis
Well, he's saying what a lot of people in this thread have been saying... and what a lot of other people have been saying for a long time. It's not terribly original. But it is more credible coming from someone of Fischer's stature.

Originally posted by Mad Rook
You mean from someone of Fischer's stature, who also claims that all top level chess games are prearranged?

(BTW, I don't really have an opinion on the debate. I'm just pointing out the difficulty of using Fischer as a credible source.)

Originally posted by synesis
He's not credible on every matter under the sun. But as far as judging the strength of chess players he probably knows a hell of a lot more than just about anybody on here.

Originally posted by tonytiger41
fischer didn't rank lasker in his top ten. i admire lasker because he played competitively from the 1880s to the 1930s. quite impressive since lasker was brillant in other fields as well, and played chess off and on only out of financial necessitiy due to the two world wars. lasker was great chess player worthy despite fischer's omission.

"...it is difficult to share Bronstein's admiration for Lasker. The 2nd World Champion demanded high appearance fees, chose wealthy and relatively weak opponents for the Title Matches. There were long periods when Lasker avoided playing chess, and in this way he was maintaining his title..."

"It should be noted that chess historians had done a lot to create a romantic image of Emanuel Lasker. Lasker as a great philosopher, a great psychologist, even a great mathematician... [but] probably, Lasker was just a hypocrite disguised as the greatest truth-seeker..."

Originally posted by synesis
I was just reading an article by Lev Khariton on Bronstein, entitled "With Love and Bitterness" (which is more full of the latter, I'm afraid). And he had a lot of unflattering things to say about Lasker. Here's an excerpt:

[quote][i]"...it is difficult to share Bronstein's admiration for Lasker. The 2nd World Champion demanded high appearance fees, cho ...[text shortened]... sscircle.net/forums/general-chess-forum/4962-lev-khariton-with-love-and-bitterness.html

Alekhine did manage to defeat Capablanca and then wisely refused to give him a rematch despite the fact that one had been agreed on before the first match. He then refused to play in any tournment that Capablanca was playing in from then on.

Originally posted by chrspayn
Alekhine did manage to defeat Capablanca and then wisely refused to give him a rematch despite the fact that one had been agreed on before the first match. He then refused to play in any tournment that Capablanca was playing in from then on.

If you raised the dead and got all the famous deceased players, as well as Kasparov and Fischer for a fifty game tournament, Paul Morphy would win it in the end. It would be close, though. Modern opening theory would give him an initial disadvantage, but when he got into the middle game and end game, it would be him and Capablanca. He would probably lose his first few games, as he always did, then mow down everyone. He was simply the most accurate player ever.
On the other hand Mohammed Ali could probably take them all on in a simul boxing match.

Originally posted by buddy2
If you raised the dead and got all the famous deceased players, as well as Kasparov and Fischer for a fifty game tournament, Paul Morphy would win it in the end. It would be close, though. Modern opening theory would give him an initial disadvantage, but when he got into the middle game and end game, it would be him and Capablanca. He would probably lose hi ...[text shortened]... r ever.
On the other hand Mohammed Ali could probably take them all on in a simul boxing match.

Originally posted by chrspayn
Alekhine did manage to defeat Capablanca and then wisely refused to give him a rematch despite the fact that one had been agreed on before the first match. He then refused to play in any tournment that Capablanca was playing in from then on.

what about legall de kermeur, back in 1730, he was good, so iv,been told