Go back
Simply: who's the best EVER...and why?

Simply: who's the best EVER...and why?

Only Chess

Vote Up
Vote Down

For your money, who's is your choice for best chessplayer EVER? And why.

I've read bio books on several of the masters and it's hard for me to choose just one.

for invincibility: Capablanca
for capability: Fischer
for capacity: Kasparov
for transcendental, mind-twisting, eye-rolling attack: Tal
for sustainability: Botvinnik

steely 😏

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by steelydan
For your money, who's is your choice for best chessplayer EVER? And why.

I've read bio books on several of the masters and it's hard for me to choose just one.

for invincibility: Capablanca
for capability: Fischer
for capacity: Kasparov
for transcendental, mind-twisting, eye-rolling attack: Tal
for sustainability: Botvinnik

steely 😏
for me its fisher on the opening, kasparov on the middlegamr and capablanca on the endgame.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Fischer because Kasparov says he is. Why does Kasparov say this? Because Fischer hadsupposedly the greatest lead in skill level of all his competition. In addition, he was not only skilled in chess as a game, he was masterful at playing the psychological game as well, and was playing against a system designed to shut non Soviets out. I don't like him but I am willing to give him props for skill.

Kasparov because he has the highest rating ever. He also has the confidence to give Fischer the #1 slot in the all time greats list.

Lasker or Steinitz (forget which) for being world champion longest. (28 years?)

Vote Up
Vote Down

In terms of who was the best player, ie: ahead of his time and way ahead of everyone else, I would have to say it's the amateur Paul Morphy.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Lasker and Tal for completely psyching-out their poor opponents, I think...

Vote Up
Vote Down

Larsen, for playing ridiculous openings against the best of competition, and for fighting out every game, not reducing himself to draws all the time. Not to mention, arguably the best non-Soviet player of his time besides Fischer.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Nimzowitch, for being as nutty as Morphy and Fischer and thus obviously as good? (Ditto Miles?)

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by paultopia
Nimzowitch, for being as nutty as Morphy and Fischer and thus obviously as good? (Ditto Miles?)
Definitely fischer, because fischer defeated the soviet GM chess machine by himself. Fischer, one man, defeated the hundreds of men who were the elite chess soviet players and organizers who rigged matches and cooperated against non-soviet players. it was fischer, with only a board a small selection of books and a notepad who was able to defeat the whole chess world. nobody else can claim that

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard
for me its fisher on the opening, kasparov on the middlegamr and capablanca on the endgame.
if i had to pick one of these i would chose kasparov . Becouse he's just best. his game against topalov in wijk aan zee 1999 proves that in my oppinion.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1011478

Vote Up
Vote Down

Best or greatest?

I think the greatest chess player ever was Mikhail Tal. Had his health been better, I think his record would have surpassed the best. Others may claim consistency, but consistency is not an attribute of greatness.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Gatecrasher
but consistency is not an attribute of greatness.
Well said!

Vote Up
Vote Down

Morphy is a good candidate too, that's true. Fischer claimed he was the best ever.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Aaron Nimzowitsch because he reinvented chess in the early '900.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Capablanca. In a ten year period, he played in only the strongest tournaments that were held, and lost only 4 games out of 158. During 8 YEARS of that period (playing in many tournaments that invited only the best players on Earth), he did not lose a single game, and was considered unbeatable. NOBODY ever did that, not before or since. As soon as I get serious about chess, I hope to beat his record....cause I got plans, oh yassssss, I do.

Vote Up
Vote Down

I think Kasparov at his prime v Fishcher in his prime (taking away all the extra theory Kasparov would have at his disposal!) would , in my opinion, go to Kasparov. Why? Well Kasparov never doubted himself! He has been consistently arrogant about his superiority since he first lifted a piece. Fischer also believed he was the best, but lost the balls to prove it. In a trditional match (24 games say...) Kasparov would wear him down enouph to pinch a win, sow enouph doubt into Fischers mind, and go on to win by a point. 😉