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

Originally posted by Dodger11
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.

Originally posted by marinakatomb
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 ...[text shortened]... down enouph to pinch a win, sow enouph doubt into Fischers mind, and go on to win by a point. 😉

Hey look man, how many openings did people play in Capablanca's time, hmmm? Not a lot! He was playing when 1.d4 was a novelty for crying out loud. Yes, he's one of the greats, yes he beat all comers, bla bla bla, but stick Kasparov in Capablanca's shoes and he'd have kicked everyones butt all over town.

As for Fischer, i think he's the most excitting player i've ever studied. He made chess look easy! Something no-one else i've studied managed to do anything like as well. Kasparov makes chess look difficult. You can play through one of his games and not understand what the plan is until it's all over. That's what the difference is between them. I think Kasparov takes it. Im also willing to accept that im wrong. 😛

Kasparov. There are more strong players today than ever before, yet Kasparov is still the number 1 by a significant margin. Morphy, Steinitz, Anderssen, and other 19th century greats produced plenty of brilliant wins, but most of their opponents were amateurs, and very weak by modern gm standards. Lasker, Capablanca and Alekhine are denied the top spot in my opinion because of the efforts they all made to avoid their strongest coompetitors when they were champion.
Fischer was probably further ahead of his contempories than Kasparov, but effectively retired as soon as he became world champion. In terms of being number 1, against all comers, over a sustained period, only Botvinnik, Karpov, and Kasparov are in contention, and for his dymanism, creativity, fighting spirit and will to win, it has to be Kasparov.

I want to toss a new wrinkle into this discussion. We could argue forever about who the best chess player was. (I give mine to Alekhine) My question on a question is how would today's players fair against the legends?

I'll give you a hint, You could expect more than just the Ruy Lopez as white from Fischer or Kasparov.

Originally posted by Siskin
Kasparov. There are more strong players today than ever before, yet Kasparov is still the number 1 by a significant margin. Morphy, Steinitz, Anderssen, and other 19th century greats produced plenty of brilliant wins, but most of their opponents were amateurs, and very weak by modern gm standards. Lasker, Capablanca and Alekhine are denied the top spot in my ...[text shortened]... ntion, and for his dymanism, creativity, fighting spirit and will to win, it has to be Kasparov.

Originally posted by KWCorona
I want to toss a new wrinkle into this discussion. We could argue forever about who the best chess player was. (I give mine to Alekhine) My question on a question is how would today's players fair against the legends?

I'll give you a hint, You could expect more than just the Ruy Lopez as white from Fischer or Kasparov.

To be honest I don't know who the best player ever is. Even saying who the best player is now is hard. But to compare players who played in different eras is impossible.
However some players just stand out. Kasparov (the chess and the man), Fischer (the chess not the man), Capablanca, Tal and many others who I can't think of right now.
Of course I nearly forgot Miles. Anyone who can play 1. ...a6 and win against Karpov is right up there.

No-one has mentioned Ruy Lopez de Segura himself. So I will. Completely changed the nature of the game, in the same way as Philidor and Morphy.

Originally posted by marinakatomb
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 ...[text shortened]... down enouph to pinch a win, sow enouph doubt into Fischers mind, and go on to win by a point. 😉

Howard Staunton, no doubt about it. He was also a Shakespearean scholar.

Morphy, then Fischer. If you look at Morphy he played the fewest games in his career. If he had gone professional and played lots of games he would have been even better. the amazing thing about Morphy was that he was so EFFORTLESSLY good. Fischer, on the other hand, played enormous amounts of games and studied assiduously to get where he got. Quit high school, had no social life, did nothing but play chess. Alekhine, Lasker, Steintz, Capablanca, not sure in what order next.

Originally posted by gambit3
You did not take away Fritz, nor did you take away all those GMs that helped Kasparov.

Originally posted by marinakatomb
Oh please, find me a GM these days who isn't helped by fritz or taught by any other GM's. Kasparov is the best, if Kramnik gets the balls to play a unification he'll loose, unless he succeeds in borring Kaspa to death!

RIGHT! I'm shifting my vote to Marshall. Just because he's the only great one more violent than Tal.