Jose Raul Capablanca, or maybe Robert James Fischer. It's a tough call.
Their tournament and match records are the best, they dominated the world at their peak, and they had incredible win versus loss ratios against the top players.
Maybe Paul Morphy too. He shat all over everybody. For a few years.
Yes...those three.
Oh hell, let's include Steinitz and Lasker.
Sam the Sham had the most knowledgeable post so far.
Chessisvanity, you start a lot of noob threads and all u do is make noobie posts.
If we're talking about putting all the great players ever in one tournament, and see who would win, it would be a close race between Kasparov, Fischer, and Alekhine.
Kasparov dominated the modern chess world, which is far more advanced than the chess periods before. With all the computer analysis and opening theory and the golden age of chess books. Not only this Kasparov coached the world champion that succeeded him, Kramnik. He had some revolutionary ideas about chess.
Still, Fischer was a legend and he wasn't even at his prime yet when he ran out on the chess world. He would have destroyed Spassky if he didn't skip the first two games and whatnot.
Alekhine defeated Capablanca handily in their match because he cared much more about chess and studied every day. He had probably the best calculating mind at the time and Capablanca the most intuitive mind. But still, he won, so there is no way we can say Capablanca is better. Plus, Alekhine developed many different attacking methods and always built up his attacks mightily before throwing out sacrifices as Tal does.
If we're talking about who was the best chess player ever considering their time, because it's harder to be better at chess in 1850 than now, since many of the things beginners know now haven't even been tried by the masters back then, and they didn't have as much opening theory or middlegame theory.
I would have to say Morphy or Steinitz or Lasker were the greatest of all time.
yeah, you have a point, moneymaker. Morphy, Steinitz, and Lasker are good picks. Each revolutionized the game, and Steinitz and Lasker stayed on top longer than anybody else. Morphy probably would have too if he hadn't been a little nutty, like Fischer.
It's a shame how history repeats itself, the two great American chess prodigies, Morphy and Fischer, gave up competetive chess at the peak of their powers and became recluses, never to play in tournaments again after beating everybody.
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.
Originally posted by masscatGood point. the current world champion is the best, ever. Who is that knowadays, anyway?
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.
Originally posted by MoneyMaker7Excellent post MoneyMaker, well argued. I found your reasoning above interesting, though, because I would say the opposite is true.
If we're talking about who was the best chess player ever considering their time, because it's harder to be better at chess in 1850 than now, since many of the things beginners know now haven't even been tried by the masters back then, and they didn't have as much opening theory or middlegame theory.
You say that it was more difficult to be good at chess in 1850 because there were fewer avanues to improve your game. Computers, better books, and the Internet are all valuable study tools for today's chess player that they didn't have.
What I would point out, however, is that in 1850, you didn't have to know as much as you do now. There is much more theory now, than before. The availability of those study tools has not only increased the availability of chess knowledge, but also the quantity and required learning.
In addition, I would think that competition now is greater than it was then. There are simply more people with access to quality tutelage. I would think that the average master, not GM, would posses equal chess knowledge as the maters of the 1800's. Although, of course, they may not have equal skill.
Therefore, I think it is a much more difficult task to become the WC today than before.
Some may argue that with their skill, the historic WC's would have become better chess players had they access to today's tools and that they had unequaled natural talent. That argument get too hypothetical for my taste and can never result in more than opinions. I would also point out that a couple hundred years ago, chess was more about tactics than stategies, and that many tactical playes have crumbled under steady stratigic play. Today's WC contenders must master both elements to a degree that yesterday's WC contenders did not.
There are many books and movies about modern-day time travelers going back a few hundred years and pitting their modern weapons and knowledge against their less advanced foes. I would think this would be the case were one of our GMs, not even a WC contender, to be whisked back to 1800.
Fun to think about. Maybe I'll write the movie script...
"Wow, that backwards pawn would cost you at least a third of a point in a Fritz eval."
"A what?"
"You'll see..."
funny......and as for moneymaker....this is a chess site and i'll post any damn thread i please.
even if they sound newbie-ish to you ...i don't care.....most of my threads lead to alot of people expressing there opinion.....which is the point behind my threads.
if you don't like my threads then stay out of them.
what are you.....7?