Magnus is the greatest player to ever play the game…bar none
its amazing that he is playing in our lifetime
-World Champion (Classical)
World Champion (Blitz)
World Champion (Rapid) all at the same time
Highest rated player ever
Youngest number 1 player (19 years old)
he is simply greater then Bobby Fischer or Kasparov…he is the greatest of all time
Kasparov had the highest peak rating before Magnus and Fischer the highest before him, so it seems that the three greatest players of all time have played in a single generation. Or, as this page claims, chess ratings have become inflated and are only useful for determining the ranking of players currently playing the game relative to each other.
I vote for Fischer. He pursued chess to the point where it literally drove him insane. Magnus hasn’t done that. (Yet)
The greatest chess player in the world to date is a computer. Not sure which one, but they’ve left humans behind.
Bobby Fischer, Garry Kasparov, Magnus Carlsen
the 3 greatest players ever
Where does Capablanca fit in your hierarchy?
And why?
So far all I hear from the OP is fan-boy rah rah for Magnus. He might indeed be the best evar. But the OP’s not given us much reason to believe him.
Meh. Any “greatest player of all time” claim must be conditioned with “that we know of”. My money says the greatest _______ player of all time never had the desire to compete publicly on a large stage and, therefore, is unknown to the vast majority of the world.
The best chess player of all time may well be/have been someone who hustles games in a city park until he has enough money for rent and food, spends the rest of his time contentedly doing something else and has no desire to ever play Kasparov, Fischer, Magnus or a computer.
YMMV
I agree Magnus is deservedly no 1 now.
It’s hard to compare with previous generations though. Magnus uses computers (including databases) and has sponsors. So he can analyse in great depth, check tricky opening lines and play full-time.
Fischer had to rely on chess magazines sent from the Soviet Union and write down his analysis.
Fischer had a troubled childhood and let chess monopolise his life. He did go insane, but would have been an even better chess player with a more balanced life.
Indeed. It’s funny that if storage problems can be solved, chess will be played perfectly by ‘chess tablebases’. They’ve achieved storing all positions with a maximum of 6 pieces on the board and are working on seven.
These tablebases do no analysis - they’ve simply stored every legal position.
That’s an interesting thought 
- but I don’t agree. 
The knowledge of current top grandmasters is simply phenomenal. It covers:
I’ve done well as an amateur (highest rating ELO 2390; English rapidplay champion.)
I’ve analysed with top players and it honestly is incredible what they see - and how fast they see it.
John Nunn (English GM, reached world top 10) told me once “Nobody rated under 2400 understands chess at all.” He’s a pleasant chap - and sadly he’s right! :smack:
Finally, I believe Fischer once said Paul Morphy was the greatest ever. I like this idea - Morphy introduced new ideas into the game (e.g. brilliant tactics and sacrificing for gain of time and space) and was well above his contemporaries.
Nah. Chess ability, like everything else, is a combination of practice and innate talent. Top chess players study for many hours every day. There’s just no way to get to the top without extensive practice and study. I could see some 2000+ players who are totally unknown, and maybe one or two 2500+ players who are unrated. But there’s no way that the top player is the world is unknown.
Besides, someone who was rated >2900 could beat essentially every person he had ever met. There’s just no way someone who was consistently and substantially better than everyone else wouldn’t have the desire to compete on the tournament circuit.
Best natural player? Quite probably. Capable of beating the best grandmasters? Unlikely. Raw talent isn’t enough, especially if you play only against amateurs. Kasparov begin training at a top school when ten years old. Or consider how Topalov became great:
I don’t think this is true for any ________ that isn’t brand new or basically ignored by society. To become the best at anything you need to mingle among the other greats, learn from them and test yourself against them regularly. That goes for science, sports, math, board games, whatever.
The world’s best flurgleball player may be some unknown kid in an alley somewhere (maybe he invented the game). But, for example, the world’s best basketball player is in the NBA, without a doubt. I don’t follow chess, but I would bet good money it’s true there, too.
This is probably better suited to the Game Room. I’ll relocate it.
I disagree. There are too many people playing basketball worldwide to believe that all of the best will be picked up by an NBA team - even if they wanted to be. The world’s best basketball player is most probably on a playground in a major city somewhere on the globe, competing 8-10 hours a day, studying the game when not playing and barely getting by. Would there be a learning curve if he/she were picked up and suddenly dropped into the pros? Sure, but it would be overcome quickly.
The amount of “luck” required to make it to the professional, famous level of pretty much any talent based activity (sport, music, art, etc,) is at least equal to the amount of talent. There are a ton of exteremely good starving artists and musicians, sub-zero handicap golfers who have no desire to tour, and basketball/soccer/baseball players who will never make it off their home court/pitch/field.
Of course, the real beauty of my argument is that no one can prove it wrong
I find it absolutely impossible to believe the greatest chess player of all time could be someone who never played against the world’s best chess players. How would they learn to be that good if they’re not up against competition that good?
It’s like saying the best hockey player in the world is someone who quit organized hockey at age 15 and just plays in a beer league. That’s impossible. Without learning the science of hockey against top competition you cannot become that good.
Your assumption of hidden talent seems to rely on the wholly incorrect assumption that a person can become the best in the world at something without facing world class competition. **That is not possible. ** Competition against worthy foes is a necessary part of becoming the best in a competitive sport or game. Had Wayne Gretzky never played hockey above junior A he never would have become the greatest hockey player in the world because he could not have learned how to adapt to the world’s best hockey players. Had Willie Mays never played major league ball, he never would have learned to adapt to major league pitchers.
It is quite possible - indeed, probable - that there are people who had the potential to become the world’s greatest basketball player, chess player, or no limit hold 'em player, but chose not to pursue it or didn’t have the chance to. But potential is not performance.
I don’t think so. You may have been able to make that case 30 years ago (I still doubt it), but today it would be impossible to hide that talent away. How many basketball players in the world do you suspect are better than LeBron James? Hell, how many outside the NBA are better than Matthew Dellavedova?
I could argue that part of being the greatest is the desire to prove it.
Assume Magnus does goes insane. He would still have to be rated against Fischer. What benchmark of insanity could be used?
That makes something a bad argument, not a good argument. A good argument is something that’s convincing and plausible, not just blind faith for no reason.
So once you get down to 6 pieces (soon to be 7) or fewer, chess endgames are a solved problem, huh?
Wow.
Speaking as someone who never got out of the 1700s, I know how modest my understanding of chess was, even at my best.
When I’ve played through grandmaster games (e.g. when the Fischer-Spassky match was going on, an eon back), I’ve known that there were depths way below the surface that I couldn’t possibly understand. And if someone who attained a rating >600 points above my best is saying more or less the same thing, well, it boggles the mind.
Twenty years ago, I would have agreed with you. But now that even off-the-shelf chess programs can beat even the best humans (at least, I think this is true - I haven’t kept up), presumably you could develop into the best human player just by matching wits with chess programs.
There is this guy. Srinivasa Ramanujan.
He became one of the worlds top mathematicians. He had no formal training in pure math and mainly studied by himself until he was discovered.
So, it seems, it is possible to become one of the worlds best at something in isolation. I see no reason why chess would be all that different than math.
However, it is unlikely.
Slee