This is a really great discussion...
Ah, one technical point... There's a bit of a major flaw in the whole question that is so obvious no one mentions it. . . I mean, as wide as the sky obvious. "All time". . . That's a hard or impossible question to answer until it's over.
@doom12384 what if Fischer was born on the same day as Carlsen, who would be stronger?
On a side note, I love how some people get angry because other people's opinions on a purely subjective question that has no right answer is different to theirs. OMG, you don't agree with me, you are so stupid. rawwwrrrrr. Blue is the best colour and if you think it's red you are missing the point and can't do maths. rawwrrrr.
I was just messaged privately by 3 professors of visual arts who agreed with me, blue is the best colour.
@doom12384 The comparison of Fischer to super-GMs in 2020 is an improper comparison. If you could reincarnate Fischer and arm him with the same computer-enhanced opening analysis that GMs have in 2020 he would do exactly what he did in the 1960s and 1970s i.e., he'd wipe everybody out. Utterly. Completely. Not even Paul Morphy was as dominant as Fischer because he'd lose 1 or 2 against guys like Barnes, win 8, and draw a few. No master in chess history ever ravaged the 3 Candidates by anything like the 18.5-2.5 score Fischer had against Taimanov, Larsen, and Petrosian. I challenge any member of Lichess to name any world champion or super-GM who has not even ceded a half-point to a fellow super-GM in a match. Take your time.
I also wonder why no one, and I mean no one, even dares to mention Carlsen's 2 tied matches to Radjabov and Caruana? Younger players often seem to think that because they're alive in 2020 then the masters of 2020 are the world's greatest EVER. It's a strangely narcissistic notion. Sure Carlsen is a great player and I admire his positional pawn sacrifices. They're positively Petrosianesque. He's defended his title 4 times (though the last 2 decided by rapids was ugly as hell). He certainly deserves to be ranked up there with guys like Kasparov and Karpov. Fischer, however, was a beast the likes of which the chess world may never see again. His retirement and subsequent insanity was a great tragedy.
@Eleuthero You mean Karjakin and Caruana right?
One thing is sure: NOWADAYS Fischer would end up either in a mental hospital or prison very soon.
I think that the best chess player to have ever lived was obviously Bobby Fischer. Although
@Sarg0n makes a good point^
Carlsen is clearly the best today but Fischer was best ever.
I think Paul Morphy is second.
But it is hard to say because in this day and era carlsen has access to engine education and other technology when not even Gary Kasparov had. Let alone fischer.
@The_Human_Paradox Indeed I did mean to say Karjakin, not Radjabov. Thanks for the correction.
I love Fischer, but his insane dominance streak at the very top level really only lasted for two years or so, from 1970 to 1972. He did crush US Championships as well, but the players there were way below his level and way below top 10 level. You could then say "oh well if he hadn't been crazy he wouldn't have quit in 1972 and would've kept dominating". Well yeah, maybe. But just maybe. To the same point, if he wasn't crazy maybe he wouldn't have been as good, or maybe he wouldn't have had the psychological impact he clearly had on his opponents.
Morphy was obviously great for his time, but he usually played players who would be around 1700 today, max, so I don't think he has anything to do in the discussion on strongest player ever.
Kasparov dominated top players for decades, he was the first ever to break 2800, and for a long time the only player in the world rated over 2800. Also, Kasparov didn't win top tournaments by half a point or a point, he CRUSHED everyone.
Magnus has already dominated the top for nearly a decade, and the guy isn't even 30 years old yet. Plus he's the highest rated in history, plus he is objectively the most accurate of all time (in computer terms), plus he is the most versatile player of this caliber of all time. He used to be the grindy, slow and boring endgame wizard and then in late 2018 and all of 2019 he decided to play as crazy as possible every game and went on to absolutely crush all comers in most major events and again came close to his peak of 2882.
The fact that he doesn't always dominate his opponents (especially a guy like Fabi) is due to the fact that the people he plays are incomparably stronger (not necessarily more talented) than the people Fischer or Kasparov dominated. I think if you're going off of pure accuracy in computer terms, you could easily make the argument that Caruana, Ding Liren or peak Wesley So are the 2nd (and 3rd and 4th, in some order) strongest in history, right behind Magnus. So it's getting harder and harder to dominate at the top, but when anyone manages to do it, it's always Magnus (barring Sinquefield 2014, which supports my previous point). That's why I believe MC is the G.
@EleutheroWhen comparing the objective strength of the players, comparing Fischer at his peak to modern grandmasters is far from improper. As I said, no player has ever been as dominant over his competition as Fischer, but objectively, at his peak, he wasn't as strong as today's top players. Whether he would be if he had access to the same resources as them is a speculative question with no definitive answer. I'm not convinced the same level of dominance that Fischer showed in his prime is even possible anymore. I think the playing strength of the world's elite is just too high now.
