:)

In regards as to who is the greatest chess player...

Author Dimitrije Bjelica asked chess Grand Masters for their opinion about who the greatest player to grace God's green earth.

Here is their replies....

<Mikhail Tal:>
For sure the strongest was Emanuel Lasker. He made impossible things happen behind the chess table. He was great tactician, he could win lost positions.

<Mikhail Botvinnik:> In my personal duels with world champions Capablanca made the strongest impression on me. Maybe because he had such a natural talent.

<Tigran Petrosian:>
It's hard to say who is the best. There was a lot of giants in chess history who deserves this title, but is hard to compare them. Rubinstein's systems are still prevailing. He had great ideas. Maybe he is the best.

<Igor Bondarevsky:>
For me it is Capablanca. When I begun to play chess I liked him the most and I still do.

<Boris Spassky:>
The best is Alexander Alekhine because he is still unclear to me.

<Robert James Fischer:> Have to be Paul Morphy. I believe that he could win all matches still today.

<Svetozar Gligoric:> For me there is only one. Paul Morphy. Because he was in his time a class ahead of the rest.

<Viktor Korchnoi:>
Lasker. He was fighting in a way that I don't understand. He used to win games in openings but he found moves behind the table.

<Miguel Najdorf:>
He was great, unreachable Capablanca. He didn't care about chess, but he played better than all.

<Bent Larsen:>
Best player of all times is Philidor, because he was ahead of his time more than anyone alse.

<Borislav Ivkov:>
My answer is Alekhine, because he was the best.

<Lajos Portisch:>
This has to be Alekhine.

<Lev Polugaevsky>
First of all this has to be an alive Grand Master. To answer on this question I have to see not only games, but the Master at work. From living Masters this is Mikhail Botvinnik.

<Laszlo Szabo:>
If you put all Grand Champions together it's hard to decide who is the best. I will vote for four of them: Alekhine, Lasker, Capablanca and Botvinnik

<Ludek Pachman:>
The best is Wilhelm Steinitz, because he made a basics of modern chess, strategic chess. Also Capablanca, because he was something special.

<Miroslav Filip:>
This is Capablanca - for many reasons.

<Larry Evans:>
For me this could be Fisher if he could control some of his emotions.

<Robert Bern:>
The best is Lasker. because he was a great tactician, strong in defence and attack. He played good in all phases of the game.

<Alberik O'Kelly:>
The biggest talent is Capablanca and most successful champions are Alekhine and Lasker. Those three are the best in chess history for me.

<Arturo Pomar-Salamanca:> The best was and still are Capablanca and Alekhine.

<Istvan Bilek:>
By best results it has to be Alekhine. He used to play like Tal plays today. They are the best Champions.

<Georgi Tringov:>
Alekhine, because he has the best results.

<Fridrik Olafsson:>
Lasker was the most amazing person who played chess ever. He played against his opponent psychologically. Today the greatest is Fisher. He does not play against the opponent but he does play very good. He plays even better than Lasker.

<Vlastimil Hort:>
When I look at Alekhine's games it seems to me that I see life. His games are reflections of life and that's why he is the best.

<Aleksandar Matanovic:> Alekhine is the meaning of chess history and the best player of all time.

<Eduard Gufeld:>
That's Botvinnik, because he's been so long on the top level and he brings in chess some scientific elements. If chess is art and sport why do we measure only the sport element? I think that we have to measure both. That's why is Botvinnik the best.

<William Lombardi:>
The best is Lasker, because he was excellent psychologist, but most loved is Capablanca.

<Milan Matulovic:>
Alekhine, because he played the best and quality of his games still isn't reach over.

<Pal Benko:>
Lasker, because he played real fighting chess.

<Salomon Flohr:>
Alekhine, but why him, you will have to ask someone else.

<Lubomir Kavalek:>
Alekhine gave the most to the chess game. He is the best with no competition.

<Klaus Darga:>
Lasker, but I don't know why.

<Efim Geller:>
Botvinnik, because it is so hard to be genial in between such a great number of excelent players for so long.

<Bruno Parma:>
That is Mikhail Tal.

<Wolfgang Unzicker:> Probably have to be Lasker.

<Milko Bobocov:>
No one cross such a hard way as Boris Spassky. In Capablanca and Lasker times there wasn't so many great players.

<Jan Hein Donner:>
There is only one and he is Lasker.

<Petar Trifunovic:>
Wilhelm Steinitz gave the most to the chess game. The best tournament players was Alekhine and Lasker all in their own era. It is hard to compare war ships from different times.

<Alexey Suetin:>
Alekhine, because I like his great play.

<Vasily Smyslov:>
I learned chess on the games of Lasker, Capablanca and Alekhine that's why I vote for those three.

<Oscar Panno:>
Capablanca and Lasker from history and from present time Bronstein and Tal, because they can win all when they are in top form.

<David Bronstein:>
Because I answering on this question on Lasker's birth day I vote for him, but on other occasions I vote for Louis De la Bourdonnais because of beauty of his chess games.

Kasparov indeed has a number of claims, e.g. youngest world champ, long reign as top ACTIVE player, game quality, tournament domination. GM Keene also believes he was the most naturally talented in reply to my question on his forum.

One cant ignore Botvinnik. Tal got ill too much and I don't think we saw thest of him and Korchnoi kind of missed the boat -but is/was a great player.

Tarrasch vs Lasker, 1908 featured a pawn sacrifice that impressed Capablanca with its uniqueness and profundity, and hard to beat today. Capa was also impressed that Lasker, even aged 68, was the only one at Nottingham 1936 who realized that Alekhine had fallen into a very deep trap by winning the exchange against him (Capablanca vs Alekhine, 1936), while all the other masters were racking their brains over where Alekhine supposedly went wrong later.

Morphy
Staunton
Steinitz
Tarrasch
Tchigorin
Alekhine
Capablanca
Spassky
Tal
Reshevsky

Irving Chernev published the book Golden Dozen in 1974, in which he ranked his all-time top 12:

Of course the discussion is interesting.

I need to take another look at the "positonal" players -Karpov/Rubinstein/Capablanca/Botvinnik

Well yea but they were up against tougher opposition than Stenintz, weren't they?

Oh btw, Rubinstein never lost a single match he played (IIRC, he won them all except for one match against Salwe which was drawn). Just thought I would sneak in a little interesting fact about my fav player. ;)

Indeed, and it could be argued that the current top ten consists of the ten strongest players ever. :-)

I don't think Lasker dodged anyone. The only people I can think of that should have had matches with him and didn't are Rubinstein and possibly Pillsbury (although I do not believe that Pillsbury would have actually provided much of a challenge to Lasker).

There were serious negotiations underway for a Lasker-Rubinstein match, but sadly that got completely sidelined by WWI. Then after the War, Rubinstein had been surpassed (so to speak) by Capablanca.

Lasker didn't play any top three rated opponent if one goes by Chessmetrics, until he faced Capa in 1921 and lost 0-4. This was not a "normal" result between them, but at the same time Capablanca had wanted that match already ten years earlier, but Lasker demanded that he should keep the title also if he lost with a one-game margin and there was no match.

<1.Contribution to chess> e.g. Rubinstein, IMO, has contributed more to chess theory than any other player, ever.

<2.Longevity>
e.g. Lasker was dominant over the rest of the top players for 20+ years, although it is controversial dominance seeing as he never seemed to play the top players (or when he did they were past their prime).

I accept that a playoff can be a pain for players and organisers, although rather like the idea of 5:4 minutes to White, draw odds for Black.

Some will justify tiebreaks such as Sum of Opponents' Scores, on the grounds that some players meet stronger fields than others. But an obvious point is the players have no control of whom they play. And often there is a case of two very strong players drawing with each other and winning the rest. First. neither could have improved on 100% against the rest, so it’s unfair to penalise either for not meeting stronger players. Second, it’s likely that the tie would be broken because one 2200 played a 1400 player and the other a 1200 player in the first round, say. It’s very likely that the 1400 player will score much better than the 1200. But with all due respect to them, neither of them is likely to provide much opposition to either of the winners. So saying that the one who, by luck of the draw, played the 1400 player faced the ‘stronger’ field is largely meaningless.

Maybe sometimes the SOS will produce a semi-reasonable indication of a stronger field. But many times (I would estimate, most times), it will be decided by the silly scenario described -- it happened with the 1980 Olympiad, where Hungary and Russia tied and then waited for the result on one of the middle boards to decide the winner. Since there’s no way of predicting which one, it becomes a lottery of whether the SOS will be meaningful in a given tournament. Thus it would be better to expunge such systems.