I'm reminded of Christof Sielecki opining some years ago (during banter blitz; see link) that Kasparov is the greatest player, although Carlsen is almost certainly better in terms of "pure quality of moves."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uP7gexEJm4Q&t=5358s

(I miss Sielecki's weekly banter blitz/Geschwätzblitz. That is, he would do a "show" in one language and then one in the other. I recall him making a gesture of something like turning a switch on his head in order to effect the change.)

Anand has also said Fischer so I guess thats it, we could do another one to include Carlsen but even he says he has not got near Kasparov

There's a typically boring way to explain why Fischer has the most votes.  Any pollster will tell you that the first named option gets more votes than any others, all things being equal.

There was the comment that there are a large number of Americans (meaning from the United States, I presume) here.  I'm an American, but most of the people I chat with seem to be European.  I started two football threads at close to the same time.  The English football thread flourished while the American football thread floundered.  It's not absolute evidence, but I suggest there may be a link between Euro-centricism and football here.

Having said all that, I agree with Markovich.  Fischer was indeed great, but to place him ahead of Kasparov reeks of a false nostalgia.

Regarding GM Spraggett's comments on Fischer's openings:

Fischer didn't invent openings, but he did recreate them in his own image.  This is more than just a matter of style, but of preparation and move order.  While there may not be an official "Fischer Variation", anyone who plays the Najdorf, Exchange Spanish, Main-line Spanish, or any of the dozen or so openings that Fischer played has to know how Fischer handled the positions and how to refute some of his ideas.

I have stated many times that I am not a fan of Fischer, but his chess games were brilliant works of art.  His style was most often seen in the late middlegame, but he was a complete player along the lines of Rubinstein, Karpov and Kasparov.

I'll also comment on GM Spragget's mention of Rubinstein's performance.  We all know that statistics lie.  To look up a player's total tournament performance and come to the conclusion that he wasn't as good as another player isn't fair.  Emmanuel Lasker is a classic case in point.  He played well when he had to (except in the match against Capa).  Many great players played to the level of their competition but rose to certain challenges.  Smyslov was one such player in the 1950s.

Rubinstein won many great tournaments.  He also had many mundane performances.  A check of his life-time statistics, or Schlechter's, would suggest they were both mediocre players.  Yet GrandMasters, artists in their own right, consider these two players very highly.  Perhaps just a check of life-time statistics isn't a good enough measure of greatness.

Quote:


I am just preparing myself for my old age, when I can't calculate properly any more (!), as then I will just play these 'Centaur' tournaments, and hope that my positional judgement will ideally compliment the computer's tactical foresight!
Actually, I find these things quite good fun, and need completely different thought processes to a normal game - you can't hope that your opponent will miss a mate in five!

Quote:


I dont think I can really agree when Spraggett said that. Fischer & GK had quite a few openings in common as both played for tension, open lines & counter-play. Tho admittedly GK has a far wider range of openings . But the real similarities are both played primarily the Lopez as white, KID's & Grunfelds against 1.d4 & the Najdorf against 1.e4.

What wld hv been more correct to say was Fischer had his own style. GK had a much sharper & more dynamic style of the 2. Fischer's was more an aggressive version of Capablanca.

I think a couple of Anand's comments are interesting from 2005

"Garry Kasparov has retired from the game."  (Was that actually a question?)

"He seems to have had his reasons or political ambition, as he has mentioned. He is clearly in the league of the all-time greats, like Bobby Fischer.", Anand.

"Do you think he is the greatest chess player ever?"

"He has a phenomenal record, though comparisons between players of different generations are meaningless.", Anand.

So Anand doesn't really answer the question and thinks our discussion here is meaningless.  Really he's probably right, but it is interesting.  

It would be enlightnening if Spragget would explain the Rubinstein tournament record statement.  I don't get that one either right now.

I find some of Spraggett's comments curious.  In comparing Spassky to Kasparov (despite the problematic nature of comparing ratings from different points in time), you're comparing a sub-2700 player to an over-2800 player; e.g., their peak ratings were more than 150 points apart.  Also I don't know what "Fischer had his own openings" means.