Greetings,

What a question!

Before giving my own answers(!), I must define both the word "greatest" and the criteria for deciding who is the "greatest".

If one simply looks at natural playing ability, independent of studying books as most players do, then the greatest player, in my view, is Capablanca. He only studied the endgame - the openings and middlegame play was acquired over-the-board. Not bad for someone who was "lazy" and relied purely on his talent!

If one could somehow bring all the players together without their "book-knowledge", I don't believe that there was - or is - anyone who could compete on his level.

If one looks at tournament/match results, then Karpov is surely the "greatest".

If one looks at dominance - well, that's a challenging choice between Fischer and Kasparian  

In this context, I mean the "intense will to win (crushingly!)".

The problem with Fischer is that, but for a mere handful (if that) of home-grown American players, in the US he was a shark in a minnows' pool. It's only in his stunning run of crushing victories against the Soviets in the Candidate Matches and his victory over Spasski (from a 0-2 deficit) that one sees what his potential ability to have had a long reign might have been.

It's difficult to say who might have won between him and Karpov - I think the latter would have been too mentally-strong and well-prepared to lose to Fischer. For his part, Fischer's "psychological warfare" leading up to the abortive match may have worked against himself more than Karpov.

As regards a match between Fischer and Kasparian at their respective best ... there'd have been "fire on" more than "the board"!  

In terms of creativity, the choice is between Tal and Kasparian.

In terms of longevity, then Lasker's your man - although that may seem to cheapen his accomplishment(s). I've always had a deep admiration for him - for both his academic achievements and his seeming ability to turn-around games with astonishing regularity. I've yet to read (or buy!) Soltis' recent book on him...I certainly would like to do so - unless someone's already read it and could tell me what was Lasker's secret??   

It was said that he played like a "black magician", his escapes were so numerous. Of the "Big Three" - Lasker, Capablanca and Alekhine - he seems to have been the only one to actively use psychology as a factor in his games.

For example, he often took advantage of Janowski's penchant for a particularly bad pawn structure along with the two bishops - by exchanging both his bishops for the knights on c3 and f3, resulting in the weak pawn-formation, c2, c3, d4, e4, f3, f2.

He would then win every game against Janowski with this setup - without the latter ever understanding how he managed to do it!

As an aside, the talk about Morphy dropping pieces/blundering...

I think that this was more a case of his losing interest in a game whilst having had to wait for his opponent's move. I take the fact that he moved quickly as an indication of the level of his mental faculties as regards chess.

Rather like a very bright child at school who becomes bored and (self-)destructive because the other children are taking so long to grasp what he's already grasped.

His experiences with other players might well have contributed to his early "retirement" - if only he could have played Capablanca and Karpov; players who moved at the same pace as him!

Kindest regards,

James

I won't be able to answer for some time now, so let me add the fact that Kasparov the Un-lazy himself, started to suffer from some blackouts approaching forty. That's only natural.

Typical are some games from the 2000 match and more recent blunders.
That doesn't mean he could not show his former self, but apart from a peak around 1999 powered by his optimal use of computers, Kasparov's best years were really 1989-93.

Sugartort wrote on 07/20/06 at 03:17:39:

Would hold true for Capablanca & Reshevsky. They somehow couldnt be really bothered to book up. Spassky after 69 seemed to have lost some drive & motivation to work.

At the same time doesnt hold true for natural geniuses like Fischer or GK. Those 2 worked their butts out.

But granted, Botvinnik was probably the most thorough & meticulous of the whole lot. But neither was he among the most naturally gifted of champs.

In my opinion, the old-fashioned view that the best years of a chessplayer lie around the age of 40 died irrevocably in the seventies.

There had been indications in the past that 20-something guys could play : after all, Lasker was Wch at 26, Capablanca at 25 was probably stronger than Lasker, Botvinnik at 24 finished ahead of these two in Moscow and was already multiple USSR champion...

But even when Tal became Wch at 24 and Candidates tournaments were starring teen Fischer, a "junior" was still considered something fragile, especially in the USSR. Trainers recommended that 20-year-olds should be honed in far from the merciless arena of "serious" tournaments.

It was precisely with Karpov's generation that everything changed. A whole army of ambitious 25-ers invaded the international scene, and began to monopolize the prizes. Karpov, Andersson, Miles, Ljubojevic, Timman, Vaganian, Romanishin were some of them.
Kasparov has explicitly said that this wild bunch made Fischer's contemporaries look very old.

It was exactly at that time that European Junior championships were created and World Junior championships started to be held on annual basis. From then on, it is acknowledged that 40-year-olds have problems keeping their focus and energy throughout long tournaments and matches.

Fanatical hard-workers over the board like Botvinnik and Korchnoi may not lose their momentum ; but Karpov, like I said, had get used in the eighties to win by doing nothing, calculating nothing, just move intuitively and the opponent would collapse.
Too much talent leads to laziness, and not being able to muster the whole of your former energy when it is really necessary.

I remember a story from game 1 of the 1985 match : Karpov avoided a critical continuation involving some precise calculation. Then a Grandmaster from Kasparov's team (I think) said "this is a bad sign for Karpov. In the seventies, he would have undoubtedly played the principled move."
Indeed, there is some consensus that Karpov's best years were 75-82, even if he remained mighty for a long time.

Great! I thought I was the only one to remember the period 1975-1984, when all the top players (except Larsen and Timman) aimed for a draw, when playing White against Karpov.
Yes, Karpov has the best tournament record of all time. A reporter once asked him his worst result of the last couple of years. Answer: 4th at the USSR championship ...

The best player of the twentieth century is Anatoly Karpov.
Suffice it to say he won more than 150 international tournaments in about 20 years. And the greatest tournaments they were : Las Palmas, Bugojno, Tilburg...

People forget that in his prime (75-82), he appeared to much people simply the most dominant World Champion that had ever been. They were saying, "his play is the antithesis of his physical aspect : he looks frail but his play is invincible".

His dominance cannot be correctly reflected in the ratings, because he did not try to put up +7 scores or win every game (though it was said he could win from any position). He was only interested in winning the TOURNAMENT, and was content with draws if they allowed him to clinch first place.

He was so much above everyone else that Grandmasters were feeling at a loss about what to play against him (hence e4 a6!). In fact all the Grandmasters of that period (Suba, Andersson for example...) have kept a religious respect for him.

But it became so easy that he gradually lost the need to give his best. Someone said (was it Dorfman?) "Karpov became lazy when he understood he could win equal positions". He would summon all his energy only intermittently and had then some blackouts, even in matches with Korchnoi and Kasparov.

Another eye-opener : at the time of his matches with Kasparov, one of the best players of our times, Karpov was approaching his forties, and Kasparov was in his prime.
The score between them is approximately equal.

In annual lists, Tal's best position was #2 in 1980.  His rating was 2705, second to Karpov's 2725.  Was there a brief moment in 1980 or 1981 when he passed Karpov, then dropped below again?

Ah. I did mean your comment, yes: sorry if I misunderstood it. I'm a bit surprised he was even number one on a published list. I suppose this was around 1981 or so - wasn't that when his second long unbeaten run took place? So presumably the first two to 2700 were Fischer and Karpov, were they?

Entertaining though being called 'IM Cox' is to the UK mind, by the way, I should go for 'John'.