Who do you consider the greatest chess player in history (GOAT): Kasparov, Carlsen, Fischer or Capab

0. the magician from riga
1. kasparov
2. karpov
3. fischer
   I dont know many, but, i like Tal's sacrificing style ^^

"Carlsen only no.1 for 16 years vs Kasparov 20 years"

• If that is a criterion, then Lasker was World Champion from 1894 to 1921, i.e. 27 years.
  He won the title from Steinitz in 1894 and defended it 5 times against Steinitz, Tarrasch, Marshall, Schlechter, Janovski, before he lost to Capablanca in 1921.

@tpr said in #52:

"Carlsen only no.1 for 16 years vs Kasparov 20 years"

• If that is a criterion, then Lasker was World Champion from 1894 to 1921, i.e. 27 years.
  He won the title from Steinitz in 1894 and defended it 5 times against Steinitz, Tarrasch, Marshall, Schlechter, Janovski, before he lost to Capablanca in 1921.

There was rather a large gap between Janovski (1910) and Capablanca (1921). Perhaps, an established challenger system (and an absence of great-war-interruption) would have obliged Lasker to play Rubinstein and Capablanca well before 1921. By the way, if I remember correctly, Lasker and Capablanca agreed that Capablanca had become champion in 1920 and Lasker was the challenger in 1921.
This discussion struck an iceberg about an hour ago.

"an established challenger system"

• The present system to designate candidates looks no better: look who plays and who does not play.

"play Rubinstein and Capablanca well before 1921"

• Rubinstein could not raise the money. There was a quarrel between Lasker and Capablanca starting 1911: Lasker was willing to play Capablanca, but not in Havanna because of the climate. A few months later Lasker drew up 17 terms, of which Capablanca found 6 satisfactory and he wrote so. This infuriated Lasker and they did not speak to each other. Mrs. Lasker reconciled both at the closing ceremony of St. Petersburg 1914. Then war broke out.

"Lasker and Capablanca agreed that Capablanca had become champion in 1920"

• In 1920 they agreed on terms, but the chess world found them favorable to Lasker. Lasker then resigned his title. Neither the chess world, nor Capablanca could accept that.

@tpr said ^

"Carlsen only no.1 for 16 years vs Kasparov 20 years"

• If that is a criterion, then Lasker was World Champion from 1894 to 1921, i.e. 27 years.
  He won the title from Steinitz in 1894 and defended it 5 times against Steinitz, Tarrasch, Marshall, Schlechter, Janovski, before he lost to Capablanca in 1921.

After reading your comment I don't know why Lasker is forgotten. I mean you remind me of it and now I don't know why no one talks about Lasker.

@crusader5 said ^

Fischer, obviously. His play wasn't the most accurate, he wasn't the most brilliant, he didn't have great stamina, he just dominated in a way that noone ever came close to doing.

For 2 years he dominated. I mean Fischer great but it was only 2 years. What about Kasparov for 20? Kasparov wasn't as far ahead in Elo like Fischer was compared to Spassky, but that was cos of Karpov. Kasparov even made the point that if you ignore Karpov that he [Kasparov] almost reached Fischer's 125 point gap over Spassky.

@tpr said in #52:

... Lasker was World Champion from 1894 to 1921, i.e. 27 years.
He won the title from Steinitz in 1894 and defended it 5 times against Steinitz, Tarrasch, Marshall, Schlechter, Janovski, before he lost to Capablanca in 1921.

@kindaspongey said in #53:

... There was rather a large gap between Janovski (1910) and Capablanca (1921). Perhaps, an established challenger system (and an absence of great-war-interruption) would have obliged Lasker to play Rubinstein and Capablanca well before 1921. By the way, if I remember correctly, Lasker and Capablanca agreed that Capablanca had become champion in 1920 and Lasker was the challenger in 1921. ...

@tpr said in #54:

... The present system to designate candidates looks no better: look who plays and who does not play. ...
... Rubinstein could not raise the money.

From 1951 to 1990, a challenger did not need to be concerned with raising money or a world war disrupting chess activities.

@tpr said in #54:

There was a quarrel between Lasker and Capablanca starting 1911: Lasker was willing to play Capablanca, but not in Havanna because of the climate. A few months later Lasker drew up 17 terms, of which Capablanca found 6 satisfactory and he wrote so. This infuriated Lasker and they did not speak to each other. ...

Perhaps, it should be mentioned that Capablanca objected to the Lasker proposed requirement that Lasker would retain his title unless Capablanca finished at least two points ahead of Lasker.
The iceberg collision was now ~3 hours ago.

Capablanca insisted on playing in Havanna, as his money sponsors were there, and Lasker rejected that because of the climate.

SHould'nt the answer be Magnus if he has the most ELO?

@RuyLopez1000 said ^

Fischer, obviously. His play wasn't the most accurate, he wasn't the most brilliant, he didn't have great stamina, he just dominated in a way that noone ever came close to doing.

For 2 years he dominated. I mean Fischer great but it was only 2 years. What about Kasparov for 20? Kasparov wasn't as far ahead in Elo like Fischer was compared to Spassky, but that was cos of Karpov. Kasparov even made the point that if you ignore Karpov that he [Kasparov] almost reached Fischer's 125 point gap over Spassky.

But if you ignore Spassky, Fischer was like 200-300 over his closest peers. He defeated Taimanov 6-0, then Larsen 6-0, which is simply unthinkable, and then beat Petrosian 6.5-2.5, and he was sick during those games too.