| Who’s the greatest player of all time? | |
Rating should not be the lone consideration. Other criteria which should be taken into consideration include:
– How dominant is a particular player in his era
– Superior tournament results
– The rating gap between this player and the rest of the world’s best
– Benefits from computer technology, etc.
Note: Sorry, I accidentally omitted Tal’s name. You can vote “Someone else” for Tal.
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
Why Nakamura not on the list?
Carlsen’s rating is almost 2900. When he gets there Kasparov would have a 50% chance of beating him. Fischer would be DOG MEAT in a match. A patzer really, so would almost all the others Capablanca, Karpov, etc.
1. Fischer
2. Kasparov
3. Capablanca
4. Karpov
5. Morphy
The main measure of a player’s greatness is impact on chess – how his career helped lift the popularity of chess, inspired more people worldwide to learn and follow the game, gave his competitors the challenge to improve, and left an enduring legacy. Of course, dominance during HIS era is also important.
Given these, Fischer and Kasparov clearly deserve to be up there.
It is silly to compare players of different times on elo alone. Much deeper statistical tools are needed
(Bayesian models etc..). Note that the greatest does not mean the strongest. Botwinnik for his influence on the soviet chess school and his scientific approach to the game might have had the greatest historical impact…
Player strength across generations can never be compared. They learned their craft and played the game in very different conditions. If chess engines had been there from the start, for example, Morphy could have rated 2900 ahead of everyone.
Statistical methods are inconclusive. Ratings didn’t exist before 1970s and suffer from inflation.
Computer analaysis of correctness is flawed in many ways, not least of which is that some players deliberately head to complicated positions that make it hard to find the best move, whilst others head for simple positions that make it easier.
So that that leaves looking at the quality of the play through human eyes, albeit aided by comps. To properly judge that I think you need to be a strong GM AND spend a lot of time looking at a lot of games. Most people, me included (c. 2200) are not properly qualified to answer and most simply will not have put the hard work in to come to a sound conclusion. Even the GMs don’t agree.
One observation I would have though is that Alekhine often gets overlooked in these discussions. Strong in all phases of the game, creative, versatile in style. I’m not claiming he was the best but I think would have been a handful for anyone in a match and I find it easy to imagine him as world champ in any era.
‘It is silly to compare players of different times on elo alone.’
Couldn’t agree more. So why does everyone continue to compare?? Don’t we waste enough time without this?
Good marketing though. A patzer can say who was the best chess player of all time.
There are more strong tournaments and strong chess players today, so today’s chess players have better oportunities to gain higher elo rating. Elo ratings had inflated over the years. It is not accurate to compare elo ratings for players living in different era.