10 Apr 07
Originally posted by stockton1984Forget the ELO rating system as the equivalent of the gold standard to provide this answer. First, this system is constantly fluctuating due to the various adjustments/corrections to the algorithim, which is reflected in the slow inflation of the ELO Ratings since it's introduction.
Ok forgive me I imagine this has been debated countless times and obviously there'e really no way to tell but I'm just curious who gets the most votes from here.
I'm not exactly a scholar of players. I know the most famous ones (Fischer, Kasparov, Karpov, Capablanca, Morphy, Kramnik, etc.) but I'm sure there are a plethora of 17th-19th century guys I've never heard of who are worth mentioning.
I mean if ELO is the tool used for this answer the computers/software Shredder 10 or Deep Fritz 10 statistically would be the answer with ratings of around 3000.
I think the question that needs to be asked is who were the innovators that broke new ground in the evolution of the game. The geniuses that had games that were so original, brilliant and creative that it compares to a sculpture by Michaelangelo, a painting by Da Vince or Monet, the architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright, or even the evolution of music that The Beatles were responsible for.
Bobby Fischer (regardless of his erratic behavior and unpopular social and political views that are unrelated to chess) was one of these rare and great innovators and with a chess board created original masterpieces of art. He did not just win games and crush his opponents, but can partially be credited with the evolution of the game. His original, fresh insights and the successful use of variations that had been disregarded and abandoned in tournament play long ago, was the equivalent of weaving straw into gold. He made unsound lines and variations sound again!!! If you study some of the games he played against Spassky in Iceland it is almost awe inspiring. He was nothing like a computer that simply wins in non spectacular fashion or brute force, very similar to the play of many current GMs.
Sadly, many GMs today are not capable of original thought, they simply reap the rewards of recreating the innovator's original thought and the artist's masterpieces.
Many GM's today are impressive, very expensive, copy machines, that will sort, collate and even utilize color. However, they should never be confused with the master-artist that created the original. Ask them to make a copy of the Mona Lisa and they do an amazing job, but ask them to paint the Mona Lisa without the use of their paint-by-numbers book and premixed paint and it is well beyond them.
Morphy was also among the elite GMs. His time in the spotlight was very brief, but his games are masterpieces that speak for themselves. Unfortunately, he suffered from a complete vacuum of competition at the time and so his masterpieces are fewer.
Of course, there are many others, but the method used to present your argument should avoid discussion of ELO ratings or how many GMs ever had (even briefly) an ELO of over 2800 (the answer is 3 by the way).
Rather focus on "The Gods" or "Creators", not the shiney, super modern, expensive copy machines. Don't let all their "bells and whistles" fool you, they can only create what is fed to them. You will never see a Xerox copy machine, no matter how expensive or new it is, spontaneously spit out an original piece of art suitable for framing...
10 Apr 07
Originally posted by The Dogs Of SomerSo throw out the measure by which we judge skill at chess, and introduce instead an arbitrary system that involves evaluating the aesthetics of particular games? Ridiculous. You say Bobby Fischer "didn't just win games and crush his opponents" but he did. The point of playing chess, in the end, is to win. If it was about some aesthetic ideal, we would all just be placing pieces and pawns in pretty patterns regardless of whether it advanced the game or not. Unsound lines cannot be made sound again - lines which appear to be unsound can be proven sound, and this only speaks to one's ability to see what and how far ahead the great players are thinking. All knowledge is built on the backs of those who came before, there is no shame in knowing what has already been proven and using it to your advantage - to say that modern GM's are only Xerox machines is condescending and inaccurate. To wrap it up, the only measure we have to "prove" a player's skill is his rating. The only question is "who can this person win against, and who can win against him."
Forget the ELO rating system as the equivalent of the gold standard to provide this answer. First, this system is constantly fluctuating due to the various adjustments/corrections to the algorithim, which is reflected in the slow inflation of the ELO Ratings since it's introduction.
I mean if ELO is the tool used for this answer the computers/s ...[text shortened]... or new it is, spontaneously spit out an original piece of art suitable for framing...
10 Apr 07
Originally posted by The Dogs Of SomerThis is the most interesting post in this thread. I agree that to compare Kasparov to say Lasker, or even Capablanca, is somewhat nonsensical. Kasparov is the greatest player that ever lived - few can dispute this. Not because of rating (this is an irrelevant comparison) but because of the frequency and level at which he played.
Forget the ELO rating system as the equivalent of the gold standard to provide this answer. First, this system is constantly fluctuating due to the various adjustments/corrections to the algorithim, which is reflected in the slow inflation of the ELO Ratings since it's introduction.
I mean if ELO is the tool used for this answer the computers/s ...[text shortened]... or new it is, spontaneously spit out an original piece of art suitable for framing...
What puts Kasparov first is that he was so much more active than the majority of his predecessors (Lasker was World Champion for over a quarter of a century BUT played very infrequently and often ducked the toughest opposition). Kasparov entered ONLY the very strongest tournaments and routinely won them. Only Karpov could challenge him between 1985 and 2000 when he lost to Kramnik and Karpov would be in my top 5 as well.
However like the last post articulately discusses, chess is more of a science today and so Kasparov is adding to and building on the lifetime works of more inspirational players like Capablanca, Lasker, Morphy, Alekhine et al. Bring any of them back from the dead into todays world and they may have been better - who knows.
But it is this very fact that makes Kasparov number 1. He has been at the top during the past 20 years, when the quality of the overall competition globally has been at its highest, and competitions at their most competitive. Despite a string of hugely talented contenders, he has beaten them all.
10 Apr 07
Originally posted by st00p1dfac3But the problem with a rating is that it is defined by your opposition.
So throw out the measure by which we judge skill at chess, and introduce instead an arbitrary system that involves evaluating the aesthetics of particular games? Ridiculous. You say Bobby Fischer "didn't just win games and crush his opponents" but he did. The point of playing chess, in the end, is to win. If it was about some aesthetic ideal, we woul ...[text shortened]... The only question is "who can this person win against, and who can win against him."
So it only gives you a standard in comparison to those you have played - not a standard that tells one your strength, style or frequency of moves.
I am rated 1629. I could beat two players rated 2200 and rise to 1700, then only play opponents rated 1000 for the rest of my career and hold this rating. What does that tell you, the outside observer about my standard? Not a lot.
I use a ridiculous example to illustrate a sound argument. My point was that Kasparov played so often against such high quality opposition, that he proved his status again and again, whereas Lasker (nominated by more than one poster) singularly failed to have his rating / status challenged in the same way. This is rather like a heavyweight beltholder who wont fight, or will only fight dead certs.
I think the crux of the argument is that rating is a useful barometer of standard, but at the highest level in particular it is the frequency and standard of challenger that defines a players greatness. However great Capablanca (for example) was, the standard of global opposition was not a patch on what Kasparov faces now. Capablanca pretty much gave up in the end saying chess was boring as it was too easy to win. I trust that Kasparov will never be able to say the same.
10 Apr 07
2 edits
Originally posted by PolicestateTrue, and I do understand the point that was being made. My point, more simply, is this - You can't measure anything without a tool (distance/ruler, time/clock, temperature/thermometer, etc.) for doing so. To be scientific about who is/was the "best" chess player, you need a measure, and the currently agreed upon measure is/are the ratings system/s. Whether you use FIDE or ELO or whatever, it gives a good indication of a player's ability. We use this measure everyday on this site for our open invites, for the tournaments, etc. It is a system that people have faith in until the question of the "best" comes along and then people claim it is an invalid measure for players who have achieved the top levels. I would gladly say that whoever has the highest rating here, is the best player on this site, and few would disagree with me.
But the problem with a rating is that it is defined by your opposition.
So it only gives you a standard in comparison to those you have played - not a standard that tells one your strength, style or frequency of moves.
I am rated 1629. I could beat two players rated 2200 and rise to 1700, then only play opponents rated 1000 for the rest of my career a ...[text shortened]... was boring as it was too easy to win. I trust that Kasparov will never be able to say the same.
As to Capablanca saying it's too easy to win, anyone could say this and walk away from anything. It doesn't prove anything.
10 Apr 07
Originally posted by st00p1dfac3But that is the whole point
True, and I do understand the point that was being made. My point, more simply, is this - You can't measure anything without a tool (distance/ruler, time/clock, temperature/thermometer, etc.) for doing so. To be scientific about who is/was the "best" chess player, you need a measure, and the currently agreed upon measure is/are the ratings system/s. W ...[text shortened]... y to win, anyone could say this and walk away from anything. It doesn't prove anything.
YES ratings do say 'who's best' at any given snapshot in time. This is because Akizy (for example) has shown himself to the best over time against the current competition on this site.
But what if there had been a Red Hot Pawn site in 1800? If the player at the top had a rating of 200 points lower than Akizy, would it mean he was a lesser player?
We would never know. The 1800 champion was the best against the competition of the day, but if the standard of opposition wasn't great, he would never get the chance to improve his rating. Equally the standard could have been far higher then, not allowing one player to accumilate sufficient rating points to Akizy in todays era.
Ratings assess current players in the context of the current pool of opponents, they are meaningless at comparing players of different eras.
They say nothing about whether Kasparov was/is the best player of all time. That will forever remain a subjective argument.
10 Apr 07
Originally posted by PolicestateOnce again, you've made an excellent point. However, if the masters of today have studied the masters that came before them, and they those came before, etc. Then the masters of today have a greater knowledge of the game. If you took one of the past masters and timewarped him to the present, and sat him down at a table against Kasparov, would he win? Obviously I don't know for sure, but I'd say that Kasparov would have pretty good odds. The fact that Kasparov had more competition does mean he had the opportunity to get a higher rating, but it also means he had more opportunity to lose the rating as well.
But that is the whole point
YES ratings do say 'who's best' at any given snapshot in time. This is because Akizy (for example) has shown himself to the best over time against the current competition on this site.
But what if there had been a Red Hot Pawn site in 1800? If the player at the top had a rating of 200 points lower than Akizy, would it mean h ...[text shortened]... Kasparov was/is the best player of all time. That will forever remain a subjective argument.
Ahh...forget it. You're right of course, I'm now just doing the annoying defend a point for the sake of it. However, you being right does make this an unanswerable question because everyone is going to have different unquantifiable reasons for why their candidate is the best. So, my vote stands - Kasparov, and yes, it is based off of his rating. 😀
10 Apr 07
Originally posted by Falco LombardiI find that hard to believe. Frits resigned in about five or so moves when I had queen odds. A player would have to be a beginner or poor player to lose with Queen odds.
I say it was Capablanca. When he was just 5 years old, he dominated the chess club and no one could beat him, even when Capa spotted them a queen.
10 Apr 07
Originally posted by st00p1dfac3And I vote for Kasparov too, based on the 'best opponents, most games, and highest standard of tournament' theory.
Once again, you've made an excellent point. However, if the masters of today have studied the masters that came before them, and they those came before, etc. Then the masters of today have a greater knowledge of the game. If you took one of the past masters and timewarped him to the present, and sat him down at a table against Kasparov, would he win? ...[text shortened]... te is the best. So, my vote stands - Kasparov, and yes, it is based off of his rating. 😀
I think we now agree, and I certainly subscribe to your theory that it is 'likely' that current World Champions would outshine past World Champions, based on our cumulative knowledge theory. Kasparov has Capablancas talent, with a century's extra chess progression under his belt. Capablanca may have been more natural in his genius, but I don't suppose that makes Kasparov any less of a player.
Entwined in this argument is a point to undermine those who nominate Capablanca, Lasker, Morphy and so on based on their dominating style. All had a tendency to win with quite brilliant genius, but again - was this only possible due to the naievity of their opponents and the infancy of chess development globally? Would Kasparov not match their groundbreaking genius were it not for the standard of the opposition in the last 20 years? After all 12 move sacrificial combinations are hard to come by against the likes of Karpov!
10 Apr 07
Originally posted by onyx2006Me too.
maybe not 'the' best chess player ever, but I think Anand deserves a mention. I love his games.
He is a 'would be World Champion were it not for the others' candidate....
As Karpov would tell you sometimes your potential can be forever retarded by someone just a little better.
Bit like me on this site. If only it weren't for the 2700 people better than me.... 🙂