"raylopez99" wrote in message
oups.com...

Means nothng. And the list presented does correlate very well with
ELO. Jeff Sonas' work found that Capa was #1 using ELO, and Kramnik
beat Kasparov and has a high Elo. Not the brightest bulb in the room,
are ya?

Here is some danger of abstracting, using statistical method.

Rather famously, and in his own words, Capablanca declared the sort of
modern chess technique with which Alekhine beat him entirely not to his
taste, and said if that [technical study method] was chess, you could keep
it!

Therefore, in terms of any posited engagement Capa : AnyModern IGM, Capa
would be at a substantial disadvantage, since he was not psychologically
able to engage modern chess, and actually directly said he wouldn't be
interested in acquiring 'the habit'.

Speaking again of players as if they were real, rather than virtual
entities, other players have also talked about what gets them juiced up -
that is, what fuels their own high performances in chess, and this has to do
with their specific 'chemistry' with their opponent.

What people who speak of ELO can forget is that ELO it is not /predictive/
in any specific case, and is an average over most cases, given sufficient
'X' exposure to a broad group of players.

So, not only are individual : individual encounters not predictable by ELO,
even as averaged result except perhaps if the differential is so great as to
be 250 points or more; time has evolved varieties of understanding of the
game which are also not fungible - that cannot be abstractly mixed and
matched.

Capa was #1 for quite other reasons. He was the best player of his time;
given approximately equal opportunity and resources as other strong players,
he was /psychologically/ capable of beating them all.

Phil Innes