there has been much debate as to who is the best chess player of all
time and it seems it almost always comes down to 2: bobby fischer and
gary kasparov. setting aside that debate for the moment (just
assuming that they are 1 and 2, you pick the order) who would you
consider next in line?

In this order:

Capablanca
Alekhine
Morphy
Steinitz

"PeteCasso" wrote in message .. .
"The ELO calculations are Jeff Sonas' ... Lasker's level of domination
did not reach that of Capablanca."

I have high regard for Mr. Sonas' work, but frankly I just don't see
that the record bears out this particular conclusion. Nor, it appears,
does Elo's graph on pages 88-89 of "The Rating of Chessplayers Past
and Present." The overall distance between Lasker's rating arc and
those of his most important contemporaries is noticeably greater, for
a longer period of time, than Capablanca's.

Taylor Kingston

"Ray Gordon" wrote in message
...
there has been much debate as to who is the best chess player of all
time and it seems it almost always comes down to 2: bobby fischer and
gary kasparov. setting aside that debate for the moment (just
assuming that they are 1 and 2, you pick the order) who would you
consider next in line?

In this order:

Capablanca
Alekhine
Morphy
Steinitz

Tal

In an interview with Mark Taimanov the player was asked about a certain aura
which 'Greats' possessed, and he said that Fischer & Kasparov had it,
Korchnoi had it sometimes, but Tal had it more than anyone. Phil

I might add that Lasker was world champion for 27 years, much longer than
even Kasparov, but Lasker had generally an even lower level of domination
over his contemporaries than Kasparov, except for a 3 year peak period, see
below.

Yes but Lasker should have lost to Schlecter in a match that favored
him in every way imaginable. This was a match that was made to give
Lasker every advantage and he barely won which has severly tarnished
his greatness. When you look at all the statistics and look at every
angle Capablanca was probably the greatest player ever. His one
weakness was living the nightlife. He was a partyman.

EZoto

..
When you look at all the statistics and look at every
angle Capablanca was probably the greatest player ever. His one
weakness was living the nightlife. He was a partyman.


*Statistics don't tell the whole story.*


For example, one graph may show that Capablanca outperformed all other
players over a certain period of time, but *who* chose the length of that
period, and *why* nine years, and not eight, or ten? How many games did Capa
actually play during that period, vs. the number played by others who may have
"underperformed" him? Who decided which hich games were included, and which
were not? Chessbase 2000 mega is NOT the end-all of chess databases, nor is it
without significant flaws.


Upon seeing such a ranking -- where Capablanca is (quite unusually) ranked
ahead of eveyone else -- it immediately occured to me that: 1) Capa defeated
Lasker in a match without suffering even a single loss, which makes for a
one-time massive rating gain for him, and a similar loss for Lasker. Such
"all-or-nothing" matches can distort the true picture of relative strength; 2)
Capa was barely active for several years, which "helped" him achieve nototriety
for "having lost only one game in eight years," or whatever it was. 3) It was
*Lasker's* own inactivity which "helped" Capablanca to achieve such amazing
results, before he finally lost a match the Alekhine. And Alekhine's refusal
to play Capa another match may have had a significant effect -- either way --
as well.



In sum, you need to look at more than just statistics to get the whole
picture.

Especially when those stats are derived from calculations based upon anything
other than a perfect knowledge of every result of every game ever played -- and
even here, there is the problem of determining which games were "serious"
contests, and which merely skittles.

I am pretty much unread on chess history, and I do believe that Mr.
A.J. Goldsby I's tries to make his websites more sensational than
distinguished, but still I find very interesting these two
observations of his at:

http://www.geocities.com/lifemasteraj/bestplay.html


QUOTE
Elo stated on his excellent book, The Rating's of Chess Players, Past
and Present, that the ONLY way to judge a player was by the standards
of THAT generation. (See section 5.13 on page # 81.)
UNQUOTE

....and

QUOTE
One other thought: While I am on the subject, guess
what happens if you take today's ratings, {April, 2001.}; and play the
"Substitution Game?" ??
(Take Morphy, and give him Kasparov's rating. Take Anderssen and give
him Kramnik's rating. Take Harrwitz and give him Anand's rating. Take
.... well, by now you should get the general idea.)
This does NOT account for inflation, but if Garry Kasparov dominated
his generation the way Morphy did his, Garry would be rated close to
or OVER 3000 ELO!!!! This means that a good comparison for Paul
Morphy would be his ELO rating would be much higher than Fischer's
or even Garry Kasparov's. A little bit of a 'tweaker,' isn't it?
UNQUOTE

I don't know how much evidence we have that Morphy did indeed pass the
Bar exam with perfect score, at the same time memorizing the entire
Louisianna civil code. But still: If all the champions were reborn and
were given a year's time to study modern chess, and then all were
placed on the books in Las Vegas at pick 'em odds... then I would take
a flyer on Morphy.

Once again, I really am not qualified to have an opinion, so I would
be strictly guessing to wager on P.M. like that.

W.H. King

If he was sober at the time..I'd have to say Alekhine.

In sum, you need to look at more than just statistics to get the whole
picture.

Especially when those stats are derived from calculations based upon anything
other than a perfect knowledge of every result of every game ever played -- and
even here, there is the problem of determining which games were "serious"
contests, and which merely skittles.


Well if that's the case no one totally dominated with extraordinary
force like Paul Morphy. Morphy just obliterated everyone in his path
in his time. I suppose he would be the greatest player ever if we are
going that route.

EZoto

..
I don't know how much evidence we have that Morphy did indeed pass the
Bar exam with perfect score, at the same time memorizing the entire
Louisianna civil code.


This sounds like a gross exaggeration to me: where is the "proof"? Any fool
can *say* that somebody did something -- and very often they do! Heck, at the
age of two years, I was already giving pawn-and-move to my famous Uncle,
Nomorechess I (a master of wide renown). At three, I "solved" the game of
checkers, and became Whist champion of Timbuckto and greater Siberia.


But still: If all the champions were reborn and
were given a year's time to study modern chess, and then all were
placed on the books in Las Vegas at pick 'em odds... then I would take
a flyer on Morphy.


And you would likely lose your money, since one year just isn't enough time
for a genius to get up to speed, and compete on even terms.




Once again, I really am not qualified to have an opinion,


Anyone can have an opinion -- there is no qualification for that. But you
might want to note that it is relatively easy to find factual errors on the
website to which you referred. One super-easy to spot blunder is where he
stated that, apart from Anderssen, there was nobody anywhere near Morphy's
class -- completely overlooking the great Baron von der Lasa. What a clutz.
Many other such statements are made without real support. Beware the misuse of
statistics.


"There are lies. Damn lies. And statistics."
-- S.L.C.

I have to severely question here what is meant by "strength" if Morphy can
be tossed out there. I wonder if Morphy could even compete against a modern
2500 player and manage to survive the opening. The answer is,
realistically, probably not.
But if you say, "well give him time to study and book up and all that", well
then, the greatest chessplayer of all time might potentially have been a
goatherder in central Africa who never even heard of chess.



"Matt Nemmers" wrote in message
news:r4EFc.3146$JR4.3060@attbi_s54...
"Kim" wrote in message
m...
there has been much debate as to who is the best chess player of all
time and it seems it almost always comes down to 2: bobby fischer and
gary kasparov. setting aside that debate for the moment (just
assuming that they are 1 and 2, you pick the order) who would you
consider next in line?

Even the top two are open to speculation, though one can hardly argue with
you two choices.

Assuming those two are at the top of the wallchart, I'd have to say that
Morphy and Capablanca would certainly give them a run for their money.

Regards,

Matt