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?

hmm, karpov

regards,
byrne

Uzytkownik "Kim" napisal w wiadomosci
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?

"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

Jeff Sonas, an expert on ELO ratings, runs the Chess Metrics web site
http://www.chessmetrics.com/ where, among other things, he calculates ELO
ratings retroactively back to the earliest days of modern chess. He
publishes listings of all-time top 500 players for peak periods of 1 year, 3
years, 5 years, 9 years and 15 years. Here are the top three of the lists,
the number on the right are the ratings (Jeff Sonas has additionally
published the year which I omitted, there is a tremendous amount of detail
to be found on Jeff's web site)

1 year peak period:
1. Capablanca 2921
2. Fischer 2914
3. Kasparov 2895

3 year peak period:
1. Capablance 2903
2. Fischer 2902
3. Lasker 2877
Kasparov is #4 with 2873

5 year peak period:
1. Capablanca 2898
2. Fischer 2892
3. Kasparov 2869

9 year peak period:
1. Capablanca 2877
2. Kasparov 2866
3. Fischer 2846

15 year peak period:
1. Kasparov 2853
2. Capablanca 2841
3. Fischer 2794

Capablanca dominated for about decade and has achieved the greatest
domination over his contemporaries, i.e. the highest ELO rating ever.
Fischer came close to that level of domination, but did not quite reach it
in the half decade when he did dominate. Kasparov has achieved an even
(slightly) lower level of domination than Fischer, but Kasparov has
maintained his domination for a much longer period of time than even
Capablanca. Kasparov has had the highest ELO rating since 19 years now, i.e.
since 1985 (except for a short period in 1988 when Karpov had a slightly
higher rating).


"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?

I'd go for Capablanca


"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?

Capablanca dominated for about decade and has achieved the greatest
domination over his contemporaries, i.e. the highest ELO rating ever.
Fischer came close to that level of domination, but did not quite reach it
in the half decade when he did dominate. Kasparov has achieved an even
(slightly) lower level of domination than Fischer, but Kasparov has
maintained his domination for a much longer period of time than even
Capablanca. Kasparov has had the highest ELO rating since 19 years now,
i.e.
since 1985 (except for a short period in 1988 when Karpov had a slightly
higher rating).

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.

In terms of longevity, Steinitz was close or even superior to Lasker.
Officially, Steinitz reign was only 8 years, beginning when he defeated
Zukertort. But some chess historians regard his reign to begin 20 years
earlier when he defeated Anderssen, so that his reign totals 28 years.
However, the level of domination that Steinitz achieved over his
contemporaries is even (slightly) lower than that of Lasker.


"PeteCasso" wrote in message
...
Jeff Sonas, an expert on ELO ratings, runs the Chess Metrics web site
http://www.chessmetrics.com/ where, among other things, he calculates ELO
ratings retroactively back to the earliest days of modern chess. He
publishes listings of all-time top 500 players for peak periods of 1 year,
3
years, 5 years, 9 years and 15 years. Here are the top three of the lists,
the number on the right are the ratings (Jeff Sonas has additionally
published the year which I omitted, there is a tremendous amount of detail
to be found on Jeff's web site)

1 year peak period:
1. Capablanca 2921
2. Fischer 2914
3. Kasparov 2895

3 year peak period:
1. Capablance 2903
2. Fischer 2902
3. Lasker 2877
Kasparov is #4 with 2873

5 year peak period:
1. Capablanca 2898
2. Fischer 2892
3. Kasparov 2869

9 year peak period:
1. Capablanca 2877
2. Kasparov 2866
3. Fischer 2846

15 year peak period:
1. Kasparov 2853
2. Capablanca 2841
3. Fischer 2794

Capablanca dominated for about decade and has achieved the greatest
domination over his contemporaries, i.e. the highest ELO rating ever.
Fischer came close to that level of domination, but did not quite reach it
in the half decade when he did dominate. Kasparov has achieved an even
(slightly) lower level of domination than Fischer, but Kasparov has
maintained his domination for a much longer period of time than even
Capablanca. Kasparov has had the highest ELO rating since 19 years now,
i.e.
since 1985 (except for a short period in 1988 when Karpov had a slightly
higher rating).


"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?

"PeteCasso" wrote in message
...
Jeff Sonas, an expert on ELO ratings, runs the Chess Metrics web site
http://www.chessmetrics.com/ where, among other things, he calculates ELO
ratings retroactively back to the earliest days of modern chess. He
publishes listings of all-time top 500 players for peak periods of 1 year,
3
years, 5 years, 9 years and 15 years. Here are the top three of the lists,
the number on the right are the ratings (Jeff Sonas has additionally
published the year which I omitted, there is a tremendous amount of detail
to be found on Jeff's web site)

1 year peak period:
1. Capablanca 2921
2. Fischer 2914
3. Kasparov 2895

3 year peak period:
1. Capablance 2903
2. Fischer 2902
3. Lasker 2877
Kasparov is #4 with 2873

5 year peak period:
1. Capablanca 2898
2. Fischer 2892
3. Kasparov 2869

9 year peak period:
1. Capablanca 2877
2. Kasparov 2866
3. Fischer 2846

15 year peak period:
1. Kasparov 2853
2. Capablanca 2841
3. Fischer 2794

Capablanca dominated for about decade and has achieved the greatest
domination over his contemporaries, i.e. the highest ELO rating ever.
Fischer came close to that level of domination, but did not quite reach it
in the half decade when he did dominate. Kasparov has achieved an even
(slightly) lower level of domination than Fischer, but Kasparov has
maintained his domination for a much longer period of time than even
Capablanca. Kasparov has had the highest ELO rating since 19 years now,
i.e.
since 1985 (except for a short period in 1988 when Karpov had a slightly
higher rating).

These are fascinating and I think they should be the bases on which future
argument is based!
Can I assume that when Lasker is not 3rd he is 4th?
Alan

"PeteCasso" wrote in message m:

"Capablanca dominated for about decade and has achieved the greatest
domination over his contemporaries, i.e. the highest ELO rating ever
.... 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."

I'm not sure whether the above is Mr. Casso's opinion, or his
summary of Mr. Sonas'. Either way one can argue strongly that,
compared to Capablanca, Lasker showed greater dominance over his
contemporaries, over Capablanca in particular. During Lasker's reign
as world champion, 1894-1921, he played in 10 major tournaments,
taking 7 clear firsts, one shared first, one shared second, and one
third. In some of these, e.g. Paris 1899 which he won by 4½ points, he
was "more than first," in Reuben Fine's phrase. He also won 8 of 10
matches, the others being drawn (Janowski, 1909, and Schlechter,
1910).
Capablanca in 5 major tournaments as champion (1921-1927) had 3
clear firsts, one second and one third, a slightly less impressive
record, or at least no better. Also, he played no matches as champion
until losing the title in 1927. Most strikingly, of the 5 tournaments
in which they both took part (St. Petersburg 1914, New York 1924,
Moscow 1925, Moscow 1935, Nottingham 1936), Lasker finished ahead of
Capablanca in all but the last, when he was pushing 70.
Depending on one's assumptions and criteria, one can make a case for
putting any of about two dozen players in the all-time Top 10, and
rank them any number of ways. By any standard, though, Lasker's record
speaks for itself. Some say he's #6, some say #3, some say even #1.

Taylor Kingston

I'm not sure I wouldn't put Capablanca #1

The ELO calculations are Jeff Sonas', the comments are mine.

Comparing Lasker and Capablanca, their performances are captured in the ELO
calculations. Basically, Lasker dominated for almost 3 decades, about three
times longer than Capablanca did. However, Lasker's level of domination did
not reach that of Capablanca. See also my earlier, parallel post on Lasker
and Steinitz.


"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
om...
"PeteCasso" wrote in message
m:

"Capablanca dominated for about decade and has achieved the greatest
domination over his contemporaries, i.e. the highest ELO rating ever
... 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."

I'm not sure whether the above is Mr. Casso's opinion, or his
summary of Mr. Sonas'. Either way one can argue strongly that,
compared to Capablanca, Lasker showed greater dominance over his
contemporaries, over Capablanca in particular. During Lasker's reign
as world champion, 1894-1921, he played in 10 major tournaments,
taking 7 clear firsts, one shared first, one shared second, and one
third. In some of these, e.g. Paris 1899 which he won by 4½ points, he
was "more than first," in Reuben Fine's phrase. He also won 8 of 10
matches, the others being drawn (Janowski, 1909, and Schlechter,
1910).
Capablanca in 5 major tournaments as champion (1921-1927) had 3
clear firsts, one second and one third, a slightly less impressive
record, or at least no better. Also, he played no matches as champion
until losing the title in 1927. Most strikingly, of the 5 tournaments
in which they both took part (St. Petersburg 1914, New York 1924,
Moscow 1925, Moscow 1935, Nottingham 1936), Lasker finished ahead of
Capablanca in all but the last, when he was pushing 70.
Depending on one's assumptions and criteria, one can make a case for
putting any of about two dozen players in the all-time Top 10, and
rank them any number of ways. By any standard, though, Lasker's record
speaks for itself. Some say he's #6, some say #3, some say even #1.

Taylor Kingston