Highest-Rated Players of All Time

Nice web site Nat.

I might add that I have played on a higher tournament board than the all time Nr 50. However this was only in round 2, I won the first round to his draw. By the end of the tourney it was a different story.

>:)

And the Most Charming: Natalia Pogonina

Well if you believe in FIDE rating inflation, then deduct the year attained from their highest grade. This will shuffle the pack somewhat to Fischer's benefit but still behind Kasparov. Not a bad solution for a single line summary. Keane ever the opportunist has published print on this topic of the all time great which goes into rather more detail. 

>:)

 Don't you realize that Short is stronger than Capablanca and Lasker?

On the men's list - this seems ridiculous.   

No bronstein, botviinnik, korchnoi, rensch ??????

The op title is the highest rated players of all time.

Therefore the listings are correct.

If you are seeking the all time strongest players then you will need to throw in a few variables.

>:)

Korchnoi actually had 2695 and was quite close.  Botvinnik's highest unofficial ELO was 2690 (official - 2630). Bronstein had just 2595. And I have never heard about top GM Rensch before

And im not in the top list

Maybe im to low

Thanks for your reply, Natalia, but it didn't answer my question: Who do you think on the list would be ranked higher if rating reflected talent alone? No need to answer. I know that, in your position, you must be objective and diplomatic...

Another thing. In your reply you say there "have been people who were talented more than any of the world champions, but they never started playing." This suggests that good players are born with greatness in them. Does this not conflict with what you told me about yourself, that you were not a prodigy but trained to be a great player from an early age?

Of course I am raisng a tireless question. asked wherever talent appears, be it chess, sport, art, or even business. That is, "Which is more influential, nature or nurture?" I believe that what you told me about your talent reveals much...

Greg

I still don't think that the list is a good indicator of chess "strength" though, because as one person already stated, there is such a thing as rating inflation over many years.

Also, a question that might strike at the validity of using official ratings: do you really think that the players at the bottom of that list, could stand up to and beat any of the great players of old, like Botvinnik or Capablanca or Alekhine?

I would guess Botvinnik was under-rated. There is another stat for comparing the players strength compared to other players of their time, and for example Fischer would be very highly rated for the 1971 league.

Perhaps computers and advances in theory have increased the average ELO of the best players, it is difficult to estimate how strong the best players of history would become in todays world.

And yet it is almost scary to me, to think of how good some of the already amazing early players may have become (like Morphy or Steinitz), if they had had access to the same high tech resources and books that today's best players have.

Pluck a great champion of old out of their time and bring them to the present, and I think that they probably dominate everybody with a year or two of catching up. Take a modern player and send him to the past to play the old champions, and the modern player I'm sure would have the advantage on theory, but perhaps not on raw tactical ability and intuition ;)

Using a time machine to play a match straight away - yes, I am pretty sure. With all due respect, chess has gone a long way since Botvinnik's notebooks with 7- move opening analysises or Capa's improvisations.

 Natalia, There would be many more female GMs if more parents used the Polgar method  of teaching their daughters. Do you approve of the method?

The Keane and Divinsky publication Warriors Of The Mind is an attempt to compare players from different generations, an impossible task in itself. Albeit 1989 vintage, I suspect only one player to emerge since would elbow into the all time top ten stated.

>:)

 "Warriors of the Mind"---here is the book review by Edward Winter---

The dust-jacket calls Warriors of the Mind ‘a seminal work written by two scholars of the game’. In reality it is swill.

Yes, Ed's not the only one of this opinion.

>:)

I am stronger than Capablanca and Lasker if you mean that Capablanca and Lasker never having an Elo rating makes them weaker than all players that have an Elo rating.

I actually think Short was stronger than Capablanca and Lasker, by the way. Short was the challenger 100 years after Lasker, and Lasker was better than Philidor, and Philidor was better than Greco, since chess makes progress with time. It's a different and much more professional game these days.

I believe rules rule, unless you brake the rules.