Highest-Rated Players of All Time

 I honestly believe prime Lasker or Capablanca could beat prime Short in a 24 game match, even without any modern preparation or review of current theory.

No way.

 Way.

Short would win, he has decades (almost a century in some lines) of knowledge and has probably analysed their openings.

I would look at this list as a list of very strong players, and that's all.  For example look at Fischer, he took on the path to the world championship and the world champion seemingly with ease (would he of beat kasparov if he chose this battle with him).  And there are players not listed who seem to have put more effort into chess and produced better results than many players listed, but they aren't listed.  Basically the rating system is not be all end all, but pretty neat nonetheless :).

It takes a certain level of expertise to compare champions of the past and modern GMs. Club players are often dazzled by the greatness of champs and can't objectively tell the difference between, for example, a 2400 and a 2700. It is quite clear that both an IM and a super GM would win nearly 100% of the games vs let's say 1600. Likewise, it's very hard for a strong player to distinguish a 1500 from a 1700. For him they are both exceptionally weak, so it's hard to determine who is who.

Modern chess is a few levels higher than it was at Capa's time. Lasker, Capablanka or Alekhine would have no chances whatsoever against any strong GM, not to mention ex-World Championship challenger Nigel Short.

"Modern chess is a few levels higher than it was at Capa's time. Lasker, Capablanka or Alekhine would have no chances whatsoever against any strong GM, not to mention ex-World Championship challenger Nigel Short."

If they were to play, they could get caught up to speed using the same resources that the newer players use.  I could only imagine how many games Fischer would of played versus the computer, as he was a person who would read basically all the chess encyclopodias.  My guess is if he had more resources at the time he was trying to become world champion, he would of increased his rating.  I'm sure there's impressiveness in the past players play, especially given they had less resources.  So if we give them a time machine, we can give them updated databases and stronger chess computers : ).  I don't see how a rating system can figure this out.

There's also floors these days so there could be rating inflation.

 Well, Bobby disagreed with you. He said if Morphy were alive and playing chess today he would be kicking butt. Hey I can either side with you or go with Bobby. I think I will go with Bobby! Has the middlegame really changed that much since the golden age of chess. A pin is still a pin, a fork is still a fork (and a kiss is still a kiss---they haven't improved on that either.)

One area where the old masters had an edge were the endgames. With the way they are speeding up the game present day masters endgame skill is diminishing along with other phases of the game. 

We all know Kasparov was the greatest chess player of all times.

Yes, he is not the current world champion, yes, he was not the best chess player of the 19th century, and yes, he is not the greatest female chess player, but do those categories even matter that much?

Lasker and Capablanca were clearly stronger than Short. Neither player over-relied on openings and in a long match they would have found a way to win. They would have played conservatively and would have won several times from inferior positions and "even" endgames. By the way I will concede that I am a weak player, its just my opinion.

Would have Lasker, Capablanca, Tal, Fisher or Kasparov ... been the strongest player?  - I don't know. I am an amateur chess player only - among the many pot hunters :-)  

But I am sure that Polgar Judit is the best female chess player ever! 

In the 1993 Kasparov v Short World Championship Match Short gave his best shot.  It was not enough against a better player.  Lasker, Capablanca or Alekhine would simply have out-played Short.  They were better players.

wow, quite interesting that bobby fischer is the only one in the top ten in ratings from before 1994 - and 22 years before! that says a lot for sure.

I think most people have Kasparov there or there abouts whichever method of comparison is used.

If you factor in FIDE rating inflation, some say at the high GM levels this is fifty points per ten years then that puts Kasparov further ahead of his present day counterparts.

The FIDE rating listing is the only comparison method which places the older greats in such lowly positions. No doubt average modern players approve of this, but they would wouldn't they.

>:)

 Exactly. Kasparov played into Short's strengths and preparation - he defended the Sicilian defense and let Short throw all his prepared bombs at him and it still wasn't enough. In the first game Short had a won game with the black pieces and lost on time! Kasparov was just a clearly superior player, as was Alekhine, Capablanca, and Lasker. I'm not saying these guys would have blown Short away in a long match. Short would have the advantage of modern opening knowledge, and would win some games because of that. But I think they would have prevailed by at least a couple of points.

Would like to log in and post comment at above site but don't know what ICQ means. Who can help me out?

Dude, you are just a troll who is hiding under disguise and has obviously never analyzed games of masters whom we are discussing. In the beginning of the XXth century people didn't have much knowledge of chess, neither did they have computers to find out what their mistakes were. They would often blunder on move 5 and lack knowledge of the very basic engames. Tournaments were scarce, sometimes players would compete once in a few years. There were no databases to find out other players' ideas. No training software to help improve middlegame/tactics/endgame. Even guys like Alekhine or Chigorin (widely considered to be great attacking players) would regularly fail to calculate correctly 2-3 move variations and fail to notice it during home analysis.

Yes, being an IM, I can say that Short is playing on a different level than me. Meanwhile, I would have definitely crushed Morphy in a match and had very decent chances against maestros like Lasker. What about your level of chess understanding, if mine seems to be incredibly low for you?

Fischer, Karpov, and even Kasparov didn't benefit from computers much in their developing stage, so would they have no chance against Short as well ? I think that you are overstating the case. I doubt that you would crush Morphy, maybe it would be pretty close. And I think that you would lose convincingly to Capablanca or Alekhine.