My perspective on this topic is -- Consistency over Time.
Consistency = A players ability to dominate his over-all contemporaries of their time period. This does not refer to head to head battles, but the players ability to consistently win top tournaments against like competition. It is not necessary to hold the title of World Champion for this distinction.
Time = Length in years that the player was able to achieve this. The longer the better. So a time frame of 20 years is a good bench mark.
This is why Kasparov has to be considered.
Someone with breathtaking endgame technique.
What about someone like Lasker, who, while undoubtedly great, would very likely have lost to Rubinstein? He didn't duck Rubinstein per se but rather the Great War interrupted their planned match. The greatest match that never was.
Someone with breathtaking endgame technique.
What about someone like Lasker, who, while undoubtedly great, would very likely have lost to Rubinstein? He didn't duck Rubinstein per se but rather the Great War interrupted their planned match. The greatest match that never was.
This appears to be too limiting. Maybe if you were defining "The Greatest Endgame Player of All Time". That, however, is another discussion unto itself.
One of the endless debates is who is the best, or greatest. This is natural and happens across all endeavors. For our purposes we will stick with chess.
The problem with defining greatness is that it is dependent upon perspective and subjective judgements of those who apply them. So, how do we define the best/greatest at chess? In other words; what is the criteria you use to make this distinction? I am interested in seeing how differently we view this topic.
Please note that this topic is not about choosing who you think is best, but what method you utilize to come to that decision.
I realized a long time ago that such arguments are supercilious and that comparing people across eras has neither any real benefit nor way to find objective truth/reality. Not only does it not matter who was the greatest but there is no such thing anyway.
It's an argument for the sake of arguing and little else.
No argument here. I certainly see your point of view, and appreciate where you are coming from. The way I see it is that we will have this debate whether we like it or not. It always comes up, and it will come up again.
Maybe it doesn't have a real point, outside of giving us a reason to talk about our favorite players. It is interesting to see how each person comes up with thier own criteria, and that unto itself may lead back to your statement. Which in the end is just a subjective view by each individual.
You are not going to arrive at a reliable and valid answer to the question. Standards over time are different and it is impossible to say how the world champion of say, fifty years ago, compares with today's champion. Ratings will not do it as they are a means of comparing players with other contemporary players.
It has been correctly stated that this subject keeps coming up and is never resolved. Nor will it be. But the reaon why it is repeatedly raised is not in order to resolve it in most cases. This applies to several other recurring subjects in these forums.
The problem is greatness is subjective. Some factors I'd consider:
*Aside* from being great players, were they promoters and supporters of the game? Did they inspire a generation of new players? Did they help educate and support up and comers? Were they good people? Good role models?
If their were an acknowledged "best" player, and he was an egotistic asshole only interested in his own victories, I'd hardly call that great.
p.s. BTW: my comment didn't say "chess" in it. The same comment would apply to many other competitive areas.
I would consider one great if they played an entire blitz game without violating article 6.2 (d)
Can anyone find a blitz chess video on youtube with a player that great?
Kasparov was Alekhine on steroids.
jshpll: That is similar to the method I went with in post #2. So I am with you in that regards.
Steve, RG, etc: As for others who say there is no reliable answer, and or it is "subjective". You are correct. I stated that at the beginning. I do not disagree with you, however, no matter where you go you will see this debate in one form or another. Go to www.NFL.com and you will see a current bracket fight for greatest games of all time. They also do top 10's and greatest Super Bowls.
My point, and this is clear with chess, is that this appears to be a human thing to do. If we look at chess news in India, they will generally refer to Anand as being the greatest. I'm certain this will be done with most local greats at any endeavor. I know I've seen it in America in other sports. My point is that maybe this is what fuels the fire.
Maybe something inherrent within us wants to define what is great. Maybe we are looking for the ultimate goal. I do not know, these are guesses on my part. My objective was to see how others define greatness. How do they come to this conclusion. Many of us make a list of great players, clearly subjective, but how do we define each of our subjective lists? That is what I am aiming for.
Anybody can easily jump on a thread and say here are my top five players. We have all seen this numerous times on these forums. I wanted to see peoples criteria for making their top x players.
It has been stated before, but "great" and "greatest" are much misused and over used terms in this sense. Could we not be content, if we must discuss this, to use "best"?
Who was the greatest Worf: Adolf Anderssen, Dr.Tartakower, Kotov, or someone else? Those names tend to prop very often as losers to more famous players. I say Worf because he's hyped up as a great fighter and to demonstrate that a character is serious business they'd easily beat up Worf.
Larsen would be a Worf due to his loss to Fischer yet is great in his own right, but seems to win more often than lose in chess literature.
This is why Kasparov has to be considered.
This is why Kasparov has to be considered.
it seems like garry gets shafted on these boards because of his arrogance. i'm not sure what more one single human being can do in his sport in order to be considered the greatest. kasparov was just a monster.
If people want to remove him because of his arrogance then so be it. That doesnt take away from what he has accompished. Karpv also needs to be considered one of the greatest.
How is Kasparov arrogant?
How is Kasparov arrogant?
Reading over all the comments I can't help but seeing this conversation as questioning not just what makes someone a great player, but one of "the greats". I think alot of that has to do with how much a player can capture the awe of players and non-players alike. For those of us on the outer rims of the chess world it's not so much a question of who would win between Fisher and Kasparov, but instead us loving them both for what they did both in matches and beyond. But that's just my two cents.
How far, in rating, they were separated from their peers (e.g. Kasparov and Karpov over 100 points above everyone else).
How long they were champ.
How many tournaments they won.
How much natural talent they had.
Best tournament and match performances.
Contribution to the knowledge of the game.
Contribution to advancing it as a sport.
These are some common criteria.
One of the endless debates is who is the best, or greatest. This is natural and happens across all endeavors. For our purposes we will stick with chess.
The problem with defining greatness is that it is dependent upon perspective and subjective judgements of those who apply them. So, how do we define the best/greatest at chess? In other words; what is the criteria you use to make this distinction? I am interested in seeing how differently we view this topic.
Please note that this topic is not about choosing who you think is best, but what method you utilize to come to that decision.