Defining Greatness

Hi RG: That's your choice. I have no qualms with how you approach the subject. You also should not feel obligated to discuss something you feel uncomfortable with, but by all means you are welcome to present your point of view. I wouldn't have started this topic if I was not open to other views.

Well said m_liguori. This explains why such lists about the best, or the greatest, are considered subjective. At one time or another we as individuals may come across someone or something that strikes us with such "awe" that they become our focal point for defining what we see as being great.

I like what you have here. I wouldn't say it is common simply because, well, look at what others have posted... :-) You go deeper by adding a players "Contribution" to the game and the sport, which goes beyond just their ability to dominate their contemporaies. I'm not disagreeing, just pointing out your criteria compared to my own and others.

You also indicate "natural talent". There is an on going debate in science as to whether or not talent is natural or whether it is nurtured. The prevailing theory in this area is that it is nurtured. Though I think the debate is still raging... :-)

Regardless, all good points, and it's good to see other views on this topic. Thanks.

Greatness is acquired through action and accomplishment, it never resorts to self-proclaimation. Self-proclaimations are for attention whores.

"Lasker, who, while undoubtedly great, would very likely have lost to Rubinstein"

How is it very likely that Lasker would have lost to Rubinstein when the latter didn't even once in his long career finish ahead of Lasker?

Haha, ok, well, maybe I shouldn't say common :p

I'm just repeating criteria I've seen used at least a few times.

Yes, I think talent is difficult to pin down. Although it's hard to argue overwhelmingly for nurture when out of 100 students, 1 stands out so far ahead of the others. Anyway, it's been my understanding that "science" agrees it's some of both (nature and nurture), and then they argue about how much of each.

To me years as #1 and wins in top events (i.e. super tournaments with several top ten players, and title matches) are the main criteria.

Creg,

        I'm not uncomfortable discussing the subject. It's just that it, along with half a dozen other contentious topics, keeps recurring time and time again. When I question the motives of the persons raising these subjects, I do not include you, who seem to have a genuine interest in the debate. However I have seen these subjects raised in these forums before, by persons who I'm convinced have no other purpose than to cause argument - the nastier and more abusive the better, they seem to think. I don't think any reasonable person can deny that there are people who like stirring it.

        I meanwhile stick to my view that you cannot arrive at a satisfactory answer to the question.

Best is another thing than greatest though. Caruana obviously plays better chess than Steinitz did, while Steinitz was a greater player in that he for example won every match he played for more than 30 years, and 25 games in a row against top opposition.

        Then why not simply say that Steinitz was better? Just what is great meant to mean when applied to people? As I have suggested, it seems an over used and misused term and I reckon that most people who use it do so without giving a thought to its meaning.

"Then why not simply say that Steinitz was better?"

Because it's not the same thing. When Fischer claimed that Morphy was better than Botvinnik and Tal he meant that Morphy of the 1850s would have beaten them, not that his achievements in his time were more impressive than theirs. Not that I think Fischer was right at all, but it's different things to claim that Morphy was greater than Botvinnik, than to to claim that Morphy played better chess.

Hi RG: Yeah, unfortunately there are a lot of people out there who only prefer to incite others. I notice that in almost any forum on any site. 

I agree that it is also unlikely that there will be a satisfactory answer. My objective was to see all the different points of view laid out in front of us. By litterally showing altering views it would in a sense offer a point of origin to refer too whenever someone asks again..."Who is the best of all time?" Because, as you know, it will inevitably pop up again. Just like the common cold virus, there is no stopping it. 

Kasparov:

Kasparov holds the record for the longest time as the No. 1 rated player in the world—from 1986 to 2005 (Vladimir Kramnik shared the No. 1 ranking with him once, in the January 1996 FIDE rating list).

According to the unofficial Chessmetrics calculations, Kasparov was the highest rated player in the world continuously from February 1985 until October 2004. He also holds the highest all-time average rating over a 2 (2877) to 20 (2856) year period and is second to only Bobby Fischer's (2881 vs 2879) over a one-year period.

Kasparov holds the record for most consecutive professional tournament victories, placing first or equal first in 15 individual tournaments from 1981 to 1990. The streak was broken by Vasily Ivanchuk at Linares 1991, where Kasparov placed 2nd, half a point behind him.

Karpov:

His tournament successes include over 160 first-place finishes.

90 total months at world number one is second all-time behind only Garry Kasparov since the inception of the FIDE ranking list in 1970.

World champion from 1975 to 1985

        This is at least a worthy attempt to make a case for somebody with some analysis.

"Kasparov is from Georgia"

No.

No, Kasparov isn't from Georgia. This kind of factual inaccuracy says a lot about how qualified you are to discuss this topic.

Oh, and this isn't a Nike commercial. There was no need for an empty "blurb" followed by a link to an inane YouTube video.

"Karpov had no one to fight against"

wth are you talking about?

"Karpov had no one to fight against"

Karpov was 1/2 of the most epic rivalry chess has seen, spanning five WCC matches and over 100 match games. All of them were incredibly close. One of the matches was drawn.

But yes, he didn't win the title by beating the previous champion.

"No one with a NAME, no one with a REPUTATION. "You can't be The Man unless you beat The Man". Fischer was The Man. Karpov didn't get to beat THE MAN. Karpov became THE MAN for Kasparov to beat. Kasparov beat THE MAN, the symbol of the Soviet Union, Ivan Drago of Rocky IV"

In that case Botvinnik didn't have anyone to fight against either. Kasparov was a Soviet citizen no less than Karpov.