Ashvapathi wrote:
alexm2310 wrote:
Ashvapathi how is reigning period unbiased? It measures only a players strength in his era. As for Morphy, you can't be the worlds best chess player if you're not even a chess player. Seems to me you've arbitrarily decided he's the WC until 1880s so you can justify placing him on #1 your list, no? I hope you realise the argument concerning Morphy's opposition is perfectly valid.
I agree 30 yrs for Morphy is a bit arbitrary because he was never conquered as such. So, its really up for grabs. Steinitz became champion after Morphy left chess just like Karpov became Champion after Fischer left chess. In Fischer's case I simply put the whole Karpov era in Fischer's pocket. If I do the same with Steinitz and Morphy, then Morphy would be a reigning champion for 37 yrs, not just 30 yrs.
"put the Karpov era in Fischer's Pocket"....why stop there?? Shoot, why not put all champions since fischer "in his pocket"?
I have simple way of judging who is the greatest of all time. If a player has reigned as the world champion for the longest period, then he is the greatest in my view.
<snip> <snip>
Why is reigning period important?
Because, thats the only unbiased way of judging clearly if one is good. If a player is not good, he will not be able to reign for much time. He'll be soon found out and defeated. It takes a really great player to remain on top for a long period. The longer you remain on top, the greater you are.
[My emboldening in the quote above]
You have not given any reason for believing this. You simply state it as if it were a self-evident truth. It is not. There are many other reasons why we might think of a player as "Great".
For example I happen to thnk that Nehzmedtinov was a great player, yet he never won the World Championship and never even gained a GM title.
You may think anyone as great or mediocre. But, thats an opinion and like all opinions(yours or mine) it will be biased. Even if its not biased, it is still not an objective way of deciding the great player of past or present. Thats why we have a championship to decide who happens to be champion of the time. So, it follows from this point that whoever had reigned as the champion for the longest period must be the greatest player.
Sure, there are certain champions in the past(like Alekhine) who used to run away from giving his opponents a chance to challenge his world championship title. Similarly, there are other greats like Morphy or Fischer who quit chess before others could challenge them properly. Inspite of these things, I think championships(and reign periods) are the most unbiased method. Other methods seem biased based on liking or disliking something.
It is a matter of opinion that holding the world championship for the longest time determines who is the greatest.
Logic is not your strong point, is it?
Never mind that your original post was questioning Fischer's right to be regarded as simply a great player, rather than the greatest of all.
"I think championships (and reign periods) are the most unbiased method"
Yes, we know that is what you think. Some of us agree with you, some of us don't. You can keep hitting people over the head with your assertion as to what is the most important criterion of greatness, but you have proven (as in demonstrated its truth) nothing and are not going to force anyone to agree with you.
I have said that you are entitled to your opinion. It looks like you are unhappy about anyone choosing to disagree with you.
Ok, tell me who is the current chess champion and how was it decided? Carlsen is the current champion because he won the championship. Simple and unbiased way to decide it. Therefore, it follows logically from this point that anyone who is the champion for longest period must be the greatest. Whether I or you think they are great or not is irrelevant just as it does not matter if I or you think that Carlsen is the present champion or not.