Who is the Best Chess Player of All Time? First a Distinction Must Be Made. - Chess Forums - Page 3

bean_Fischer

Dec 1, 2013

0

#41

And here the chess of Alekhine. Born in 1892. Note the year he was born.

samtoyousir

Dec 1, 2013

0

#42

bean_Fischer wrote:

Addicted-to-Chess97 wrote:

bean_Fischer wrote:

It's drifting further and further away form the core discussion. Now give me some proves how many hours should one study to be the best in the world. 24/7?

It's all about talent. And talent is uncountable.

bean_Fischer wrote:

But I think it's very ridiculous to blame it on what year a person was born. It's like saying why Alekhine, why not me?

bean_Fischer wrote:

People think Alekhine will be born in 2080 where chess is already solved. The fact Alekhine was born in 1892, more than 100 years ago. And he is dead now.

But I have no problem, ppl can think whatever they want to.

Sorry I'm just now getting back on all this.

I think I see the core of our disagreement. You see chess as pretty much all talent. So I would ask you a question: Would Alekhine have been a better chess player had he been born in 1992 rather than 1892? Surely you dont believe that his play would have DRAMATICALLY improved with access to computers, stronger players, the internet and improved chess theory? You seem to think that study has very little to do with it.

I laugh seeing your questions. Maybe you already know the answers, so I don't have to answer them. You already have the answers, and they won't change whatever my answers are.

I just noticed I wrote 'would', I meant 'wouldn't'.

samtoyousir

Feb 28, 2014

0

#43

bean_Fischer wrote:

Waht a laugh! Naka, Polgar, and Carlsen defeat Alekhine!

In 2005,[15] Sonas used Chessmetrics to evaluate historical annual performance ratings and came to the conclusion that Kasparov was dominant for the most years, followed by Karpov and Lasker. He also published the following list of the highest ratings ever attained according to calculations done at the start of each month:[16]

RankRatingPlayer1 2895 Bobby Fischer 2 2886 Garry Kasparov 3 2885 Mikhail Botvinnik 4 2878 Emanuel Lasker 5 2877 José Capablanca 6 2860 Alexander Alekhine 7 2848 Anatoly Karpov 8 2833 Viswanathan Anand 9 2826 Vladimir Kramnik 10 2826 Wilhelm Steinitz

I hate to revive an old thread, but this new link made me think of it: http://www.chess.com/news/nakamura-on-reddit-6863

Naka's on my side.

samtoyousir

Mar 20, 2014

0

#44

Spanos7 wrote:

Garry Kasparov. I admit he is overrated, but definitely for a good reason. The man has almost never lost.

But if Carlsen could go back in time to play Kasparov, I think Carlsen would win.

BlunderLots

Apr 18, 2016

0

#45

Addicted-to-Chess97 wrote:

Hey All,

In the chess world, there has always been a hotly debated question on who the best chess player of all time truly is...

You will hear various opinions on this question, and it is a complicated question. I think some of the confusion spawns from the fact that we are really debating two separate questions. So! Let me make a distinction.

See when some people see the question: Who is the best chess player of all time? Those people are really trying to answer the question: Who is the best chess player relative to their time? (Seeing as they had no computers, modern theory, and the internet)

See, when someone says: "Alekhine was the best of all time!" They really mean: "Alekhine was the best of all time seeing as how he was he was champion for 19 years, he was so much better than anyone else!"

There is no denying that currently Carlsen would DESTROY Alekhine at his peak. If we were able to warp Carlsen back in time to play Alekhine, there would hardly be a match. Chess Theory has just advanced too much for it to be close.

So, in conclusion.

Carlsen is the best player ever. Anyone from anytime at their peak would lose to Carlsen.

The question to debate is: Who is the best player of all time relative to the limitations of their time.

Carlsen, right now, is practically computer strength. So, yeah, he can likely obliterate most anyone.

But don't forget that Carlsen is the monster of a player he is in part because he's had access to computer engines his whole life.

Have Carlsen be born in the 1800s, where engines (and even decent theory) didn't exist.

Then have him face a player like Morphy, for example, who played at 2400-2500 strength (according to modern engine analysis) on intuition alone. I think that Carlsen would find Morphy too strong an opponent to survive against.

So, yes, I agree with you: strength is also relative to the resources of the time.

lenny000

Apr 18, 2016

0

#46

There is no correct answer to that, only opinions