why NOT CONTRIBUTE??

hi all im rahul and i  have just joined this site i notice there is only one article per day by established chess players in this site when i went through the forums i saw not many people contribute by showing something new to learn I will certainly do that

but others should show anything (tricks ,openings ,strategies,etc) of this well known game. I AM not forcing but suggesting and btw u will see me a lot in your forums commenting and posting even beginners know something which GMs dont

   another thing u should just not ask stupid things like who was the greatest player HOW THE HELL does it matter it just increases the load in this site without any use ,do these players (rather idiots just need attention oh what)

ok then thankyou for bearing my boring post 

Who did you say was the best player ever?

Mandatory contributions are not a condition of Chess.com membership....  If people want to ask who others think is the greatest player, because they are curious about what responses would be given, that is perfectly fine.  That's not stupid at all.

---

i am not forcing u i am just suggesting 

if u wanna know the best player dont make forums out of it

there is a reason i dont support this question

1)you cant compare karpov with morphy

morphy was of another time with different resources while kasparov has computers ,morphy's games ,other masters games several other things

u just CANT bloody compare

---

i dont wanna start another pointless thread

---

In the two-plus months I've been a member of this site, I've seen players of all skill levels contribute in diverse ways. Your suggestion has already been heeded.

There's no reason not to start a forum topic on the best player. I don't blame you for thinking it's pointless, because in a way you're right. It's purely subjective, and even if a million people agree that (for example) Kasparov is the best player ever, it will still be just an opinion. But when people ask "Who's the best player?", they're really asking, "Who do you think is the best player?", and they know they're going to get opinions, which is really all they're after.

Two GMs from different time periods can absolutely be compared. One was a dangerous attacker, while the other liked hypermodern openings (for example). Two GMs from different times will obviously have very different playing styles, and those styles are compared and contrasted every day. Who's better? That's obviously impossible to answer definitively... but that's what makes those questions so intriguing... and so fun to speculate on.

But again, I don't fault you for not liking those threads, because they ask "unanswerable" questions, which can be frustrating. Still, if you don't like them, just don't go to those threads, and let those who are curious have fun talking about it.

---

i'm currently solving this issue as we speak ;)

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/who-is-best---the-final-thread2

---

well answer with a simple question who was better morphy or capablanca or fischer

---

even i have chessmaster grandmaster and guess what chigorin defeated capablanca 

That's what I'm saying: There is no simple answer, hence the ongoing discussion. On Chessmaster: GM Edition, sometimes Chigorin defeats Capablanca, and sometimes it's the other way around. It's the same thing with the other GMs. On my machine, GM Jan Timman tends to get better results than the others, but he loses some too.

---

Too late for that

wow!!  I think i'll start posting more often...Just thinking outloud....

I should back up my comment a bit. Who is the best ever is not a pointless conversation. It is a contribution. If I were a brand new chessplayer, with no informed opinion, I could use this thread as a list of names to study games from. I could use the conversation context to focus in on my weaknesses... Perhaps someone posts "Morphy's attacking brilliance would falter to Steintz's defensive masterminding". Then I could know to look at Morphy for attacking ideas and Stientz for defensive. My point is: few threads here don't contribute. Even theory on the bongcloud can bring a needed smile. The info is there, it's up to you to determine the best way to use it.

JimSardonic: Beautifully put.

---

kasparov would lose badly to fischer-1 comment

fischer was a jerk ,mentally unstable (wow i just learned a lot of chess)

---

Hilarious!

people is only ever concerned about 'the best chess-player that took the game seriously' - wouldn't mind small bet that there bin plenty of better chess-players that ddn let 'emselves get all obsessed over what is, after all, no more than a game

---

oohh i DIED LAUGHING 

sarcasm at its best

i am probably  the best  chess player  ever i just choose  not  to fulfill my  true potential and i play a  lot of golf

well tigerwoods doesnt have that winning form like before maybe u could start playing the masters