You are all fools. Stop comparing players!

We all know about those cancer-provoking threads that compare Fischer with Morphy, Carlsen with Fischer, Morphy with Kasparov etc... Some people say Morphy was better because of the age he lived in, some others are a little bit more smart and know future generations ALWAYS, crush ancient generations.

However, all of them have something in common, they are fools/dumb/stupids/tontos! 

Why? Are you seriously asking that?
I was right when I said that more than half of the population on this page are kindergarden dropouts.

Because you cant compare apples with oranges, JUST LIKE IN FREAKING MATH.

So yeah duds, I was right, you are all fools, comparing z (Moprhy) with x (Fischer) is impossible, just like in math.

Or am I wrong? OF COURSE NOT.

Greetings.

It's basically like comparing ancient scientists like Aristotle to modern scientists like Newton and saying that Newton was the better logician because he knew more math.

I AM an idiot & I WILL continue to create such threads.

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/why-doesnt-bobby-bash-chesscom-members-who-start-topics-about-him

Yeah, spam my wonderful thread.

Hypothesising in a fake world is stupid, just like weird drugged science fiction.

We need analysis, facts, love, humbility to make hypothesis, not just random feelings about one player or another.

people love opinions 'cause they come cheap

 To know who is better you need to substract rating points, you need to do a SIMPLE mathematical operation.

And as you guys know, you can't substract z from x.

So your logic is busted oprah! JUST LIKE YOUR NAME BUD.

Several of these comparisons are obvious, for instance if Kasparov were to play Fischer we know Kasparov would win on time, since Fischer is dead and won't be able to move a piece.

Those duds are on drugs and think they can go back in time.

Congrats on using google traductor.

I dont talk French, I was planning on learning it but then I remembered Hitler crushed France like a potato in WW2.

However, I do not understand, what does this has to do with the fact that it is stupid to compare players.

BUMPIDYBUMP.

Morphy sucked, but to his defense we cant compare him with Magnuts or any actual chess player!

NICE JOKE.

He wouldnt win a single game against me.

I get he is American and the bias is strong, but please, keep it real.

Im rated over 2300 on tactics, I would swipe MY BOOTY WITH HIM.

Rated over 2700? To be rated 2700 you need to know about endgames and positional chess, plus these 2700s would CRUSH Morphy even in tactical battles where he supposedly was good. I would give Morphy a FM strenght at best... 

Morphy was strong for his time, but comparing him with a 2700 is

1) Impossible, read the title

2) An offense to all the work those 2700s have to put into the game everyday.

I didnt play chess when I was 12

Speculating about things that are in principle unknowable is not hypothesising. A hypothesis has to be testable against reality.  

Fantasising about relative strengths of living and long dead players (or how a 19th century player would fare today, or how a 21st century player would fare back then - in either case with or without the benefits of present day knowledge) does not produce testable hypotheses. 

In fact, I just learned how the pieces moved yesterday, so Im better than Morphy.