Quote:


If any thing, it was not relative TJ. Those 3 or 4 players were number one multiple times, in terms or rating. Every one of them were wining some tournamnet or the other. Fischer was No 1 much before he became world champion. No. By no streatch of imagination WC implies domination. Tal's and Botwinik's domination is akin to Kramnik's domination. No. Being great (yes  ) player or WC is not sufficient.

Were they great players? Yes. Were they WC ? Yes. Did they have absolute domination over a peer group? No.

If absolute domination is the criteria, we have only Fischer and Kasparov. If you reduce the bar to near domination Anand wins hands down.


So the verdict of this forum could be that nobody from 20th century is a great chess player. Let alone "The Greatest"

Quote:


I'll let it pass. I have said enough to antagonise the entire forum in one thread.

Quote:

If these are the criteria, I will just repeat myself. Philidor wins hands down for reasons I mentioned earlier.

Quote:


No. He did not do it. He moved the knight to one square and then seeing the move loses moved it to another square. The point of discussion was whether he removed the fingers are not. Anyway, that’s a moot point, imho. For a player of Kasparov’s stature, even moving the piece to two squares (being unsure of himself) is in itself acceptance of defeat. Whether it is sufficient to trash him and not acknowledge his on board greatness is another point.

BTW, when did Botwinik or Tal dominate the chess field the way Fischer or Kasparov did?  ???I thought the period from Alekhine’s death till 1970 was a period when no individual was able to dominate. Botwinik, Tal, Fischer, Smyslov, Spasky the number one spot went round and round in circles. 

So Morphy looks good for now.

but what abt MNb's take on Capa "Finally most of his best wins were against weaker opponents." Isnt it also the case with Morphy? The reason he was so dominant was that most of his opponents were sub std. Probably the best at that time was Staunton & Anderrson. Morphy whacked Andersson & Staunton conveniently avoided Morphy.

I think that the above might be the final test for Morphy's claim for being the greatest, since being mad is not an obstacle to greatness & he fulfills the other criteria well.

Why can't madmen be great?
Moreover, during his chess years Morphy was still sane - something I would not say of Fischer.

Personally I think Capablanca way too arrogant. Someone who claims, that he had proven chess to be dead by draw, imo cannot be the greatest. Moreover he has only played two matches for the title. The first one was an easy walkover - several others could have beaten Lasker to. The second one he lost immediately. Then Capablanca won only two important tournaments during his reign. Finally most of his best wins were against weaker opponents.
Play through all Capablanca-Rubinstein games and be relieved, that these two never played a match.
I fully agree with Spielmann's comment on Capablanca: Das tote Punkt.

"Consistant good play, absolute profesionalism in regards to the game,  a very pro-active represenative of the game,  reasonable conduct in regards to the game, the fans, & other profesionals. Also a domination of the game that has been unmatched . I think the greatest must fit the above mentioned criteria."

Such a pity, my hero misses no less than two of these criteria!
According to these, Paul Morphy pops up.

This is interesting but are we becoming so focused on certain issues outside of the criteria that we can not see the forrest from the trees?  

In my very humble opinion the 'greatest' player of all should meet the proper criteria! Consistant good play, absolute profesionalism in regards to the game,  a very pro-active represenative of the game,  reasonable conduct in regards to the game, the fans, & other profesionals. Also a domination of the game that has been unmatched . I think the greatest must fit the above mentioned criteria.

Lets say for example out of the blue a dominating player emerged. He destroyed the competition on the board like no other before him. He aquires the world title and thus his reign begins. During his rise to the top & his reign he plays politics, he bad mouths & insults the competition, the fans, & the game itself. His conduct at the board borders on out & out cheating! Despite all of this he dominates the game like no other! Would he be classed as the 'greatest' of all time? I don't think so! The word tyrant would be a more apt description! 

"Greatness' to me means so much more then just dominating the game! It means to dominate the game in a special sort of way that stirs the imagination of the fans! He brings a fresh new perspective to the game & attracts new players to the games in droves! His conduct is one of a profesional! So given this high bar we have set who fits the new criteria or comes the closest to it? The person or persons that do come closest are the greatest of all time!!!!!!!!