Quote:



i'm not really sure why you have such a hard time trying to wrap your head around what i was saying, but maybe this will make it easier to understand.

a lot of people consider jesse owens to be the greatest american olympian of all time. using strictly results as a litmus, that would be crazy talk. how could anyone think jesse owens was great when carl lewis was faster and won gold medals in three different olympiads!? its unfathomable!

"how the chess player compared to his contemporaries. "

if this is the criteria we wish to adopt now, then we have
Philidor,Morphy, Steinitz, Lasker, Capa, Alekhine, Botvinnik, Fischer, Karpov & GK (chronologially arranged)

Is this list it, or we screen these names according to some other criteria or what?

btw Chessbase did come up with a 4 part article on the 'greatest' & compared their list of names on various criteria eg longest reign as No.1 (as in world ranking not WCh), Biggest ranking points difference betn No 1 & 2 etc. Part 1 is below. Parts 2 ,3 & 4 just click the links at the end of the page. http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2345

Looks like we maybe going places now. Good job all you newer participants of the thread!

Quote:


And Kasparov Karpov could be given a look in.

Quote:

Well, there's the Owens.  Go back and read about it.  Take a look at the recent poll results also.

Paul Keres as the greatest chessplayer of all time?  What a joke.

- Lost Highway

Quote:

What about objectively deciding who made the BEST moves on the board and had the BEST results?  Any way to fit that into your criteria?

- Lost Highway

The problem is with the words “greatest” and “best”.  The guy who posed the question (and then disappeared) asked who was the “greatest all-time chess-player” and then his post started off by asking “who's the best chess player?”  Those two words (greatest and best) gave a lot of people an opportunity to start babbling about touched pieces and various character flaws that some of the players had (or have).  Instead, if mulehollandaise had asked “who is the strongest player ever?”, there would be no misunderstanding and people wouldn't go running their mouths about Fischer being an anti-Semite or Alekhine being a Nazi or Botvinnik having the Soviet apparatus working on his behalf, etc., etc.  Those topics are interesting, but not germane to a debate about which player could actually make the best moves on the board.   

Remember the silly topic about who was the weakest world champion?  As stupid as that was, at least everyone understood what the term “weakest” meant and the topic didn’t deteriorate into an absurdity like this one has become, where someone apparently could never be considered the greatest player if they weren’t some type of Mother Teresa saint.  Like the word “weakest”, the word “strongest” is a very clear and focused concept that we all understand and that would have prevented all of this other chatter.

- Lost Highway

Gee TJ,

All i did was compile/summarise the findings here. Ive also been accomodating to even change my own opinions that some candidates can be found & agreed upon by all.

In closing, (i too am getting tired) we can conclude thro all this :No man is perfect but God. And definitely for sure the perfect game of chess has never been played by anyone.

The greatest in my personal heart of hearts? = Fischer.

I didn't want to add more to this topic, woofwoof. Looks like I can't keep my mouth shut on topics I have a considered opinion.

How did someone who reached the pinnacle of any field get there? If it is with the help of a genie out of Alladin's lamp, perfect. Psychological dysfunction will not be there.

What it takes to be a Kasparov or Feynmann or Maradonna or even Mike Tyson, for that matter? Apart from enormous natural talent, years and years of single minded devotion and hard work. This coupled with the recognition in their chosen field makes them self centered. 

They are subjected to enormous psychological pressures precipitated by a simple fact that they are demi Gods in their chosen fields while they are mere idiots in many other  spheres of life. In a sense this is sacrifice. We have to be thankful to their sacrifice and understand their inadequacies.

Instead we want to stand on high pedastal and pass value judgements. Fischer is an anti-semite so he is not a great chess player! Kasparov doesn't know touch piece rule, do you call him great? Reductio ad absurdum. If you start with a wrong hypothesis, the result will be absurd.