@Castlerock
I like the list, though I am constantly missing the names of Capa, Alekhine, Morphy and Fischer.
Plus like woofwoof I am missing the "help" factor. I am not only referring to computers, but also to the team of seconds both K's had at their disposal or the training facilities they had. Imagine a player like Alekhine getting trained by Lasker and Pillsbury in his youth, later having a seconds team of say Maroczy and Spielmann (for Mnb's sake) doing a lot of his opening preparations and adjourned games. I bet we wouldnt be having this dicussion at all and San Remo would have been forgotten because it was just one in a big row.

@willwmpie 

Evolving a cross era comparision criteria is not difficult. I wrote this 4 pages earlier in the same thread. We can add or delete some criteria and measure all chess greats. I think, the result will be the same as Markovich concluded

1) Seemingly bad but not yet losing position, and the opponent gets worried instead of relaxing - Lasker, Petrosian, Kasparov, Topalov.
 
2) Shere on board personality commands awe and admiration bordering on intimidation - Alekhine, Kasparov and to some extent Topalov.
 
3) Head and Shoulders above the competion at peak - Alekhine, Fischer and Kasparov.
 
4) Point number 3 scaled on quality of oppostion - Kasparov, hands down.
 
5) Tactical genius - Tal, Kasparov.
 
6) Phenomenal Positional Understanding - Kasparov, Karpov, Kramnik, Petrosian, Fischer
 
7) Quick Assessment - Anand (Well, I had to fit in my country cousin some where). He along with Smyslov,Spassky et al, has about all the qualities near the peak but never at the peak.
 
8) Technique - Capablanca, Kramnik and Karpov.

I quite disagree with the whole line of reasoning. Surely if we would put current Kasparov against 1933 Alekhine he would cream him. I am however unsure when you allow for advancements in theory, psychology etc.
A comparison can be drawn with athletics. We dont rate Fanny Blanckers-Koen and Jesse Owens lower than Kathy Freeman and Michael Johnson. Neither is Powell better than Bob Beamon. Of course yesteryear's athletes wouldnt stand a chance now, but yet because they beat the best of their time under their own unique circumstances we rate them higher.

Well, I think there is absolutely no doubt that on an objective scale, the greatest player of all time is Garry Kasparov.  No one but Karpov has a record that comes remotely close to his, and Karpov must be ranked as the second greatest player of all time.  Of course, so much more is understood about the game now than formerly, that perhaps an objective scale is not the best one.   

The third, fourth and fifth greatests player of all time were, on an historical basis, Botvinnik, Alekhine and Capablanca.  Objectively though, I imagine that several modern GMs are better players than any of them.  I do fancy that if Alekhine had lived when Kasparov did, he would have been at least as good.

My personal view is that both Fisher and Tal were flashes in the pan.  Both played some amazing chess for a few years.  It takes more than that to be listed among the greatest chess players of the ages.  You might as well say that Bronstein was the best chess player of all time.  Among those who played brilliantly for a while and then faded, I would rank Akiba Rubinstein well ahead of these.

I would open the spacelock and kick Philidor out into the cosmos, leaving the other 9 on board.

One vote to eliminate Botvinnik and one to get rid of Philidor.

I'll keep score if you want, and as soon as someone gets 11 death votes, out he goes.  Then, in the second round, 12 votes will be needed, 13 in the 13th round, etc.  No cheating.

- Lost Highway

The way Karpov plays chess really doesnt appeal to me one bit, but objectively speaking, his career accomplishments is among the very best in 20th century chess if not the best. He deserves to be among the Greats of chess history

Quote:

Not true?  Not a lie I hope.

Look it up if you have the time:

1928 Berlin...1st ahead of Tarrasch, Reti, Rubinstein, Marshall, et.al.
1929 Budapest...1st
1929 Barcelona...1st  (+13 =1)
1931 New York...1st
1931 Match against Euwe...won +2 =8

- Lost Highway

Quote:

SF -

Philidor did not play much, but when he did, he was the dominant player during the mid 1700’s.  Judged by today’s standards, some of his games were pretty weak, and not just in the opening.  I’m not familiar with the story about him fabricating games.  Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t.  Could have been someone else doing it who then claimed he found some old Philidor games.  250 years after the fact, who knows?  I’d give the guy the benefit of the doubt.  He played some matches and seems to have won them all by crushing scores.  One against Stamma in London where he smashed the guy +8 -1 =1 and even let Stamma have white in every game…and even let him count a draw as a win!  Still squashed him like a bug.  And they weren't fabricated games because they were played in public with people watching.

The players on this list are all world champions or would have been if the title existed back in Philidor and Morphy’s days.  The historical record shows that they all had periods of at least 3 years when they pretty much destroyed the rest of the chess world, Alekhine being the sole exception maybe because he was a contemporary of Capablanca.  Even there, an exception could be justified because for a while, Capablanca and Alekhine did not play in the same tournaments. Sort of like a double universe that they lived in.  In the Alekhine universe (without Capablanca) he was clearly the king.

I agree with your comment about deleting Philidor from the list.  However, that’s just you and me.  Someone else may say we should get rid of Steinitz, or Lasker, or…_____ (fill in the blank).  We could take a negative vote and after each round, knock off the guy who got the fewest votes.  Throw him overboard, then take another vote of the players remaining, get rid of whoever finishes last in that vote, and repeat the process until there are just two left standing.   

- Lost Highway