Talk:Comparison of top chess players throughout history/Archive 1

Archive 1

Title

As came out in the AfD the title is a major part of the problem. If we get the title right then some rewriting to meet the new title will get rid of much of the OR. My suggestion is: Historical ranking of chess players. Revised suggestion in the light of discussion: Comparing the chess greats. Please indicate below. BlueValour 19:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. BlueValour 23:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose (keep existing title)

1. Slightly oppose - what people really discuss/debate is who is the greatest (or try to rank the greatest). Historical ranking of chess players sounds a bit like ranking all players, i.e. am I better than a club player from the 1950s, or are today's GMs stronger than those of the 1950s. That is not the question this page tries to answer. It tries to answer (or, to be more precise, document other peoples' answers) to how to rank the very greatest. So I kind of like the current title, though my feelings on it aren't strong. BTW, I don't see how changing the title will affect the OR. The OR in the first section could just as easily be applied to Historical ranking of chess players. The OR parts can be rewritten whatever the title is. Rocksong 23:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I like Comparing the chess greats even less. Because the title contains no direct indication that we are attempting compare different eras. Rocksong 23:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

How about "comparing top chess players throughout history"? Bubba73 (talk), 23:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, we need to move on, I agree. BlueValour 00:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Change to different title (specify)

1. I am in favor of changing the title and I think the proposed title is better than the current title. However, I think there should be a better title but I don't know what to suggest at the moment. I think the proposed new title sounds too narrow and doesn't accurately reflect the intent of the article. Bubba73 (talk), 01:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC) Perhaps "Criteria for top chess players" or "Measurements of top chess players", just a couple of ideas. Bubba73 (talk), 01:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the revised "Comparing chess greats", or something similar such as "Comparing great chessplayers". Bubba73 (talk), 20:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Deep Blue

Why is there no mention of Deep Blue on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.50.166 (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• It would be difficult to add much about IBM Deep Blue here for a bunch of reasons:

1. Too few games played.
2. Too few opponents. The only elite player Deep Blue played was Kasparov, and they only played a total of 12 games. In historical chess terms, this would only be a single short match.
3. Deep Blue has no official Elo rating.
4. Deep Blue no longer exists, so there's no hope of fixing 1–3.

There's a better opportunity to say something about the current programs (Fritz, Rybka, Hydra), but comparisons between humans and computer programs are fraught with difficulties. It is clear that the strongest chess programs have been better than all but very elite human players for several years, and in fact most observers believe that currently the strongest programs are better than the strongest humans. This will probably become more clear in the next few years, although I suspect that the very best human chess players will start to avoid playing strong programs (this is probably already happening), making a direct comparison harder. Quale 02:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Richardcavell's edit

I'm generally reluctant to do wholesale reverts of edits made in good faith, which is why I'm explaining myself here. I think Richardcavell's edit of 20-Nov-2006 actually confuses the article. First, I don't see "what a player gains from analysing the games of a particular player" has to do with greatest player of all time. An instructive player need not be a great player, and vice versa. Second, I don't think the Fischer/Kasparov example is accurate, and will inevitably lead to people with different opinions editing it. So I'm undoing the entire edit. Perhaps better would be to produce an example ("Author X once evaluated player greatness judging by how instructive their games were"), but to my knowledge this has never been done. Rocksong 02:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I take your reversion in good faith. I'd still like to see something there about subjective factors playing a role in determining who was the best chess player. - Richardcavell 03:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking my revert in right spirit! In general, I think would be good to list any "quality" subjective lists out there. I know of at least two which deserve mention: The prolific author Irving Chernev wrote a book called "The Golden Dozen" in which he ranks his top 12 (up to Fischer, i.e. Karpov not considered). It was a fairly conventional list: 1 Capa, 2 Alekhine, 3 Lasker, 4 Fischer etc. And Fischer himself did a top 10 in the 60s, claiming to have done it on analysis of play only. His list was a bit more controversial (surprise!) - he left out Lasker and I think Morphy was top. Any other, more modern, subjective lists could be added also. I don't mean by average Joe on the internet, I mean published by reputable players or authors. Rocksong 04:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Such a list can be assembled by collating individual comments over the course of chess literature. The deleted list above seems to be "List of World Champions with high win percentages over peers". For example, Euwe beat Alekhine when the world understood that human factors had weakened his chess skills. The Dutch GM won the title fairly, but mostly because the leading light was playing second tier chess, and it wasn't an age of 3-4 potential champions. If we are actively seeking subjective material, there's an effect from Morphy to Lasker that "the concepts of the game were still developing". They were playing on native ability, and arguably with an incomplete set of chess maturity. In the 1920's, the "Hypermodern" movement put the ideas of indirect control and weakening overextended centers into world view. Right afterward, a consecutive pair of "greatest ever" champions emerged - Capablanca & Alekhine. As a combined team, no one could seriously threaten them for about 25 years from 1920-1945. Individuals like Tal & Fischer achieved even higher lights in isolated years, but then could not sustain that level. The next "dominant" champions would be Karpov & Kasparov, who formed another combined team no one could touch for another 25 years from 1975-2000. These four players will always show up on "Greatest Ever" lists over a 5 year period or longer. The exact differentiation becomes difficult because of the fundamental vagueness of the concept of "great". TaoPhoenix 01:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

A different criteria

I've thought of a different criteria to use, using ChessMetrics. Much of the time, one player is far ahead of the field - 50 or more points. What about tabulating the players that were, at some point, at least 50 points above the second best player, and then sort these according to that difference. Any thoughts? Bubba73 (talk), 01:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Would be OR if you or I did it. But Jeff Sonas did it in an earlier part of The Greatest Chess Player of All Time – Part IV (see links at foot of page). IIRC the top player by that criterion was Steinitz, the only time the poor old guy got a look in. Philcha (talk) 08:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not quite what I had in mind, but that could be put into the article. Bubba73 (talk), 15:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, what I had in mind is actually in Part 1. Bubba73 (talk), 15:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Warriors of the Mind - reviews?

I've found a few dismissive references en passant to Keene & Divinsky's "Warriors of the Mind" but no genuine reviews (only the usual guff at online bookshoops). Does any one know of any credible reviews? Personally I don't trust the book because it gives Steinitz a pretty low ranking, below several obscure Soviet GMs of the 1950s to 1970s. I suspect that Steinitz' rating is depressed by 2 factors that Divinsky's algorithm doesn't allow for: Steinitz' "career break" from the mid-1870s to mid-1880s; and the related fact that there were a lot more opportunities for competition after the break (Steinitz in his 50s; modern players decline after 40) than before it. Philcha (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Warriors of the Mind is comprehensively demolished by Edward G. Winter in a scathing review that can be found in his book Chess Explorations. I don't think it deserves a place in this article. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen either Warriors or the critique you mention. But my feeling is that Warriors should be discussed, but the critique of it should also be there. Bubba73 (talk), 16:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll put in something a bit later. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

By all means reference + link to Winter's criticism, but bear in mind Winter is no friend of Keene. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

True, but his arguments in this case are difficult to refute. Pawnkingthree (talk) 09:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Elo Table

The Elo table's size is out of proportion to the rest of the article. I suggest limiting it to the top 10. None of the modern players outside the top 10 could even conceivably be called Greatest of all time. Peter Ballard 07:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• I like the list, although I have a clear bias because I'm the one who originally added it to Grandmaster some time ago based on a Chessbase News article. It didn't fit very well in that article (it was in the section discussing the ill-defined "super-GM"), so it was moved here. Trimming it to the top 10 would be sad, as Tal would drop off the list and his 2705 in 1980 is a lot more impressive than Morezovich's 2762 in 2007, in my opinion. The list provides more information than just the top Elo ratings, it also gives a timeline of top results. Quale 15:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The list is now up to 50, and will probably grow exponentially in the future. It will soon get too long to manage. It is already too long compared to the rest of the article. I say we cut it to top 10, or maybe 20. Don't worry about Tal dropping off the list - his place in history is assured. Alternatively, fork the list out to a different article. Peter Ballard (talk) 04:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No debate, perhaps my post was missed because of the discussion below? I repeat: if we list every player over 2700 then the list will grow exponentially in future. So (a) can we agree that we limit the list to the top X rated players ever? (b) What is a suitable value of X? I like X=10, but X=20 might be a reasonable compromise. Peter Ballard (talk) 07:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree the table's size has to be limited, but "top X rated players ever" is not a good method - at present Capablanca, Botvinnik and Lasker are in positions 27-29, Tal is at 40, I can't see Steinitz, Alekhine, Euwe, Smyslov, Petrosian or Spassky (and I haven't mentioned any of the challengers or credible contenders from before 1984). I'd prefer to see the current top 10, plus all world champs, their challengers and a maximum of 1 other credible contender from each reign (e.g. Rubinstein, Keres); with the "Rank" column showing where they would appear in a full table, and a notes column saying e.g. "world champion xxxx-yyyy" of "challenged for world championship in xxxx". That would be a twofer, as it would also illustrate ratings inflation. Philcha (talk) 08:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think doing both would make sense, but in separate tables. Trim the peak Elo ratings to a top 10. Put the world champions in a separate table with their historical Elo ratings. I wouldn't include a credible contender from each reign, although if this were desired instead I would suggest just including all the world championship challengers. We could also list all of the FIDE world #1s. Since Kasparov had the top rating for such a long time (and Fischer and Karpov were the only #1s before him), Anand became only the sixth player ever to top the ratings list in April 2007. Actually the best way to show ratings inflation is not the top rating (this would actually suggest deflation since Kasparov's 1999 peak), but rather the average of the top 100 or the floor of the top 100. (The rating required to be in the top 100 is currently 2627. Apparently in Jan 2001, 2595 was enough.) Quale (talk) 09:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

What Quale suggests (2 tables) is actually in the article already: (1) Elo's original list, and (2) the highest Elos ever. I read somewhere that ratings inflation began around 1985, so if that is correct, those two tables should be pretty well sufficient. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is clear that there has been rating inflation. It is also a lot easier to get the GM title these days. I was looking at the GMs by year, and there were very few by 1970 compared to now. Bubba73 (talk), 15:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of Fischer and Karpov being the only FIDE #1 rated players before Kasparov, Elo published retroactive ratings back to something like 1850. Bubba73 (talk), 15:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Right. We should have more about that at grandmaster. I have seen a few scattered counts of the number of grandmasters, but unfortunately I don't have a complete count for every year. If we had counts for just the decades (1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000) it would probably be interesting and useful information. I think that would show an explosion in the number of GMs in the last 20 years. Quale (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I got Anne Sunnucks's Encyclopedia of Chess yesterday (used 1970 edition), and it has a list of all of the grandmasters by year through 1968. Some years only one GM title was awarded. There are more names there than I care to type in, but it would be easy to count them for each year. Bubba73 (talk), 18:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if the 2nd edition has any more GM data. Unfortunately I only have the 1st edition, and I haven't seen any used 2nd editions listed for sale. Kenneth Harkness also lists GMs in his Chess Handbook, and I have a couple of editions of that. I'll look to see if it is helpful. Quale (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It probably has a little more data. I found used copies of the second editon for sale, but the price was too high for the condition of the book. Bubba73 (talk), 22:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I trimmed the table to 20 today, while updating the list based on April 2008 ratings. I was tempted to trim it to 10, but thought that was a bit too radical. Maybe we can trim it to 10 later. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Absence of Fischer and Karpov from Elo's 1978 list

The chessbase.com reference for Elo's 1978 list - http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1160 - is a bit weird. It was certainly done around 1978, because it contains 1970s players like Portisch (born 1951, the same year as Karpov) and Mecking (born 1952). Chessbase notes, "Fischer and Karpov were at the top of the list, although they were 2780 and 2775 on the January 1st 1978 FIDE ratings list, since these numbers did not represent a five-year average for the players." But this doesn't explain their complete absence from the top 47, because Fischer (certainly) and Karpov (almost certainly) would have had higher 5-year averages than Portisch or Mecking in 1978. So either Elo mucked up, or Chessbase did. So that's why I've modified the note to say that Elo left Fischer and Karpov off his list, and left it at that. Rocksong 11:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that he left Fischer off because he didn't have a five-year period of activity when he was at his peak. He had been inactive before playing again at his peak in 1970 to 1972. I also speculate that perhaps he left Karpov off because he had not yet reached his peak. Well, as you point out - others about the age of KArpov are listed, so perhaps omiting Karpov was an error. On the other hand, in the chart on page 88-89, it looks pretty clear that Portish hes leveled off and is near his peak. Bubba73 (talk), 04:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, Fischer wouldn't be on the 1978 list, would he? He gave up chess around 1975 when he didn't defend his World Champion Title. Karpov's absence is somewhat interesting, however, since 1978 was the first year he defended his title against V. Korchnoi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.122.45.230 (talk) 15:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Fischer's List

Should it be mentioned about Fischer's list that it was published in 1964, and so it couldn't possibly include players like Kasparov, Krammnik and Karpov, or Fischer himself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.122.45.230 (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Advances over time

This article doesn't appear to even mention the fact that chess itself advances over time. For example, if you were to send Kramnik back in a time machine to play Staunton, or Morphy, or Steinitz in their primes, he would probably achieve technically winning positions in every game just by his modern knowledge of openings alone. Though Lasker is listed as "greater" than Kramnik (I agree with this), this doesn't mean he was STRONGER than Kramnik (which I think would be a completely unrealistic claim); in other words, what Lasker did with the state of chess in his time impresses me more than what Kramnik has done, but I know that if pitted directly against each other at their peaks, Lasker would be utterly and completely outgunned in a match. His early 20th century openings alone, taking nothing else into account, would lead to an embarassingly lopsided result. And, like it or not, openings are a part of chess, so that cannot be discounted in these discussions. And yet, this does not even seem to be mentioned in this article. Smyslov 16:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The article used to say this, but it was in a rather unencyclopedic style and was unreferenced. So it got deleted. By all means add something along those lines, with references. Peter Ballard 23:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

What references? In any case, I don't think I'm well-suited to writing such things. Nevertheless, this is something that absolutely has to be in this article, if the article should exist at all. Without this crucial element, it is exceptionally misleading, and might honestly cause non-chess folks to believe that top players of the late 1800s were actually literally equal in strength to those of today ... which of course indicates that chess has not advanced in the last 100 years! That is, of course, absurd, but that's the impression I would get from this article as it stands. Smyslov 20:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Lasker publicly announced that he was not interested in becoming a detailed student of the openings. Regardless of absolute knowledge, his attitude alone would knock off some points from a comparison with the modern era. Today he would be a "typical mid-level GM". Only a few years later, Alekhine did deeply study the openings, and posted comparable results. Anyone who wants to source this need only quote Laker's own "Manual of Chess". TaoPhoenix 01:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

To suggest that Lasker would only be a "typical, mid-level GM" indicates that you either greatly overestimate the strength of a mid-level GM or you greatly underestimate Lasker's strength, or both. Quale 20:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree that Lasker was proportionally dominant in his time. My comment referred to the slippery advantage that all modern GM's share, which is the computerized spread of information. They all have the lineage of legacy to stand upon; "Lasker didn't have Lasker to study from". This is what the modern usage of the Novelty is about; even the best geniuses will struggle while contending live against something the opponent has looked at for weeks at home. TaoPhoenix (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. I think you are all greatly underestimating Lasker's playing strength. Give him a month or so to catch up and he would be a very dangerous opponent to any person alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.197.14 (talk) 04:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Lasker "from what year?" Capablanca did not lose a single game from their match in 1921, and Schlecter held him dead even until the very end. His one legacy flaw was that even in his day, he *didn't want* to catch up with theory. TaoPhoenix (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The greatest of the great chess players have a genius for chess that far transcends the evolution of chess and the body of opening theory. Morphy, Capablanca, Alekhine, Fischer- modern-day 2700-rated grandmasters wouldn't stand a chance against those guys. Do you really think Kramnik or Anand or Topalov could beat Capablanca? Tsk tsk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.197.14 (talk) 07:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, yes, I do think that a modern 2700+ would beat any of those older players in a 24-game match. You mention earlier giving Lasker a month to catch up on opening theory. That's the whole point. You're talking about comparing the REAL Lasker, who did NOT have a month of modern openings, with modern players. There is no month to catch up, it's only Lasker and what was in his actual brain in that time, comparing with players of today and what's in their brains. Lasker would land lost positions out of the opening in most (almost all?) games. If top players of today aren't better, than those players of the past added nothing to chess. Smyslov 21:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought you were talking about comparing the skill of the players in different eras, not the overall level of chess theory in different eras. The question is whether the players are better, not whether more is known about the openings. (In any event this argument is essentially impossible to resolve.) I think you're barking up the wrong article for the argument you want to make, which to me isn't very interesting anyway. I expect that the theory would improve over time. I don't see anything in this article that suggests that it hasn't. Quale 22:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Er, the skill of the player is increased by this more advanced theory. How can that not be a part of their skillset? This is precisely the #1 (but hardly only) reason they are stronger. Smyslov 15:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I have no idea what you're arguing. According to you, any chess player today should be stronger than Lasker or Capablanca because of the greater amount of theory available to the modern player. Except that clearly isn't the case. Quale 20:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

According to me, NOTHING of the sort. I never said or thought any such thing. As a 1700 player, I would lose to Lasker or Capablanca, and never said or argued otherwise. Don't attribute that to me when it is utterly untrue, please. Top players are another matter from "any chess player today". There is a certain degree of strength on top that is gained by the advances in theory. This is improvement. Chess, as with most everything, improves over time. If today's top weren't better, that would mean no advances had happened at all. Clearly, even the most cursory examination indicates that advances have occured. Smyslov 15:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the anon is basically right, and I disagree strongly that Lasker would be a "typical mid-level GM". In fact I don't think that's a consensus view. Lasker was an elite player, champion for 27 years and the very best in the world until Capablanca. Even the "typical mid-level GMs" would probably tell you that Lasker was better than they are. Quale 07:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

"Dominant in the best years of their day" is different from "transporting the man in a time machine". We had an example of exactly this concept when Bobby Fischer surfaced to play Spassky. Drawing from another Wikipedia article, "In the book Mortal Games, Garry Kasparov is quoted: "He is playing OK. Around 2600 or 2650. It wouldn't be close between us."" TaoPhoenix (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Fischer wasn't playing like a 2600 player, in 1992, because he was 20 years behind on chess theory. He was 20 years older and hadn't played in tournaments in 20 years (not to mention the fact that he was nuts). Lasker is an easy player to underestimate, but in my opinion he wouldn't need "one month to catch up" anyway. For some reason, even during his lifetime he was constantly mis-assessed. For example, he had a reputation of spending little time on studying the opening, when in fact he studied them very deeply, but disagreed with the contemporary opening theory, and came up with his own innovations. Another very debatable assessment of Lasker is that he was a chess psychologist who "played the man" instead of "playing the board". At any rate, there is widespread agreement that Lasker was one of the best of the best, a superlatively great genius, a tenacious fighter who always kept his head, was the number one player in the world for *decades*, who had no equal in his ability to save or even win losing positions through resourcefully creating counterplay, and who was winning world-class tournaments in his sixties.75.111.161.156 (talk) 05:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

WCC-2010

Can the page be updated by an expert post the WCC 2010 in Sofia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.168.229.71 (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Title - another suggestion

The main problem with this title is that it is not a noun - all Wikipedia titles that I've ever seen, other than this one, are nouns. I propose this be renamed "Comparison of top chess players throughout history" - that's not perfect, but it's a lot better. --209.78.3.114 (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Bubba73 (talk), 00:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I had never thought about it before, but I also agree. Maybe "Comparison of top chess players in history" would be shorter than "throughout". Quale (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Or perhaps "Comparison of historic chess players", to make it shorter. Bubba73 (talk), 02:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we don't need "comparison". Just "Top chess players in history" ? I suspect that some would complain that "comparison" is needed, because there is no absolute way to judge the top player in history. I think comparison is implicit in the title, so perhaps it could be left out. Quale (talk) 03:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yea, maybe "comparison" should go. Bubba73 (talk), 05:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion, but note that the article has already been renamed once. It used to be called Greatest chess player of all time. See discussion above at #Title. Peter Ballard (talk) 05:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that title is sort of subjective and POV. Bubba73 (talk), 05:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Precedent suggests that we might want to call it "Historical rankings of top chess players" or perhaps just "Rankings of top chess players." --66.214.221.166 (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The current article name is horrible. It makes it incredibly difficult to understand what the article is really about. Is the focus on:

• the players
• the method/ranking, or
• history?

I don't have a stake in the chess world, so from a distance, I would say the article is really about the players. Apparently, it's important to know who the "best" is, and so different objective and subjective criteria have been sought to justify one over another.

From this perspective, a better title might be "Evaluation of top chess players" or "Comparison of top chess players". It seems natural that if you're going to take on either of these stated tasks, that you would do it "throughout history" or "throughout all time" and that there would be means for doing so, so I don't see the need to mention these trifles in the article title.

Obviously, these issues come up, however. I believe it would be far more instructive for the reader if the article compiles a list of methods early in the article (perhaps a separate article section?), and then use those methods in the article body, as applicable.

If necessary, a separate article could be created to distinguish "inactive" players and "active" players. My feeling is that "Evaluation of top chess players" could contain both, but that there might be interest in something like "Evaluation of top active chess players", for example, which would permit comparisons using all "current" methods of evaluation.

FWIW. 70.247.169.197 (talk) 02:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Elo system

A quick reading of this section seems to suggest that FIDE implement the system 8 years before it is published. Perhaps someone with greater knowledge than me could clarify when the system was publicised as opposed to when a book about it was published :/ Weavehole (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)weavehole

That is basically true. FIDE started using the FIDE system in 1970. The United States Chess Federation started using about 1960, IIRC. Prof. Elo's book about the system was published in 1978. It might have been published in an article before that, I don't know. Anyhow, Elo was the rating statistician for the USCF and the USCF engaged Elo to devise the system. I think Elo was also on a committee for FIDE. So it is not unusual that it was used for years before the book was published. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The Page is Obsolete

I tried to make changes to this page adding Alexander Khalifman's comments about Viswanathan Anand to the "Subjective Lists" section. The same was however moved by Quale(talk) to World Chess Championship 2010.

While his action has its logic, I wish to point out that this page is obsolete and needs urgent updation. In particular, the "Chessmetrics" and "Warriors of the Mind" lists are outdated and must either be deleted or else updated to reflect the real picture as of year 2011.

In specific, the Chessmetrics list of most dominant players includes data only upto 2004 and Viswanathan Anand, Vladimir Kramnik and Veselin Topalov have remained dominant for almost 7 years beyond that against many a worthy opponent. Anand was already a candidate for getting into that list even in 2004 and he has won two World Championship matches since then! Likewise the "Warriors of the Mind" list is obsolete now. I am sure some of these players would find a place in these lists if only they were updated (or else if someone re-did them with the latest computing power and databases).

I have been watching this page for more then two years now. Initially only Kasparov linked back to it but gradually pages of several past players like Karpov, Capablanca, Fischer, Lasker and Alekhine have also jumped onto the bandwagon and linked back to this page to "proclaim greatness". No doubts about the prowess of any of these players, but there must be objectivity and no undue glorification. So either we should update the page or else allow it to move beyond the statistics of last decade. --voyager39 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC).

More specific to the "Chessmetrics' table - the original analysis was done to arrive at the top 100 dominant players (based on data till year 2004) over varied lengths of time. What gets displayed here are the top 5 out of those 100.

Now that would be acceptable if the list was being updated every year but that never happened. Examining the 2004 list beyond the first 5, we find that Anand and Kramnik were threatening to break into the top even as of 2004:-

1 Year - Anand #8, Kramnik #9 (#1Fischer, then Kasparov, Botvinik, Capablanca, Lasker, Alekhine and Karpov, then Anand and Kramnik).

2 Years - Anand #8, Kramnik #9 (#1Kasparov, then Fischer, Lasker, Botvinik, Capablanca, Alekhine and Karpov, then Anand and Kramnik).

3 Years - Anand #8, Kramnik #9 (#1Kasparov, then Fischer, Capablanca, Lasker, Botvinik, Alekhine and Karpov, then Anand and Kramnik).

4 Years - Anand #8, Kramnik #9 (#1Kasparov, then Lasker, Capablanca, Fischer, Botvinik, Alekhine and Karpov, then Anand and Kramnik).

5 Years - Anand #8, Kramnik #9 (#1Kasparov, then Lasker, Capablanca, Botvinik, Fischer, Karpov, Alekhine, then Anand and Kramnik).

10 Years - Anand #7, Kramnik #9, Ivanchuk #10 (#1Kasparov, then Lasker, Karpov, Capablanca, Fischer, Botvinik, Anand, Alekhine, Kramnik, Ivanchuk).

15 Years - Anand #8, Ivanchuk #10, Kramnik #12 (#1Kasparov, then Karpov, Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Botvinik, Fischer, Anand, Korchnoi, Ivanchuk, Smyslov, Kramnik)

20 Years - Anand #12 (#1Kasparov, then Karpov, Lasker, Alekhine, Korchnoi, Smyslov, Keres, Petrosian, Botvinnik, Spassky, Tal, Anand).

Mind you, no less a player then Bobby Fischer has gradually receded and dropped out over a longer period, whereas a long-dominant player like Karpov has steadily climbed up. That's logical too as per the method followed.

Now add SEVEN more years to 2004 (since this subjective list was drawn out) and arrive at the year 2011 (ie the present year).

Anand has won two more World Chamionships in the interim and is the undisputed World Champion since 2007. He possibly remains so at least till 2012 when he faces his challenger. He is also the top rated player as per the FIDE rankings as of the time I am writing this. Kramnik is also going strong through all these decades and is still very near the top (so are Ivanchuk and Topalov).

Now where would these players be if the list were to be re-drawn today? My guess is that Anand certainly would find a place amongst the top three across most categories and Kramnik would get in the top 5 too. Maybe Ivanchuk/Topalov would also come close in some categories.

And if someone extended this list to 25 or 30 years, Anand would perhaps displace everyone!?

Having given out my thoughts - I propose that ALL obsolete lists must be deleted to prevent this page from being exploited for propaganda (see first part of my comments for all those players who have jumped onto this bandwagon to proclaim greatness based on the outdated information and disputed methods of comparison contained herein).

IMHO, the only genuine part of this page is the list of "World Champions by world title reigns". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voyager39 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I can see where you’re coming from, but I’m not sure you understand the purpose of this page within the context of an encyclopedia. It is definitely not a live update site (Elo ratings excepted). The page simply acknowledges the various reputable, properly sourced methodologies and opinions that have been employed/quoted over the years. It is effectively an historical record of the life of the topic, taken at various snapshots in time, as dictated by the timing of the experts who published the data or opinions in the first place. If I ever find time to look it up and post it here, I can recall CHESS magazine once carrying out a survey of its readers, probably back in the 70s, asking who they considered ‘the greatest’ of all time. Just because the readers may by now have changed their minds, it wouldn’t render the information ‘obsolete’ in an historical sense. Regarding people linking back, so long as they’re not overlinking, then again I don’t see a problem. If the article mentions that player in one of its lists, then linking is probably the right thing to do. I really don’t see where propaganda comes into it; these may well be faulted or discredited methods and opinions in the eyes of some, but there can be little dispute that they were once written or said. Most importantly, their entries here should not contain any subjective commentary or original research by Wikipedia’s editors. Therefore, if the article is in any way contentious or inflammatory, then that is purely down to the original author. Brittle heaven (talk) 00:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The reason I moved the Khalifman quote to World Chess Championship 2010 is that Khalifman only compared Anand to Topalov. Khalifman doesn't really say where he thinks Anand fits all time, although I think it's safe to say that Khalifman thinks he belongs at or near the top. So do I. I think it should be possible to find a source considered reliable in chess that places Anand in the greatest of all time, and that can go in the article. Finally, Brittle Heaven explained the fallacy that the page is "obsolete". I agree that it would be good to include more recent opinions, but the older ones should stay. Quale (talk) 03:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Definitely not obsolete and do include the old ones. Part of the title is "throughout history". Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I respect the logic behind moving the Khalifman quote from Methods for comparing top chess players throughout history to World Chess Championship 2010. I do however wish to bring your attention back to what was my original intent. I have observed this page frequently. Few years ago, I started wondering as to what is the acceptable time period for this page to remain hostage to the old statistics of Jeff Sonas, Raymond Keene, Nathan Divinsky, Matej Guid and Ivan Bratko. More recently I observed many past players (or their protege) beginning to exploit this page to proclaim greatness. My additions were merely an attempt to coerce a reflection on the "present state" because "Throughout History" seems to have stopped at 2005! The elo list only adds to the confusion because it is inflationary in nature. In my humble opinion, the present cathartic state is a bigger violation of encylopedia guidelines then my attempt to update it. Do remember that Wikipedia is visited by more lay people (who will be seriously mislead/confused by the data upto 2005) then experts (who can objectively transpose it to year 2011). A lot of 10 year old kids use Wikipedia to learn and write their homework. It is fine if we want to wait till someone of great repute explicitly compares current players to Fischer or either of the K's, or someone acceptable comes forth with up-to-date statistics beyond 2005. That may happen tomorrow, or may not happen for another 10 years. Till then we can keep our heads buried in sand. Voyager39 (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

While moving the Khalifman quote above, Quale mentioned that it should be possible to find a source considered reliable in chess that places Anand in the greatest of all time. I did find another reliable one recently where Kramnik considers Anand as "a colossal talent, one of the greatest in the whole history of chess". Kramnik goes on to say Anand is much improved after 2002 and that his play is in no way weaker than Kasparov (except he's a little lazy and relaxed). The full interview is at http://www.whychess.org/en/node/1605. Rather then directly edit, I considered it better to seek an opinion if this can go into the page? Voyager39 (talk) 13:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that would be a good addition as a subsection in the Methods for comparing top chess players throughout history#Subjective lists. It probably should be kept brief, about as long as your summary here, in order to fit in well with the rest of the section. Quale (talk) 05:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Logic : Years as Champion?

The section about "World Champions by world title reigns" shows (10+6) against Karpov and (4+2) against Anand in the column of "Years as Champion". Shouldn't the (x+y) logic apply to the FIDE/PCA split periods for Kasparov, Kramnik, Ponomariov, Khalifman, Kasimdzhanov and Topalov as well? What's the logic? Else it needs amending becuase its deceptive and discriminates selectively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.168.202.194 (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit : World Champions by world title reigns

Have split the column "Years as Champion" to make it more accurately reflect the undisputed periods and title reigns during the 13 years split era from 1993 to 2006. It can now be clearly inferred that actually 26 years of title reigns correspond to this 13 year period. The order in which players appear has not been changed.

However, since the section is titled World Champions by "Title Reigns", and Reign to my mind corresponds to time spans - I also propose to re-arrange the table based on number of years as undisputed champion. As of now the table is erroneously arranged based on total number of undisputed + split titles held and not by time spans.

Where the undisputed reigns are of equal duration, we can use the additional reign during the split period as tiebreaker, if even that is identical we can then use the number of titles won. The logic is fairly obvious.

This may however need some discussion and I would therefore request for views / suggestions / comments to evolve some consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voyager39 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Surprising that there are no dissenting views so far, presumably we all agree that "Title Reign" corresponds to time? Voyager39 (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

There are other options available. The disputed period when there were two competing championships essentially corresponds to half (0.5) the undisputed ones in terms of "Titles Won" and "Title Reign". Thus one can also re-do the heirarchy according to either of those criteria after applying a multiplication factor of 0.5 Voyager39 (talk) 18:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The "reign periods" have varied for historical resons. Like Capablanca has a reign of 6 years just by virtue of one title. Petrosian, Fischer have reigns of 3 years per title. Tal, Smyslov and Kramnik on the other hand have just a 1 year reign for their title. I think it is better to rank by number of title wins. The table is just fine now after the overlapping undisputed and disputed periods are clearly spelt out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.168.219.250 (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Comparison by Country

This section doesn't really merge with the article. The article is about comparing players NOT countries.

And how is the table presented a "Historical Table" if it is just giving the current status? What is the source of this data? How do we know that a current Super GM is at his/her peak or not? And why not include emerging GMs?

I don't really understand this section and feel it needs to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.168.23.26 (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree! It seems like someone did some work which they thought was interesting and couldn't find an article to put it in. I've no objection to it being moved to a different article (called something like "Strongest Chess Nations"), but it doesn't belong here. It's a totally off-topic diversion. Adpete (talk) 05:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

OK I've deleted it. Adpete (talk) 04:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC) It is preserved below here:

By country

Even though, the country which each of super-grandmasters represent in international venues (like chess olympiads, world team, european team competitions and other strongest international chess tournaments) is not most important argument for considering 'talent of a country for chess' as a whole criterion, (some players did not ever represent their native country because of emigration, or for several other reasons), this table could be seen one standpoint of world chess federation divisions and for best records of FIDE membering countries.

This table includes all historical players peak rating by published FIDE ELO rating lists from 1970 to 2012.

Some (pre-1970) ratings published by Arpad Elo, which overlap 2700 ELO rating, are also included. ("2725 – José Raúl Capablanca - CUB"),("2720 – Mikhail Botvinnik - RUS"),("2720 – Emanuel Lasker - GER"),("2700 – Mikhail Tal - RUS").

'Historical table of best country by amount of strongest players' (as of March 2012)

Rank per amount of 2700+ players	Country with such players	Amount of super-grandmasters in peak	Average rating from country's players peak rating	Best player of the country	Highest achieved rating by the country
1	Russia	25	2740	Garry Kasparov	2851
2	Ukraine	5	2750	Vassily Ivanchuk	2787
3	China	5	2728	Wang Yue	2756
4	United States	4	2754	Bobby Fischer	2785
5	Hungary	4	2733	Peter Leko	2763
6	Azerbaijan	3	2772	Teimour Radjabov	2784
7	Armenia	3	2761	Levon Aronian	2820
8	France	3	2727	Etienne Bacrot	2731
9	Israel	3	2722	Boris Gelfand	2761
10	Netherlands	3	2714	Anish Giri	2722
11	India	2	2764	Viswanathan Anand	2817
12	Bulgaria	2	2763	Veselin Topalov	2813
13	England	2	2734	Michael Adams	2755
14	Cuba	2	2728	Leinier Domínquez Pérez	2730
15	Germany	2	2718	Emanuel Lasker	2720
16	Czech Republic	2	2718	David Navara	2731
17	Poland	2	2714	Radoslaw Wojtaszek	2726
18	Georgia	2	2709	Baadur Jobava	2715
19	Norway	1	2835	Magnus Carlsen	2835
20	Latvia	1	2755	Alexei Shirov	2755
21	Italy	1	2767	Fabiano Caruana	2767
22	Spain	1	2724	Francisco Vallejo Pons	2724
23	Vietnam	1	2717	Quang Liem Le	2717
24	Slovenia	1	2710	Alexander Beliavsky	2710
25	Romania	1	2707	Liviu-Dieter Nisipeanu	2707
26	Uzbekistan	1	2706	Rustam Kasimdzhanov	2706
27	Switzerland	1	2705	Vadim Milov	2705
28	Moldova	1	2700	Viktor Bologan	2700
29	Denmark	1	2700	Peter Heine Nielsen	2700

Kramnik's comments should be deleted

Kramnik's comments on Anand should be deleted. That section is for lists or rankings. Kramnik simply said Anand is one of the greatest (which is obvious anyway), but doesn't compare him to anyone else. Adpete (talk) 05:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

That's absolutely no reason. If some leading player says he considers XYZ as the greatest, it deserves a mention here. Comparisons are not obligatory. And in case you read the full interview cited in the reference, Kramnik does compare Anand to Kasparov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voyager39 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Flags

Somebody just recently added the Icelandic flag to one of the several mentions of Fischer in this article, which makes me wonder: do we need to mention nationalities here? Chess strength is what this article is about. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Considering the "By country" section got deleted, I think there's no problem with my proposed change, so I will proceed to do it. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

World title reigns

I have strong doubts about the value of this section. For a start, how many people think that Euwe, Ponomariov and Kasimdzhanov were more dominant chess players than Korchnoi and Keres? Toccata quarta (talk) 08:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. At the minimum, the table should drop everyone who was not champion for at least 5 years. Second, I don't understand the split between "Undisputed" and "FIDE/Classical" here. FIDE and Classical championships are not the same, and how is it possible to be Undisputed champion for longer than FIDE/Classical champion? (If you are undisputed champion and not FIDE champion, then clearly FIDE disputes it). Quale (talk) 13:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I propose deleting the section. If anybody objects to that, then please post here—I'll wait for a week or so. Toccata quarta (talk) 20:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it is interesting and would like to keep it. I propose an additional table - the number of times a player played a world championship match - either as champion or challanger. However, that would not show tournaments. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, that is probably not a good idea for this article. Sometimes championships were a year apart; sometimes several. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't like the section because a World Championship match assesses only one's strength against one opponent. It's possible for a "not so worthy" candidate to qualify (Euwe, Gelfand, et al.). The table gives the impression (to an uninformed reader, at least) that Euwe and Kasimdzhanov are superior to Korchnoi. And besides, this article is meant to be a comparison of the greatest players in history, not the "also rans". Toccata quarta (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Some contenders may have been better than some champions. But in a couple of places I've read that Euwe really was the best in the world at the time he was world champion. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the myth that Euwe was not worthy really must stop. His time at the top was very brief, but Euwe was among the very best in the world for a short time, and he was a fully worthy champion. Quale (talk) 04:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

So? Kasparov was at the top for 20 years. Arguing that a detailed comparison is necessary is absurd. Neither [1] nor [2] favour him that much. And you keep ignoring the Korchnoi issue. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

"Some contenders may have been better than some champions." Bubba73, you've just admitted that the table is of little value. As I said, "a World Championship match assesses only one's strength against one opponent." Toccata quarta (talk) 07:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but that is my subjective opinion and not an objective fact. The world championship is a type of objective criteria, and I think it should remain. We do have the opinions of some recognized people in the article - that should definitely be there. But I think the world champions should be too. As the article shows, there are several different ways of looking at "who is/was the best". Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Computer analyses

I have decided to remove the results of the first study and create a table of the second one, since the first one was (quite rightly, as far as I can see) criticised, and the second one was much more exhaustive and used Rybka, and not just Crafty. I also removed http://gm.chesszen.com/, as it appears to be based on a fairly limited number of games by just a few players. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The problem I have is that the first one (Guid and Bratko) has been published in an academic journal ICGA Journal as well as a major chess news site (Chessbase) and so has had some sort of review. The one in the article ( http://www.truechess.org ) is as far as I can tell entirely self-published by one Charles Sullivan, so it is inadmissible as a WP:Reliable Source. The reason Guid and Bratko has been criticised is because it has been properly published. As far as I can see, no one of note has criticised (or supported) Sullivan's work so we can't use it. Of course I would change my mind if reliable 3rd party support or publication can be shown, though even then I think an entire table is a little out of proportion. Adpete (talk) 02:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Guid and Bratko later did an updated study (see [3]) on the same topic, and I think this should be mentioned in the article. They also make mention of the Sullivan analysis. I'll update this article accordingly. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

That's good because it's a summary, and for me it certainly counts as a reliable 3rd party mention of Sullivan. In terms of the WP article, I'd rather see each study's lists, rather than a single table dedicated to one particular article. It'd also be good if somehow, neutrally and briefly, we could mention the criticisms of each (e.g. other peoples' critcisms of Guid + Bratko, and G+B's criticisms of Sullivan). Adpete (talk) 08:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Removed forum reference

I have removed the following passage from the Kramnik footnote:

• It has been suggested that Kramnik played some additional games which FIDE did not initially calculate [http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=9010]

A forum hardly qualifies as a relevant source for WP. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The forum explanation makes a lot of sense to me. I think this is a case of WP:IAR - the explanation helps, so why not include it? Adpete (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

However logical, it does not come from a reliable source. If the claims are significant enough to be discussed in this article, then it should be possible to back them up with high-quality sources. Toccata quarta (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Kramnik delete (again)

Above #Kramnik's comments should be deleted I argued that Kramnik's comments should be deleted. Since then, another Kramnik interview has been added. But I think both should be deleted. Read the interviews and nowhere does he say who is the greatest player of all time. Adpete (talk) 02:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. This article is identified as a comparison. Kramnik clearly placed Kasparov above every other chess player, and later put Anand on Kasparov's pedestal. Now that I think of it, I'll probably expand the section, as Kramnik offered various comments on the other champions too. Toccata quarta (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

If you read the full article (the 2005 one) nowhere does it say that Kasparov is the best. The sentence quote in the WP article ("The other world champions had something 'missing'. I can't say the same about Kasparov: he can do everything.") is about his versatility, not his strength (note the title is "Garry the Flexible"); and he immediately qualifies it with "However, it is also impossible to be perfect at everything in the same period of time. Kasparov has had weak points at every step of his career because one cannot concentrate on everything.". I believe it is WP:SYNTH to get from that, that Kasparov is the best. Quite the opposite, my reading of it is Kramnik is careful not to call anyone "best".

The second article (2011) is quoted out of context. The following part sentence is quoted, "in terms of play Anand is in no way weaker than Kasparov", but the next bit is omitted: "but he’s simply a little lazy, relaxed and only focuses on matches". Again, Kramnik comments on strengths and weaknesses but avoids calling anyone "best". Adpete (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

That's like saying "an ICC woodpusher is as strong as Fischer because they both blundered." "Imperfect" does not imply that judgements can't be made. "Greatest" does not equal "perfect".

Are you really saying that versatility is not a strength? Come on. Toccata quarta (talk) 03:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course not. But versatility is not the same as strength. "More versatile" is not the same as "stronger". If Kramnik wanted to say someone was the greatest or the best or the strongest, he could've said so unambiguously (like Anand, Carlsen and Aronian did). But he didn't. Adpete (talk) 04:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

When he says that they missed something, he obviously implies virtues. Otherwise, he might be saying "Karpov lacked the ability to screw up winning positions". Toccata quarta (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to hear more opinions on this. I also think Edmonds and Eidenow should be removed because (a) they don't actually say Fischer was the best; but more importantly (b) they are not chess experts. Adpete (talk) 00:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Edmonds and Eidinow may not be chess players, but I'm sure they interviewed various chess professionals and writers on this matter. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I added the Edmons & Eidinow text since they were award-winning BBC journalists, and the book is extensively researched with seven pages of bibliography (with about 25 items per page) and this: "We plundered the archives of many newspapers, especially Corriere della Sera, The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Guardian, the Daily Telegraph, the Los Angeles Times, and The Times (London). In Moscow, the archives of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Izvestia, Pravda, Vecherniaia Moskva, Shakhmati v SSSR, and 64 were essential reading. We are grateful to the London Library and the Wisconsin Historical Society." The article list intro says "prominent players and writers", ... I didn't take that to mean the writers needed to be players. (If the intro is limited to player-experts then perhaps it should be clarified.) I have no problem with deleting the quotation I added, taken from the last chapter of their book, I'm just explaining on what basis I had added it. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

OK. How about my other objection, that they don't actually say Fischer was the best? The first sentence sort of says that, but only says "some" maintain that. The remainder is about the gap between his and his contemporaries, but that's not the same thing. Still, I can see an argument there, my objection is mild compared to the inclusion of Kramnik. Adpete (talk) 04:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Content dispute

User:FakTNeviM and I have recently disagreed on the worth of this edit. My justification for my changes is the following: 1) the "(FIDE Rating List released on 2013-07-01)" note has no clear purpose; 2) it's not necessary to state that the players are grandmasters, as the article is discussing ratings, not titles; 3) "only" is redundant.

Comments from others on this matter are welcome. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi.

1) First of all, I am trying to understand your intentions on delete that edit, and thus I suppose that your edit was merely intended to 'simplify' information and remove supposed 'redundancies'.

2) Wikilink on "Grandmaster (chess)" is not mandatory there, but I feel it suits to content of the article and even more to the specific paragraph about elo rating. You know very well that .... (you're same like me active chess-player), and (same as me, you're frequent editor of this article = we are two editors in TOP 4 for this article)... that only Grandmaster can achieve to be in TOP chess players in the history (more specifically, person with unofficial title 'SuperGM'). Thus I cannot see any potential harmful quality if the wikilink will be keep it there, and thus I prefer this case.

3) Today I just submit additional hidden note. ... (Hidden notes are intended for information of fellow editors at Wikipedia and ordinary customer/reader cannot see them.) ... Intention of that note was to inform on precisely what period of rating is included. Stating only "July" is incorrect because rating list is released usually on 30th day of preceding month, starting to be 'officially available' on 1st of current month, and data are correct till 30th of current month. In other words, (from 2013-06-30 to 2013-07-31 (or) 2013-07-01 to 2013-07-31 covers the same, just 1 release).

All of that seem to be marginal issues on content and rather the each editor's view is the case. --FakTNeviM (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Alright. But shouldn't the note be changed into a reference then, so that readers can be made aware of that information as well? Toccata quarta (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. That's reasonable. You can do it. Thx. --FakTNeviM (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The word "only" is unnecessary and implicates an unexplained expectation. I'd remove it. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC) p.s. Why is 2700 being called a "limit"? (That's inherently confusing. Just say "broke 2700" or "surpassed 2700".)

In general I agree with Toccata's points. The problem with saying GMs rather than simply players is that a reader might reasonably wonder how many non-GMs achieved a rating over 2700. We know the answer is zero, but I don't see any benefit in allowing the question to come up at all. "Players" makes a stronger statement than "GMs", and we might as well make the strongest true statement. I also agree that "only" is unnecessary. Quale (talk) 00:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Fischer, 1970

Fischer also has a "greatest ever" list from 1970. Does anyone here have a solid book reference for it? Thanks, Toccata quarta (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

CHESS magazine, Nov 1970 p. 70 contains Fischer's then top 10 list. I'm not sure it was much more than a fleeting fancy, but for the record it went ... Morphy, Steinitz, Capablanca, Botvinnik, Petrosian, Tal, Spassky, Reshevsky, Gligoric and Larsen. He and Bjelica then made a TV programme in Sarajevo about each of these chess titans (10 episodes in total). Bjelica tried to get him to include Alekhine, but Fischer just laughed and said Alekhine wouldn't be angry about it. Brittle heaven (talk) 21:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the reference; I have now incorporated the list into the article. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

New table

User:Frunzedz has just added a massive table to this article. Since it is not finished, it should not have been added to this article yet, but developed in a sandbox. Also, I don't understand its purpose at all. What is it all about? Moreover, does it follow any widely respected methodology for comparing the strength of chess players, or is it just WP:OR? Toccata quarta (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Jumping the gun

Today is Jan. 26, 2015. Someone edited this article with FIDE ratings of February 2015, which obviously haven't been published yet. While his edit might be a good estimate of what FIDE will officially publish in a few days, this is clearly WP:OR. I won't undo, just because there were several edits in between and it's too tedious, but in the future please avoid this. A rating is official when it's published on ratings.fide.com; we can wait a few days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.228.147.41 (talk) 06:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Karpov's top 5

in no particular order: Capablanca, Tal, Fischer, Kasparov and Karpov. http://www.chessintranslation.com/2010/03/karpov-on-the-pozner-show/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir artur (talk • contribs) 12:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Comparison of top chess players throughout history. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120515101645/http://chessmetrics.com/cm/Documents/AboutSystem.htm to http://chessmetrics.com/cm/Documents/AboutSystem.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120309155451/http://chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/PeakList.asp?Params=199510SSSSS1S000000000000111000000000000010100 to http://chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/PeakList.asp?Params=199510SSSSS1S000000000000111000000000000010100
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120309154749/http://chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/PeakList.asp?Params=199510SSSSS5S000000000000111000000000000010100 to http://chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/PeakList.asp?Params=199510SSSSS5S000000000000111000000000000010100
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120309155152/http://chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/PeakList.asp?Params=199510SSSSSTS000000000000111000000000000010100 to http://chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/PeakList.asp?Params=199510SSSSSTS000000000000111000000000000010100
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120309154756/http://chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/PeakList.asp?Params=199510SSSSSFS000000000000111000000000000010100 to http://chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/PeakList.asp?Params=199510SSSSSFS000000000000111000000000000010100
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120309155602/http://chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/PeakList.asp?Params=199510SSSSSWS000000000000111000000000000010100 to http://chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/PeakList.asp?Params=199510SSSSSWS000000000000111000000000000010100
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091126000035/http://chess.eusa.ed.ac.uk/Chess/Trivia/AlltimeList.html to http://chess.eusa.ed.ac.uk/Chess/Trivia/AlltimeList.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

World Champions by world title reigns section

I deleted the section 'World Champions by world title reigns' and User:Greenman reverted me and said to discuss on talk. I'm just not sure what there is to discuss - this section is entirely original research, and has been tagged as having no sources for three years now. It's actually been in the article much longer, an embarrassing amount of time, but I'll stick to the time it has been challenged for sources - three years!

User:Greenman - given WP:BURDEN, I hope you have something productive to contribute here. --SubSeven (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not original research when basic facts are restated. For example, if a team wins a title in 2012 and 2013 (both of which facts are sourced in the individual articles), stating elsewhere that a team has won the title "two years in a row", even if not directly sourced, is not synthesis or original research. WP:NOR states "...synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." Similarly, 'For example: the statement "the capital of France is Paris" needs no source, because no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it. The statement is attributable, even if not attributed.'. Karpov having won/defended the title 6 times (3 times undisputed, 3 times under the FIDE banner after the split) would be the same. It's common knowledge to those knowledgeable about chess history, and sources can easily be found if desired. Greenman (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Karpov winning six title matches is a data point that is attributable, yes. Combining many data points, in this arbitrary way, is very much synthesis. To then take this original collection of data, to call this data a "measure of greatness.." and decide it belongs in this article (this is not List of chess world champions ordered by amount of reigns, this is Comparison of top chess players throughout history, very different) - this is a clear-cut case of original research. There has to be an outside source that organizes the data in this way and the same source must establish that it belongs here, as a barometer of the top chess players in history. --SubSeven (talk) 18:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

"The number of world championship wins, or world championship reigns, is considered by some as a measure of chess greatness." By who exactly? And who is suggesting that the FIDE KO championships and the so-called "classical" championships can be summed along with FIDE championships past and present, as if they are equivalent things? What do the years have to do with anything? Are we implying that Alekhine is twice the champion Anand was because he didn't have to defend his title between 1937 and 1946? Yes, the bare facts are attributable; but this arrangement of them is blatant WP:ORSYNTH at its very worst. Cobblet (talk) 06:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I removed that unsourced claim. The table itself is verifiable even if no source is currently being cited. The question is whether the table belongs in the article. MaxBrowne (talk) 07:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm generally okay with this table and would remove the 'unsourced' template, as it is just a tabulated list of historical facts that are easily verified. To me, it seems obvious that repeatedly winning a world title confers some amount of greatness. No-one is saying that A is twice the player that B is; it simply shows that the player was not a one-hit wonder, but could consistently reproduce the necessary mix of chess skills (and non-chess skills) that enabled them, not only to reach the pinnacle, but to stay there, against a range of worthy challengers of differing styles, abilities and ages. It's certainly a measure of achievement, which is surely a factor in measuring greatness. I can't, offhand, think of any published writer who has covered this topic explicitly, but I've certainly seen the word 'longevity' mentioned in this context, and there will be numerous instances where such considerations have been implied - e.g. Barden's obituary of Fischer, where he tempers his concluding praise with the line: "Though his period of absolute supremacy was comparatively brief ..." Brittle heaven (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Except for this table, the article handles a contentious and generally difficult topic in the only way that is appropriate for the Wikipedia context (in my opinion): citing a series of well-known and reputable commentators, and describing their methodologies. This table is very much out of place. It doesn't cite anyone; User:Brittle heaven notes that longevity is a popular measure of "greatness", but pointing that out is a long way from citing a well-known and reputable commentator who ranks players by criteria among which longevity is paramount. The table doesn't even list the champions in order of longevity; it lists them in order of number of matches won or drawn, which I do not recall anyone ever using as a measure of greatness. I agree with User:Cobblet. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, Carlsen is one commentator who speaks of greatness on the basis of who was longest at the top (see his entry in the article). So if people feel that longevity is a better measure than number of reigns, then 'number of years as WC' could be added, and could even be used as the primary ranking mechanism within the table. Brittle heaven (talk) 04:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Whichever sorting order is used it could be perceived as POV. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Just put them in chronological order. No POV. The reader can sort any way they like. Quale (talk) 05:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

That's a very good solution from User:Quale. With years of tenure added, and the table set in a default chronological order, it begins to mirror those found in various publications, such as those by Anne Sunnucks, Edward Winter and Calvin Olson, and these could be used as sources. In Whyld's book Guinness Chess: The Records, he includes 'number of WC matches contested' in his chronological table. That's yet another statistic that could be added and sourced, although I realize that width considerations may preclude too much expansion. Brittle heaven (talk) 12:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Comparison of top chess players throughout history. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090206215606/http://chess.eusa.ed.ac.uk/Chess/Trivia/Fishers10.html to http://chess.eusa.ed.ac.uk/Chess/Trivia/Fishers10.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031120152003/http://in.rediff.com/millenni/anand.htm to http://in.rediff.com/millenni/anand.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090206172430/http://www.chessbase.com/newsprint.asp?newsid=4450 to http://www.chessbase.com/newsprint.asp?newsid=4450

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

How successful would Players from the past play today?

The article says: "Of course, a rating always indicates the level of dominance of a particular player against contemporary peers". OK. Nevertheless it's interesting to at least assume what would happen if Capablanca, in the personal condition he had in the early 1920's, had to play today without any possibility to get to know the modern theory. How strong would he be in the first tournaments? What time would he need to pick up on modern theory? How strong could he get? I know that this could never happen, but it's interesting regarding "Comparison" (see the name of the article...) 93.214.229.24 (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Considering that 1) at high-level play an awful lot depends on what can be done in terms of preparation and 2) the resources for this have been steadily improving, it seems the only solid way to compare is by relative contemporary play with a caveat on how meaningless it is. Julzes (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

If there were a way to remove the analysis factor with historical information -- and there isn't -- one might conceivably compare and rank all players of note. Julzes (talk) 15:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

What about women?

Even though chess intrinsically doesn't divide among gender reality is different. Men are a lot more successful than women. So why not include one section dedicated to women?213.149.62.12 (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Blitz and Rapid

https://ratings.fide.com/toplist.phtml
FIDE started blitz and rapid ratings not too long ago. Even though not much history is there, there is interesting information like top rating, who was over 2800... And it is even more interesting when those data is compared to classic chess. 213.149.62.12 (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Inflation

Today we have a jump in rating by around 100 point as opposed to 30-40 years ago. Also players say that today it's easier to build rating that it was in the past. It would be good to cover that. Maybe like average rating for top 5/10/20 in every decade and highest rating achieved in a given decade. 213.149.51.126 (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

that is correct with computer software, any talented kid can have fm title like.

castling anew

en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zugzwang&diff=1028407046&oldid=993765672#the_2K_move — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.65.81.89 (talk) 11:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Moves played compared with computer choices

I suggest we restructure this section to keep relevant contemporary rankings/comparisons on top. Older attempts used computer software that today simply is obsolete, rendering the results much less relevant.

But older rankings derived from computer game comparisons are simply weak. The relevance is slight. The notability is even weaker. Sources are very limited, and the usefulness of the reader to learn, for instance, that a program like Crafty, criticized already in its own time for being too weak, selected this player over that player some 15 years ago.

There is next to zero historical value for general readers. Contrast to "Markovian model" which appears to be much more relevant, since it uses far sounder statistical methods, and is based on a computer that actually is stronger than humans.

This latter attempt deserves greater prominence, while Crafty could be relegated to a historical footnote, if not edited out completely.

As is, we present four attempts as if they are equals, when they are decidedly not.

Note: there's a difference (in relevance and notability) between historical lists (that by definition cannot include recent players) - even if we find a ranking made by, I dunno, Anderssen or Steinitz, that could have historical value. And they can still be provided as equal to, say, Fisher or Carlsen's lists. The notability is in the list provider, not in the "objective list strength".

CapnZapp (talk) 04:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree, subjective lists (even if compiled by Carlsen or Kasparov) are just that, subjective. Also I agree that earlier studies (based on Crafty) or approaches that have clear drawbacks/limitations/anomalies identified even by their authors (e.g. chessmetrics) shouldn't have the same prominence as more recent studies. My only issue with the Markovian model is that it's difficult to extrapolate results or plug in your own numbers and rerun the analysis. For example the author claims each player's model can predict actual match outcomes better than FIDE ratings do/did. That's remarkable if true, but the question is, to what extent? Do they really predict Fischer beats Larsen 6-0 in 1971? Or the results of the 1981 and 2006 WCCs? Last but not least, the lack of response from the chess community (who, as far as I can tell, has ignored this study altogether) is strange but perhaps understandable. I can see many having a problem for example with the conclusion that Fischer was stronger that any world champion except Carlsen and Kramnik (ahead of not just Karpov, but also Kasparov and Ananad). By the same token, if one were to compare Carlsen and Nepomniachtchi's Markovian models, it is possible to predict the result of the upcoming match? 2001:BB6:78A5:C600:DD90:7EAD:F88E:72A1 (talk) 07:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Can I ask this talk page section to be limited to discussing "should we reduce the prominence of early chess engine comparisons?". Do feel free to discuss all those other points, but perhaps better in new talk sections of their own? Thanks, CapnZapp (talk) 08:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Proceeding. Proceeded. CapnZapp (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

My whole point (albeit expressed in a long winded roundabout way) was that we should be careful not to overemphasize the Markovian approach either without further corroboration and insight. Earlier effort have clear drawbacks, but that doesn't mean the Markovian model doesn't have any, interesting though it might be. 2001:BB6:78A5:C600:E86B:B743:7723:F04 (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Markovian Model

I find the "objective" markovian statistical model to be kind of a joke honestly. AlphaZero recently beat the best Stockfish engine with large maginal proving that neural networks and deep learning methods trumps the materialistic approach that most chess engines employ, including Stockfish. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaZero#Chess_2

The list tell how good players play in relation to computer chess engines. Not how good players are at adapting and learning to play against other players.

"In a series of twelve, 100-game matches (of unspecified time or resource constraints) against Stockfish starting from the 12 most popular human openings, AlphaZero won 290, drew 886 and lost 24."

those are the openings most pros also play by the way — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.145.205 (talk) 09:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the correlation between Stockfish losing to AlphaZero and the Markovian model being a joke. Stockfish is strong enough to defeat any human chess player, past or present, therefore the analysis is pertinent. Quite the contrary the Markovian approach seems to be the most exhaustive analysis done to date, using the strongest engine (compared to other similar studies) and, chiefly, seems to be able to predict match outcomes better than FIDE ratings did/would. I'm not a math major but the approach seems to be both robust and interesting, so it should be looked into further, not dismissed without any substantial evidence. Just because the favorite player doesn't come out on top, or the favorite chess engine is not being used it doesn't mean the method is without merit. FYI, it might be possible to re-run the analysis including stronger engines. 2001:BB6:78A5:C600:4494:D75:9E60:6FCA (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

the move 2K model

en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zugzwang&diff=1028407046&oldid=993765672#the_2K_move — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.82.174.13 (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)