Karpov, because he would win 5-0 against Kasparov if the match had a limit.
Kasparov definitely was the strongest world champion, I recently checked some of his games and its true inspiration. Fischer was one of the greatest players ever no doubt, but he never defended his title so I cant say anything about him as a world champion.
But nowadays Magnus Carlsen has a potential to become a strongest world champion ever and hold the title for many years, if not decades, even though I cant say that his games are very entertaining, probably Im way to low to understand them.
But nowadays Magnus Carlsen has a potential to become a strongest world champion ever and hold the title for many years, if not decades, even though I cant say that his games are very entertaining, probably Im way to low to understand them.
Carlsen. It isn't even close.
There's a good reason why Kasparov is such a big Carlsen fan.
There's a good reason why Kasparov is such a big Carlsen fan.
José Raul Capablanca.
I think there was an study with a computer analizing chess champion games that reached the conclusion that Fischer was the best chess player (less mistakes..etc) followed by Jose Raul Capablanca.
Also (right or wrong) he was a man of convictions (not a sheepy chess savant) and i like that.
So, ill totally go with Fischer.
Also (right or wrong) he was a man of convictions (not a sheepy chess savant) and i like that.
So, ill totally go with Fischer.
I think Carlsen :-). He became No.1 at a very young age. At the age of 23, he has been No. 1 for nearly 4 years. His head to head score is plus against everyone in the top 20 (except may be Svidler). His rating is 100 more than the average of top 10 players (other than him), and he has maintained that for about 1-2 years already. He has highest rating in history of chess (and Elo inflation is a myth :-) ). Of course, Kasparov has achieved all of the above, but I am betting on the potential.
ONLY ANAND HE IS GREAT CHESS PLAYER OF THE WORLD FOREVER
> "Elo inflation is a myth"
Lol wut, my brain just exploded. In the real world there is always a difference between 'actual rating' and reported rating. It's an information issue. Statistical anomalies are everywhere. Trying to form a perfect hard-based rating system is practically impossible -- and trying to form a hard-based rating system that remains consistent over decades, not just years, is even harder.
Elo is not a perfect system. It's far from perfect, it's a dated rudimentary system that needs replacing by more sophisticated systems such as Glicko. But even Glicko is not perfect.
A 1500 player from 50 years ago almost definitely does not have the same strength as a 1500 player from today. 1500 is meant to be your 'average player' (but even that is difficult to quantify and base), it's axiomatic that the strength of the average -- active -- chess player will vary from year to year, decade to decade. Just think about computer analysis, top players didn't have that ~20 years ago; and your average chess player definitely didn't have such ready access to that information either.
Lol wut, my brain just exploded. In the real world there is always a difference between 'actual rating' and reported rating. It's an information issue. Statistical anomalies are everywhere. Trying to form a perfect hard-based rating system is practically impossible -- and trying to form a hard-based rating system that remains consistent over decades, not just years, is even harder.
Elo is not a perfect system. It's far from perfect, it's a dated rudimentary system that needs replacing by more sophisticated systems such as Glicko. But even Glicko is not perfect.
A 1500 player from 50 years ago almost definitely does not have the same strength as a 1500 player from today. 1500 is meant to be your 'average player' (but even that is difficult to quantify and base), it's axiomatic that the strength of the average -- active -- chess player will vary from year to year, decade to decade. Just think about computer analysis, top players didn't have that ~20 years ago; and your average chess player definitely didn't have such ready access to that information either.
According to Ken Regan, Capablanca performed at an instrinsic rating of 2936 in New York 1927! ( http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/papers/pdf/Reg12IPRs.pdf ) The same paper also claims that the best play in a World Championship occurred in Kasparov-Kramnik (2000), which was played with an intrinsic rating of 2918 (Fischer-Spassky was 2646).
Regan also concludes that there has been no rating inflation ( http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/papers/pdf/ReHa11c.pdf ) and that today's players are higher rated because because they play better moves.
Of course, what Fischer et al could have done had they had the training and preparation resources of today, as well as having consistently better opposition, is a matter for speculation.
And, by the way, Regan estimates that Perfect Chess is rated about 3600.
Regan also concludes that there has been no rating inflation ( http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/papers/pdf/ReHa11c.pdf ) and that today's players are higher rated because because they play better moves.
Of course, what Fischer et al could have done had they had the training and preparation resources of today, as well as having consistently better opposition, is a matter for speculation.
And, by the way, Regan estimates that Perfect Chess is rated about 3600.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.