Talk:Comparing top chess players throughout history

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-01-02. The result of the discussion was keep and cleanup, source, and remove OR.

Contents

[edit] Article content

Much of this article (at least the stuff not in the "statistical methods" section, which is new) has been moved from World Chess Championship (see that article's talk page for my thoughts on why this material is better in its own article). I have, however, deleted the below section:

Hence, it is extremely unclear which single player truly is "the best", but nearly all lists of the best players include at least the following ten (in chronological order):

The list is completely subjective, and since we now have other lists which, while not really any more objective are at least attributed to particular sources, this one is probably unnecessary.

A note on Chessmetrics: it seems Sonas has recently overhauled the website, and a lot of the ratings seem to have changed (formerly, Capablanca had the highest 5-year peak average). The quote I've put in the article from him about it being impossible to compare ratings of players from different eras is from the old version of the website, but the ratings I've quoted are from the new version. I know this isn't ideal--it's a quick fix while I try to find a similar quote on the new site (if it turns out there isn't one... well, I'm not sure what the best thing to do will be then). --Camembert 18:39, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Support

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/m/Talk%7EComparing_top_chess_players_throughout_history_6a16.html"