Talk:Comparison of top chess players throughout history

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):

• Paul Morphy
• Wilhelm Steinitz
• Emanuel Lasker
• José Raúl Capablanca
• Alexander Alekhine
• Mikhail Botvinnik
• Mikhail Tal
• Bobby Fischer
• Anatoly Karpov
• Garry Kasparov

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)

Another computer analysis comparison

I think this quite detailed and thorough should also be included in the article. http://web.zone.ee/chessanalysis/summary450.pdf

The most accurate player seems to have been Kramnik, followed by Karpov and Fischer

World Champions by world title reigns Table Ambiguous Headers

I'm confused by this table. It states Carlsen hasn't won any FIDE titles, but this isn't true. It's not clear what a classical title is. The linked article doesn't use the word "classical" in it, but mentions PCA. Something indicating that the first few columns are counts of titles, and that the last column is reign in years would help with clarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.175.168 (talk) 09:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Larry Kaufman (2023) section

I think that section is somewhat overblown. It is ok to report the first method of the three, but the other two feels more like "let me find a way to assign points so that the players I like will come on top". I think it is fine and necessary to point to the original article but I would trim the report of method 2 and method 3, removing those. Otherwise it is like this wiki article gives strength to the article (I know it shouldn't be the case, but surely it gives lots of visibility) and I think it is not a good thing. 89.14.26.201 (talk) 20:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. His three methods are attempts to answer different questions – "who was the best objectively", "who was the best comparing against their time", and "who had the most talent, i.e. who would perform best if they were in their prime today and had today's resources". It seems helpful to consider all three, since they are often conflated in discussions along these lines. Double sharp (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it is grossly undue weight. We have no results from the "Early efforts" section, the top 4 from Alliot ("Markovian model"), and the top 47 (!) from Kaufmann. I think everything should be removed except the first paragraph, his top 5 or 10, and a brief mention of his second and third lists. Adpete (talk) 11:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)