Best Chess Player of All Time
Sort:
Kramnik has the highest actual % of best moves; will that not make him the best?
This graph doesn't tell us much. Comparing players by the % of moves that they were thought to have found OTB (how does one even measure that?) as opposed to what they did find is sketchy at best. This graph bothers me for one particular reason: Garry Kasparov held the #1 ELO rating (not to mention the highest ELO rating; 2851) in the world for nearly 20 years, and he's supposedly #6? Umm. No.
You'd probably find more accurate information on a site called chessmetrics.com. It's a site dedicated to chess statistics, and it compares the great masters from every era. You can check their "peak average ratings" using anywhere from a 1-year peak all the way to a 20-year peak.
Check it out: http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/PeakList.asp
[Link updated from bendcat's post]
It looks like the site you gave to us is not working,
maybe this can help: http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/PeakList.asp
But this forum, what I present here based on the game played, in each every move they did is based on the calculation of the computer analysis if the player accurately move the best in each move in all of his games.
In chessmetrics: "For example, although a 50% score in a 6-game match against a 2800-rated player would traditionally be called a 2800 performance rating, my formulas (which are sensitive to the number of games played) would conservatively call that a 2728 performance rating, because of the small number of games. If that single six-game match were the only results we had available for you, we would assign you an overall rating of 2728, not 2800."
They have different analysis in players, I hope this could help us to see the difference.
But still Capablanca able to be on top 5 chart of chessmetrics.
Firstly, bendcat, thank you for the updated link. Secondly, I was wrong about the numbers on the graph varying between the red and prange bars for each player; I'll edit my original post to reflect this.
Okay, I can sort of understand the logic behind it, but I'm still not sure how a player consistently agreeing with a beefed-up Rybka (or any similar deep-analysis chess program) would be enough proof to determine ranking. My questions would be: What about games where the chess program becomes confused? Are the book (opening) moves counted? If a player consistently disregards the engines, only to win where a computer could not, is that counted for or against them?
Please don't take my argument personally; I'm not angry at all, but curious why the study was performed in that way. Are you able to shed more light on how the data was collected?
Oh, and while Capablanca isn't my favorite player, I appreciate his endgame skills. The man was a machine. He is definitely in the top 10, if not the top 5.
I believe Capablanca is the best, why?, it is because in his era computer chess engine doesn't exist but still his moves are accurate. Grandmasters today, I don't say all of them, are seeking analysis with computer engines.
I just see this in google search typing "best chess player of all time"
the links are:
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3455
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3465
I hope this could help.
Do you want to know who is the best chess player of all time?
YES!
I guess all of you reading this say YES, all of us chess players want to know who is considered to be the best, right?. I do some research, year 2006 some of the computer science experts do some computer analization or comparison of chess games between well-known chess players in different eras. The graph I shows here is presenting the percentage of best moves in all of their games of each players.
As we see in the graph that Capablanca is the best chess player of all time.