I am of the same basic opinion as <alexmagnus> regarding this question although we differ in that I do think that there is some inflation. Considering a small amount of inflation - say approximately 20 points - Magnus would have to reach approximately 2870 (in the next 4-7 years) and stay there for at least 5-6 months - if that happens then definitely he would reach the strength of Garry when the latter was 2851 and would surpassed him if he gets to 2880+.

Are you reading my posts ??! lol

I repeat .. Place a lap top and unlimitless supplies of cigars and whisky under steinitz's nose in a plush hotel just now, and being brought back from the dead, he would wreak havoc in todays chessworld..

Give a 19 year Fischer a lap top and access to all known openings and games ect ect.. and it just gets scary.

It's you who has a problem dealing with 'time' .. not me. It's you who has a problem dealing with time and it's inflationary impact and effects upon the chess rating system .. Not me ! ( but maybe you're happy lolling in Gazza's world)

The Fischer of the late 60's and early 70's would in todays' inflated ratings be pushing if not 3000 ..

The Spassky of '67 today would be over 2850..

The Botvinnik of 48' would be over 2900

Absolutely on the money..

<Before we can reach consensus on who was the best chess player ever, we first must find the definition of the best ever. There are three dimensions.

1) Absolute playing strength. Most recent players have the advantage. In the course of time, chess knowledge accumulates, training methods evolve, and the increase of the number of people who pick up chess leads to the bigger level of talent among top level players. Obviously Carlsen is the best ever in this category.

2) Influence on the game and subsequent generations of players. The less developed a field, the easier to create new ideas, something unpredecented and longstanding. Here past players had the advantage. I don't think it's ever possible to surpass Steinitz in this behalf.

3) The dominance over the contemporaries. Naturally, the smaller the pool of active players, the easier it is to dominate. Hence again chess players of the past had more opportunities, although, not so distinctly as in the case of the previous two points above. Names to be included in this category: Morphy, Steinitz, Fischer (vertically); Lasker, Kasparov (horizontally).

It's extremely important that one is able to tell each distinct category apart, and not to confuse them whilst discussing the matter. Unfortunately, I've seen too many times kibitzers unable to get these elementary facts correct.>

This has already been addressed many times and has been shown to be a scenario which is impossible to prove in real life.

One reason for this is that Fisher hated with passion the advancement of the opening theory back then in the early 70's when it was kids play compared to the current state of the theory. He was not able to cope with it on many levels and in particular psychologically. He said it himself: I don't like chess anymore because of all the opening theory.

How can you simply suppose that he would be able to cope with the completely insane modern theory when he wasn't even able to cope with the theory of the 70's? Indeed one of the reasons why he stopped playing was because of this very reason. Why do you think he was the one who invented fischerrandom? It was not a coincidence, he was disgusted with the fact that players who are "weaker" than him can beat him simply because they memorized more opening lines and the fisherrandom was his way of avoiding his dislike of the wast amount of memorization required to lay chess already back then in the 70's.

You telling me there are unknown variables as to leasing a lap top to a 19 year old Fischer lol lol lol

I am glad you're continuing the idiocy even though there were about 20 people here who already refuted this silly claim. You do realize that 3000 strength is equivalent to some of the best current computers? You do realize that you're claiming that Fischer of the 70's with his miniscule opening knowledge (compared to the current theory) would be able to compete with the best computers on their level?

Morphy was unbeatable in the 1850's.. took on every living thing.. sometimes at odds .. what rating would he be now ??!

What rating would a young Lasker be? cutting a swathe thru the chess world and enhancing middle game and opening theory in such a way ?!

Capablanca ? what player has stood aloof and above his contempories for such a period of time ? 1911 - 1927 What rating would you give a young Capa of 1913 ?

I could go on..

Do you really believe that the Spassky of 67 would beat ANY of todays 2750+ players???

As I say . I like you. But you are unaware of the monster that Fischer was..

What you're once again completely ignoring are the advancements in chess knowledge throughout history: Capa was a major talent but his knowledge compared to the modern players is hopelessly low; and this is reflected in the higher ratings of the modern player. This is not very hard to understand, but if you try maybe you'll get it.

I answered you in your forum anyway..

And no way Spassky 67 could beat today's elite, not a chance..>

Mate .. You're wrong.

As for being ridiculed ? Do I give a monkeys ?! lol ..

I agree

This is why I can't help but laugh, when I read about how everybody is waiting breathlessly for Carlsen to go over 2851 FIDE

As if that actually proves anything

But you wait and see....As soon as it happens, everytime the media mentions Carlsen's name, they will all accompany it with 'the highest rated player of all time'

The implication, of course (especially to just about every non-chessplayer who reads it, who has no clue about rating inflation), is that Carlsen is the strongest player of all time

<Morphy was unbeatable in the 1850's.. took on every living thing.. sometimes at odds .. what rating would he be now ??!>

Somebody on cg.com claimed that a retroactive rating analysis (maybe it was Macieja's ??) put Morphy at around 2100 ELO today

Also, have you any objective refutation (either mathematical or computer-wise) of Macieja's paper?>

I tried to dig up the actual chart, but the link is broken

But this guy was claiming that based on Rybka's evaluation of the moves(maybe this WAS Macieja?), Steinitz and Morphy made less 'correct' moves than a 2150 ELO today

This is a snippet of the conversation I was able to find

< don't follow: Steinitz' percentage of "correct" moves in your chart is 57.92%, Morphy's is 55.49% (compared to a modern 2150 player's 63%+).>