"Chessmetrics can only be used to compare the level of a player against their peers; it is not appropriate to use Chessmetrics to compare players of different era. For example, GM John Nunn has highlighted the absurdity of attempts to compare the objective playing strengths of players from different eras: He used the example of Hugo Suechting, world ranked 27 and rated 2559 by Chessmetrics in 1911, after the Elite tournament in Karlsbad. An analysis of Suechting's games from that period suggests that his level of play was at best 2100 by today's standard."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chessmetrics#Perceived_disadvantagesI would not call chessmetrics approach absurd.
If Suechting had access to the information (by today´s standards) in 1911 Nunn has nowadays, his level of play would have been much higher. ;-)
Chessmetrics is at least a try based on the historical information we have. Sonas is fully aware of the difficulties, as he states "it's really difficult to objectively compare the results of two different players unless they faced the same common opponents, or played each other."
Fantasy is fun but remember what it is and comparing champions of previous generations is always fantasy. Remember what ratings are - it is comparing players of a set group. Even though different generations sometimes overlap , they are at different stages of career. Fischer is a legend of the game but lets not forget the longevity was not there. If Caruana retired after his sinqufield cup success last year then there would exaggeration of his abilties and what he would have went on to do. I know fischer did alot more than fabiano has done so far but point is clear.
Back to the main point, It is obvious the standard of chess has improved as more knowledge is available to a greater number of people so it only makes sense that the best of the modern players would be favorites in any competition. That being said, the older generation given same advantages of modern generation.. no doubts it would be coin flip. We can say that FIscher was champion of his time and Kasparov was champion of his and Magnus is champion now.
Someone thinks that Capablanca would be patzer now days
someone would be silly then
They give too much importance to the openning
In fantasy , a person can give too much importance to whatever they want. But if someone was to imagine that Capablanca would win so many games coming up against a top 100 player who knows so much opening theory then that someone has better imagination than me. Does not mean they are wrong.
A Capablanca raised in modern times would be on par with Fischer, Kasparov and Carlsen IMO
Botvinnik was the best player ever; this is a fact.
sure, the guys from the past wouldn't know some lines that are well studied now. but I'm positive that they would find the resources to fight and even produce novelties anyway. theory is merely what happens after a genius does something, and then the rest of us try to understand it. all the top gms throughout the history were and are geniuses. computers and whatnot are definitely a benefit. but in terms of just natural and pure chess genius the time and age doesn't really matter, I think. and all the modern theory we have - the past champions would munch it in a second.
