#8 - for the record, I didn't say your opinion was aggressive, I said it was arrogant. I said your use of every thread you post in to advertise your team (which I was a member of for about a week and saw not much of anything other than a collection of the same things you post here to the main forum about once a week) was agressive.
Then again, some people say arrogance is just confidence, so maybe I wasn't necessarily chastising you. I myself can be quite arrogant. ;)
Thanks for the well-reasoned response. I still say any criteria will be arbitrary and biased, but your criteria were at least logical ones.
One of my personal criteria for "best of all time" would be the value of their contribution to the understanding of chess theory. In that regard, it's yet to be seen how Magnus will stack up to the likes of Nimzo, Capa, and even Vishy. Most of Magnus' games seem to be "get into an opening which is comfortable due to all my preparation and in which under best play will result in at least an equal endgame, and then grind the endgame until there is an advantage and then grind it even harder to find an unexpected win, or grind it until there's nothing left to fight for because it's an absolute theoretical draw and I know my opponent can hold it." There doesn't seem to be much of anything new going on in the world of Magnus' chess, he just looks to simplify the position into something he can work out like a machine. It definitely takes a great depth of theoretical knowledge ultimately precise calculation at a great depth for him to do so, so there is no denying he's great, but it seems like he's using nothing more than existing theory and unparalleled calculation ability to accomplish his greatness. In the sense of contribution to the understanding of chess, I'd say he's fairly low on the list of "best of all time" candidates here.
Then again, some people say arrogance is just confidence, so maybe I wasn't necessarily chastising you. I myself can be quite arrogant. ;)
Thanks for the well-reasoned response. I still say any criteria will be arbitrary and biased, but your criteria were at least logical ones.
One of my personal criteria for "best of all time" would be the value of their contribution to the understanding of chess theory. In that regard, it's yet to be seen how Magnus will stack up to the likes of Nimzo, Capa, and even Vishy. Most of Magnus' games seem to be "get into an opening which is comfortable due to all my preparation and in which under best play will result in at least an equal endgame, and then grind the endgame until there is an advantage and then grind it even harder to find an unexpected win, or grind it until there's nothing left to fight for because it's an absolute theoretical draw and I know my opponent can hold it." There doesn't seem to be much of anything new going on in the world of Magnus' chess, he just looks to simplify the position into something he can work out like a machine. It definitely takes a great depth of theoretical knowledge ultimately precise calculation at a great depth for him to do so, so there is no denying he's great, but it seems like he's using nothing more than existing theory and unparalleled calculation ability to accomplish his greatness. In the sense of contribution to the understanding of chess, I'd say he's fairly low on the list of "best of all time" candidates here.