Many of you are familiar with the "greatest player of all time" debates. Unfortunately, there has been no objective measurement that can accurately gauge playing ability--though attempts have recently been made.
Remember the article a while ago from Chessbase about computer analysis determining the "strongest" world champion? (http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail...)
The idea was great, and the conclusions interesting, but the program's limited strength caused problems. I also suspect that the band of games played was too narrow--only world championship matchups, and often taken when one or both players were past their prime.
It would be interesting--and extremely useful to chess enthusiasts--to see the results of a more comprehensive study. Such a study would need the most modern hardware and software available--either Deep Fritz X, which looks like it's about to beat Kramnik, or Hydra would work well for this.
I would also recommend modifying the scope--using Chessmetrics ratings, analyze every game played during a player's five year peak to determine his peak playing strength. In order to widen the sample, take every game played during those five peak years against ANY top 10/12 opposition (again, as determined by Chessmetrics).
An interesting idea. Presumably the closer a players past games match the move selection of a strong engine, the higher that players "rating" would be.
However I do think such a process will favour the more tactically minded players at the expense of the more strategic or positional.
I wonder if the outcome would settle the debate, or fuel an entirely new debate.