>>3
レーティングやそれに類する指標では別時代の者同士を比較できないと結論が書かれているわな

Elo system
Arpad Elo was of the opinion that it was futile to attempt to use ratings to compare players from different eras;
in his view, they could only possibly measure the strength of a player as compared to his or her contemporaries.

He also stated that the process of rating players was in any case rather approximate; he compared it
to "the measurement of the position of a cork bobbing up and down on the surface of agitated water
with a yard stick tied to a rope and which is swaying in the wind".

Chessmetrics
Sonas, like Elo, claims that it is impossible to compare the strength of players from different eras, saying:

Of course, a rating always indicates the level of dominance of a particular player against contemporary peers;
it says nothing about whether the player is stronger/weaker in their actual technical chess skill
than a player far removed from them in time. So while we cannot say that Bobby Fischer in the early 1970s
or Jose Capablanca in the early 1920s were the "strongest" players of all time, we can say with a certain amount of confidence
that they were the two most dominant players of all time. That is the extent of what these ratings can tell us.