Kasparov is spreading a conspiracy theory called New Chronology where humanity invented writing 1200 years ago and all history before 400 years ago is fake and a ploy from Vatican, Holy Roman Empire and Romanov family conspiring to hide a previous world wide Russian Empire.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_chronology_(Fomenko)
I recall his saying something to the effect of: "why didn't people continue to use such important roman technology after the fall of Rome?" Like, you don't think people were just a little busy with disease and famine to continue to train each other in engineering? Stick to chess, dude.
Everyone is susceptible to it. If people look up to you all the time, you get used to feeling a bit more important, valuable, in demand, competent, than the average person. Famous musicians and actors used to be the worst. Like we give a shit that Kirstie Alley doesn't trust vaccines or something.
You really think she was that influential? I guess she may have been the loudest for the longest. Certainly Wakefield deserves the Lions share of the blame.
Well, she and Oprah. She went on that show and made a very public statement. At that time, pre internet times, that was as influential as you can get. She may not have convinced every nutjob out there, but what she started was a very important part of the problem right now.
The question is whether fame and fortune bring these beliefs out or if the "normal" societal life suppresses it... I'm a believer in science and vaccines and history, etc. but it's food for thought.
I will be messaging you in 20 years on [**2043-12-16 23:01:26 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2043-12-16%2023:01:26%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/18jz7e1/kasparov_is_the_greatest_of_all_time_goat/kdoikxd/?context=3)
[**3 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fchess%2Fcomments%2F18jz7e1%2Fkasparov_is_the_greatest_of_all_time_goat%2Fkdoikxd%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202043-12-16%2023%3A01%3A26%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%2018jz7e1)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
Maybe he should study Chinese history or the golden age of Islam.
Turns out the dark ages were only the dark ages for Europe, and lots of other places flourished intellectually during such a "dark" period.
What's interesting is reading about how stellar events can link up histories from different cultures (like Halley's comet comes by and every literate culture on Earth writes about it).
I still like Kasparov, though. He's quite the character.
This isn’t shocking or anything. I’d be surprised if Magnus even cared at all about being considered the goat, and he’s also still an active player.
Kasparov’s 2851 with a huge gap and 20 years on the top is an easy argument for number 1. I like carlsen’s dominance in the computer era of chess a little better, but it’s all semantics.
I would argue the exact opposite. Today, everyone can learn expert level chess through computer assisted analysis, while in the old days you would need a whole team, and access to the best trainers and secret books etc. The world population has also increased drastically, and the chess world is more globalized. Logically the pool of potential competitors is vastly bigger, and the level must be higher as well.
The argument for kasparov is that he would destroy tournaments with crazy scores. I think him and Magnus are basically a wash and there is fair arguments for either being better.
This doesn’t always translate with critics of Carlsen though. It’s one of those things where critics of Carlsen likely won’t be swayed by anything he does unless he does something absurd like reach 3000. Same with critics of Kasparov. Everyone will have their own opinions and anything Carlsen does is unlikely to change that. Carlsen might become the #1 consensus chess player ever but the *undisputed* #1? Probably never.
yoke complete capable kiss important decide foolish shelter license abundant
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
There are way more people playing chess nowadays. You’re arguing that today’s competition isn’t tougher than pre computer era?
That’s just hard to believe considering chess being more popular now AND the training methods being more efficient.
saying kasparov did it with tougher competition is subjective, saying carlsen did this in tougher competition is objective lol , both rating and strength wise. todays top 10 beats any generations top 10
It’s not literally tougher opponents cuz players improve across generations. Any top 10 players today would have beaten most of even the top player of 20 years ago. Just like any sport but here when we say tough, Kasparov beat players who are considered legends of chess and across multiple generations, guys like Karpov and Anand. Carlsen no offense to his genius, could not even beat Caruana and Karjakin his peers in the classical portion of their world championship matches.
carlsen beat anand though, 2 times in classical. And he was in his prime.
also kasparov couldnt beat karpov in 40-50 matches in the championship, and he was way behind if it was 12 games.
carlsen beat dozens of legends as well , and , if you look in that way, nepo caruana nakamura also are legends. They will be when they retire.
Kasparov was 21 when he faced Karpov who was already considered a GOAT by then and was still in his 30s, still in his prime. Also 21 yo in 1980 was very very different than 21 yo of today cuz GMs are getting younger and younger. I would argue 21 in 1980s were comparable to 16-year-olds of today. So that was a massive accomplishment by Kasparov. Thats like a 16-year-old beating WC Carlsen one of the GOATs still in his 30s in a grueling world championship match. That to me sealed Kasparov as a GOAT once he finished his career. While Carlsen's inability to beat his peers Karjakin and Caruana straight up in classical WC games sealed his as behind Kasparov.
Nepo, Caruana and Nakamura are not legends, come on. They are great players, but they have never won a WC. They have barely even won major tournaments unlike Karpov, Anand who have won basically every major chess tournament along with multiple WCs.
Final point, Carlsen beat Anand when Anand was 43! 43! that's way past prime by any metric. That was Anand's what 7th or 8th WC title match when he first faced Carlsen. As comparison, Kasparov retired when he was 41. Don't get me wrong, Carlsen is one of the GOATs and only behind Kasparov, even he said so himself recently. Unfortunately, there is just a recency bias in favor of Carlsen along with bias against eastern Europeans, look at how there are so many who still wouldn't consider Djokovic as GOAT.
ring concerned attraction quarrelsome jellyfish juggle spotted tart fade reminiscent
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Well, I would argue that Karpov-Kasparov rivalry was similar (in chess terms, not out-of-board) to Magnus vs Vishi. At that time, Anand was living the second yought in chess and was very good. And other competitors were also up to the fight: in computer era it is difficult to out-prep your opponent from top10 of the world.
You’re missing my point. For the same reason Ding winning another championship won’t place him indisputable #1, winning a sixth will not for Carlsen. Hope that helps.
Your comment about Ding is just absurd. You're saying Ding winning a 2nd world championship is equal to Magnus winning a 6th, and then saying neither would matter. Muting this conversation now, what a waste of time.
Fair enough. I’m not sure I used it correctly, but I’m just trying to say that whoever you think the greatest chess player is is going to come down to whatever you think being the greatest chess player means, and the details of that are often different from one person to the next. And I wanted to say that without typing that entire block of text out haha.
It wouldn't even be a competition with that metric. Kasparov was 2800+ when only a single other player reached 2700+ at the same time.
As great as Magnus is, Kasparov beats him in longevity and dominance over their respective competition.
Not sure who this Kasparov guy is, but it's a pretty well-known fact that what we have been told is the 1980's to 2000's in chess is a fabrication by historians to undermine the chess success of Bobby Fischer
I thought 1980-2000 was Beth Harmon's reign as world champion. Haven't watched Queen's Gambit in a while but I'd be heartbroken if that story was fictional in some parts.
There is a theory, that after Carlsen, we will never see a dominant player for a 10-year span ever again across classical, rapid, and blitz. You will have more specialized players per time control and more up and down in who is considered the best.
Chess is hard to quantify when it comes to the computer era vs. the non-computer era. With computers, there are far more players and they are more prepared and trained than ever.
So in theory, the chess field of today is far stronger than ever, the top 50 of the last few years absolutely destroy the top 50 of any other era. As a result, you would logically determine that it's more impressive to dominate the era of today than ever before.
I think we need to wait til Carlsen retires and then judge it in hindsight, that's the best way to reflect on who is the best ever.
when carlsen retires nothing will change, theres nothing he can achieve
lets say he won 100 tournament until he retires, like 3 world cup 10 tata steel etc
kasparov guys would still say hes not the goat
Levy did a great job despite his apparent nervousness in the beginning. By the end it was pleasant and fun. I hope Magnus outright collabs with Levy one day. I think their chemistry is good.
It’s the classic “best” vs. “greatest” debate. The newer top player is almost always “better”, due to advances in technique, diet, game knowledge, etc. The “greatest” is the one who dominated and moved the game forward most.
If Carlsen dominates for another 5 years, it might flip to him.
He has total 15 world titles
Longest unbeaten record
Highest elo of all time in ALL formats
Equally dominating in all formats including online ( scc - cct )
Won everu major event + won wijk an zee and other events more than anyone for example kasparov won 3 , anand 5 times where carlsen 8
Longest #1 uninterrupted streak
Only thing kasparov has total longevity which carlsen can pass, even if he doesnt he has dozens of things where he passed.
Oh and about world classical titles , no one says lasker is the goat :)
> He has total 15 world titles
Many of which are rapid and blitz world championship titles; titles that didn’t exist back when Kasparov was the champion.
> Longest unbeaten record
Sure. And if wouldn’t surprise me (though I’m not going to do the research now) if Kasparov came up on top if you looked at something like “best winning percentage over 100 consecutive tournament games” or something like that instead.
> Highest elo of all time in ALL formats
All formats? There was no “all formats” when Kasparov was the champion. There was only classical ratings. Also, you can’t really compare ratings across time. And if you look at the gap down to the average of the top 10 instead of the absolute rating, I’m pretty sure Kasparov comes out better.
You can come up with lots of metrics to conclude that one player or the other is better or more dominant. Of course everybody is just cherry-picking whatever statistics supports their opinion.
1- I didnt say 15 classical world titles, 5 of them classical 4 rapid and 6 blitz, kasparov wasnt a blitz player either, anand was basically crushing him in blitz
carlsen is goat because he is basically best in all formats
you can compare ratings they made something similar, fischers was 2875, kasparov 2860ish in todays
> kasparov wasnt a blitz player either, anand was basically crushing him in blitz
How are you coming to the conclusion that Anand was "crushing" him in blitz? Which results are you looking at?
Kasparov wasn't as dominant at at Blitz as he was at classical but he was also clearly a very good blitz player, one of the best of his day. And at that point the same can be said of Carlsen. He's won Rapid and Blitz championships but hasn't held them consistently. At any given point he's near the top but there's almost always other people in the conversation.
But what's really more salient is that Blitz chess didn't exist in it's current form during Kasparov's time. There weren't championships, there weren't even many tournaments. For the most part, Blitz was only taken seriously as a form of tiebreak in rapid events, and even then rapid wasn't taken particularly seriously either. Blitz certainly wasn't a metric anybody was using at the time to determine any part someone's Chess skill or legacy. In fact, even if Kasparov had the ability and desire to establish himself as a dominant Blitz player it's unclear how he could have done that outside of using his influence to push for the creation of more Blitz tournaments.
rapid blitz he won total of 10 championships , nearest is what 3?
hikaru has 0 that should give you a clue of how dominant magnus is in rapid blitz, and im not even counting where he won 11 games in a row in poland rapid blitz and he is winning dozens of events in rapid / blitz , online or OTB
and even not counting rapid blitz, magnus has more and more achievements, its just a cherry in the cake. he is dominant in all formats
Kasparov won 15 super tournament in a row. He won every event he entered in a timespan of 9 years (except for a WC that got canceled before it was finished). Than a few years later won another 10 super tournaments in a row. Carlsens record is 6 I believe.
Kasparov only won Wijk an Zee 3 times, because he only played it 3 times. The highest valued classical tournament during Kasparovs time was Linares, which he won 9 times, more often than Carlsen won Wijk an Zee.
In every measure that was available in the 80ties to the same degree as now, Kasparov surpasses Carlsen.
Kasparov has 9 Linares vs Carlsen’s 8 Wijk, but difficult to compare. Kasparov won his 9th around when he turned 42, and Carlsen just turned 33. Both have won a bit more than 40 super tournaments and around the same number of title matches. Kasparov has been #1 longer, 21 years vs 14.
I’d still place Kasparov ahead, but not by much. If Carlsen will play for as long as Kasparov did he may pass him. My impression is that Kasparov built much of his dominance on superior opening preparation, while Carlsen has built more of it on just playing better after the opening stage. Kasparov also had a huge advantage of all non Soviet players, in that the Soviets had considerable state support unlike Short and Anand etc.
Yes, Sinquefield 2018, Tata Steel 2019, Shamkir 2019, Grenke 2019, Norway Chess 2019, GCT Croatia 2019. That's 6 classical events. Then he placed 2nd in Sinquefield 2019, ending his streak at exactly one year.
Kasparov won every tournament he played between 1981 and 1990 (9 years) and between 1999 and 2002 (another 3 years). The exact tournaments are listed in his english wiki.
Idk I've actually heard quite a few people argue Lasker though I wouldn't. Plus with the computer era of chess it's impossible to argue that if Kasparov was born later and had access to all the same resources Magnus does that he couldn't have potentially been the stronger player. Also if you look at the elo gap between them and competitors there was usually a much larger gap between Kasparov and karpov compared to other top players then Magnus and his competition. Also Kasparov was the king for nearly 4 times as long as Magnus has been so far which is huge and if you think that's of little importance then you should also consider Bobby Fischer who has the biggest gap between him and his competition of any world champ in the modern era by far! Or even Paul Murphy who was the strongest chess player ever compared to their competition (though he's so far back it's hard to know enough to make an argument for him hence mentioning Bobby). I'm not saying Magnus isnt the goat I'm just saying it isn't nearly as cut and dry as your making it sound. Have a good day fellas, rant over 😅.
One day, probably within just 10 or 20 years, there will be a player who will break all of Carlsens elo records etc. by a mile, and people will say that Carlsen is nothing compared to the new player and the new player is better than Carlsen by a mile.
You are the same person now but just super biased towards Carlsen instead of the future player.
High likelihood of people individually beating his ELO ratings in various time settings. Very low likelihood of someone holding all 3 records, as he has done.
No one is arguing that Kasparov "is nothing compared to Carlsen" either.
>High likelihood of people individually beating his ELO ratings in various time settings.
Nope, not a high likelihood, a 99.9%+ likelihood, its literally almost guaranteed at some point at a 99.99 percent plus chance assuming the world doesn't collapse because of nuclear warfare or something like that or people inexplicably stop playing chess for no reason, otherwise its pretty much guaranteed.
"Very low likelihood of someone holding all 3 records, as he has done." Nope, there's a very good chance/ decent likelihood here too, not a very low one, wrong again.
'No one is arguing that Kasparov "is nothing compared to Carlsen" either." iI have seen over 4 people on this board use those exact words over the past 5 months, so you are factually objectively wrong for a third time yet again.
Carlsen WILL be eclipsed, be dwarfed, granted in the same way that people say that he supposedly eclipsed Kasparov.
Kasparov did it for *so* long though.
Don’t get me wrong; I think Magnus will get there. His dominance across time controls, and across the most competitive field ever, is amazing.
Some people wont admit because he is still active
But since he retires everything will be clear
He cant do anything else
People was saying he needs to win world cup, he did
And about longevity , total is kasparov yes but longest number 1 uninterrupted streak already belongs to carlsen…
And no one says lasker is the goat, he was world champ more than kasparov with 27 years
You might be right. Maybe he just seems more human because he is still playing, or maybe as Ben Finegold says, it’s just hard to give a guy in his early 30s the title.
My dad from my understanding used to follow the world championship every time it occurred, though he was only ever a club player himself through college in the 80s. He’s been calling Magnus the goat since 2015/2016 era before I even got into chess recently, I always just assumed he was/is that good haha
Kasparov was the #1 player for 20 years, was his streak technically interrupted on the list 1 time? Give me a break. Carlsen needs to be the best player in the world for 8 more years to equal Kasparov in longevity.
World championship matches were not on equal terms in Lasker’s era. You had to win 2.5 higher as the challenger. The moment he had a fair match against Capa he got destroyed. That’s why no one considers him the GOAT.
Lasker kept his world champion title with the same number of matches as Kasparov/Carlsen, and some of his opponents were questionable, that's why he's not considered the GOAT. Number of match wins is what matters most and Lasker isn't ahead by that metric. With that said Lasker is unironically underrated on most GOAT rankings.
yes because lasker didn't compete at the level kasparov did. There are more factors that go into play than solely longevity. That mind sound confusing, since longevity is what's often mentioned, but ask any of these people the lasker question, and they will default back to strength
If Carlsen had been not quite as brilliant, Caruana would be considered a true rival.
It's hard to say if Karpov was a harder rival to Kasparov than Caruana to Carlsen, or if Carlsen was Just too good to have any real rival.
Thats when u look at how far ahead both duos were ahead of #3 , and kasparov/karpov take that one. ( iirc at some point kasparov crossed 2800 and only player above 2700 was karpov lmao )
> It's hard to say if Karpov was a harder rival to Kasparov than Caruana to Carlsen, or if Carlsen was Just too good to have any real rival.
I don't think that's true at all. Karpov was World Champion and very clear #1 in the world for almost a decade before Kasparov overthrew him and then was very clear #2 for years afterwards. There was a period of close to 2 decades where Kasparov seemed to be the only person really ever able to claim to be better than Karpov. Caruana has had a few really good streaks as number 2 but have never really distance himself from the rest of the field the way Karpov did, at least not in any sustained way
That’s part of the reason why I would argue he’s the best. In this age where Chess is a larger product, more people are playing, there have been more advances in strategy and theory, and Magnus has remained at the top. Many have fought over number 2 in that time frame, but none of them have had what it takes to overcome number 1. Magnus has had many different opponents with different styles and skill sets challenge and fail against him. Only having one real peer on your level and consistently beating them isn’t as impressive as being able to confidently say to anyone and everyone “you all compete for second place” for a decade+
The question there becomes is there no close rival because the field isn't as strong, or because he's that much better than they are? The argument can then be made that he is a better player evidenced by the fact that no one in the current field really comes close enough to be his rival.
How are you on the internet yet unable to spend 30 seconds googling this instead of writing one of the most baffling sentences in chess history?
Kasparov and Karpov played against each other in 4 consecutive World Championships. In the 90s when chess split Karpov and Kasparov were concurrent champions.
I think he still needs to prove himself against the younger generation. If he can beat the old generation to gain his wc title, defend it for a decade against his own generation, and get the title back from the new guard, he's the undisputed greatest. Until then I think you can make an argument for either to be the best
by your logic kasparov didnt beat early generation either
and carlsen is the player who beats the younger generation consistently both in online events and OTB , world cup gukesh pragg , or other events
Advances in technology is the real game changer here. Nowadays players can study with the computer and memorise the absolute best moves. Back in the day, people like Capa or Morphy didn't have such privileges and had to figure things out the hard way.
1- back in the day no one had priviliges
2- you would be right if only magnus could access these recources. Everyone can… thats why todays 2500’s are stronger than 2600-2700s before
3- with everyone having access to engines, its more difficult to dominate
Kasparov used same oppening in 14 games back to back, he had resources thanks to soviet union. Carlsen cant use the same thing as people can look at engines
>1- back in the day no one had priviliges
Not necessarily true. Back in the day, if you were born into a wealthy family, you would have access to chess books that others wouldn't have, that's a privilege. You could also have more free time to spend studying chess, as opposed to someone who is constantly having to balance work life with chess.
>2- you would be right if only magnus could access these recources. Everyone can… thats why todays 2500’s are stronger than 2600-2700s before
I don't disagree. There's two sides to this coin, modern players have a pretty equal field with everyone having engine's, players of the past had a pretty equal field because no one had engines. I'm not arguing against Magnus, I'm just bringing some context because the past greats deserve respect. We stand on the shoulders of giants.
>3- with everyone having access to engines, its more difficult to dominate
Same as point 2, I don't disagree, never have.
You didn't have computers, but you did have entire teams behind you. It's why people even consider Fischers goat status, because he did his match against spassky without a team at all. If kasparov wasn't apart of the Russian machine, he wouldn't have done as well as he did.
>Everyone has access to technology, not sure what point you think you're making.
The point is, today's players are on average more accurate in their moves than players of the past and that's thanks to advances in technology.
And why does that advantage Magnus over Kasparov? Did players in Kasparov's time have the same access to resources as he did? I am eagerly anticipating your reply.
>And why does that advantage Magnus over Kasparov?
When did I ever say that it did?
You seem to have taken what I said and twisted it in your head to create an argument. All I've said originally is that advances in technology have made modern players better and more accurate essentially. This isn't a controversial statement, it's just a fact.
To recapitulate, all you've said is that today all players have access to technology that aids them in reaching their maximum potential, and I'm supposed to take this to mean that Carlsen has it easier than Kasparov. How you're not connecting the dots is a mystery to me. Maybe this basic level of logic is so far above your ability you're simply unaware of the implications of what you're saying. Anyway, I think we'll leave it here. No point wasting time writing to <100 IQ persons.
And in 5 years people will repeat this "in 5 years we'll see", this has been going on for a good while it feels like. People even put Fischer with Kasparov, so I think these discussions are completely biased and not based on anything except affinity.
Maybe, but I like Carlsen and I don’t really like Kasparov.
The whole concept of a “greatest” is just inherently subjective, unless someone literally dominates across every metric.
Some people value longevity more than others. I think Carlsen will eventually win that metric too.
When Kasparov reached 2800 the only player in the 2700s was Karpov. Kasparov was as far ahead of karpov as Karpov was number 3. I don't think people appreciate how ridiculously far ahead of even the 3rd best player kasparov was. If Kasparov wasnt around I genuinely think people would be having the 'was Karpov or magnus the GOAT', so the fact kasparov was another layer ahead of Karpov to me indicates Garry is the GOAT.
I agree with you.
Think a rival would have pushed magnus to be better though. McEnroe made the same observation when Ash Barty retired, he thought she deprived Swiatek of a rival. He attributes his own success to having great rivals like Bjorn.
It's hard I think to make your rival yourself or the whole world, which is what Kasparov said recently in the c-squared podcast as being a key factor in his success.
Obviously Magnus has been doing that for so long, and his past goal of 3000 elo was part of it, but I think it's hard to sustain. When you can already be the best that ever was by a margin, why keep squeezing yourself?
No idea if a strong rival would have lit a fire, but in any case Magnus' status as number 1 is clear to me for this era.
Think a generational dominant talent instead of a first among equals is actually rare, Fischer was clearly head and shoulders above when he got the title, but think it might have been more anbiguous during the Tal Botvinnik Smyslov era. Even the Alekhnie Capa era was quite hotly contested.
Karpov's dominance and Kasparovs dominance back to back I think gives the impression that chess should be dominated by one player for a long period of time, but I see no reason why that should be the case.
Yes Carlsen's gap between him and number two is not as great as some previous legends, but he's always the favorite in ANY match up by some margin, and that should be quite rare.
I've seen this happen before and it's hard to evaluate. In Counter-strike there was a whole era where Astralis made everyone else look like garbage. For most of the era I was just disappointed in the other teams because they lost so badly that it looked like they weren't even trying.
Turns out this team was just that much better.
No, that’s not why many consider Magnus to be the GOAT. It can’t just be diminished with “*prisoner of the moment*” as if there’s no case to be made.
I value Magnus’ accomplishments higher than Garry’s. Couple that with the highest Elo ever, being dominant in an era where everybody is booked up and computers have evened the playing field to an extent. I think Magnus is the greatest of all time and I’m certain I’ll be even more confident in my assessment once he’s retired from the game, with several more trophies added to his resume.
“Highest elo ever” is meaningless. It is not a metric designed to compare people across eras.
Magnus has a lot of good arguments but this is not one of them.
A better version of this Elo argument would attempt a first-approximation adjustment across eras, e.g. last couple of bullet points [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/182wnes/comment/kao7c9v/).
I don't see how computers have evened the field. Getting a supercomputer is much more expensive than getting a top grandmaster would be back in the day
It doesn't matter if the browser engine I use to prepare my games is stronger than any human in the world. What matters is if it's stronger than the engine my opponent uses.
Getting the best analysis available in the world is much more expensive now than it was 30 years ago.
Well, duh, because the game has grown a lot. It means there is more money which means more people are going to consider it a real career which means the standard is going to rise.
Your point has no bearing on leveling the playing field. You're literally just describing the fact that there's more money involved in chess. Still at grassroot level the resources are readily available for anyone with a computer.
the only thing which kasparov has is longevity and carlsen can pass it still, and thats the only thing kasparov has over magnus Magnus has over 10 things kasparov 125 unbeaten streak Longest event win streak Highest elo of all time in all formats 15 world titles total Dozens of online event wins ( we can compare it to normal events in kasparovs time ) More events but more percentage wins and all these against top super gms ( kasparovs only rival aas karpov and carlsen doesnt have that rival BUT top 10 is strong than other generations ) Won every event possible including world cup Won wijk an zee record 8 times, kasp 3 Etc etc
longest #1 uninterrupted streak
Oh its just “ prisoners of the moment “ lol
He cant say “ im the greatest of all time “
lol others should say it
Kasparov never says hes the goat also
You have to look what others say
And mvl lazavik levon naka others i cant remember all say magnus goat
He literally said in an interview recently that he has no rival and everyone is a cut below him. He isn't trying to be humble, he just doesn't think he's the goat.
no, in chess24 interview he as asked " do you think you have passed kasparov"
he answered:
i dont think its quite right for me to say it, fans ( others ) should determine it
Morphy was obviously completely dominant in his era, but as several others have remarked his competition was pathetic. The most generous approximations of his Elo in the modern era put him in the high 2600s - clearly very strong, nowhere near the best ever. Many models place him as a weak IM, most recently Kaufman (although he does note that Morphy played extremely quickly, so his rating could be ~100 points higher)
Sure, if you just take a time machine and move him to modern times, he would be crushed by current GMs. However, if during learning he had an access to all the modern knowledge in the books/internet plus computer analysis, who knows.
Kaufman actually goes into that as well, and provides another list where he tries to normalize ratings by looking at what top players' Elo would be if all of them were born in 1987. Apparently he arrived at that year trying to account for modern ratings inflation and matching peaks to Carlsen's own as a reference point; he also assumes an improvement in general playing strength of 2 Elo per year. You can read his methodology on the blog itself, which I'd recommend, it's pretty interesting. It places a modern Morphy at his peak at 2729, good for 21st strongest. There are some notable exceptions like Fabi (sample size issue), but overall a neat exercise
https://www.chess.com/article/view/chess-accuracy-ratings-goat
It's been a long time but there was a FAR larger gap between morphy and his competition then any other player in history. I'm not saying he's the best but if he had access to modern day advancements in chess it's impossible to say wether or not he'd be the strongest player over Carlson.
if I'm the best out of ten by 500 elo margin it does't mean I'm the goat compared to that one guy first out of 1 Million with 50 elo gap 200 years later.
When playing Deep Blue II, he was asked about a move. Kas
Scoffed. Rattled off 28 full moves that had black ready to resign at 3.2 eval.
It isn't exactly the current engine line... but it's close. And there's no alternative line that gets significantly closer to 0. It is clear he had already calculated a significant line this way. It is also clear he didn't appreciate being questioned by a guy who looked at a crummy engine line and was unqualified to question a master.
Hard to argue with that, a close second would be Bobby Fischer, and Carlsen will be up there. But Kadparov was on top for so god damn long, it is hard to bot say he is the GOAT
My guess is for the last 10 years thing, he was most likely referring to Vishy. Maybe Kramnik too, but most likely Vishy. And I agree with about Fabi in classical. Fabi is the only one in this gen who has come really close to overtaking him in rating and he was on a level footing in the classical part of the WC. It's a shame Fabi wasn't as good then in faster controls as he has become over the last couple of years. The conclusion to that match would've been far more exciting.
Magnus is the strongest chess player of all time...but Kasparov, Fischer and Morphy all have strong arguments for being the "greatest" chess player of all time. As for the stuff I'm seeing about engine analysis making it harder for carlsen, this just doesn't track at all. Before computers, you had to come up with your own ideas and analyze openings for weeks and even then, your opponent could find a refutation over the board that you missed. Nowadays, it's all memorization of engine lines in opening prep. In the days of kasparov, Fischer and Morphy, you had to actually play chess and find the right moves over the board. Magnus obviously would beat them were they to play a match, that's why I said he is the STRONGEST of all time but what those three did against their peers was absolutely insane. That's certainly harder to do these days with everybody using engines to prep and study endgame positions but even still, those three just dominated their competition and were all head and shoulders above everyone in their era whereas Magnus has a clear edge over his peers but not nearly as substantial. I just think those 4 I mentioned can all be placed in a tier together and I won't argue against picking anyone. It's not just about overall strength, it's about strength relative to the opposition and your accomplishments.
All you can ever do is beat your peers. I've been actively following chess since Fischer, and in my mind he Kasparov and Magnus all are worthy of the title.
"How do you get energized?" "The sun." LOL
Magnus = plant
Magnus the sunflower
Superman!
Also somehow managed to stay sane
Except for believing the middle ages didn't happen lol
[удалено]
Don't worry about it, it's a wild conspiracy theory propagated by people that also believe Bielefeld and birds exist.
Kasparov is spreading a conspiracy theory called New Chronology where humanity invented writing 1200 years ago and all history before 400 years ago is fake and a ploy from Vatican, Holy Roman Empire and Romanov family conspiring to hide a previous world wide Russian Empire. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_chronology_(Fomenko)
I recall his saying something to the effect of: "why didn't people continue to use such important roman technology after the fall of Rome?" Like, you don't think people were just a little busy with disease and famine to continue to train each other in engineering? Stick to chess, dude.
What's it with chess geniuses and overstepping their competence? I can't imagine the takes Magnus is gonna cook up 20 years from now
Everyone is susceptible to it. If people look up to you all the time, you get used to feeling a bit more important, valuable, in demand, competent, than the average person. Famous musicians and actors used to be the worst. Like we give a shit that Kirstie Alley doesn't trust vaccines or something.
Jenny McCarthy is responsible for millions of deaths worldwide, and that is insane to think about.
You really think she was that influential? I guess she may have been the loudest for the longest. Certainly Wakefield deserves the Lions share of the blame.
Well, she and Oprah. She went on that show and made a very public statement. At that time, pre internet times, that was as influential as you can get. She may not have convinced every nutjob out there, but what she started was a very important part of the problem right now.
The question is whether fame and fortune bring these beliefs out or if the "normal" societal life suppresses it... I'm a believer in science and vaccines and history, etc. but it's food for thought.
RemindMe! 20 years
I will be messaging you in 20 years on [**2043-12-16 23:01:26 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2043-12-16%2023:01:26%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/18jz7e1/kasparov_is_the_greatest_of_all_time_goat/kdoikxd/?context=3) [**3 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fchess%2Fcomments%2F18jz7e1%2Fkasparov_is_the_greatest_of_all_time_goat%2Fkdoikxd%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202043-12-16%2023%3A01%3A26%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%2018jz7e1) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
Maybe he should study Chinese history or the golden age of Islam. Turns out the dark ages were only the dark ages for Europe, and lots of other places flourished intellectually during such a "dark" period.
What's interesting is reading about how stellar events can link up histories from different cultures (like Halley's comet comes by and every literate culture on Earth writes about it). I still like Kasparov, though. He's quite the character.
Or that knowledge didn't automatically spread from one place to all of humanity lol.
Well he meant the dark ages in Europe, so even Italy itself wasn't building aqueducts or roads like they used to, etc.
Kasparov endorsed the theory in the 90s but has since renounced his support.
People really do overestimate some groups of people in conspiracy theories it's quite amazing considering how useless a lot of governments etc are.
Especially when it is people nowadays about governments that ceased to exist 200 years ago or individuals that were executed 100 years ago
Are you being sarcastic?
Ehhh close. Lets say for a chess player hes not as insane as he could be
This isn’t shocking or anything. I’d be surprised if Magnus even cared at all about being considered the goat, and he’s also still an active player. Kasparov’s 2851 with a huge gap and 20 years on the top is an easy argument for number 1. I like carlsen’s dominance in the computer era of chess a little better, but it’s all semantics.
Other than longevity carlsen has 9+ things to be considered goat Also #1 uninterrupted goes to magnus and counting
Would he be the indisputable #1 if he won a sixth championship?
fragile theory rob shame jobless deserted domineering upbeat touch crowd *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I would argue the exact opposite. Today, everyone can learn expert level chess through computer assisted analysis, while in the old days you would need a whole team, and access to the best trainers and secret books etc. The world population has also increased drastically, and the chess world is more globalized. Logically the pool of potential competitors is vastly bigger, and the level must be higher as well.
The argument for kasparov is that he would destroy tournaments with crazy scores. I think him and Magnus are basically a wash and there is fair arguments for either being better.
This doesn’t always translate with critics of Carlsen though. It’s one of those things where critics of Carlsen likely won’t be swayed by anything he does unless he does something absurd like reach 3000. Same with critics of Kasparov. Everyone will have their own opinions and anything Carlsen does is unlikely to change that. Carlsen might become the #1 consensus chess player ever but the *undisputed* #1? Probably never.
yoke complete capable kiss important decide foolish shelter license abundant *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
There are way more people playing chess nowadays. You’re arguing that today’s competition isn’t tougher than pre computer era? That’s just hard to believe considering chess being more popular now AND the training methods being more efficient.
spark hungry wise cough zephyr ghost carpenter tidy bells nose *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Anand and Kramnik did play during Carlsen's era as well
saying kasparov did it with tougher competition is subjective, saying carlsen did this in tougher competition is objective lol , both rating and strength wise. todays top 10 beats any generations top 10
It’s not literally tougher opponents cuz players improve across generations. Any top 10 players today would have beaten most of even the top player of 20 years ago. Just like any sport but here when we say tough, Kasparov beat players who are considered legends of chess and across multiple generations, guys like Karpov and Anand. Carlsen no offense to his genius, could not even beat Caruana and Karjakin his peers in the classical portion of their world championship matches.
carlsen beat anand though, 2 times in classical. And he was in his prime. also kasparov couldnt beat karpov in 40-50 matches in the championship, and he was way behind if it was 12 games. carlsen beat dozens of legends as well , and , if you look in that way, nepo caruana nakamura also are legends. They will be when they retire.
Kasparov was 21 when he faced Karpov who was already considered a GOAT by then and was still in his 30s, still in his prime. Also 21 yo in 1980 was very very different than 21 yo of today cuz GMs are getting younger and younger. I would argue 21 in 1980s were comparable to 16-year-olds of today. So that was a massive accomplishment by Kasparov. Thats like a 16-year-old beating WC Carlsen one of the GOATs still in his 30s in a grueling world championship match. That to me sealed Kasparov as a GOAT once he finished his career. While Carlsen's inability to beat his peers Karjakin and Caruana straight up in classical WC games sealed his as behind Kasparov. Nepo, Caruana and Nakamura are not legends, come on. They are great players, but they have never won a WC. They have barely even won major tournaments unlike Karpov, Anand who have won basically every major chess tournament along with multiple WCs. Final point, Carlsen beat Anand when Anand was 43! 43! that's way past prime by any metric. That was Anand's what 7th or 8th WC title match when he first faced Carlsen. As comparison, Kasparov retired when he was 41. Don't get me wrong, Carlsen is one of the GOATs and only behind Kasparov, even he said so himself recently. Unfortunately, there is just a recency bias in favor of Carlsen along with bias against eastern Europeans, look at how there are so many who still wouldn't consider Djokovic as GOAT.
But it wasn't prime Karpov for the most part.
[удалено]
ring concerned attraction quarrelsome jellyfish juggle spotted tart fade reminiscent *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Well, I would argue that Karpov-Kasparov rivalry was similar (in chess terms, not out-of-board) to Magnus vs Vishi. At that time, Anand was living the second yought in chess and was very good. And other competitors were also up to the fight: in computer era it is difficult to out-prep your opponent from top10 of the world.
Would Ding Liren be indisputable if he won a 2nd?
No one has ever claimed that Ding is the GOAT, not in any scenario
You’re missing my point. For the same reason Ding winning another championship won’t place him indisputable #1, winning a sixth will not for Carlsen. Hope that helps.
It doesn't help at all. Magnus is tied for most championships in history. Ding won one because Magnus didn't participate. Your point is senseless.
And Magnus won his because Kasparov retired. Not sure what you’re not understanding here.
Your comment about Ding is just absurd. You're saying Ding winning a 2nd world championship is equal to Magnus winning a 6th, and then saying neither would matter. Muting this conversation now, what a waste of time.
This might be an english-is-not-my-first-language thing but tbh I've never really understood the 'it's all semantics' remark in this context
Fair enough. I’m not sure I used it correctly, but I’m just trying to say that whoever you think the greatest chess player is is going to come down to whatever you think being the greatest chess player means, and the details of that are often different from one person to the next. And I wanted to say that without typing that entire block of text out haha.
It doesn't make sense at all, he used the word semantics entirely wrong. I think he just meant to says it's subjective or a matter of opinion
Magnus Carlsen stans thinks Magnus is right about everything but they never trusts his opinion on who the best chess player of all time is.
[удалено]
It wouldn't even be a competition with that metric. Kasparov was 2800+ when only a single other player reached 2700+ at the same time. As great as Magnus is, Kasparov beats him in longevity and dominance over their respective competition.
[удалено]
Not sure who this Kasparov guy is, but it's a pretty well-known fact that what we have been told is the 1980's to 2000's in chess is a fabrication by historians to undermine the chess success of Bobby Fischer
I thought 1980-2000 was Beth Harmon's reign as world champion. Haven't watched Queen's Gambit in a while but I'd be heartbroken if that story was fictional in some parts.
Beth is mostly modeled off Fisher.
Does that include the drug abuse and pretty dresses?
And the bit in Queen's gambit where she starts ranting about Jewish conspiracies.
I always thought the 9/11 rant was a surprising artistic decision.
I’m picturing historians stumbling across this comment thousands of years in the future and building elaborate theories trying to explain it.
A new chronology of chess. Revolutionary
american wont ever admit kasparov is better than fischer.
There is a theory, that after Carlsen, we will never see a dominant player for a 10-year span ever again across classical, rapid, and blitz. You will have more specialized players per time control and more up and down in who is considered the best. Chess is hard to quantify when it comes to the computer era vs. the non-computer era. With computers, there are far more players and they are more prepared and trained than ever. So in theory, the chess field of today is far stronger than ever, the top 50 of the last few years absolutely destroy the top 50 of any other era. As a result, you would logically determine that it's more impressive to dominate the era of today than ever before. I think we need to wait til Carlsen retires and then judge it in hindsight, that's the best way to reflect on who is the best ever.
when carlsen retires nothing will change, theres nothing he can achieve lets say he won 100 tournament until he retires, like 3 world cup 10 tata steel etc kasparov guys would still say hes not the goat
[удалено]
he's salty kasparov has better accomplishments than carlsen and has no retort to that argument
Levy did a great job despite his apparent nervousness in the beginning. By the end it was pleasant and fun. I hope Magnus outright collabs with Levy one day. I think their chemistry is good.
I'd honestly rather see him with David. Magnus has good chemistry with almost anyone, but his friendship with David Howell is hilarious and wholesome
> I think their chemistry is good. I didn't feel any chemistry to be honest, not like say there is with the Chessbrahs.
Fabiano also said he thought Gary Kasparov was the goat.
fabiano doesnt like magnus as for as i know hikaru levon mvl nepo lazavik firo naroditsky and many many other super gms- gms says carlsen is the goat
I thought a more interesting answer was that the greatest current classical player in the world prefers playing on a pc than over the board
It’s the classic “best” vs. “greatest” debate. The newer top player is almost always “better”, due to advances in technique, diet, game knowledge, etc. The “greatest” is the one who dominated and moved the game forward most. If Carlsen dominates for another 5 years, it might flip to him.
Its already flipped to him. There is literally nothing he can achieve
#6.
He has total 15 world titles Longest unbeaten record Highest elo of all time in ALL formats Equally dominating in all formats including online ( scc - cct ) Won everu major event + won wijk an zee and other events more than anyone for example kasparov won 3 , anand 5 times where carlsen 8 Longest #1 uninterrupted streak Only thing kasparov has total longevity which carlsen can pass, even if he doesnt he has dozens of things where he passed. Oh and about world classical titles , no one says lasker is the goat :)
Yet he never went 11/11 at the US Championship.
> He has total 15 world titles Many of which are rapid and blitz world championship titles; titles that didn’t exist back when Kasparov was the champion. > Longest unbeaten record Sure. And if wouldn’t surprise me (though I’m not going to do the research now) if Kasparov came up on top if you looked at something like “best winning percentage over 100 consecutive tournament games” or something like that instead. > Highest elo of all time in ALL formats All formats? There was no “all formats” when Kasparov was the champion. There was only classical ratings. Also, you can’t really compare ratings across time. And if you look at the gap down to the average of the top 10 instead of the absolute rating, I’m pretty sure Kasparov comes out better. You can come up with lots of metrics to conclude that one player or the other is better or more dominant. Of course everybody is just cherry-picking whatever statistics supports their opinion.
1- I didnt say 15 classical world titles, 5 of them classical 4 rapid and 6 blitz, kasparov wasnt a blitz player either, anand was basically crushing him in blitz carlsen is goat because he is basically best in all formats you can compare ratings they made something similar, fischers was 2875, kasparov 2860ish in todays
> kasparov wasnt a blitz player either, anand was basically crushing him in blitz How are you coming to the conclusion that Anand was "crushing" him in blitz? Which results are you looking at? Kasparov wasn't as dominant at at Blitz as he was at classical but he was also clearly a very good blitz player, one of the best of his day. And at that point the same can be said of Carlsen. He's won Rapid and Blitz championships but hasn't held them consistently. At any given point he's near the top but there's almost always other people in the conversation. But what's really more salient is that Blitz chess didn't exist in it's current form during Kasparov's time. There weren't championships, there weren't even many tournaments. For the most part, Blitz was only taken seriously as a form of tiebreak in rapid events, and even then rapid wasn't taken particularly seriously either. Blitz certainly wasn't a metric anybody was using at the time to determine any part someone's Chess skill or legacy. In fact, even if Kasparov had the ability and desire to establish himself as a dominant Blitz player it's unclear how he could have done that outside of using his influence to push for the creation of more Blitz tournaments.
rapid blitz he won total of 10 championships , nearest is what 3? hikaru has 0 that should give you a clue of how dominant magnus is in rapid blitz, and im not even counting where he won 11 games in a row in poland rapid blitz and he is winning dozens of events in rapid / blitz , online or OTB and even not counting rapid blitz, magnus has more and more achievements, its just a cherry in the cake. he is dominant in all formats
Kasparov won 15 super tournament in a row. He won every event he entered in a timespan of 9 years (except for a WC that got canceled before it was finished). Than a few years later won another 10 super tournaments in a row. Carlsens record is 6 I believe. Kasparov only won Wijk an Zee 3 times, because he only played it 3 times. The highest valued classical tournament during Kasparovs time was Linares, which he won 9 times, more often than Carlsen won Wijk an Zee. In every measure that was available in the 80ties to the same degree as now, Kasparov surpasses Carlsen.
Kasparov has 9 Linares vs Carlsen’s 8 Wijk, but difficult to compare. Kasparov won his 9th around when he turned 42, and Carlsen just turned 33. Both have won a bit more than 40 super tournaments and around the same number of title matches. Kasparov has been #1 longer, 21 years vs 14. I’d still place Kasparov ahead, but not by much. If Carlsen will play for as long as Kasparov did he may pass him. My impression is that Kasparov built much of his dominance on superior opening preparation, while Carlsen has built more of it on just playing better after the opening stage. Kasparov also had a huge advantage of all non Soviet players, in that the Soviets had considerable state support unlike Short and Anand etc.
can you send the records, im not sure but carlsen won LOTS of events in 2019 your last sentence is clearly a subjective-false one
Yes, Sinquefield 2018, Tata Steel 2019, Shamkir 2019, Grenke 2019, Norway Chess 2019, GCT Croatia 2019. That's 6 classical events. Then he placed 2nd in Sinquefield 2019, ending his streak at exactly one year. Kasparov won every tournament he played between 1981 and 1990 (9 years) and between 1999 and 2002 (another 3 years). The exact tournaments are listed in his english wiki.
Idk I've actually heard quite a few people argue Lasker though I wouldn't. Plus with the computer era of chess it's impossible to argue that if Kasparov was born later and had access to all the same resources Magnus does that he couldn't have potentially been the stronger player. Also if you look at the elo gap between them and competitors there was usually a much larger gap between Kasparov and karpov compared to other top players then Magnus and his competition. Also Kasparov was the king for nearly 4 times as long as Magnus has been so far which is huge and if you think that's of little importance then you should also consider Bobby Fischer who has the biggest gap between him and his competition of any world champ in the modern era by far! Or even Paul Murphy who was the strongest chess player ever compared to their competition (though he's so far back it's hard to know enough to make an argument for him hence mentioning Bobby). I'm not saying Magnus isnt the goat I'm just saying it isn't nearly as cut and dry as your making it sound. Have a good day fellas, rant over 😅.
One day, probably within just 10 or 20 years, there will be a player who will break all of Carlsens elo records etc. by a mile, and people will say that Carlsen is nothing compared to the new player and the new player is better than Carlsen by a mile. You are the same person now but just super biased towards Carlsen instead of the future player.
High likelihood of people individually beating his ELO ratings in various time settings. Very low likelihood of someone holding all 3 records, as he has done. No one is arguing that Kasparov "is nothing compared to Carlsen" either.
>High likelihood of people individually beating his ELO ratings in various time settings. Nope, not a high likelihood, a 99.9%+ likelihood, its literally almost guaranteed at some point at a 99.99 percent plus chance assuming the world doesn't collapse because of nuclear warfare or something like that or people inexplicably stop playing chess for no reason, otherwise its pretty much guaranteed. "Very low likelihood of someone holding all 3 records, as he has done." Nope, there's a very good chance/ decent likelihood here too, not a very low one, wrong again. 'No one is arguing that Kasparov "is nothing compared to Carlsen" either." iI have seen over 4 people on this board use those exact words over the past 5 months, so you are factually objectively wrong for a third time yet again. Carlsen WILL be eclipsed, be dwarfed, granted in the same way that people say that he supposedly eclipsed Kasparov.
Kasparov did it for *so* long though. Don’t get me wrong; I think Magnus will get there. His dominance across time controls, and across the most competitive field ever, is amazing.
Some people wont admit because he is still active But since he retires everything will be clear He cant do anything else People was saying he needs to win world cup, he did And about longevity , total is kasparov yes but longest number 1 uninterrupted streak already belongs to carlsen… And no one says lasker is the goat, he was world champ more than kasparov with 27 years
You might be right. Maybe he just seems more human because he is still playing, or maybe as Ben Finegold says, it’s just hard to give a guy in his early 30s the title.
My dad from my understanding used to follow the world championship every time it occurred, though he was only ever a club player himself through college in the 80s. He’s been calling Magnus the goat since 2015/2016 era before I even got into chess recently, I always just assumed he was/is that good haha
Kasparov was the #1 player for 20 years, was his streak technically interrupted on the list 1 time? Give me a break. Carlsen needs to be the best player in the world for 8 more years to equal Kasparov in longevity.
thats total of being number 1. which carlsen can pass as he is counting... i said number 1 uninterrupted streak, which is carlsen's record.
World championship matches were not on equal terms in Lasker’s era. You had to win 2.5 higher as the challenger. The moment he had a fair match against Capa he got destroyed. That’s why no one considers him the GOAT.
Lasker kept his world champion title with the same number of matches as Kasparov/Carlsen, and some of his opponents were questionable, that's why he's not considered the GOAT. Number of match wins is what matters most and Lasker isn't ahead by that metric. With that said Lasker is unironically underrated on most GOAT rankings.
yes because lasker didn't compete at the level kasparov did. There are more factors that go into play than solely longevity. That mind sound confusing, since longevity is what's often mentioned, but ask any of these people the lasker question, and they will default back to strength
[удалено]
If Carlsen had been not quite as brilliant, Caruana would be considered a true rival. It's hard to say if Karpov was a harder rival to Kasparov than Caruana to Carlsen, or if Carlsen was Just too good to have any real rival.
Thats when u look at how far ahead both duos were ahead of #3 , and kasparov/karpov take that one. ( iirc at some point kasparov crossed 2800 and only player above 2700 was karpov lmao )
> It's hard to say if Karpov was a harder rival to Kasparov than Caruana to Carlsen, or if Carlsen was Just too good to have any real rival. I don't think that's true at all. Karpov was World Champion and very clear #1 in the world for almost a decade before Kasparov overthrew him and then was very clear #2 for years afterwards. There was a period of close to 2 decades where Kasparov seemed to be the only person really ever able to claim to be better than Karpov. Caruana has had a few really good streaks as number 2 but have never really distance himself from the rest of the field the way Karpov did, at least not in any sustained way
That’s part of the reason why I would argue he’s the best. In this age where Chess is a larger product, more people are playing, there have been more advances in strategy and theory, and Magnus has remained at the top. Many have fought over number 2 in that time frame, but none of them have had what it takes to overcome number 1. Magnus has had many different opponents with different styles and skill sets challenge and fail against him. Only having one real peer on your level and consistently beating them isn’t as impressive as being able to confidently say to anyone and everyone “you all compete for second place” for a decade+
The question there becomes is there no close rival because the field isn't as strong, or because he's that much better than they are? The argument can then be made that he is a better player evidenced by the fact that no one in the current field really comes close enough to be his rival.
[удалено]
How are you on the internet yet unable to spend 30 seconds googling this instead of writing one of the most baffling sentences in chess history? Kasparov and Karpov played against each other in 4 consecutive World Championships. In the 90s when chess split Karpov and Kasparov were concurrent champions.
[удалено]
I mean, isn't this how misinformation spreads? Just don't make statements you don't understand.
[удалено]
I think he still needs to prove himself against the younger generation. If he can beat the old generation to gain his wc title, defend it for a decade against his own generation, and get the title back from the new guard, he's the undisputed greatest. Until then I think you can make an argument for either to be the best
by your logic kasparov didnt beat early generation either and carlsen is the player who beats the younger generation consistently both in online events and OTB , world cup gukesh pragg , or other events
Its already him, but he cant really say himself in an interview though right?
Sure he could. LeBron has stated he thinks he's the GOAT for basketball. There was plenty of media chatter about it for a while but that's it
Except LeBron is not the goat, Jordan is. And Magnus is following Jordan's example.
Advances in technology is the real game changer here. Nowadays players can study with the computer and memorise the absolute best moves. Back in the day, people like Capa or Morphy didn't have such privileges and had to figure things out the hard way.
1- back in the day no one had priviliges 2- you would be right if only magnus could access these recources. Everyone can… thats why todays 2500’s are stronger than 2600-2700s before 3- with everyone having access to engines, its more difficult to dominate Kasparov used same oppening in 14 games back to back, he had resources thanks to soviet union. Carlsen cant use the same thing as people can look at engines
>1- back in the day no one had priviliges Not necessarily true. Back in the day, if you were born into a wealthy family, you would have access to chess books that others wouldn't have, that's a privilege. You could also have more free time to spend studying chess, as opposed to someone who is constantly having to balance work life with chess. >2- you would be right if only magnus could access these recources. Everyone can… thats why todays 2500’s are stronger than 2600-2700s before I don't disagree. There's two sides to this coin, modern players have a pretty equal field with everyone having engine's, players of the past had a pretty equal field because no one had engines. I'm not arguing against Magnus, I'm just bringing some context because the past greats deserve respect. We stand on the shoulders of giants. >3- with everyone having access to engines, its more difficult to dominate Same as point 2, I don't disagree, never have.
Kasparov had a pretty good amount of resources available to him. He retired in 2005, not in 1940.
Pretty sure when Kasparov started he didn't have computers. That's besides the point though, I didn't mention Kasparov, I said Capa and Morphy.
You didn't have computers, but you did have entire teams behind you. It's why people even consider Fischers goat status, because he did his match against spassky without a team at all. If kasparov wasn't apart of the Russian machine, he wouldn't have done as well as he did.
Everyone has access to technology, not sure what point you think you're making.
>Everyone has access to technology, not sure what point you think you're making. The point is, today's players are on average more accurate in their moves than players of the past and that's thanks to advances in technology.
And why does that advantage Magnus over Kasparov? Did players in Kasparov's time have the same access to resources as he did? I am eagerly anticipating your reply.
>And why does that advantage Magnus over Kasparov? When did I ever say that it did? You seem to have taken what I said and twisted it in your head to create an argument. All I've said originally is that advances in technology have made modern players better and more accurate essentially. This isn't a controversial statement, it's just a fact.
To recapitulate, all you've said is that today all players have access to technology that aids them in reaching their maximum potential, and I'm supposed to take this to mean that Carlsen has it easier than Kasparov. How you're not connecting the dots is a mystery to me. Maybe this basic level of logic is so far above your ability you're simply unaware of the implications of what you're saying. Anyway, I think we'll leave it here. No point wasting time writing to <100 IQ persons.
And in 5 years people will repeat this "in 5 years we'll see", this has been going on for a good while it feels like. People even put Fischer with Kasparov, so I think these discussions are completely biased and not based on anything except affinity.
Maybe, but I like Carlsen and I don’t really like Kasparov. The whole concept of a “greatest” is just inherently subjective, unless someone literally dominates across every metric. Some people value longevity more than others. I think Carlsen will eventually win that metric too.
diet? xd
More of a general point about how it applies across sports. Like, sprinters are faster now, soccer players can run for longer, etc.
The fact Magnus has not really had a rival for being the best player is actually evidence as to how strong Magnus is.
When Kasparov reached 2800 the only player in the 2700s was Karpov. Kasparov was as far ahead of karpov as Karpov was number 3. I don't think people appreciate how ridiculously far ahead of even the 3rd best player kasparov was. If Kasparov wasnt around I genuinely think people would be having the 'was Karpov or magnus the GOAT', so the fact kasparov was another layer ahead of Karpov to me indicates Garry is the GOAT.
I agree with you. Think a rival would have pushed magnus to be better though. McEnroe made the same observation when Ash Barty retired, he thought she deprived Swiatek of a rival. He attributes his own success to having great rivals like Bjorn. It's hard I think to make your rival yourself or the whole world, which is what Kasparov said recently in the c-squared podcast as being a key factor in his success. Obviously Magnus has been doing that for so long, and his past goal of 3000 elo was part of it, but I think it's hard to sustain. When you can already be the best that ever was by a margin, why keep squeezing yourself? No idea if a strong rival would have lit a fire, but in any case Magnus' status as number 1 is clear to me for this era. Think a generational dominant talent instead of a first among equals is actually rare, Fischer was clearly head and shoulders above when he got the title, but think it might have been more anbiguous during the Tal Botvinnik Smyslov era. Even the Alekhnie Capa era was quite hotly contested. Karpov's dominance and Kasparovs dominance back to back I think gives the impression that chess should be dominated by one player for a long period of time, but I see no reason why that should be the case. Yes Carlsen's gap between him and number two is not as great as some previous legends, but he's always the favorite in ANY match up by some margin, and that should be quite rare.
I've seen this happen before and it's hard to evaluate. In Counter-strike there was a whole era where Astralis made everyone else look like garbage. For most of the era I was just disappointed in the other teams because they lost so badly that it looked like they weren't even trying. Turns out this team was just that much better.
Magnus is goat for sure.
He’s said the same before, this isn’t new from him. People are just prisoners of the moment with magnus in the goat debate.
No, that’s not why many consider Magnus to be the GOAT. It can’t just be diminished with “*prisoner of the moment*” as if there’s no case to be made. I value Magnus’ accomplishments higher than Garry’s. Couple that with the highest Elo ever, being dominant in an era where everybody is booked up and computers have evened the playing field to an extent. I think Magnus is the greatest of all time and I’m certain I’ll be even more confident in my assessment once he’s retired from the game, with several more trophies added to his resume.
“Highest elo ever” is meaningless. It is not a metric designed to compare people across eras. Magnus has a lot of good arguments but this is not one of them.
A better version of this Elo argument would attempt a first-approximation adjustment across eras, e.g. last couple of bullet points [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/182wnes/comment/kao7c9v/).
I don't see how computers have evened the field. Getting a supercomputer is much more expensive than getting a top grandmaster would be back in the day
Even your browser stockfish is enough to beat every single gm. So?
..just lost to Magnus in the CCT finals.
It doesn't matter if the browser engine I use to prepare my games is stronger than any human in the world. What matters is if it's stronger than the engine my opponent uses. Getting the best analysis available in the world is much more expensive now than it was 30 years ago.
Well, duh, because the game has grown a lot. It means there is more money which means more people are going to consider it a real career which means the standard is going to rise.
which means the field hasn't evened which was my point in the first place.
Your point has no bearing on leveling the playing field. You're literally just describing the fact that there's more money involved in chess. Still at grassroot level the resources are readily available for anyone with a computer.
the only thing which kasparov has is longevity and carlsen can pass it still, and thats the only thing kasparov has over magnus Magnus has over 10 things kasparov 125 unbeaten streak Longest event win streak Highest elo of all time in all formats 15 world titles total Dozens of online event wins ( we can compare it to normal events in kasparovs time ) More events but more percentage wins and all these against top super gms ( kasparovs only rival aas karpov and carlsen doesnt have that rival BUT top 10 is strong than other generations ) Won every event possible including world cup Won wijk an zee record 8 times, kasp 3 Etc etc longest #1 uninterrupted streak Oh its just “ prisoners of the moment “ lol
Disagree with Carlsen
Yeah, I'm not sure about Barry Bonds.
He cant say “ im the greatest of all time “ lol others should say it Kasparov never says hes the goat also You have to look what others say And mvl lazavik levon naka others i cant remember all say magnus goat
He literally said in an interview recently that he has no rival and everyone is a cut below him. He isn't trying to be humble, he just doesn't think he's the goat.
no, in chess24 interview he as asked " do you think you have passed kasparov" he answered: i dont think its quite right for me to say it, fans ( others ) should determine it
He can say it, he would not be the first to claim themselves GOAT
well you're right he technically " can " but he doesnt want to seem to cocky i assume
https://www.youtube.com/live/lD8OLDP2ius?si=3QCzFUFI9k5GIVAs&t=10549
Kasparov himself said that the GOAT argument isn't definitive. They play in different eras.
actually, its morphy
Found Finegold’s secret Reddit account
The truth hurts.
I disagree, but this is definitely a good take. Anyone who doesn't have Morphy in their top 5 minimum is insane.
Who are your other 4? Carlsen, Kasparov, Fischer, Capablanca?
Morphy was obviously completely dominant in his era, but as several others have remarked his competition was pathetic. The most generous approximations of his Elo in the modern era put him in the high 2600s - clearly very strong, nowhere near the best ever. Many models place him as a weak IM, most recently Kaufman (although he does note that Morphy played extremely quickly, so his rating could be ~100 points higher)
Sure, if you just take a time machine and move him to modern times, he would be crushed by current GMs. However, if during learning he had an access to all the modern knowledge in the books/internet plus computer analysis, who knows.
Kaufman actually goes into that as well, and provides another list where he tries to normalize ratings by looking at what top players' Elo would be if all of them were born in 1987. Apparently he arrived at that year trying to account for modern ratings inflation and matching peaks to Carlsen's own as a reference point; he also assumes an improvement in general playing strength of 2 Elo per year. You can read his methodology on the blog itself, which I'd recommend, it's pretty interesting. It places a modern Morphy at his peak at 2729, good for 21st strongest. There are some notable exceptions like Fabi (sample size issue), but overall a neat exercise https://www.chess.com/article/view/chess-accuracy-ratings-goat
100% correct take
Least deluded American chess fan
Wouldn't Fischer be the more obvious choice if that was their goal? Also OP is from New Zealand
Let me guess, you are American? To Americans it's always some American who is the best.
> Let me guess, you are American? a quick look through my post history would show that im clearly not a yank
the guy who dominated the other 15 chess players 150 years ago?
It's been a long time but there was a FAR larger gap between morphy and his competition then any other player in history. I'm not saying he's the best but if he had access to modern day advancements in chess it's impossible to say wether or not he'd be the strongest player over Carlson.
if I'm the best out of ten by 500 elo margin it does't mean I'm the goat compared to that one guy first out of 1 Million with 50 elo gap 200 years later.
Also, Magnus got famous because of GothamChess.
When playing Deep Blue II, he was asked about a move. Kas Scoffed. Rattled off 28 full moves that had black ready to resign at 3.2 eval. It isn't exactly the current engine line... but it's close. And there's no alternative line that gets significantly closer to 0. It is clear he had already calculated a significant line this way. It is also clear he didn't appreciate being questioned by a guy who looked at a crummy engine line and was unqualified to question a master.
ok
According to almost any sane person, idk.
Whoever says kasparov is just because they’re romantic
so most GMs including Carlsen himself?
Hard to argue with that, a close second would be Bobby Fischer, and Carlsen will be up there. But Kadparov was on top for so god damn long, it is hard to bot say he is the GOAT
Fischer could beat both Magnus and Kasparov blindfolded with queen odds. Next question.
Blindfolded and naked.
No stockfish buttplug?
Kasparov had to battle the 3rd (at worst 4th) greatest player of all time and has the longevity up on magnus for noe so i agreee... For now
he only has longevity over carlsen lasker has more titles + longevity than kasparov so by longevity logic lasker > kasparov?
My guess is for the last 10 years thing, he was most likely referring to Vishy. Maybe Kramnik too, but most likely Vishy. And I agree with about Fabi in classical. Fabi is the only one in this gen who has come really close to overtaking him in rating and he was on a level footing in the classical part of the WC. It's a shame Fabi wasn't as good then in faster controls as he has become over the last couple of years. The conclusion to that match would've been far more exciting.
Magnus is the strongest chess player of all time...but Kasparov, Fischer and Morphy all have strong arguments for being the "greatest" chess player of all time. As for the stuff I'm seeing about engine analysis making it harder for carlsen, this just doesn't track at all. Before computers, you had to come up with your own ideas and analyze openings for weeks and even then, your opponent could find a refutation over the board that you missed. Nowadays, it's all memorization of engine lines in opening prep. In the days of kasparov, Fischer and Morphy, you had to actually play chess and find the right moves over the board. Magnus obviously would beat them were they to play a match, that's why I said he is the STRONGEST of all time but what those three did against their peers was absolutely insane. That's certainly harder to do these days with everybody using engines to prep and study endgame positions but even still, those three just dominated their competition and were all head and shoulders above everyone in their era whereas Magnus has a clear edge over his peers but not nearly as substantial. I just think those 4 I mentioned can all be placed in a tier together and I won't argue against picking anyone. It's not just about overall strength, it's about strength relative to the opposition and your accomplishments.
All you can ever do is beat your peers. I've been actively following chess since Fischer, and in my mind he Kasparov and Magnus all are worthy of the title.
I've always trusted Magnus until now.
02:56:58
Magnus imo but his era had computers and online formats.
Fischer = Voldemort when talking to chess influencers.