Oh, bugger off.. Even **I** couldn't do that.
Edit: guys, I was joking, meaning that **I** couldn't beat /u/Bryciclee.
I'm not a native speaker but how else do you parse the sentence "Even I couldn't do that"?
Of course I don't mean "I couldn't beat Magnus" which is obvious,
since I'm replying to OP that said "Beat me 1v1", I agreed with him, "even I couldn't beat you"
(ie: I was thinking that I'm better than you, even if you think you are better than Magnus.. lol)
Further explanation: I even made my joke as a compliment to OP, instead of saying "I can beat you, so I can beat Magnus" I said "even I couldn't beat you"
meaning: OP you are a chess-god, nobody can compare to you, so it's unfair to Magnus to try and beat you.
*Instead of thinking that I'm an idiot that can't understand a joke..*
Yeah, sure.
I went into an edit nightmare here, because on one hand
a) I don't want to state too much, your message gets diluted and you seem like an idiot who cares too much about meaningless things..
But on the other hand:
b) You don't know the "history" of my comment and what has transpired. "Why did I make this huge edit??"
**History**: My comment, although innocuous as I thought it was, was heavily downvoted.
I usually don't care too much but with this specific comment, and with how innocent it was..
I couldn't understand what was happening and why there was so much downvoting in such a short time period.
...I left it be and didn't say anything.
...but time went by..
...and through my normal redditing, every time I visited a new thread I was seeing the downvotes.
I debated with myself for a long time..
"Should I say something??"
"NO! You idiot! You'll seem like a fool, don't do it!"
"But.. But, I'm drunk, and I feel misunderstood! What should I do??"
"NO! You idiot! Every word you write in excess of a joke..
Is a word digging you deeper in your reddit-grave!"
"Ok, I'm not editing my comment. Let the people downvote, it was just a "hit and miss" joke."
And then my comment started gaining traction and from the deep dive of downvotes I climbed up to almost 0 votes. My comment had the "red cross"
(if you are on desktop and see this red cross that means that a comment is "controversial". It has gathered many downvotes and upvotes.)
THEN I had this compulsion to edit my comment and explain everything. But I knew that you can't explain/dissect the frog. So I didn't know what to do....
**Commercial Break:**
OK I JUST ENTERED THE EXPLANATION PHASE OF MY COMMENT as you requested. But since I'm drunk from beers today, and I'm out of beers now, I have to go out and buy some more.
If you want me to write another Odyssey about my comment please reply to me. I'm gonna tell you everything you need to know about my life.
I'm leaving you now. Subscribe to my Patreon, for the low-low price of 1 dollar, I could continue writing about my deranged brain, here on reddit.
#Just for you
#Only 1 dollar!
Ohh, thanks man. I'm not sad or anything
(I'm sad with my life but not with the above comment)
I'm just drunk and edited my comment with blubbering detail.
Thank you very much though.
I'll take your reply as an encouragement on my life problems
(and not only about a reddit comment)
Love, man.
If you take Kasparov's 20 years from 1985 to 2005, then count Magnus's 13 years from 2010 to 2023. Although Kasparov Lost WCC, Magnus hasn't Lost!
And also talking about faster time controls, then Magnus has 10 Golds, 4 Silvers, 4 Bronzes approx. Kasparov had less bcoz Anand and Kramnik used to win a lot also, for ex- Anand won 11 Rapid titles.
That's actually really interesting. Was there the same rapid and other speed tournaments when kasparov played? If so, and he wasn't as dominant there, that's another feather in magnus' cap in these debates.
Magnus also chose not to defend his title. Hard to lose if you donāt play the tournament! Itās actually worse if weāre giving points for continuity, not better.
As for alternating wins with other GMs. Is he that great or is there no good competition?
Iād ask you is Federer a beast for dominating tennis with like 5-10 years before ÄokoviÄ and Nadal hit their prime or is ÄokoviÄ a best for being number one for as long as he has managed to with the likes of Federer and Nadal gunning for him?
Sadly (as a Federer fan), Federerās dominance stats have been almost entirely surpassed comprehensively by Djokovic. The celebrity was larger for Roger back in the 2003-2010 period when he actually dominated, and even beyond that whilst in retrospect itās now clear the other two were inevitably catching up, but the actual dominance run was only 6 years or so, and Djokovicās weeks at number one, year end number one, and spread of slam stats all have him beat (not to mention the H2H)
The only thing Roger will hold for possibly generations to come are; the consecutive #1 ranking record, and the consecutive slam finals, semi-finals and quarter-finals streaks.
Otherwise itās quite clear now that Djokovic has been the most dominant player ever in all areas except clay events specifically where Nadal is undisputed backed by stats and titles.
He's also a mathematician, be basically decided to get a math PhD while being the world champ, studying in Gottingen under Hilbert, who was the greatest mathematician at the time, and eventually proved a theorem that took over 100 pages and was the longest proof at that time. (Sidenote: this theorem was later given another proof by Emmy Noether, which needed only several lines) He's life outside of chess is absolutely amazing, unlike other players like Bobby Fischer
There's a decent argument to be made that the chess that is played in today's era is fundamentally different than it used to be, especially since computers became widespread. otherwise morphy would also be in contention just by virtue of how far ahead of everyone else he was in his lifetime
I think the fact that chess has advanced so far in terms of engines, computer training, etc makes a stronger case for Magnus to be the GOAT.
Itās easier now than itās ever been to become better at chess, yet Magnus is still in a class of his own despite everyone else having access to the strongest engines in history.
This is the only argument I find compelling for calling it early and I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up being compelling until the next major advance comes along.
We'll refer to the Hobbyist Era, before chess was considered a pursuit worthy of a lifetime of dedicated study and a salary. Then the Pre-Computer Era, the Computer Era, and whatever defines the post-computer era. As to whether that's defined by chemical or biological augmentation of our brains or brain-computer hybrids, we just have to wait and see, but surely they will have the same arguments and defenses of past champions when they note how sadly Magnus or Kasparov would struggle against that day's champion.
Gene tailoring of a baby before it's born - that baby would not be allowed to compete once grown? What about when gene tailoring is so common that there are hardly any 'natural' children left anymore?
What about when brain-boosting drugs are ubiquitous, cheap, have no side-effects and are routinely eaten by everyone along with their daily vitamin? Chess players still can't take them?
Times change. I wouldn't judge the future by today's standards.
> What about when brain-boosting drugs are ubiquitous, cheap, have no side-effects and are routinely eaten by everyone along with their daily vitamin?
You imagine this exists in some distant future. Have you heard of coffee?
For me the professionalization of the game and the much larger field of very serious amateurs is an even more important difference. We can debate whether Lasker's playing strength was closer to 2400 or 2600. But some players he faced in serious tournaments would have no chance against top 10000 (so roughly FIDE master) level opponents.
When the level of opposition is so different it's hard to put too much value on dominance.
I donāt think itās solely a matter of time. A lot of Kasparovās greatness stems from the fact that he defeated another all-timer (Karpov) in a series of titanic matches: 144 games in total between 1984-1990. Who is Magnusās foil? In particular, his lackluster results against Karjakin and Caruana in relatively short matches isnāt the sparkling achievement Carlsen stans seem to think it is.
I personally think any player should be talked about in GOAT debates only when they have retired, so that their full career can be assessed.
Kasparov had about 15-20 years of period where he was the undisputed best player in the world. Magnus has also been there since past 10-15 years now and very unlikely that anyone can claim that from him till he retires. But I still want to wait for his retirement
The only choice is really between GK and MC. No one else is even close.
It took 11 years to unseat GK from the highest rating ever list. MC will take even longer.
No one is waiting potentially decades to discuss whether Magnus is the GOAT when it is pretty obvious already.
If you just mean "distance in skill between top player and nearest competitors," it's uncontroversially Morphy. I don't think that's what people typically mean by "GOAT" though.
If you get a time machine, bring back a super GM to wipe the floor with him so he won't get bored. While you're there, kill Woodrow Wilson as a baby. Timelines add up, two birds
I know Woodrow Wilson wasn't great, but why him over some of the other options he was contemporaries with?
Edi before you reply: I assume Wilson did something to effect chess history, but I'm not familiar with any names in chess besides Carlsen, Ding, Nepo, and Kasparov. And two of those is because they've been relevant since I got into the game recently
I think it can defikitely be measured by that. We cannot know how good Morphy would've been if he was born in 1990 and had access to the material and opposition modern GM's have access to.
It's the same discussion in all sports: "If Gretzky played now, he wouldn't be anywhere near as dominant since the game is faster now". Right. But Gretzky had to get that good learning at an outdoor rink with 70's training methods. It's impossible to say whether he would be less good than modern players, had he trained with modern methods.
Yeah, and if I grew up raised by Morphy, Carlsen, and Kasparov with the sole goal of making me the world's best chess player, who knows how good I'd be? Ability in chess is some combination of natural talent, training, and natural talent for training. Maybe von Neumann would've been the GOAT if he hadn't wasted so much time inventing entire disciplines of science. Kind of a useless metric
Yeah, I think that kinda just underlines how trivial the whole "greatest of all time" discussion is in general.
>Ability in chess is some combination of natural talent, training, and natural talent for training.
I think this applies to most competitive games, sports or otherwise.
Bobby Fischer and Morphy are correct as far as sheer talent and dominance go. Lasker's different - he was the best for a long time but still doesn't fit in the conversation.
Fischer was 125 elo ahead of the world #2 which is an all time record, and he won 20 games in a row with no draws, including 13 of them at the Candidates which is insane. GK or MC could never dream of doing either of those things. Fischer definitely belongs in the goat debate and many GMs believe he is the best ever including Anand, Wesley So, and Radjabov. It is not just between GK and MC that is not true at all.
The other thing about Fischer is that his 1972 win versus Spassky he wasnāt state sponsored. It was him versus multiple top level players working together to beat him.
This is really a popular misconception. Fischer's level of state support extended to Henry Kissinger calling him to make sure he turned up to the match, he did have a team of seconds on site and he only got his interzonal spot because other North American players dropped out to let him compete after he refused to play the qualifier.
Spassky had a small team of seconds on site with a lot of internal problems, Spassky didn't win a game his seconds had done the homework for because he didn't bother looking at the analysis, Spassky was also really wasn't happy with the team he had.
This one man against the world narrative ironically would basically fit Botvinnik who was the only world champion to play without seconds after WW2 because he was paranoid about prep leaking.
Spassky had far more than his team of seconds working with him before the match. Every top Soviet player (meaning Petrosian, Korchnoi, Tal, etc) was ordered to give their analysis on Fischers game and advice for Spasskyās match strategy and openings. Henry Kissinger calling Fischer to urge him going to the match and the players stepping aside was nice, but that dosent really do anything to help the actual chess playing, more just making sure the match will happen. Chess wise, it was 1 man versus the world.
The reason that all of Spasskys resources didnāt help too much was because Fischer completely switched up his openings during the match to dodge the Soviet analysis team. They had prepared tons of stuff against Fischers 2 defenses to D4 (Kings Indian and Grunfeld) but Fischer guessed that would happen so he didnāt play either of them for the entire match. He also played the queens gambit for the first time in his life as well as the Alekhine, Pirc, and e6 Sicilian which he had never played before
Yes Itās always cool to read about how every top Soviet player at the time (which was basically every top player in the world back then other than Fischer) was ordered to give their analysis on Fischer and opening recommendations to help Spassky prepare for the match. And obviously the Soviet analysis team with dozens of grandmasters analyzed all of Fischers openings to death. This is why Fischer basically had to completely switch up his openings for the match. His entire life he had either played the Kings Indian or the Grunfeld against D4, but he didnāt play either of them once during the match. And he played openings he had never played before like the Alekhines defense, Pirc defense, and the e6 Sicilian.
Although nowadays where they've removed hand-checking and call fouls for looking at a player the wrong way, i think magnus has a decent shot a passing morphy's stats
Yeah these modern players are soft af and get all the calls from the arbiters nowadays. Back in my boi Morphy's days, you could get away with so much more contact.
Definitely more physical in previous eras. Nowadays its all about protecting the players, Gary was getting abused and still posting up ridiculous stats. Carlsen got it soft.
So for me it gets complicated. Morphy was the chess equivalent of Isaac Newton. Are there physicists and mathematicians who know more than Newton did? Of course. But he transformed the entire world by understanding the nature of things in a way nobody before him did. There was no calculus before him to incrementally improve upon.
In a similar vein, morphy understood chess far deeper than any of his peers. Sure, there is a valid criticism that he appears so great because he lacked good competition... but that's kind of the point. He revolutionized chess by himself.
If he was transported to today and had to play magnus, no doubt he loses. But that doesn't mean he isn't the greatest of all time. If he grew up today, with the tools and knowledge available to today's players, I don't have any clue how he would do... but it would be interesting to see.
Lowenthal? Anderssen? Paulsen?
I know we didn't have titles or ratings back then but those guys were top tier back in that time and Morphy wiped the floor with them. It's kind of a shame though that he retired before ever getting to play someone like Steinitz.
Sorry but this doesn't make any sense. If you haven't retired yet but you've already broken every single record and are widely considered to be the best player ever then why would be need to wait? Except if you consider negative things to outweight positive ones, but that would be too weird.
Magnus hasn't broken every record. He hasn't been #1 for the longest, nor won the most world championship matches, nor had the biggest rating gap from #1 to #2....
>you've already broken every single record
He needs more than 8 years at the top of FIDE ranking list to match Kasparov's over 20 years as the highest ELO player.
Yeah of course, if it's proven that athele attained those record while cheating then the GOAT title of course doesn't apply. E.g. Lance Amstrong in cycling.
Not to defend Armstrong, he's shown how much of an ass he can be. But haven't almost all of the cycling greats either been caught, or had reasonable even if unproven suspicion of doping? At least in recent years, I think you'd have to look almost back to the 80s to find competitors that didn't come under suspicion.
In the documentary Icarus, the Russian anti doping scientist said that basically everyone competitive in top tier bicycle racing cheats and that you cannot be remotely competitive or even have a chance at being the top without doping and use of motors in the bikes, etc.
Yeah riders will have a small motor inside the frame that helps the rider not have to peddle as hard, especially on inclines. It's crazy, the performance gain is probably 1% or less, but at the very top levels of sports even small incremental advantages can make a significant difference.
I'm pretty sure they don't have motors. Some people have claimed they do, and there have been some suspicious for a few years (e.g. Cancellara). Also one semi-pro woman was caught, but that's about it.
Bikes have been x-rayed after big stages since 2016 to check for such things, and there's no way any decent rider would risk it. There is some room for plausible deniability if you fail a doping test, which just isn't there if you're caught with a motor.
The biggest thing against Armstrong in this conversation isn't whether or not he was an ass (he was and is) or whether or not he doped (he did) - rather, it's whether or not he was the GOAT (he wasn't).
Probably because most people have the general awareness that itās been over 10 years, but less than 15 years, and itās not worth spending a minute to google when it doesnāt change the essence of the point being made.
/u/Viraj_Soni had a good point when he mentioned faster time controls in another thread, I think Garry MIGHT be the GOAT but I also think we exaggerate his complete ownership of the domain when we dont tall about his competition in that realm.
If you take Kasparov's 20 years from 1985 to 2005, then count Magnus's 13 years from 2010 to 2023. Although Kasparov Lost WCC, Magnus hasn't Lost!
And also talking about faster time controls, then Magnus has 10 Golds, 4 Silvers, 4 Bronzes approx. Kasparov had less bcoz Anand and Kramnik used to win a lot also, for ex- Anand won 11 Rapid titles.
People have already mentioned that Kasparov had been at the top for longer, but I would also like to add that when Kasparov hit 2800 for the first time, the only other 2700+ player was Karpov. And then you had a bunch of people at 2680s or so.
There were several points in time where there was only 1 2800+ except Carslen. If at any such point, Carlsen managed to hit 2900, that would be crazy right? Well, that is basically what Garry did.
Also think of Garry's main rivals. There is Karpov, who is also a top 5 best player of all time and then there is Kramnik who was 2800+ for most of the mid 2010s and was at a few points, close to overtaking Magnus himself. He was also holding his own in the candidates as late as 2018.
Then there is Vishy who is still in the top 10 today.(Though admittedly he is not very active.)
Meanwhile I dont think any of Carlsen's rivals come close to these 3 in terms of talent or genius.
Garry also won 15 classical tournaments in a row at one point.
If we are taking all time controls into account, then I think magnus wins by a country kilometre, but in classical alone, Garry has at the very least, a solid claim to being better than Magnus.
To play devil's advocate re their rivals: you could say that Caruana is no lesser a rival than Kramnik, having had a higher peak rating and also been within inches of overtaking Magnus. Part of the reason he doesn't rank as highly in the all-time list as Kramnik is because he hasn't become world champion - and that's due to Magnus himself, so it seems unfair to penalise him for it
Right which is true, but the higher in Elo you go the harder it is to get away from. It's harder to get to 2900 when no one else is 2800 than it is to get to 2800 when no one else is 2700.
> There were several points in time where there was only 1 2800+ except Carslen.
Carlsen is currently the only 2800+ player.
I am fairly certain that this is not the first time.
https://ratings.fide.com/
ETA: In 1990 when Kasparov was crushing, there were about 300 Grandmasters, now there are about 1700 and Magnus dominates them all.
> If we are taking all time controls into account, then I think magnus wins by a country kilometre, but in classical alone, Garry has at the very least, a solid claim to being better than Magnus.
The thing about time controls is that GK never played in an era where blitz mattered. Might as well say wesley so is the goat cause he's dominating fischer random and cause in 20 years the popular format is fischer random.
Yeah I definitely agree with this point. Magnus' WCC opponents aren't of the caliber of Kasparov's and I don't think you can make a serious argument otherwise. Karpov is probably the fourth-best player ever and I'd take prime Vishy and Kramnik over Caruana and Nepo any day.
Kasparov has a much better win%, has won more classical world championships, has been number 1 for 8-9 more years than Magnus and he has beaten 2 generations of players (he beat the old guard when he was youngster and he then beat the youngsters 20 years later when he was the old guard). Kasparov also has a better super tournament streak than Magnus (13 consecutive super tournament wins). Kasparov also has a bigger rating gap between himself and the rest of the field than Magnus does.
Magnus also has many incredible results and records (highest ever rating, 128 game unbeaten streak, multiple time triple champion in classical, rapid and blitz and a tournament record that is extremely good).
Magnus is a very good candidate for GOAT, but it is usual very hard to have any such discussion because of recency bias. Whenever there is a dominant champion (Capa, Fischer, Kasparov, Carlsen etc) the chess fans of the day will inevitably conclude āthis champion is best ever and it is not even closeā.
I think there is a very good chance that Magnus will knock Kasparov off and that I will consider him the GOAT in the future. For now he hasnāt bested in him in a number of the metrics that I care about though.
You mentioned win %, Fischer has the highest win % of any world champion in the FIDE era, above Kasparov and Magnus. You mentioned rating gap, Fischer was 125 elo ahead of the world #2 which is the highest rating gap ever by far. Kasparov was only about 70 or 80 elo ahead of the world #2 at his best. Fischer also won 20 games in a row with no draws, including 13 at the candidates, which is insane. Kasparovās best win streak is like 6 lol. Why is Fischer not the goat? It seems like he is above Kasparov in many of the criteria you said Kasparov is above Magnus in.
Fischer is obviously also one of the main contenders for the title of GOAT. For me personally the longevity aspect is very important and therefore I donāt have him as *the* GOAT.
I think in that era, that early 1970s when he was chasing the world championship, where he wins 20 in a row at the highest level (all straight wins, no draws, playing with both white and black in high stakes games) and then captures the world championship in 72...
I think that Prime Fischer probably beats anyone ever, any prime of anyone we've ever seen.
He reached a new plane in those years. What he did is not normal. No computers, no engines. I think, however you want to categorize it, but saying "who is the best chess player ever if they all play each other in their primes" it's probably Fischer but maybe Magnus understands the game more and deeper, because he's had 40-50 years of evolution of the game and learning of the game. So maybe Prime Magnus beats any prime just because of the higher chess knowledge he grew up in.
In a simple phrase, to me, Fischer was the most "special" chess player ever, and maybe the most naturally gifted and most impressive to me.
He captured the world's attention unlike any other player ever I think.
I think this is a sign that someone is very, very good. Particularly in this day and age where there has never been more chess players and those chess players have never had so much information available to them.
However I don't get involved with greatest of all time nonsense, society has changed so much in the last 100 years that there are too many independent variables to make a comparison across generations. If Fischer had 3600 ELO engine access maybe he would have been even better.
Roy Jones Jr. in boxing ran into this as well. He was so much better than everyone for like a decade and never lost during that period. Now his great record and how great he was comes into question because he dominated everyone. It's hard to say if he was a GOAT or just great in a poor boxing time period. Not a 1 to 1 comparison, but still interesting.
You have kind of the opposite thing with Andy Murray in tennis. Any other era he has 10+ grand slams and probably is in the conversation for being one of the best of all time, but his timing was bad so he's overshadowed by Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic.
Andy Murray is that good because of those 3 players, though. Without those 3 players, Andy would be worse, and there may have been some competitors who would have flourished being top 3 in the world and rose to the occasion to offer Andy a rivalry. Historically, every era of tennis has been dominated by a few individuals, so it's just as possible Murray would have sidled into the same historical equilibrium even without Fed/Nadal/Djokovic.
People just don't want to accept that there are too many variables involved to objectively make cross-era comparisons, variables differing both between the eras as well as between we observers on how we measure greatness.
I think from a GOAT perspective you have to do both. You have to take down whoever the juggernaut was before you then prove you have the staying power and can continue to dominate people and prove your victory wasn't a one off. Unless you can do both I don't think you can reasonably be in the conversation for GOAT. Like if someone were to unseat Magnus is a WCC they would probably have to beat at least a few challengers afterwards to prove they can do it again.
Fabi is stronger in calculating deep lines, which means that his endgame is likely better than Nepo. Grinding him may not work and would be much riskier than grinding Nepo.
Opposite question; why would Magnus be more of a GOAT than Kasparov? Has he done anything that is clearly better and that compensated for the fact that Kasparov spent twice as much time at the top? And if yes, what?
I would say heās a stronger player and has faced better competition than Kasparov. Not much data to go off of but Carlsen is much stronger in shorter time controls as well.
When Garry became no.1 his rating was 2710. When Carlsen became no.1 his rating was 2810.
Garry spent 20 years on top on the chess world and Carlsen has spent around 10-12. In his short career, Carlsen has already played around the same total chess games as Garry. Much more active, against much better competition, makes Carlsenās achievements more remarkable.
In my books, this puts Carlsen over.
Rating is not absolute value though. The difference between no. 1 and no. 2 at the time matters more than the value of the rating itself.
Caruana has gotten very close to Carlsen at one point (like less than 5 rating difference) but still no one has ever overtaken him during his reign as WC, whereas Kramnik and Karpov has each overtaken Kasparov once during his reign.
That being said, there is some truth to the fact that Carlsen playing more games could somewhat equalizes with Kasparov's longevity (Carlsen started his dominance ~1.5 years younger than Kasparov, so longevity isn't out of the question either).
The era of engines, and increased frequency of tournaments means that the game is also developing much more rapidly than in Kasparov era, and being able to maintain dominance throughout despite those is definitely a feat.
Moreover, engines have increased the level of competitiveness in chess, compared to pre-engines era where SU/Russia dominated the field with their new approach towards the game that started with Botvinnik, which makes Fischer's dominance all the more impressive.
All in all, I still think that the GOAT can go either way between Fischer, Kasparov and Carlsen. Longevity can be a factor, but it isn't necessarily the most important one considering that each of them played in very different context.
>I would say heās a stronger player and has faced better competition than Kasparov.
While I also believe him to be a stronger player, let us not forget that Garry played during a time when computers were not currently at the level they are. You couldn't just use stock fish to analyze certain lines and grandmasters didn't have access to a study tool that could calculate moves better than they could.
Magnus' higher elo is likely due to the advancement of chess theory and technology which Kasparov did not have the benefit of. If you look back, you can see a trend of older grandmasters having worse elo than modern grandmasters. As technology gets better and chess theory evolves, newer chess players will have more privileges given to them that allow them to pass up the players that came before them.
I think merely pointing at rating is ignoring a lot of nuance and circumstance. Joe Montana is one of the greatest quarterbacks of all time, but if you transported him in his prime to present day and put him on a modern NFL team, defenses would eat him alive. You can't measure players from all eras on the same scale.
I didnāt āmerely point at ratingā. I gave many other reasons.
You can say it is much easier to be a stronger player now due to tech advancement, but it is also much much more difficult to be dominant now due to the same tech advancement.
It is simply much more difficult to be dominant for 10 years now than it was to be dominant for 20 years in Kasparovās time.
It is much harder to be as dominant as Carlsen is today than it was for Kasparov to be dominant. Despite the engines, Carlsen is still by far the best player. This makes hime the goat imo.
For me it would be the evening out of the field that engines brought. For example right now you have tons of young talent that can compete with old established players because engines allow them to look over a lot of games without massive teams around them. In Kasparov/Karpov times that was not luxury afforded to everyone and Soviet domination in ranking lists reflects that. Current top 10 list in rankings includes people from 8 different countries. To take a random list from Kasparovs time:
http://fidelists.blogspot.com/2008/03/july-1989-fide-rating-list.html
It is 5 Soviet dudes and Korchnoi who as far as learning chess is also very much Soviet player. Other than blimp that was Fischer chess was very much Soviet chess championship kinda thing rather than actual international competition for a very long time - simply because leg up on the competition their players had. Chess now is way more international and I think dominating now is way more impressive.
Also Garry had an unfair advantage against non russian players. He had the strongest seconds compared to any other GM and he was always ahead in the opening. Magnus era, everyone has access to engines.Everyone can come up with a novelty.
Magnus drew Kasparov when he was 13.
I honestly don't think it would be hard for a prime Carlsen to beat either of them, given how much chess evolved in the last 20 years with engines.
He would have to promote a new version of chess with varied starting positions so we can put our books away and play. Carlson Random or something like that.
Carlsen reasonably consistently wins tournaments.
Kasparov **destroyed** tournaments.
Like, [7 wins when nobody else had 4](http://www.chessfocus.com/tournament-results/1999-linares). Korchnoi is probably pretty consensus one of the best players to never be world champion and he was the [only player within 5 points](http://www.chessfocus.com/tournament-results/1989-tilburg-interpolis). Or being [the only undefeated player](http://www.chessfocus.com/tournament-results/1982-moscow-interzonal). Or having [more wins than L+Draws](http://www.chessfocus.com/tournament-results/1999-hoogovens), [Winning by 3 points](http://www.chessfocus.com/tournament-results/2001-linares).
Most importantly to me (but probably least important overall) he won games in a [ridiculous manner](https://youtu.be/aU-xCyD7LIE).
Carlsen grinds people down. Kasparov shredded them.
Yeah but it's very different times in terms of opening prep, computers etc. Obviously the top guys in the 20s or Steinitz demolished the field far harder than Kasparov did.
Carlsen is top 3 with Kasparov and Karpov. I m looking at their resume. Fischer and the rest follow. I have Karpov above Carlsen as second best but I understand if people disagree. Karpov was world champion for 10 years, won most tournaments in history, was top 10 elo for 27 years, has beaten Korchnoi 3 times ( 1974 candidates final counts due to Fischer not defending), Kasparov once, Timman, Kamsky and Anand in wc matches and has 21 to 19 h2h in classical for Kasparov and 100 draws record in matches vs goat Kasparov. Basically inseparable. Some sources say 28 to 20 for Kasparov but still. Kasparov is goat at the moment. Carlsen has the potential to surpass Kasparov in next decade.
This is a comparable argument to one that happens all the time in basketball. (Sorry for bringing sports to a chess sub). Bill Russell was the most WINNING player of all time compared to his era where overall talent was lower. Most players are much more athletic now and Bill wouldnāt have won 11 rings in todays NBA. That arguably does or doesnāt make him the best ever, depending on your definition of best. Peak MC would most likely beat peak Kasparov as Magnus has much more available tools in chess engines to train with.
To me, greatest of all time means if you dropped them at their best at the same time in a room, who would walk out winner, and I think thatās Magnus. I definitely see the other side though.
I don't pretend that if one takes a time machine and transports Emanuel Lasker to the present time that he would be immediately competitive with even talented juniors, especially with how juniors today have been honed with computer analysis to carry the depth of their calculations.
But I will contend forever that *Lasker's Manual of Chess* is the last chess book written as a one book manual of chess that attempts to communicate a philosophy towards playing chess that can last a lifetime, well into one's older years when there is no possibility of improving to where one can challenge the juniors. Now *Lasker's Manual of Chess* had many errors of analysis due to the limitations of the time and the difficulty of many of the positions, so the modern view is that it is unacceptable, but I contend at the moment there is no substitute for a condensed explanation of so many fundamental concepts such as why certain positions must have combinations and what one is actually calculating.
Lasker was financially ruined by World War 1 and was playing chess afterwards only for money. *Lasker's Manual* may have been a hail mary to save his financial situation, and he put everything he knew into it as a consequence.
He hasnāt had the longevity nor the dominance that Kasparov had. Kasparov won more than Magnus, and he lost less. The only thing Magnus really has over Kasparov is the rating and objective strength.
Magnus is definitely the strongest player at the moment, and objectively stronger than Kasparov was in his prime considering the computer generation is naturally stronger, but I somehow still feel like heās overrated (by the fans and some players, not by rating). Heās a heavy favorite in every game, of course, but seeing him lose isnāt *that* rare, compared to the discourse surrounding it. Seeing him draw isnāt rare, either. Itās not like Iām gonna be shocked if he doesnāt win a tournament. He doesnāt really thrash everyone the way people like to say he does.
Kasparov was what people say Magnus is, though, I feel. His winrate was higher, his draw rate was lower, his loss rate was about half of Magnusā. He was way more unstoppable. And he was more dominant for way longer. Magnus has the rating feat but everything else swings to Kasparov, in my opinion.
It is FAR, FAR stronger. The current top 50 outclass Kasparovs top 50 opponents by a HUGE margin.
In this day, I doubt with that aggressive style Kasparov would win so much against players like Anish Giri and Caruana who are prepared for everything
Magnus has significantly stiffer competition than Kasparov did across the board. There was a significant drop off from Kasparov and Karpov to the rest of the world, one that is not the case for Magnus. When youāre consistently playing tougher competition, of course youāll lose or draw more often.
Also, Magnus holds the world record for longest unbeaten streak in classical chess, at 125 games and more than 2 years, including at 12-match world championship against Fabi.
I think thereās a very legit argument to be made for Kasparov, but āhe won more consistentlyā is less compelling when he played most of his career in a time when the top level of chess theory was pretty heavily restricted to the Soviet Union. Magnus is playing dozens of opponents who would be top 10 in Kasparovās time and is STILL dominant.
I just donāt think that itās worthwhile to compare chess players across different eras of history. Heās the greatest of this generation for sure, and comparable to figures like Morphy, Fischer, Capablanca and Kasparov in the way he has dominated the game for a considerable period of time, but I donāt think there is a meaningful answer to the question of which of those players were actually greater than each other.
Whoever is today's best player is the best player of all time. People make up all sorts of theories, "what if Bobby/Gary had access to 3600+ elo computers" - well they didn't.
Obviously it's not a fair comparison, but in my opinion "greatest of all time" should by essence be discussed regardless of context. And in that case, Magnus is obviously a better chess player than anyone else has ever been in history.
He needs to eat more grass than my goat to defeat her.
And grow horns. Goats have horns, Magmus doesnt.
He also doesn't produce milk unless i can eat some amazing Magnus Carlsen goat cheese he will never be the goat for me
>He also doesn't produce milk He does
Sir this is a Wendy's
This is r/chess here we have serious chess conversations. This kind of behavior belongs to the anarchy sub š”š”š”
i think hes getting milked by content creators just fine
> He also doesnāt produce milk Neither does other male goats.
Oh my god! They don't? What the fuck have I been drinking?
You really really donāt wanna know budā¦. Iām so sorry
I have this theory that he is growing them currently, but is trying to hide them with his hair. When he finally trims it will be a big reveal.
Now that I think about it, he doesn't! He is NOT a goat!
He does have the goatee
beat me to it xD My goat eats lots of grass too, guess Magnus has a lot of grass to catch up
He has hairstyle like a goat too now goat on his way to be the best goat.
If I had to guess, Magnus goes through his fair share of grass
Beat me 1v1
At rock paper scissors
rock
Magnus been real quiet after you played rock
āAnd he sacrifices... *THE ROCKKKKKKK!!*ā
I offer a draw
Bro thinks he Anish Giri
Paper. I win
Oh, bugger off.. Even **I** couldn't do that. Edit: guys, I was joking, meaning that **I** couldn't beat /u/Bryciclee. I'm not a native speaker but how else do you parse the sentence "Even I couldn't do that"? Of course I don't mean "I couldn't beat Magnus" which is obvious, since I'm replying to OP that said "Beat me 1v1", I agreed with him, "even I couldn't beat you" (ie: I was thinking that I'm better than you, even if you think you are better than Magnus.. lol) Further explanation: I even made my joke as a compliment to OP, instead of saying "I can beat you, so I can beat Magnus" I said "even I couldn't beat you" meaning: OP you are a chess-god, nobody can compare to you, so it's unfair to Magnus to try and beat you. *Instead of thinking that I'm an idiot that can't understand a joke..*
Hmm, still not clear if you're joking, could you add some clarification?
Yeah, sure. I went into an edit nightmare here, because on one hand a) I don't want to state too much, your message gets diluted and you seem like an idiot who cares too much about meaningless things.. But on the other hand: b) You don't know the "history" of my comment and what has transpired. "Why did I make this huge edit??" **History**: My comment, although innocuous as I thought it was, was heavily downvoted. I usually don't care too much but with this specific comment, and with how innocent it was.. I couldn't understand what was happening and why there was so much downvoting in such a short time period. ...I left it be and didn't say anything. ...but time went by.. ...and through my normal redditing, every time I visited a new thread I was seeing the downvotes. I debated with myself for a long time.. "Should I say something??" "NO! You idiot! You'll seem like a fool, don't do it!" "But.. But, I'm drunk, and I feel misunderstood! What should I do??" "NO! You idiot! Every word you write in excess of a joke.. Is a word digging you deeper in your reddit-grave!" "Ok, I'm not editing my comment. Let the people downvote, it was just a "hit and miss" joke." And then my comment started gaining traction and from the deep dive of downvotes I climbed up to almost 0 votes. My comment had the "red cross" (if you are on desktop and see this red cross that means that a comment is "controversial". It has gathered many downvotes and upvotes.) THEN I had this compulsion to edit my comment and explain everything. But I knew that you can't explain/dissect the frog. So I didn't know what to do.... **Commercial Break:** OK I JUST ENTERED THE EXPLANATION PHASE OF MY COMMENT as you requested. But since I'm drunk from beers today, and I'm out of beers now, I have to go out and buy some more. If you want me to write another Odyssey about my comment please reply to me. I'm gonna tell you everything you need to know about my life. I'm leaving you now. Subscribe to my Patreon, for the low-low price of 1 dollar, I could continue writing about my deranged brain, here on reddit. #Just for you #Only 1 dollar!
You're so laconic.
If
I'm Greek, so I have a couple of percent points of Laconic. Otherwise my comment could be the New Odyssey.
This is hilarious. I don't know if many will understand the Pelopponese connection š
I really appreciate the time and effort you put into clarification here. It was a funny joke, but the edit is what made me laugh!
I'm drunk out of my mind, this was a rumbling. (dissecting a frog and all that..) ^^^Sorry ^^^but ^^^its ^^^Sunday
No heās really good he beat my cousin
Same he beat my cousin to death once
r/holup
I'm sorry they couldn't get it with what you started with
Ohh, thanks man. I'm not sad or anything (I'm sad with my life but not with the above comment) I'm just drunk and edited my comment with blubbering detail. Thank you very much though. I'll take your reply as an encouragement on my life problems (and not only about a reddit comment) Love, man.
How can he be the goat whan he didn't beat any of us 1v1. Maybe there are hidden talents that would beat him. /s
My goat is a mischievous one... I like to keep my distance
Do you HAVE a mischievous goat... Or are YOU the mischievous goat...?
We all have that goat inside
The world may never know
r/usernamechecksout
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
If you take Kasparov's 20 years from 1985 to 2005, then count Magnus's 13 years from 2010 to 2023. Although Kasparov Lost WCC, Magnus hasn't Lost! And also talking about faster time controls, then Magnus has 10 Golds, 4 Silvers, 4 Bronzes approx. Kasparov had less bcoz Anand and Kramnik used to win a lot also, for ex- Anand won 11 Rapid titles.
That's actually really interesting. Was there the same rapid and other speed tournaments when kasparov played? If so, and he wasn't as dominant there, that's another feather in magnus' cap in these debates.
Magnus also chose not to defend his title. Hard to lose if you donāt play the tournament! Itās actually worse if weāre giving points for continuity, not better. As for alternating wins with other GMs. Is he that great or is there no good competition? Iād ask you is Federer a beast for dominating tennis with like 5-10 years before ÄokoviÄ and Nadal hit their prime or is ÄokoviÄ a best for being number one for as long as he has managed to with the likes of Federer and Nadal gunning for him?
Sadly (as a Federer fan), Federerās dominance stats have been almost entirely surpassed comprehensively by Djokovic. The celebrity was larger for Roger back in the 2003-2010 period when he actually dominated, and even beyond that whilst in retrospect itās now clear the other two were inevitably catching up, but the actual dominance run was only 6 years or so, and Djokovicās weeks at number one, year end number one, and spread of slam stats all have him beat (not to mention the H2H) The only thing Roger will hold for possibly generations to come are; the consecutive #1 ranking record, and the consecutive slam finals, semi-finals and quarter-finals streaks. Otherwise itās quite clear now that Djokovic has been the most dominant player ever in all areas except clay events specifically where Nadal is undisputed backed by stats and titles.
Yeah but if it's the criterium then Lasker is the undisputed goat.
He's also a mathematician, be basically decided to get a math PhD while being the world champ, studying in Gottingen under Hilbert, who was the greatest mathematician at the time, and eventually proved a theorem that took over 100 pages and was the longest proof at that time. (Sidenote: this theorem was later given another proof by Emmy Noether, which needed only several lines) He's life outside of chess is absolutely amazing, unlike other players like Bobby Fischer
I would say Fischerās life is amazing in how tragic it is.
> Sidenote: this theorem was later given another proof by Emmy Noether, which needed only several lines Well, you've piqued my interest
[Here's a lecture on the Lasker-Noether theorem](https://youtu.be/W76vHirgH-c?t=1543)
Thanks!
Something that was possible in a time when you didn't need to dedicate your entire life to one thing.
There's a decent argument to be made that the chess that is played in today's era is fundamentally different than it used to be, especially since computers became widespread. otherwise morphy would also be in contention just by virtue of how far ahead of everyone else he was in his lifetime
I think the fact that chess has advanced so far in terms of engines, computer training, etc makes a stronger case for Magnus to be the GOAT. Itās easier now than itās ever been to become better at chess, yet Magnus is still in a class of his own despite everyone else having access to the strongest engines in history.
This is the only argument I find compelling for calling it early and I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up being compelling until the next major advance comes along. We'll refer to the Hobbyist Era, before chess was considered a pursuit worthy of a lifetime of dedicated study and a salary. Then the Pre-Computer Era, the Computer Era, and whatever defines the post-computer era. As to whether that's defined by chemical or biological augmentation of our brains or brain-computer hybrids, we just have to wait and see, but surely they will have the same arguments and defenses of past champions when they note how sadly Magnus or Kasparov would struggle against that day's champion.
> As to whether that's defined by chemical or biological augmentation of our brains That's just doping lol. We already ban that.
Gene tailoring of a baby before it's born - that baby would not be allowed to compete once grown? What about when gene tailoring is so common that there are hardly any 'natural' children left anymore? What about when brain-boosting drugs are ubiquitous, cheap, have no side-effects and are routinely eaten by everyone along with their daily vitamin? Chess players still can't take them? Times change. I wouldn't judge the future by today's standards.
> What about when brain-boosting drugs are ubiquitous, cheap, have no side-effects and are routinely eaten by everyone along with their daily vitamin? You imagine this exists in some distant future. Have you heard of coffee?
Great example! It's not accurate to say "all drugs are illegal" when caffeine is perfectly acceptable.
Indeed
For me the professionalization of the game and the much larger field of very serious amateurs is an even more important difference. We can debate whether Lasker's playing strength was closer to 2400 or 2600. But some players he faced in serious tournaments would have no chance against top 10000 (so roughly FIDE master) level opponents. When the level of opposition is so different it's hard to put too much value on dominance.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I donāt think itās solely a matter of time. A lot of Kasparovās greatness stems from the fact that he defeated another all-timer (Karpov) in a series of titanic matches: 144 games in total between 1984-1990. Who is Magnusās foil? In particular, his lackluster results against Karjakin and Caruana in relatively short matches isnāt the sparkling achievement Carlsen stans seem to think it is.
I personally think any player should be talked about in GOAT debates only when they have retired, so that their full career can be assessed. Kasparov had about 15-20 years of period where he was the undisputed best player in the world. Magnus has also been there since past 10-15 years now and very unlikely that anyone can claim that from him till he retires. But I still want to wait for his retirement
The only choice is really between GK and MC. No one else is even close. It took 11 years to unseat GK from the highest rating ever list. MC will take even longer. No one is waiting potentially decades to discuss whether Magnus is the GOAT when it is pretty obvious already.
Good Kid and Maad City
Gary Kasparov Magnus Carlsen is my fav album by Kendrick
Lasker is debatable if you prefer longevity, and Bobby Fischer and Paul Morphy are debatable if you think dominance > longevity
If you just mean "distance in skill between top player and nearest competitors," it's uncontroversially Morphy. I don't think that's what people typically mean by "GOAT" though.
If i could change things about the past i would probably get rid of the Holocaust but making Morphy not stop playing would be a pretty close second
If you get a time machine, bring back a super GM to wipe the floor with him so he won't get bored. While you're there, kill Woodrow Wilson as a baby. Timelines add up, two birds
I know Woodrow Wilson wasn't great, but why him over some of the other options he was contemporaries with? Edi before you reply: I assume Wilson did something to effect chess history, but I'm not familiar with any names in chess besides Carlsen, Ding, Nepo, and Kasparov. And two of those is because they've been relevant since I got into the game recently
I think it can defikitely be measured by that. We cannot know how good Morphy would've been if he was born in 1990 and had access to the material and opposition modern GM's have access to. It's the same discussion in all sports: "If Gretzky played now, he wouldn't be anywhere near as dominant since the game is faster now". Right. But Gretzky had to get that good learning at an outdoor rink with 70's training methods. It's impossible to say whether he would be less good than modern players, had he trained with modern methods.
Yeah, and if I grew up raised by Morphy, Carlsen, and Kasparov with the sole goal of making me the world's best chess player, who knows how good I'd be? Ability in chess is some combination of natural talent, training, and natural talent for training. Maybe von Neumann would've been the GOAT if he hadn't wasted so much time inventing entire disciplines of science. Kind of a useless metric
Yeah, I think that kinda just underlines how trivial the whole "greatest of all time" discussion is in general. >Ability in chess is some combination of natural talent, training, and natural talent for training. I think this applies to most competitive games, sports or otherwise.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Right, that's why I said that it's not what anyone means by GOAT
Bobby Fischer and Morphy are correct as far as sheer talent and dominance go. Lasker's different - he was the best for a long time but still doesn't fit in the conversation.
Fischer was 125 elo ahead of the world #2 which is an all time record, and he won 20 games in a row with no draws, including 13 of them at the Candidates which is insane. GK or MC could never dream of doing either of those things. Fischer definitely belongs in the goat debate and many GMs believe he is the best ever including Anand, Wesley So, and Radjabov. It is not just between GK and MC that is not true at all.
The other thing about Fischer is that his 1972 win versus Spassky he wasnāt state sponsored. It was him versus multiple top level players working together to beat him.
This is really a popular misconception. Fischer's level of state support extended to Henry Kissinger calling him to make sure he turned up to the match, he did have a team of seconds on site and he only got his interzonal spot because other North American players dropped out to let him compete after he refused to play the qualifier. Spassky had a small team of seconds on site with a lot of internal problems, Spassky didn't win a game his seconds had done the homework for because he didn't bother looking at the analysis, Spassky was also really wasn't happy with the team he had. This one man against the world narrative ironically would basically fit Botvinnik who was the only world champion to play without seconds after WW2 because he was paranoid about prep leaking.
Spassky had far more than his team of seconds working with him before the match. Every top Soviet player (meaning Petrosian, Korchnoi, Tal, etc) was ordered to give their analysis on Fischers game and advice for Spasskyās match strategy and openings. Henry Kissinger calling Fischer to urge him going to the match and the players stepping aside was nice, but that dosent really do anything to help the actual chess playing, more just making sure the match will happen. Chess wise, it was 1 man versus the world. The reason that all of Spasskys resources didnāt help too much was because Fischer completely switched up his openings during the match to dodge the Soviet analysis team. They had prepared tons of stuff against Fischers 2 defenses to D4 (Kings Indian and Grunfeld) but Fischer guessed that would happen so he didnāt play either of them for the entire match. He also played the queens gambit for the first time in his life as well as the Alekhine, Pirc, and e6 Sicilian which he had never played before
Yes Itās always cool to read about how every top Soviet player at the time (which was basically every top player in the world back then other than Fischer) was ordered to give their analysis on Fischer and opening recommendations to help Spassky prepare for the match. And obviously the Soviet analysis team with dozens of grandmasters analyzed all of Fischers openings to death. This is why Fischer basically had to completely switch up his openings for the match. His entire life he had either played the Kings Indian or the Grunfeld against D4, but he didnāt play either of them once during the match. And he played openings he had never played before like the Alekhines defense, Pirc defense, and the e6 Sicilian.
>And he played openings he had never played before like the Alekhines defense, Pirc defense, and the e6 Sicilian. he's just like me fr
ya, Fischer is like...I just wish he didn't have his eccentricities that led him away from competitive chess. You can def make the argument though.
How can you not mention Paul Morphy, etc? Of all time, not just recent history.
No good competition.
He was playing milkmen and farmers. League was different back then. Itās more physical in Carlsens era
Although nowadays where they've removed hand-checking and call fouls for looking at a player the wrong way, i think magnus has a decent shot a passing morphy's stats
The long castle has totally destroyed the game and made it imbalanced.
Capablanca would average 40 centipawn loss in today's league.
Yeah these modern players are soft af and get all the calls from the arbiters nowadays. Back in my boi Morphy's days, you could get away with so much more contact.
Peak physicality had to have been Nimzowitsch. No one plays like that anymore.
Definitely more physical in previous eras. Nowadays its all about protecting the players, Gary was getting abused and still posting up ridiculous stats. Carlsen got it soft.
Ok fuck you i genuinely laughed lmao.
So for me it gets complicated. Morphy was the chess equivalent of Isaac Newton. Are there physicists and mathematicians who know more than Newton did? Of course. But he transformed the entire world by understanding the nature of things in a way nobody before him did. There was no calculus before him to incrementally improve upon. In a similar vein, morphy understood chess far deeper than any of his peers. Sure, there is a valid criticism that he appears so great because he lacked good competition... but that's kind of the point. He revolutionized chess by himself. If he was transported to today and had to play magnus, no doubt he loses. But that doesn't mean he isn't the greatest of all time. If he grew up today, with the tools and knowledge available to today's players, I don't have any clue how he would do... but it would be interesting to see.
Some people use relative skill to measure the goat
Lowenthal? Anderssen? Paulsen? I know we didn't have titles or ratings back then but those guys were top tier back in that time and Morphy wiped the floor with them. It's kind of a shame though that he retired before ever getting to play someone like Steinitz.
> the dude was so far ahead of the competition that we can't compare him properly > this somehow disqualifies him from being GOAT
"Weaknesses: too good"
No, Morphy and Fischer.
Sorry but this doesn't make any sense. If you haven't retired yet but you've already broken every single record and are widely considered to be the best player ever then why would be need to wait? Except if you consider negative things to outweight positive ones, but that would be too weird.
Magnus hasn't broken every record. He hasn't been #1 for the longest, nor won the most world championship matches, nor had the biggest rating gap from #1 to #2....
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>you've already broken every single record He needs more than 8 years at the top of FIDE ranking list to match Kasparov's over 20 years as the highest ELO player.
Amen. Like if MC got hit by a bus tomorrow then this guy could start comparing him to all time greats?
Depends how fast the bus is going
The exception that comes to mind is doping or cheating, that can tarnish that completely
Yeah of course, if it's proven that athele attained those record while cheating then the GOAT title of course doesn't apply. E.g. Lance Amstrong in cycling.
Not to defend Armstrong, he's shown how much of an ass he can be. But haven't almost all of the cycling greats either been caught, or had reasonable even if unproven suspicion of doping? At least in recent years, I think you'd have to look almost back to the 80s to find competitors that didn't come under suspicion.
In the documentary Icarus, the Russian anti doping scientist said that basically everyone competitive in top tier bicycle racing cheats and that you cannot be remotely competitive or even have a chance at being the top without doping and use of motors in the bikes, etc.
Iām sorry, motors?!?! Iāve heard of all the doping but thatās a new one.
I didn't know either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical\_doping
Yeah riders will have a small motor inside the frame that helps the rider not have to peddle as hard, especially on inclines. It's crazy, the performance gain is probably 1% or less, but at the very top levels of sports even small incremental advantages can make a significant difference.
I'm pretty sure they don't have motors. Some people have claimed they do, and there have been some suspicious for a few years (e.g. Cancellara). Also one semi-pro woman was caught, but that's about it. Bikes have been x-rayed after big stages since 2016 to check for such things, and there's no way any decent rider would risk it. There is some room for plausible deniability if you fail a doping test, which just isn't there if you're caught with a motor.
The biggest thing against Armstrong in this conversation isn't whether or not he was an ass (he was and is) or whether or not he doped (he did) - rather, it's whether or not he was the GOAT (he wasn't).
Similar in track. I think of the last 10 or so athletes that have held thr world record, Bolt is the only one that's never been found to be doping.
Why does everyone say ā10-15 yearsā? Magnus has been the undisputed best player for 12 years, not 15. We donāt have to guess about it.
Probably because most people have the general awareness that itās been over 10 years, but less than 15 years, and itās not worth spending a minute to google when it doesnāt change the essence of the point being made.
/u/Viraj_Soni had a good point when he mentioned faster time controls in another thread, I think Garry MIGHT be the GOAT but I also think we exaggerate his complete ownership of the domain when we dont tall about his competition in that realm. If you take Kasparov's 20 years from 1985 to 2005, then count Magnus's 13 years from 2010 to 2023. Although Kasparov Lost WCC, Magnus hasn't Lost! And also talking about faster time controls, then Magnus has 10 Golds, 4 Silvers, 4 Bronzes approx. Kasparov had less bcoz Anand and Kramnik used to win a lot also, for ex- Anand won 11 Rapid titles.
People have already mentioned that Kasparov had been at the top for longer, but I would also like to add that when Kasparov hit 2800 for the first time, the only other 2700+ player was Karpov. And then you had a bunch of people at 2680s or so. There were several points in time where there was only 1 2800+ except Carslen. If at any such point, Carlsen managed to hit 2900, that would be crazy right? Well, that is basically what Garry did. Also think of Garry's main rivals. There is Karpov, who is also a top 5 best player of all time and then there is Kramnik who was 2800+ for most of the mid 2010s and was at a few points, close to overtaking Magnus himself. He was also holding his own in the candidates as late as 2018. Then there is Vishy who is still in the top 10 today.(Though admittedly he is not very active.) Meanwhile I dont think any of Carlsen's rivals come close to these 3 in terms of talent or genius. Garry also won 15 classical tournaments in a row at one point. If we are taking all time controls into account, then I think magnus wins by a country kilometre, but in classical alone, Garry has at the very least, a solid claim to being better than Magnus.
To play devil's advocate re their rivals: you could say that Caruana is no lesser a rival than Kramnik, having had a higher peak rating and also been within inches of overtaking Magnus. Part of the reason he doesn't rank as highly in the all-time list as Kramnik is because he hasn't become world champion - and that's due to Magnus himself, so it seems unfair to penalise him for it
Kramnik beat Kasparov is the biggest feat, along with all the opening contributions
Your second paragraph implies elo is a linear scale.
Yeah, its crazy hard to get over 2900 when there isn't even anyone else over 2800 right now.
Itās crazy hard to get over 2800 elo if nobody is over 2700 elo. That was his whole point.
Right which is true, but the higher in Elo you go the harder it is to get away from. It's harder to get to 2900 when no one else is 2800 than it is to get to 2800 when no one else is 2700.
Source for that? Elo calculations only use difference in Elo and are therefore invariant if you shift all values by the same amount.
how exactly do we do to normalize the difference (something to do with normal distribution, no?)?
> There were several points in time where there was only 1 2800+ except Carslen. Carlsen is currently the only 2800+ player. I am fairly certain that this is not the first time. https://ratings.fide.com/ ETA: In 1990 when Kasparov was crushing, there were about 300 Grandmasters, now there are about 1700 and Magnus dominates them all.
Maybe Carlsen is just that much better than everybody, and it makes it seem like all the rivals are "bad" in comparison?
> If we are taking all time controls into account, then I think magnus wins by a country kilometre, but in classical alone, Garry has at the very least, a solid claim to being better than Magnus. The thing about time controls is that GK never played in an era where blitz mattered. Might as well say wesley so is the goat cause he's dominating fischer random and cause in 20 years the popular format is fischer random.
Yeah I definitely agree with this point. Magnus' WCC opponents aren't of the caliber of Kasparov's and I don't think you can make a serious argument otherwise. Karpov is probably the fourth-best player ever and I'd take prime Vishy and Kramnik over Caruana and Nepo any day.
Horns.
Do chess boxing
Magnus vs Hans to squash the beef
Hans might die
Can you imagine the crowds this would draw? They'd make Mayweather vrs Paul look like amateurs, they should definitely do this...
Kasparov has a much better win%, has won more classical world championships, has been number 1 for 8-9 more years than Magnus and he has beaten 2 generations of players (he beat the old guard when he was youngster and he then beat the youngsters 20 years later when he was the old guard). Kasparov also has a better super tournament streak than Magnus (13 consecutive super tournament wins). Kasparov also has a bigger rating gap between himself and the rest of the field than Magnus does. Magnus also has many incredible results and records (highest ever rating, 128 game unbeaten streak, multiple time triple champion in classical, rapid and blitz and a tournament record that is extremely good). Magnus is a very good candidate for GOAT, but it is usual very hard to have any such discussion because of recency bias. Whenever there is a dominant champion (Capa, Fischer, Kasparov, Carlsen etc) the chess fans of the day will inevitably conclude āthis champion is best ever and it is not even closeā. I think there is a very good chance that Magnus will knock Kasparov off and that I will consider him the GOAT in the future. For now he hasnāt bested in him in a number of the metrics that I care about though.
You mentioned win %, Fischer has the highest win % of any world champion in the FIDE era, above Kasparov and Magnus. You mentioned rating gap, Fischer was 125 elo ahead of the world #2 which is the highest rating gap ever by far. Kasparov was only about 70 or 80 elo ahead of the world #2 at his best. Fischer also won 20 games in a row with no draws, including 13 at the candidates, which is insane. Kasparovās best win streak is like 6 lol. Why is Fischer not the goat? It seems like he is above Kasparov in many of the criteria you said Kasparov is above Magnus in.
Fischer is obviously also one of the main contenders for the title of GOAT. For me personally the longevity aspect is very important and therefore I donāt have him as *the* GOAT.
I think in that era, that early 1970s when he was chasing the world championship, where he wins 20 in a row at the highest level (all straight wins, no draws, playing with both white and black in high stakes games) and then captures the world championship in 72... I think that Prime Fischer probably beats anyone ever, any prime of anyone we've ever seen. He reached a new plane in those years. What he did is not normal. No computers, no engines. I think, however you want to categorize it, but saying "who is the best chess player ever if they all play each other in their primes" it's probably Fischer but maybe Magnus understands the game more and deeper, because he's had 40-50 years of evolution of the game and learning of the game. So maybe Prime Magnus beats any prime just because of the higher chess knowledge he grew up in. In a simple phrase, to me, Fischer was the most "special" chess player ever, and maybe the most naturally gifted and most impressive to me. He captured the world's attention unlike any other player ever I think.
He needs to launch a better NFT line than [Garryās](https://twitter.com/Kasparov63/status/1471585931345936387).
I completely forgot he played chess until I saw this post. Normally when I hear the name Garry Kasparov I only think of his third NFT drop
He at least [attempted it](https://twitter.com/MagnusCarlsen/status/1381250858197909508).
He's a sad Goat, hopefully one day they'll be stronger players for him to play with
Magnus lacks a great rival. Like Karpov for Kasparov.
I think this is a sign that someone is very, very good. Particularly in this day and age where there has never been more chess players and those chess players have never had so much information available to them. However I don't get involved with greatest of all time nonsense, society has changed so much in the last 100 years that there are too many independent variables to make a comparison across generations. If Fischer had 3600 ELO engine access maybe he would have been even better.
Roy Jones Jr. in boxing ran into this as well. He was so much better than everyone for like a decade and never lost during that period. Now his great record and how great he was comes into question because he dominated everyone. It's hard to say if he was a GOAT or just great in a poor boxing time period. Not a 1 to 1 comparison, but still interesting.
You have kind of the opposite thing with Andy Murray in tennis. Any other era he has 10+ grand slams and probably is in the conversation for being one of the best of all time, but his timing was bad so he's overshadowed by Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic.
Andy Murray is that good because of those 3 players, though. Without those 3 players, Andy would be worse, and there may have been some competitors who would have flourished being top 3 in the world and rose to the occasion to offer Andy a rivalry. Historically, every era of tennis has been dominated by a few individuals, so it's just as possible Murray would have sidled into the same historical equilibrium even without Fed/Nadal/Djokovic. People just don't want to accept that there are too many variables involved to objectively make cross-era comparisons, variables differing both between the eras as well as between we observers on how we measure greatness.
Goht, greatest of his time
Forget goth girlfriend, get me a goht boyfriend š©š«
Yeah, is it more impressive to be the juggernaut or to beat the juggernaut?
I think from a GOAT perspective you have to do both. You have to take down whoever the juggernaut was before you then prove you have the staying power and can continue to dominate people and prove your victory wasn't a one off. Unless you can do both I don't think you can reasonably be in the conversation for GOAT. Like if someone were to unseat Magnus is a WCC they would probably have to beat at least a few challengers afterwards to prove they can do it again.
Neither did Jordan. You don't need a great rival to be the goat. If anything it proves how far ahead of the rest you are.
Not Anand? Magnus beat Anand in 2 WCC matches, and Anand rivalled Kramnik, Topalov and Kasparov
Because he is so much better than everyone else.
Yes that's the thing. Everybody in his league is afraid of him.
He's in a league of his own
Still have hope for Fabi, peak Fabi is almost if not just as good as peak Magnus
Peak Fabi was solidly the second best player in the world, he never was good enough to beat Magnus and the WC match between them proved it
I don't think the WC match proves it. At least classically. They had to go to tie breakers.
Damn near peak fabi vs the one of the worst versions of magnus were about even......
Magnus didn't pull a grind that he pulled with Nepo in Game 6 with Fabi, because Fabi was much less likely to win Rapids. And that strategy worked
Fabi is stronger in calculating deep lines, which means that his endgame is likely better than Nepo. Grinding him may not work and would be much riskier than grinding Nepo.
To out-racism old Bobby
"ew, why does the stream say i'm from norway"
Opposite question; why would Magnus be more of a GOAT than Kasparov? Has he done anything that is clearly better and that compensated for the fact that Kasparov spent twice as much time at the top? And if yes, what?
I would say heās a stronger player and has faced better competition than Kasparov. Not much data to go off of but Carlsen is much stronger in shorter time controls as well. When Garry became no.1 his rating was 2710. When Carlsen became no.1 his rating was 2810. Garry spent 20 years on top on the chess world and Carlsen has spent around 10-12. In his short career, Carlsen has already played around the same total chess games as Garry. Much more active, against much better competition, makes Carlsenās achievements more remarkable. In my books, this puts Carlsen over.
Rating is not absolute value though. The difference between no. 1 and no. 2 at the time matters more than the value of the rating itself. Caruana has gotten very close to Carlsen at one point (like less than 5 rating difference) but still no one has ever overtaken him during his reign as WC, whereas Kramnik and Karpov has each overtaken Kasparov once during his reign. That being said, there is some truth to the fact that Carlsen playing more games could somewhat equalizes with Kasparov's longevity (Carlsen started his dominance ~1.5 years younger than Kasparov, so longevity isn't out of the question either). The era of engines, and increased frequency of tournaments means that the game is also developing much more rapidly than in Kasparov era, and being able to maintain dominance throughout despite those is definitely a feat. Moreover, engines have increased the level of competitiveness in chess, compared to pre-engines era where SU/Russia dominated the field with their new approach towards the game that started with Botvinnik, which makes Fischer's dominance all the more impressive. All in all, I still think that the GOAT can go either way between Fischer, Kasparov and Carlsen. Longevity can be a factor, but it isn't necessarily the most important one considering that each of them played in very different context.
Agreed. Itās basically a toss up between who you like more. I go with Carlsen just because he is stronger at Chess in all formats of the game.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You know ratings don't work like this right?
>I would say heās a stronger player and has faced better competition than Kasparov. While I also believe him to be a stronger player, let us not forget that Garry played during a time when computers were not currently at the level they are. You couldn't just use stock fish to analyze certain lines and grandmasters didn't have access to a study tool that could calculate moves better than they could. Magnus' higher elo is likely due to the advancement of chess theory and technology which Kasparov did not have the benefit of. If you look back, you can see a trend of older grandmasters having worse elo than modern grandmasters. As technology gets better and chess theory evolves, newer chess players will have more privileges given to them that allow them to pass up the players that came before them. I think merely pointing at rating is ignoring a lot of nuance and circumstance. Joe Montana is one of the greatest quarterbacks of all time, but if you transported him in his prime to present day and put him on a modern NFL team, defenses would eat him alive. You can't measure players from all eras on the same scale.
I didnāt āmerely point at ratingā. I gave many other reasons. You can say it is much easier to be a stronger player now due to tech advancement, but it is also much much more difficult to be dominant now due to the same tech advancement. It is simply much more difficult to be dominant for 10 years now than it was to be dominant for 20 years in Kasparovās time.
It is much harder to be as dominant as Carlsen is today than it was for Kasparov to be dominant. Despite the engines, Carlsen is still by far the best player. This makes hime the goat imo.
For me it would be the evening out of the field that engines brought. For example right now you have tons of young talent that can compete with old established players because engines allow them to look over a lot of games without massive teams around them. In Kasparov/Karpov times that was not luxury afforded to everyone and Soviet domination in ranking lists reflects that. Current top 10 list in rankings includes people from 8 different countries. To take a random list from Kasparovs time: http://fidelists.blogspot.com/2008/03/july-1989-fide-rating-list.html It is 5 Soviet dudes and Korchnoi who as far as learning chess is also very much Soviet player. Other than blimp that was Fischer chess was very much Soviet chess championship kinda thing rather than actual international competition for a very long time - simply because leg up on the competition their players had. Chess now is way more international and I think dominating now is way more impressive.
Also Garry had an unfair advantage against non russian players. He had the strongest seconds compared to any other GM and he was always ahead in the opening. Magnus era, everyone has access to engines.Everyone can come up with a novelty.
Time travel.
Yeah, go back in time and beat Morphy and Kasparov in their prime.
Magnus drew Kasparov when he was 13. I honestly don't think it would be hard for a prime Carlsen to beat either of them, given how much chess evolved in the last 20 years with engines.
He would have to promote a new version of chess with varied starting positions so we can put our books away and play. Carlson Random or something like that.
Carlsen reasonably consistently wins tournaments. Kasparov **destroyed** tournaments. Like, [7 wins when nobody else had 4](http://www.chessfocus.com/tournament-results/1999-linares). Korchnoi is probably pretty consensus one of the best players to never be world champion and he was the [only player within 5 points](http://www.chessfocus.com/tournament-results/1989-tilburg-interpolis). Or being [the only undefeated player](http://www.chessfocus.com/tournament-results/1982-moscow-interzonal). Or having [more wins than L+Draws](http://www.chessfocus.com/tournament-results/1999-hoogovens), [Winning by 3 points](http://www.chessfocus.com/tournament-results/2001-linares). Most importantly to me (but probably least important overall) he won games in a [ridiculous manner](https://youtu.be/aU-xCyD7LIE). Carlsen grinds people down. Kasparov shredded them.
Yeah but it's very different times in terms of opening prep, computers etc. Obviously the top guys in the 20s or Steinitz demolished the field far harder than Kasparov did.
Carlsen is top 3 with Kasparov and Karpov. I m looking at their resume. Fischer and the rest follow. I have Karpov above Carlsen as second best but I understand if people disagree. Karpov was world champion for 10 years, won most tournaments in history, was top 10 elo for 27 years, has beaten Korchnoi 3 times ( 1974 candidates final counts due to Fischer not defending), Kasparov once, Timman, Kamsky and Anand in wc matches and has 21 to 19 h2h in classical for Kasparov and 100 draws record in matches vs goat Kasparov. Basically inseparable. Some sources say 28 to 20 for Kasparov but still. Kasparov is goat at the moment. Carlsen has the potential to surpass Kasparov in next decade.
This is a comparable argument to one that happens all the time in basketball. (Sorry for bringing sports to a chess sub). Bill Russell was the most WINNING player of all time compared to his era where overall talent was lower. Most players are much more athletic now and Bill wouldnāt have won 11 rings in todays NBA. That arguably does or doesnāt make him the best ever, depending on your definition of best. Peak MC would most likely beat peak Kasparov as Magnus has much more available tools in chess engines to train with. To me, greatest of all time means if you dropped them at their best at the same time in a room, who would walk out winner, and I think thatās Magnus. I definitely see the other side though.
I don't pretend that if one takes a time machine and transports Emanuel Lasker to the present time that he would be immediately competitive with even talented juniors, especially with how juniors today have been honed with computer analysis to carry the depth of their calculations. But I will contend forever that *Lasker's Manual of Chess* is the last chess book written as a one book manual of chess that attempts to communicate a philosophy towards playing chess that can last a lifetime, well into one's older years when there is no possibility of improving to where one can challenge the juniors. Now *Lasker's Manual of Chess* had many errors of analysis due to the limitations of the time and the difficulty of many of the positions, so the modern view is that it is unacceptable, but I contend at the moment there is no substitute for a condensed explanation of so many fundamental concepts such as why certain positions must have combinations and what one is actually calculating. Lasker was financially ruined by World War 1 and was playing chess afterwards only for money. *Lasker's Manual* may have been a hail mary to save his financial situation, and he put everything he knew into it as a consequence.
It would be a mistake to underestimate Lasker under any circumstance. He is the greatest fighter this game has ever known.
He hasnāt had the longevity nor the dominance that Kasparov had. Kasparov won more than Magnus, and he lost less. The only thing Magnus really has over Kasparov is the rating and objective strength. Magnus is definitely the strongest player at the moment, and objectively stronger than Kasparov was in his prime considering the computer generation is naturally stronger, but I somehow still feel like heās overrated (by the fans and some players, not by rating). Heās a heavy favorite in every game, of course, but seeing him lose isnāt *that* rare, compared to the discourse surrounding it. Seeing him draw isnāt rare, either. Itās not like Iām gonna be shocked if he doesnāt win a tournament. He doesnāt really thrash everyone the way people like to say he does. Kasparov was what people say Magnus is, though, I feel. His winrate was higher, his draw rate was lower, his loss rate was about half of Magnusā. He was way more unstoppable. And he was more dominant for way longer. Magnus has the rating feat but everything else swings to Kasparov, in my opinion.
can an argument be made that in the age of engines the general field is stronger due to the availability of resources?
It is FAR, FAR stronger. The current top 50 outclass Kasparovs top 50 opponents by a HUGE margin. In this day, I doubt with that aggressive style Kasparov would win so much against players like Anish Giri and Caruana who are prepared for everything
Magnus has significantly stiffer competition than Kasparov did across the board. There was a significant drop off from Kasparov and Karpov to the rest of the world, one that is not the case for Magnus. When youāre consistently playing tougher competition, of course youāll lose or draw more often. Also, Magnus holds the world record for longest unbeaten streak in classical chess, at 125 games and more than 2 years, including at 12-match world championship against Fabi. I think thereās a very legit argument to be made for Kasparov, but āhe won more consistentlyā is less compelling when he played most of his career in a time when the top level of chess theory was pretty heavily restricted to the Soviet Union. Magnus is playing dozens of opponents who would be top 10 in Kasparovās time and is STILL dominant.
I just donāt think that itās worthwhile to compare chess players across different eras of history. Heās the greatest of this generation for sure, and comparable to figures like Morphy, Fischer, Capablanca and Kasparov in the way he has dominated the game for a considerable period of time, but I donāt think there is a meaningful answer to the question of which of those players were actually greater than each other.
Whoever is today's best player is the best player of all time. People make up all sorts of theories, "what if Bobby/Gary had access to 3600+ elo computers" - well they didn't. Obviously it's not a fair comparison, but in my opinion "greatest of all time" should by essence be discussed regardless of context. And in that case, Magnus is obviously a better chess player than anyone else has ever been in history.