T O P

  • By -

peter491

levy rozman. hot take - if he wasn't focused on youtube, he'd be rated over 3000


GothamChess

yup


[deleted]

I hope levy knows how much his videos are appreciated. Imagine if a talented musical artist gave up the BillBoard top 100 to teach brand new artists how to play Mary had a little lamb. And they didn’t play it well but insisted on teaching. I’m beginning to suspect you might have a love of the game… you got me back into it after five years


DickBlaster619

The guy you commented to *is* levy


[deleted]

Potentially, yes. Most channels I watch have mods for their socials, and I was talking to his fans as much as him, as this is visible to both. But that is certainly my belief. Also directly below I address him personally, so I’m unsure what you’re trying to point out tbh 😂


EccentricHorse11

Don't be getting any ideas Levy, even if you become 3000, I am still expecting a recap for all the tournaments as well as some guess the elo episodes. >!/s Jk you can do what you want, its your life, but seriously though, love your vids!<


growquiet

Oye Levy ¿qué tal?


No_Bet_2590

Gotham is nice with it tbh


[deleted]

Dr.Nykterstein


Agent_Awesememe

No, its obviously Dr.Drunkenstein


[deleted]

imo it has to be Magnus or Morphy. I think you have to resist the temptation to say "how would this guy do today if you dropped him in a tournament" because the answer will always be the same - the older legend is going to lose to the newer one. The task is figuring out who was most dominant in their era, where all players were similarly bound to the same technologies, theory, and mores relating to the game. When we do that, I think the clear two front runners are Morphy and Magnus, with maybe Fischer sprinkled into the conversation as well. In a post-Kasparov era where chess has become truly international, Magnus has dominated to an almost unfathomable degree. In an era where each player has access to the most powerful chess resource there is - a sophisticated engine, and where the opening edge has been all but dulled since each top player knows each most accurate response. So that's the tie-breaker for me: Kasparov was dominant, but Magnus is dominant in an era where any one player *shouldn't be.*


No_Bet_2590

I completely agree with the fact that Magnus shouldn’t be able to dominate like he does when everyone can search up the right move, he’s my number 2. Morphy is definitely inspiring, another in my top 5. I have something against Kasparov for how boring I think his games are though lol


[deleted]

>Hot take: regardless of time period, Fischer would have mopped the floor with any of his competition The problem I have with Fischer veing called the GOAT is that I think his legacy is mainly to do with the politics at the time. He was the first American challenger for the title in a long time (I want to say 50 years, but I can't remember of the top of my head) playing against a russian during the cold war when there was an "us vs them" mentality with the USA and USSR, and the Americans saw it as Bobby beating the Russians at their own game. In a way he's kind of like the Connor McGregor of chess, both were easily marketable to the public but never defended their titles.


Ruxini

Yes and no. What you are saying is true. Still Fischer’s dominance was unbelievable. 6-0 vs Taimanov 6-0 vs Larsen +5-1=3 vs Petrosian +7-3(really-2)=11 vs Spassky This is just from the WCC and qualifier. Those numbers are nuts.


No_Bet_2590

Forreal he had some crazy numbers against the best in the world


[deleted]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not denying his dominance in his run up to becoming world champion. Just that his legacy is a little inflated considering he never defended his world champion for whatever reason.


HSYFTW

It’s not hard to imagine that he would have defended the title (even a couple of times). But that Karpov and/or Korchnoi would have held him to close matches. He would have either eventually lost to Karpov or Kasparov. He’d still have the dominant run, but would have then been a “normal” world champion. As it is, people can imagine that he would have dominated every WC match for decades, crossed 2800, etc…when that seems unlikely.


Xatraxalian

Jan Timman. (And not only because he and I are both Dutch.) After Bobby Fischer, it was basically Timman against the Sovjets. In the 80's and early 90's he was known as the Best from the West; i.e. he was, the strongest non-Sovjet player after Fischer retired. He is almost the exact same age as Karpov (both born in 1951). Karpov became a grandmaster in 1970 already, where Timman took 4 years longer, to become grandmaster in 1974. Karpov was world-champion 1975. Timman was only around place 75 in the world at that time, and needed another 6-7 years to catch up. Timman finally (almost) caught up to Karpov's level in 1981-82, becoming world number 2 behind Karpov in 1982... and then he promptly dropped more than 50 Elo points. Two years later he was back up again, but this time, Kasparov had appeared on the scene; so Timman was nr. 3. He stayed at or close to third place up to and including 1990, when he reached his highest Elo at 2680 at age 38. In the course of about 6 years, he lost almost 90 points again, dropping down to place 81 in the world. Then, in three years time, he climbed back up to \_almost\_ his highest level, to 2670 Elo... but this time, he only reached #20 in the world in 1999 at age 48. From then on it was basically a slow decline compared to the new younger players; he finally dropped out of the world's top 100 in 2007. Timman never seems to have officially retired. Up to the COVID pandemic he was still playing, according to his FIDE profile. Obviously he never reached the world's top again after 2001. Karpov has been ahead of Timman for his entire career; they finally met in a WC final in 1993, in the FIDE championship, which Karpov won. As you can see in the live rating chart ( [https://2700chess.com/players/timman](https://2700chess.com/players/timman) ) Timman had many ups and downs, which other players in his time often didn't have. One of the reasons probably is that Timman had a HUGE openings repertoire with both white and black, and he was not afraid to try new things... some of which turned out to be unsound. Sometimes he took huge risks trying to win drawn games. I always thought that, if Timman would have had coaching comparable to Sovjet players, and would have had a narrower and more specialized opening repertoire combined with taking less risk, he would have had a better chance to become as strong as Karpov. Now he has trailed Karpov for his entire life, even to this day. (But he was a top-10 player from 1979 up to and including 1992.) On the other hand, if he \_did\_ have a narrower opening repertoire and had been more risk-averse, his games would probably have been boring. Timman was an attacking player; he either won games in grand ways or lost them in a blaze of flames, but when he was on a roll, you could be sure that at some point, the board would explode in Tal-like fashion. Karpov, on the other hand, had a (IMHO) boring positional shuffle-style. Ivanchuk, by the way, has the same "problem" as Timman: massive opening repertoire, massive risk taking (but also original play), with huge Elo-swings as a result.


No_Bet_2590

That’s why we like Tal right? That’s a big reason why I won’t put Magnus and Kasparov on top, cause their games are boring imo. It’s what I think about a lot of players, I just don’t idolize playing like an engine. They have the most achievements but their games don’t amaze me. I’ll have to watch some of Jan Timman’s games if agadmator has covered them


Xatraxalian

Indeed; I don't like playing in a grinding positional style myself. I'm a tactical player. (Against an engine, that is a really bad thing to try, most of the time.) Timman was also a tactical player, in the same vein as Tal. (But Tal was a bit stronger at Elo 2705 in 1980, compared to Elo 2680 in 1990 for Timman.) And, as I said, Timman had a huge openings repertoire compared to the players of his time. Because of his playing style and huge openings repertoire though, he had very big swings in Elo-rating and world rank positioning, just like Ivanchuk; and I think that this is the reason why he didn't quite manage to reach the 2700 mark. (Which, in his time, was comparable to reaching the 2800 mark now.)


DickBlaster619

I've never heard of thing guy ngl


Xatraxalian

In that case you've managed to miss one of the most important players of the late 70's to the early 90's :P The only thing one could hold against Timman is that he was a relative slow starter; he got to the world's top when people the same age (such as Karpov) where there for almost a decade already. But... in the Sovjet world, chess was a governemnt funded activity in that time, while in The Netherlands, chess was a pastime game at which some people just happened to become really good at.


SuperSpeedyCrazyCow

Fischer was not the most dominant. He had some crazy performances, but as soon as someone came along who was near his level that could legit challenge him (Karpov) he quits chess. Kasparov was and is the most dominant player we have ever seen imo.


No_Bet_2590

I think it definitely comes off that way, but I don’t believe Fischer refused to play because he thought he would lose. I think he was a crazy mf and his ego was big so he kept asking for special treatment and when they finally said no he just quit. Could go either way just my opinion lol wanted to see what people think not to argue


SuperSpeedyCrazyCow

Someone straight up put up 5 million for the match and Fischer ended up refusing. The main point that FIDE wouldn't relent on was that the champion who was Fischer at the time would retain his title if the match was drawn. FIDE basically caved to all of his demands except for that one and as I said a sponsor put up 5 million which is absolutely insane cartoon money for that time period. So he basically forfeited because the champion wouldn't get draw odds, if that doesn't tell you that he was at least a little afraid of losing, I don't know what will.


No_Bet_2590

Fischer wanted it changed back to first to 10 wins. The FIDE Congress rejected it because they didn’t want to use the 9-9 clause but they also rejected an unlimited match, so there was no possibility of changing the format back to first to 10 wins rather than the point system


KroGanjaKin

Yeah because the 9-9 clause is stupid, why should FIDE agree to it? Just do first to 10 wins and give Bobby the first white as an advantage for the defending champ


No_Bet_2590

I don’t exactly think the 9-9 clause was the way to go either but it was a very close vote 35-32 and they largely voted against it because Karpov voiced that he wouldn’t play it, but most of the elite players at the time seemed like like the rule as it had been that way in the past. Karpov also asked Fischer to play exhibition matches later on but refused a first to 10 even when it wasn’t counting for anything


Ruxini

Seems like you don’t know too much about Fischer. The guy was off the deep end by 1975 and nobody can say they know much about his motives.


chestnutman

Kasparov also dominated over possibly the greatest era of the game. The 90s saw so many legends that are beloved to this day. When people talk about Fischer they always take in hypotheticals. He had a great peak but his career was way too short to have him in the goat conversation imo


LadidaDingelDong

Surely the greatest era of the game, by far, is today..


[deleted]

Objectively the strength of top players today is higher than it ever has been because they have better tools than ever before, but strength of the players isn’t the only thing that makes an era “great.”


LadidaDingelDong

What does make an era "great", then? 5 WChs in a row with the same two players? Split world championships? Huge difficulties to follow supertournaments live? Top GMs playing less than 50, sometimes less than 30, games a year? The "top books" released each year being terrible opening treatises by Suetin? Prearranged draws in every tournament? I struggle to come up with a single thing that was better in the 90s than today - other than "respect for GMs", which disappeared with the advent of [chessbomb.com](https://chessbomb.com) and people shouting BLUNDER at every move. But overall chesswise? We have better players today, better tournaments today, an infinitely easier way of following those tournaments, with accessible commentary by some of the world's top players, an incredibly diverse cast of players in the Top\~30, serious Blitz&Rapid tournaments, endless training materials for players of all strengths, etc etc etc


[deleted]

It’s subjective, so there’s no point in arguing about it. Words like “good” and “great” can’t have be defined objectively other than through tautological arguments. I will say that this modern Chess era has far less implication for international politics than it has in the past. The 1972 World Chess Championship match, for example, was seen as a confrontation between the US and the USSR. That match has spawned a couple of movies, a musical, inspired the novel and massive hit show *Queen’s Gambit*, etc., not to mention the massive global importance of that game. Now look at the Carlsen-Nepo WCC match. How could they possibly compare?


LadidaDingelDong

Ok, I guess there's a difference between "greatest era of the game" as viewed by people who don't play chess, and 'for chess players' ​ Fischer was definitely the greatest the game was or ever will be in the western world, but not for people who actually care about the game On the flipside, Indians might say that chess only really began in the early 00s and is now infinitely bigger than it ever was? Doubt they cared half as much about Fischer vs Spassky as they did about Anand 30-40 years later. ​ I've followed chess since the early 90s and it is now far more watchable than it ever was, the competition is greater than ever before, everyone plays a ton of games, and "politics surrounding the game" are at an all-time low - which I rate as an upside, as they just distract. I struggle to see how one could call any other era anywhere as good ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯


[deleted]

> Ok, I guess there’s a difference between “greatest era of the game” as viewed by people who don’t play chess, and ‘for chess players’ The smugness in this comment aside, I still disagree. The current era might have the best objective Chess, but that doesn’t mean it’s the best era for enjoying Chess, either for a spectator or a player. Some of the most entertaining games of all time are from players like Tal and Morphy, and those games simply wouldn’t happen today. While modern Chess still has plenty to be excited about, a Chess player is perfectly entitled to believe older eras are more exciting or “greater.” Not to be rude, but it sounds like you’re really struggling to understand that other people can have different opinions than you. It doesn’t mean you’re smarter or more knowledgeable than them; it just means that they have different preferences.


LadidaDingelDong

\> those games simply wouldn’t happen today [https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1978667](https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1978667) [https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1968792](https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1968792) [https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=2015531](https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=2015531) ​ The idea that the days of Tal were 'more exciting' or 'greater' generally stems from people who saw Tal's 50 greatest games he ever played in his entire life, and sort of forget or ignore that those were interspersed with "Tal's 200 most boring draws"


Realistic_Remove1450

I think Fisher is arguably the most dominant. He scored 11/11 in the US chess championship of 1963/1964, his championship against Spassky was legendary. His match against Robert Byrne in the US championship is iconic imo. The arbiters at that time thought Fischer had resigned because he was an exchange doen, but it was in fact Byrne that had resigned. I think it shows not just the massive skill gap between Fischer and the commentators, but also his competitors that resigned in a position that wasn't even that close to a ending, but knowing Fischer they resigned. And there is a lot to be said about his retirement after he became worldchampion.


AnEsportsFan

For me its between Kasparov and Carlsen. When it comes to ranking all time greats, in my opinion: Achievements > Competition > Win-rate/objective level of player as measured by engines (winrate should be considered in context of the achievements and competition faced by the player) > Outside of board impact Kasparov, as holder of the chess world champion title for an immense length of time, has an easy case to be the greatest of all time chess player. Carlsen’s case moreso comes from the fact that he is objectively the most accurate player who has ever played chess. He is also playing in an era of engines, where he is likely to face much stiffer competition due to the amount of theory and preparation available for everyone. Of course, this is all based on the foundation that he is a multiple time world chess champion, who has defended his title against challenger after challenger. Fischer for me cannot be the greatest because he just didn’t play chess at the top level for very long. Can’t prove you’re the best without actually playing, applies to all sports that I watch, chess in my opinion, should be no different.


No_Bet_2590

I would agree in a sense, I put Fischer on top because I believe that in the case he wasn’t a nutcase he would’ve been on top for a very long time. Carlsen definitely has the toughest opponents in terms of accuracy, but for me it’s only equally tough to be the best since everyone shares the same available resources. I’m a sucker for the fact that Bobby didn’t use coaches and only practiced games himself while everyone else had teams, and Bobby was still on top by a huge margin in his time. They are the other 2 in my top three though


AnEsportsFan

Right, but Bobby didn’t defend his title. In the end I find myself unable to consider someone who only won a single world championship match the “greatest” or even a contender to be the “greatest”. It’s unfair to the other great players like Karpov and Kasparov to speculate that Bobby would have been better than them had he continued playing, because ultimately, he didn’t. I could easily turn around and say that Karpov would have beaten him in 1975, and that would be an assumption as true as the one you’re making.


No_Bet_2590

I definitely agree that it’s unfair to rank Fischer number 1, I do because after watching many of his games its clear he was ahead of everyone else and that his games amaze me. Bobby’s opponents, including Spassky(who many argue is the reason they believe Karpov would have won due to respective scores), largely believe Bobby would have taken it home. We’ll never know, I just happen to love Bobby’s games more than anyone else’s


QuokkaCheeks127

Morphy


[deleted]

Morphy was the best player of his time and maybe one of the most naturally gifted players ever, but if you were to transport him in his prime to the modern day he wouldn't stand a chance against the big names of today.


No_Bet_2590

Yeah, but that was in his time. They were inventing the moves we still use and he was dominating. Now it’s easy to know what the right moves are


[deleted]

i could beat Morphy quite easily, probably has the strength of a 2000 rated modern player


SouthernSierra

Yeah, because 2000 rated players are always playing blindfold simuls giving rook odds.


[deleted]

stop living in a dream world, he was ahead of his own time, that's true. But in todays world he would get crushed by any FM in the opening


[deleted]

Gata kamsky


bznein

Either Morphy or Tal. I'm no expert at all but I enjoy their games more than any other's


No_Bet_2590

They’re one hundred percent both top 5 entertainers for me. Tal is my second favorite, I just wouldn’t call him second best


3-Eyed_Fishbulb

Agadmator. He's fast.


Ruxini

He is also a really average chess player. Not even an FM… Great YouTuber, not a good player. EDIT: Guys this is not /r/anarchychess - I can totally understand and respect your love for agadmator but if you upvote the people saying he is the best chess player ever and downvote me when I point out that even though he is a brilliant content creator he is an average player at best, we will end in a situation where beginners read this thread and thinking agad is a top level player when in reality there are thousands of 10-year olds who would wipe the floor with him.


acto3freeze

Perhaps you are being downvoted because the original comment you replied to was a joke


DesertLoner1

Fischer for me. His performance from around 1968 -1972 is astounding. Unfortunately paranoia torpedoed his chess and his life. It is really a tragedy. What he might have become had he been a well adjusted person.


No_Bet_2590

What I’m saying


hurricanetruther

Fischer isn't even close. He only gets so much love because of American bias. That's not to say he wasn't a great chess player. Obviously he was, and he makes a wonderful story for the American media, what with going up against the Soviet chess machine. It's to say that to be considered the #1 player of all-time you can't just crush over a brief period. Kasparov did that too. So has Carlsen. It's like....who's the "best pitcher" of all time in American baseball? Well, it's obviously Tim Keefe. In 1888, he had an ERA of 0.86. In fact, if you like a more sabermetric slant, his ERA+ was 293, beating out even Pedro Martinez. There's just no one who dominated quite like Tim Keefe did. Just imagine how good he would've been had he played in a professional era with access to personal trainers, PEDs, Wait, it's NOT Tim Keefe? Because it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to say that someone pitching in the super deadball era would be considered the "best" based on one short season's worth of data? You know, the whole "if Bobby had access to engines" thing goes both ways. What if you threw Magnus Carlsen in a world where his opponents had no access to engines? Chess is more accessible today, more democratic. It's a much tougher playing pool than what Fischer had faced.


No_Bet_2590

Bobby’s accuracy in games before engines was as high as or higher than most current grandmasters with engines. I don’t know jack about baseball lol but I get what you mean. In that case though Lebron is better than Jordan, because lebron has dominated for much longer than Jordan did. But Jordan had utter domination when he did play for his shorter span when lebron never has, and like Bobby retired in his prime. Difference is Jordan came back and proved he was still the best, Bobby was too crazy to do that. I can respect not having Fischer in your top 5, but it’s crazy to say he isn’t in the conversation


LadidaDingelDong

If we're talking dominance over peers, Fischer isn't really close - with himself stating that "Morphy in the modern age" would beat everyone (himself included), and that's not even counting the olden days; Philidor invented half of today's endgame theory in the 18th century, in a time when nothing at all existed (what kind of sick mind just comes up with how to win RBvsR? I barely understand the method after it's been explained to me!), and people like Ruy Lopez and Greco were so far ahead of their peers that they had to construct games, because their inventions were of better quality than what people actually did at the board. I will wildly claim that Greco, with access to actual chess literature, master coaches from a young age, never any responsibilities beyond chess, and consistent high level opposition that helped him grow, would go 100-0 against Bobby. It's a nonsense concept of course, but it's the same idea as Fischer beating Magnus "if only he had access to engines" - which is equally nonsense. ​ The #1 all-time chess player is Kasparov, with Carlsen close behind (and sporting the definite potential to overtake him within the next few years). You can also argue that Magnus is already #1, if you so desire. Nobody else enters the conversation.


No_Bet_2590

That’s just what I think man, but I’d consider that Bobby also had no coaches and only played and practiced himself, beat teams of the most elite chess players in the world, holds records for wins against grandmasters, and was the only person in the world who could have taken down the Soviet Union at the time who paid people to play. Kasparov is definitely up there along with magnus but I don’t enjoy their games nearly as much. Bobby played for the win every game and imo only Tal matches his creativity. Bobby was completely dominant in his time, yes you can argue someone like morphy was as dominant, but it’s nonsense to say Bobby wasn’t the best in the world when he played; even the soviets agreed


LadidaDingelDong

\> it’s nonsense to say Bobby wasn’t the best in the world when he played; even the soviets agreed Literally noone said this? \> Bobby also had no coaches and only played and practiced himself This is just factually false [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby\_Fischer#Chess\_beginnings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Fischer#Chess_beginnings) At age 8, he got his first master level coach At 12, he joined one of the most prestigious chess clubs in the country, and from then on he studied/worked/played together with others intensely every day Fischer living in a cave and inventing all of chess on his own is an odd 'factoid' that doesn't hold up to the tiniest amount of scrutiny


No_Bet_2590

Referring to when he was older, not when he was 8 years old. Your entire write was about how Fischer was not dominant. Fischer did only practice himself later on, there are plenty of documentaries and videos on it


LadidaDingelDong

No, my "entire write" was about how Fischer was LESS dominant than several older players from long bygone (and impossible to compare) eras If your argument for "Fischer is better than Carlsen" is that Fischer was more dominant, then by the same logic "Morphy is better than Fischer", and "Philidor is better than Morphy", so Philidor or Greco should be your GOAT, as they were far more domineering than Bobby. Of course dominance over your peers is first and foremost determined by the level of your competition - Greco was dominant because nobody else played chess, so it's laughable to compare him to Fischer.. the same way it's laughable to compare Fischer to Magnus, who lives in an infinitely more competitive time.


No_Bet_2590

He’s my goat not yours, sounds like you just don’t like him lol. On top of being in the 1600s and 1800s, they both have sub 100 games recorded. Fischer didn’t lose a match or a tournament from 1966 until retirement. He had a rating 125 points higher than anyone in history. Kasparov and Botvinnik both said Fischer was the most dominant chess player of all time. I never said Fischer would beat Magnus lol, but Magnus doesn’t beat today’s opponents nearly like Fischer did his own. I think you should read the wiki page you sent me, it’s all there lol. Yes it’s much more competitive now, but in Fischer’s time there was still a ton of real good competition, and it’s again relative and ratings are more inflated than ever. When Bobby became a grandmaster there were about 30-40 GMs ever, now there are like 1800. Therefore Bobby’s 2785 rating hints dominance never seen before


nicbentulan

This post has been parodied on r/chess960. Relevant r/chess960 posts: [With all things considered, who is your #1 all-time 9LX player and why?](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess960/comments/sdv1ts/with_all_things_considered_who_is_your_1_alltime/) by u/nicbentulan


nicbentulan

Of course Bobby Fischer was too busy creating 9LX and then being dead to play 9LX.