Hikaru's Hot Takes on the Ten Best Chess Players of All Time
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 сер 2021
- Hikaru reviews chess.com's list of the ten best chess players of all time: www.chess.com/article/view/be...
🍪 Upgrade your chess game at chess.com by getting your premium membership here: go.chess.com/hikaru - you'll be supporting the channel and learning endgames like a champ!
🎁 Or you can give the gift of chess. Gift someone you know and love a membership to chess.com or troll your favorite lichess fanatic by subbing them - try it - it's fun! www.chess.com/membership/gift...
📎 Clip Channel: ua-cam.com/users/GMHikaruCli...
More GMHikaru: ua-cam.com/users/moregmhikar...
💪 I'm partnered with GFuel and to support me and the community, visit gfuel.ly/2LS5Rct #GFuelPartner USE CODE HIKARU #ad
► Find Me: Watch my live shows on Twitch ➡️ / gmhikaru
Play chess on Chess.com ➡️ go.chess.com/hikaru
Support/Tip/Donate to the channel ➡️ streamlabs.com/gmhikaru
🌟 Socials 🌟 Follow me on Twitter ➡️ / gmhikaru
Follow me in Pictures ➡️ / gmhikaru
Join our Discord ➡️
/ discord to stay in contact and join our community
Become a fan on Facebook ➡️ / gmhikaru
Join our Reddit for the MEMES and to make it to Reddit React Videos ➡️ / hikarunakamura
🎥 Edit and 🎨 Thumbnail by: Daily Dose of Chess / dosechess
👌Channel Management - Team Hikaru
📧 Business inquiries only: TeamHikaru@WMEAgency.com
#gmhikaru #chess #kasparov - Ігри
Hikaru was in the top 3 best looking chess players of all time, but then he shaved, and has thus been relegated to top 5.
Violation 😭
at first....I thought this was a video from 5 years ago...damn that boy look younger
uh, no
😂😂😭
Why isn’t this pinned?
“I don’t want to spoil it.” Shows complete list in the intro 😂
What's the chances of me scrolling and reading your comment right as he spoke those words?
@@AX5Terminator 0
Doesn’t contain his takes in the beginning though.
There's no way Vishy isn't top 10 of all time. 5 time world champion, pioneered an entire country's chess culture, and is STILL in top 10-15 in the world at the age of 51.
Bro because your Indian you say that
@@kingzion3032 this is the most racist shit i have heard all day congratulation
@@itanyy7085 how is it racist? He is Indian and he is human and he has bias? How is that racist? It’s a fact.
@@kingzion3032 Bruh, you ignore all the stats he stated backing up his argument and all you have to say is "your Indian". That's sad man
@@gagandeep.p.2572 all I need is one datapoint - and that datapoint is that he is Indian.
Fun facts: Morphy was admitted to the bar at 19. Although he never practiced law, it is said he could recite the entire civil code of Louisiana from memory. The man was a genius
I, too, have read Morphy’s Wikipedia article
The fact that is was Louisiana makes it especially impressive, because the laws of that state are an unholy amalgamation between French and Anglo-Saxon law. I don't think there are many lawyers today outside of Louisiana who can practice Lousianan law with any degree of certainty.
@@chicken29843 you could probably get 2 or 3 admitted out of a class of 20 if you actually preped them for it instead of wasting their time in school. what's impressive is that he did it on his own.
Yeah, and he was considered far above every other player by his early twenties when he retired. This is just me, but I believe if he really dedicated himself to playing chess instead of resenting it most of his life he would be for sure top 3 possibly number 1.
Also if you want to know why he resented chess, he played it as a side hobby, but since he was so good at it people really wanted to play against him, so after he quit because he was bored of the game, he pursued law, what he always wanted to do.
The only problem was every person who ever came to his law firm was just a chess player pretending to need a lawyer to talk and try to go against him. I’m also not sure when this was on the timeline, but his girlfriend(doesn’t sound right but not sure how best to describe it) rejected his marriage saying she didn’t want to stoop down to the level of a mere chess player.
That's actually so crazy what the hell
Definitely vishy and morphy should be in the top ten..... Morphy was a natural born genius and his flow of play is still relevant.... While Anand has been the undisputed champion 4 times and fide champion for two years but what is overlooked is his blitz and rapid career....he became world rapid champion ahead of Hikaru, Magnus etc at the age of like 47-48 in 2017 and is ranked 4 in blitz at the age of 52 in the live ratings now!!!!
Undisputed top 5 in my opinion, tied with Karpov for longevity, dominance etc
He was too old of a chess player. Tal is more deserving i guess. Because at Morphy's time there weren't many good players while at the time of tal, there were many greats living and he defeated them also.
@@UrGoneConcept Chess isn't relative though, we can look at Morphys moves and acknowledge how good they were and how ahead of his time he was regardless of his opponents.
Age doesn't matter in chess. If you mean to brag about his old age or just means he has more experience in chess hence an advantage
Yes Annad could be in the list, while Morphy was rated around 2600 in his chess career, while second best player was 200 off with raiting of 2400, so he was the best chess player of 1800s, but nowdays we still can watch his recorded games and make choice would he be better, than some of the others in top 10.
Vishy Anand is a must in the top ten of all time. Been a top level player for 30 years, 5 time champion and dominated rapid/blitz
No way should he be in the Top 10. He was behind both Kasparov and Carlsen, and probably also Karpov.
He is a great player, but not quite on the level of Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine or Botvinnik.
@@fundhund62 5 times world champion. Pioneer of chess in India. Long retired and still in top 15 at this age.
He is well in the top 10 of all time.
@@gravy4708 pioneering chess in india.. If people need strong player from own country, despite fact that your country is origin of chess, i have no comments for it. You are just racists, if you cant enjoy carlsen/kasparov/fischer/capablanca and need indian player in top.
He was top after kasparov and before carlsen, and people after 50 years from now would regard him as some guy, who lived after Kasparov era, but before Carlsen era.
@@uduehdjztyfjrdjciv2160 I am racist? An Indian is racist? You better calm your talk kid or you're gonna have to read paragraphs from me.
And yeah call me racist Idgaf. Americans can be racists, others can't. Good. I want Indian players to be in the top. Do something about it if you can.
@@uduehdjztyfjrdjciv2160 And also all GMs consider Anand in their top 10. So i will listen to them instead of some jumbled word kid from UA-cam such as yourself.
I like how someone on twitch chat put "#0 Nakamura"
Anand won more classical world championship(5 in total compared to 3 for kramnik)titles then kramnik along with rapid (2003& 2017) & blitz championships allso won more super tournaments then kramnik + won three candidates tournaments(95,1998,2014)+ 11 unofficial world rapid titles (frankfurt world rapid championship against players like garry,kramnik,polgar& magnus) + even at age 52 he is still playing top level chess,nothing against kramnik but if kramnik is in top 10 the anand deserves more then him
Interesting…
According to hikaru:
1. Kasparov
2. Carlsen
3. fischer
4. capablanca
5. karpov
6. anand
7. kramnik
8. botvinnik
9. laskar
10. morphy
To not put morphy in ur top ten is criminal
I'm highly confused how you have Alekhine and not Morphy top 10.
its hard to judge a guy, who retired when he was like in his early 20s, and chess was hardly taken seriously
But it's generally agreed he was already 100 or maybe much more points better than everybody alive at that time. He basically birthed modern chess.
Also Vishy Anand
Hikaru
@@descendency Both Alekhine and Morphy were brilliant and deserve to be in top 10.
Morphy is to chess as Newton is to science. Much of what Newton developed is considered "wrong" by today's standards, but.... well you know what I mean.
Great analogy
@@samuelssv thanks ! I mean, come on, how is Morphy not up there ? I believe if you were to transplant Morphy to this time and give him access to everything, he'd be smoking everyone. The man adapted so well- just look at his matches with Anderssen! Imagine what he could do in today's world.
Nice logic any physics graduate knows more physics than Newton for sure but that doesn't make them greater than newton
@@shawncarter7188 It's really not that simple. Morphy gave up chess quickly because he got bored of it: hell, he was bored during his most famous game. You really think he'd have the temperament to spend days on opening theory before a game? He'd probably be a dangerous 2600, at best.
Physics and academia haven't changed much at their core, even if knowledge and theory has. Chess is unrecognisable now. It's no longer about pure intuition.
Newton rules,he is definitely top 10 btw
Vishy should be top 10 based on longevity alone.
He even inspired his entire country play chess and love the game more. Literally i know more indians who play chess than my own local home.
I mean… literally everyone in the top 10 besides Fischer was a top 3 player in the world for decades. Not really like any of them didn’t have longevity as well.
@@Unknownuser-vq9ul People literally only bring this up because Hikaru talked about it. Who the fuck cares. Betnnivik did it for Russia, Fischer for America - its not like there's tons of Indians around at gm anyways. It has less grandmasters than Israel lol
@@seraphimconcordant India has twice the amount of GMs than Israel wdym who cares lol only you think that bud he made a resurgence and everyone liked it. Just because it's been done on other countries doesn't mean it's any less.
@@seraphimconcordant You realise that he brought influence in Chess into a country that has very little to no chess-following right? Vishy is literally the first grandmaster to emerge from India and he went on to become world champion. Without him, there probably wouldn’t even be the Indian GMs you see today, trying to compete at the top levels.
Besides, what he did for India shouldn’t be simply measured by amount of GMs there are currently in India. That’s a poor way of evaluating it to begin with.
11:24 that's the moment kramnick swear revenge to hikaru lol
😂😂😂😂 true
There are many chess myths, and people underestimate the opposition that Paul Morphy faced. In fact, he was only about 150 (plenty stronger to be sure, but not 400) points stronger than Loewenthal, Harrwitz, and, Anderssen, who were quite conversant with principles of development and central control, and pawn play such as outlined by Philidor was emulated by players such as Staunton. Where Morphy truly excelled was in depth of analysis at the board, especially in open games where piece coordination is paramount, as well as in accuracy, where he would likewise excel today, especially with the benefit of opening databases and computer analysis. And Lasker was Lasker, who was world champion from age 25 until the age of 52, between 1894 and 1921. His versatility, defensive resourcefulness and endgame prowess set him apart, but especially his accuracy.
He was 200-300 points stronger, like a 2700 playing a 2500 gm
lasker used his position as world champion at the time to avoid many dangerous xhallenges and perpared moro thorougly beforehand, he still is incredibly good but not as much as you described. and morphy was in fact astonishingly superior to his peers at the time, in every game he just rips their souls apart
Well put!
@@hectorsm5825even tho he didn’t take on all challenges all the time(mostly for money reasons) lasker beat the other top guys of the time and was clearly the number 1 player for a long time. He deserves more credit than he gets imo.
Where did this "in fact" from? What facts? The fact is Morphy was so bored with Chess as no one posed any challenge to him so he retired at 22. If he was born in the modern era, and spent the same amount of time on chess as Magnus, with the same benefit of over 150 years of knowledge and computer teaching, he would beat Magnus. The dude was a lawyer at 19, you try that.
11:43 is why Kramnik hates Hikaru till this day
Kramniks revenge arc began from this point.
Tal was the reason that I really loved chess, romantic in chess, at top level, who else?
Pure inspiration.... :)
you better watch Paul Morphy’s games
@@charlesa1234 Of course, him too... you are right! Just Tal happened to be me for me the reason to love the game... :)
Tal seems to have been inspirational to some players. That doesn't mean he deserves to be in the top 10.
@@psychohist Yeah, I won't disagree on that... To me Tal was to chess (to my humble opinion) as Ronaldinho was in football.... He was never the top for a long of time, but... some "performances" were so memorable and admireable in such a charismatic way that, combining it with an intersting and playful character it really brought joy and inspiration to a lot of peoples heart, reminding us that no matter what, it is a game to enjoy... :)
It’s crazy to me to say that he doesn’t belong in the top 10. That’s the problem with ranking players mostly on their achievements and their time as world champions, rather than pure intuition and talent. Tal saw stuff nobody else could’ve. No wonder Fischer considered him one of the greats!
Morphy in my opinion is the greatest natural talent ever, followed by Capablanca.
If you're saying purely natural, I'd have to say Fischer
In this top 10 if you dont put Tall this is a crime against chess and games Fisher vs Tall is the most beautiful games ever
If you put Botvinik Capablanca and Karpov in top 10 you can but positional game is also crime against chess
Realy no Kasparov here wtf
But Magnus, man has 190 plus iq and photographic memory
I would rank Magnus above Kasparov, because the level of competition is much greater these days.
So many great GMs around.
Yeah Kasparov was a magician in his day, but the sheer amount of knowledge and computing power nowadays just makes it mindblowing that magnus is still number 1 with the amount of resources everyone has at their disposal
You mean Caruana, Karjakin, Nepo much greater competition than World number 1 for 600 months, 10 year World Champion-Anatoly Karpov, Anand, Kramnik, Ivanchuk!!! Sounds like recency bias.
@@vseme1572 the difference is Magnus’s competition would crush all of those people
@@th3on3thatb3atu really! I beg to differ. Karjakin, Caruana would crush Karpov and Kramnik at their prime? They are more in the class of Topalov.
I don't know about that, I think the two are arguable for top 10.
I’ve never lost to a GM, where am I on the list
Nor have I. I only played one and drew. Mind you, he was playing 19 other players as well.
Selecting top ten is almost impossible, because of bias. The selection will always be personal and individual. In my mind Fisher, Anand and Kasparov along with Magnificent Magnus will remain immortal, for a long time.
Since there’s no clear metric to compare players of different eras relative to their peers, there is a clear amount of bias in these kinds of list. Americans tend to "godify" Fisher and Morphy even, mainly because their achievements are romanticised a fair amount (the Rocky Balboa-esque Cold War dominance of Fisher is an eye rolling story). Some russians chess enthusiasts probably have an all Soviet top 10 with fan favorite Ivanchuk in all of them.
As you said though, it’s "almost" impossible. If there ever were a way to establish consensus between the greatest chess minds of today, we could have something that looks like a decent top 10.
@@lequinow In mathematics there is such a thing that enables such comparisons, it is called modular forms of elliptical equations, it gives weight to different categories. If you like to know who is a better cricketer, Tenduljar or Muralidharan, then it is possible to give weights that shows who is heavuer.
Madness that Anand was not in top 10. Crazy.
Anand is not in the same league as those three. He's decent, but the chess community has overhyped his accomplisments.
@@matthewfreitag1781 Decent? Anand is tied with Carlsen and Botvinnik for the 2nd most World Championship victories all time at 5, only Lasker Kasparov and Karpov have one more at 6. Not only that but he's still in the top 20 of active players at age 52. With top 10 lists like these I'd say it's more likely people underhype his achievements.
This video caught my attention immy at the Paul Morphy part - I think Hikaru nailed the point. All in all, it's a nice assessment of the facts on whom to include / exclude from top10 - and especially why.
Sora and Shiro: *No one can beat us in chess.*
Chess: *You are not in the Top 10 list. Your Opponent is that guy talking. Be careful, he uses Alpha Zero on his Ceiling.*
SORA AND SHIRO BEAT A GODDDD AT CHESS INCASE YALL WONDERIN
Bruh Hikaru is a piece of cake against them
crazy interest overlap right here
@@cringyeditzzz A god who casually blunders a rook...
@@aeong2889 LMAOO
That's a great point about Morphy , being so far ahead of his contemporaries , good context to think how well he really played
yeah but does that really matter in the "goat" discussion? depends on how you define the greatest. For me i would also look at their skill in respect to their opponents... but you could also look at it as "who would be others the most at their peak regardless of the time".
@@noniegyachtet does any one thing matter in goat discussions? Lol. I'm sure if we had them all here today with the access to training and tools available, if would be a dog fight for any of them.
Rubbish article. Morphy and Anand not making it to the top 10 list is criminal.
Pretty much. Morphy should be in the top 10, but he's more of like in a separate tier to be honest because of his era and he's been the most dominant chess player against his contemporaries, much like Bobby's run. Morphy is like Bill Russell in his era if Wilt, Kareem, and Jerry West never existed/or were much lesser players. Anand should be somewhere in 5-10. Kasparov, Bobby, Magnus, and Capablanca I think are cemented in the top 4 in any order.
@@catsatemyplants4690 Agreed!!
@@catsatemyplants4690 Bobby is only one Time world champion even though he was dominating, that doesn't put him above Anand who is a 5 time world classical champion, 2 time Rapid champion, Number 4 in Blitz at the age of 52. 6 times chess oscar winner and many more tournaments under his achievements
@@sonnyjay1432 Nah but Bobby had an amazing record as a player. He, Magnus and Kasparov are the near undisputed top 3 in most lists for a reason. Anand as he said should be somewhere between 5-10 preferably near top of this list.
@@kunalsingh4418 Disagree, Records can be situational. Just coz he has better record during the time when there was no one who’s equivalent to his potential doesn’t necessarily make him anything extra better.
However, as I said how can a 1 time world champion who didn’t had grit to defend his title could be on higher rank than a 5 time classical world champion, 2 times world rapid champion and probably the best blitz player in the world. which is Anand and has longevity yet still competing at highest elite level at the age of 50.
People cannot just grasp the concept behind this.
That said Anand should be around 4th or 5th or even 6th in my opinion and not higher than that
Morphy is like the wilt chamberlains of chess. Dominated at an unreal level but against like plumbers and shit. Despite his competition, no doubt he was still a freak of nature and would be one of the strongest today
Wilt bedded 20000 women though
You don't understand one's level in any sport is spurred to higher if you had higher competition. That's why they put the best sprinters next to each other rather than away from each other. The fact that Morphy didn't have the competition of today (or the 150 years of built-up knowledge of chess and the computer assistance), means he was far more superior as a chess player.
wilt would dominate any player today
Just as Wilt would dominate in any era if he has access to said era's resources (training regimes, supplements, load management, people to learn from)
Paul Morphy would crush everyone if he had access to chess engines and modern chess theory and competition he can extract knowledge from, Paul Morphy was an unparalleled genius, the DaVinci or Newton of chess.
except morphy was way ahead of his time period and way better than everyone whereas wilt consistently struggled under pressure and was outplayed by others when it actually mattered... wilt was also one of the worst teammates ever and actually negatively influenced his teams record for multiple seasons lol, theres a reason why after he got traded, his team went from worst team in the league to finals within 1 year
Every single one of them wrote "one of the best chess books ever".
If Magnus loses in a tournament, and comes in second or third place, it’s not a huge surprise. It’s like “okay that make sense, even though he’s generally the favorite.” If Morphy was in a tournament, him losing was nearly unheard of and would be a genuine shock to everybody
@@goosebandicoot7083 yeah cuz players back then were bad, you don't know if he was that smart or that lucky to not have competition
@@sharkonstage that’s a common criticism of Morphy, but if you actually analyze his games, his opponents often played top modern stockfish moves
@@goosebandicoot7083 I often play top modern stockfish moves too, it's about the consistency. It's very impressive to be on top like Magnus is right now, especially considering all the great chess players he has as competition. If Magnus was American you would most likely be saying he's the greatest player of all time
@ Teddye What is the title of this book all these players made a contribution to?
Tal had health problems but his tournament record was outstanding and he was dominant from 1958 to 1960 similar to Ficher's two year run from 1970 to 1972. A top ten without Tal is nonsense. I'm glad he was included.
I love Tal but he really was a gambler who used great intuition. He had horrible records against calculators like Korchnoi or Polugaevsky. The 1959 Candidates was amazing, but he doesn't have the achievements of anyone else in this top 10, most of whom were #1 for a decade.
@@the98thcent Tal solved puzzles that not even the latest stockfish can solve.
@@michaelwright8896 that with full Knights? That puzzle was insane. I tried for years trying to solve by brute force until i finished to watch the full video. Absolutely brilliant from him
@@josemanuico5613 Also he tied for first with Kasparov on his deathbed.
@@michaelwright8896 Delusional
I like how he read the line about Kasparov training that GM H.N. like it was a standard bit of news copy.
Levy would place 17th century French Master Maxime Le'Dieux above anyone on this list
Why?? Any concrete reason
Edit : there is no one with such a name.
@@askashutosh8667 i think it's a joke/meme but i don't really get it either.
@@x0cx102 yes maybe some scarcastic remark on IM Levy ROZMAN . When I typed that name mentioned above .GM Maxime vanchier Lagrave poped up......
@@askashutosh8667 it was a name he made up during a sub-battle stream. Levy told Hikaru that his sub was about to "unleash the tactic made famous by 17th Century French Master Maxime Le'Dieux"..... it threw Hikaru off and he said, "I'm sorry, what?" ... to which Lecy replied, "Oh, nothing, I just made up some utter shit"... Hikaru lost it, and I freaking cried. I wish I knew which stream it was because it was one of the funniest things I've ever heard.
@@shawncarter7188 thankyou for clarifying it ....
If one were to list players based on less general terms my top players would be:
End Game:
Magnus
Pure computational genius:
Fischer
Overall general best player averaged out through all aspects of the game:
Kasparov
Best Chess Player who also HAD the best Facial Hair:
Hikaru
Don't you think Vishy is better than Kramnik as he stayed world champion for a longer time than him. Also Vishy defeated him in two consecutive World Championships.
also in the recent event of no castling chess
@@harshit1519 idk how that matters
@@arkos1179 it shows how great and good he is at this age. That matters to me atleast that is why i wrote.
He had Vishy at 6 and Kramnik at 7.
Capablanca is at the level of the best in history, whoever you choose. But he was waiting ten years to be able to beat the world champion (Lasker) and even a few more for the rematch that never came with Alekhine.
No other player has terrified world champions as much as he has (when he didn't have the crown in his possession).
GMHikaru makes the suggestion.
My Mind goes: Makes sense. Makes sense. uh huh, yeah. Makes sense.
(responds similar to how Hikaru responds when he sees opponent make a reasonable move)
I can't tell if chat is clapped and genuinely think that the late Petrosian is the one that engaged in recent cheating against Wesley so, or if they're just trolling with the pipi quote. The Armenian Petrosian was named after the world champion.
Are you kidding ??? What the **** are you talking about man ? You are a biggest looser i ever seen in my life ! You was doing PIPI in your pampers when i was beating players much more stronger then you! You are not proffesional, because proffesionals knew how to lose and congratulate opponents, you are like a girl crying after i beat you! Be brave, be honest to yourself and stop this trush talkings!!! Everybody know that i am very good blitz player, i can win anyone in the world in single game! And "w"esley "s"o is nobody for me, just a player who are crying every single time when loosing, ( remember what you say about Firouzja ) !!! Stop playing with my name, i deserve to have a good name during whole my chess carrier, I am Officially inviting you to OTB blitz match with the Prize fund! Both of us will invest 5000$ and winner takes it all!
I suggest all other people who's intrested in this situation, just take a look at my results in 2016 and 2017 Blitz World championships, and that should be enough... No need to listen for every crying babe, Tigran Petrosyan is always play Fair ! And if someone will continue Officially talk about me like that, we will meet in Court! God bless with true! True will never die ! Liers will kicked off..
its twitch,so chat is probably clapped
Ofc it’s a joke, a long running one in the community.
@@nikita5917 an all time great quote lmao
Tal was a unbreakable force of nature and kind of underrated as many considered him too risky or brute force to even be considered a elite player with his style of play but over time he impressed the competition and definitely earned his spot in being one of the top 10 players alongside fischer
He played sick/injured sometimes.
I think I saw some recent analysis that established that Tal was actually a very accurate player. After the usual crazy knight sacrifice he only had like a single line that wasn't losing and was able to find it!
He's my favorite player, so creative and fun, unusual character traits in modern chess!
to even be considered an elite player? he was a world champion
@@TheDrghu many didnt like how he played, they called him a lazy person who was just insane
@@MrFlejon 🎯🎯🎯
My dude the short hair and side fades looks great on you, that and Hobokaru hair
Anand should definitely be on the list and 6th at least. Just thinking about how long his career has been, still going on while competition getting fiercely better overall... It would not be exaggeration to put him on top 5.
I love Hikaru's discussion of Morphy. I understand that the players in the top 10 are insanely good, but Morphy as an honorable mention is simply wrong I believe.
I agree with the assessment of Morphy, we can only judge players by how good they were compared to their competition.
There was a significant amount of separation between Morphy and Fischer from their contemporaries. So I consider them the two greatest.
Notice how the article focused more on vishy's defeats than his achievements.
Haters. He literally is comparable to Kramnik who has almost identical achievements.
Scrolling slowly, don’t want to ruin the suspense, etc …. After the full list was at the top. 🤣
For me Carlsen is the best of all time, he is the complete chess players, dominates in all aspects
Best of all time so far*
Kasparov has him on longevity but I agree with you when it’s all said and done.
He needs time to strengthen his position as GOAT, he's said it himself. If he's still on top by 2030, he'll undoubtedly be considered as the best of all time, but you you can't wind up the clock. Another option would be if he were more than 100 ELO points ahead of everyone else, like Fisher or Karpov/Kasparov, but right now Firouzja, Ding and Caruana aren't that far behind. In 2018 Caruana was only 3 points lower rated than Carlsen.
Also considering the amount of players around today, the ability to showcase your "skills" with today's globalization and with the digital tools everyone has at their disposal (internet, chess computers etc..) it's a lot harder to maintain the "dominating" position over time. Combine that with "all aspects" as you mentioned i'd say Magnus has way more impressive feats and is my definitive pick for GOAT.
I think Magnus is very close to Goat status but to get there unquestionably I think he needs to get his ELO above 2900 and defeat Firouzja in a WCC. That way it's clear he's taken the game to a whole new level and to use a boxing analogy, cleaned up the entire division.
Good Books to read:-
9:17 - The life and games of Mikhail Tal
15:54 - Karpov's Strategic Wins, 2 Volumes by Tibov Karolyi
17:06 - Capablanca's Best Chess Endings by Irving Chernev
19:04 - My 60 Memorable Games by Bobby Fischer
22:50 - My Great Predecessors, 5 Volumes by Garry Kasparov
Wow, Anand and Kramnik have the EXACT same current Elo AND the EXACT same peak Elo. Weird.
The tiebreaker is that Anand has greater longevity. I disagree with Hikaru that Vishy has had "a vastly greater career than Kramnik." Vishy was only slightly better in my opinion.
@@josephpeeler5434 Perhaps hikaru meant in chess ability? Remember hikaru has played both of them multiple times so maybe he was referring to some specific style that impacted their career?
@@josephpeeler5434 Kramnik gets really underrated. Anand was more naturally gifted and didn't have the privilege of the soviet school in his formative years which would be the real two arguments in his favor here, but achievement wise they are about equal.
@@alphonseelric5722i think anand had little bit better from kramnik , when he lose to anand in WCC
@@josephpeeler5434 2 years later, Anand's superiority is even more apparent. Not mentioning 5 world championship wins to Kramnik's 3, and a higher number of tournament victories, the influence of Vishy on an ENTIRE country cannot be understated. He's the sole reason India is the fastest-growing chess country in the world, and why we have 3 players in the Candidates, and why a 17-year-old from India just won the Candidates. The longevity and influence are unparalleled.
I love these type of discussions! Gets my juices going for some chess. Not having Anand in top 10 is criminal. Great takes by Hikaru.
To relegate Paul Morphy to an honorable mention immediately discredits their argument.
the love and respect he has for anand is so good to see, respect!!
if Botvinnik was the father of modern chess, certainly Fischer was the most dominant given the circumstances, but Kasparov brought new life to chess, Anand had some of the most legendary games, and Magnus is just solid all around
Honestly surprised xQc isn't on the list. For me he was clear #1
ugh so tired of pogfails---
The amount of novelty he has in chess is just insane
The wooden shield and the lobster lobster has transformed chess as we know it.
To me the top players have the most innate ability. If it's knowledge-based then all of the top 10 would certainly have to be current players. You can't underestimate what chess engines have contributed to the game.
Top 10 would all be engines instead of current players lol
Yeah but humanity only get better and better by time. Thats how humanity is. The word 'goat' would not even make sense if you just put players of the current era because they are the best. These types of lists are supposed to be decided by 'talent'.
Your not comprehending many factors. Programming wasn't a thing until the 50s 60s, therefore mfs only had books and there boards. Yes today's players are better, but it's EASIER for current players... Your not looking at the bigger picture, hope that's not how you play chess.
I agree and for that reason it makes no sense to me that Paul Morphy is not in the top 10. I would even go as far as to say it's a blunder not including him in this list.
You should read a book: “Talent is overrated”
Excellent information!
I really enjoyed this video!
Kasparov Magnus Fischer Top 3,Karpov no. 4 , Anand Lasker Alekhine Capablanca Morphy in some order, and then Botvinnik as No. 10 next one in the list would be Kramnik
Fischer over Karpov is the chess casual brainlet pick. Congratulation.
@@TheFlanker47 I agree. It is a fan attitude. Kasparov/Magnus/Karpov seems to me a more realistic order. But even this order does not mean something realistic : Magnus is the best of his time, like Kasparov was at his time, like Karpov, Botvinnik, Morphy, etc...
@@keplergso8369 Longevity is not everything. There's a major reason why Fischer is over Karpov.
Hoodie guy has so many good and powerful appearances, how is he not on the list?
1:30 I bought a book about chess in 1970. At the very first page, the very first example was the opera game.
What’s wild about Morphys “Opera Game” was that he wasn’t even paying attention to the board.
He was trying to watch the opera.
There is a lot to consider here. How strong the player was and how strong he was compared to the field. As time progress it is reasonable to think that it is harder to dominate by the same margin (No human would probably be able to dominate by 300 points today, no matter how talented he is). How much time did the player dominate and much time did he remained world class. You have to take into account contribution he made, there is a lot of intangible.
right even today prep is done using engine analysis.
That's why Anand should be on the list .
@@sylvesteruchia5263 I am not disputing that.
Hikaru, your first metric is the best. Domination over peers in their time period. Duration has nothing to do with it. #1 Morphy #2 Fischer
Thank you, It was an excellent foray into the history of chess as always! Only great players can understand other great players.
Fischer was playing to win (that is, without draws if possible). In the last three years, he had a statistic of +100=36-8 (of which 1-2 losses with Spaksy should not be). What would the statistics have been if they had accepted more draws? What would have been his results if he had not been angry with the "system" of Soviet domination in chess (a fact that kept him away from official games on several occasions)? What would have been the results if there had been from the beginning a system that did not favor the Soviets.
What do I want to say? In terms of potential and playing strength, we can consider him a much stronger rival for Carlsen and Kasparov than if we consider only the results of his entire career.
And there is something else. As a difference to Kasparov, Karpov, and others, Fischer was self-educated in chess, he was not the product of some brilliant schools. That was amazing (considering the level) for a child and then for a teenager.
I think it is impossible to compare players before computer era therefore it is necessary to assume some logic of applying the criteria and I personally only believe in one logic: the more advanced chess is now with the use of really strange and bizarre engines like the alienish Alpha Zero, hence modern players always should be atop, if everything else is comparable.
Yeah, they did Vishy real dirty here
Kasparov has had the best career, but Carlsen has almost certainly passed him in raw ability.
Several players have, but its not comparable because of the time difference and sheer amount chess knowledge uncovers since then
@@jakobnordal7432 this is the problem with GOAT discussions. Time is such an important element. It's beyond chess itself. Like, you can talk about their contributions to the game and their dominance but when you remove time. It's strange because players are influenced by other players. They play with the same rules, but do they play with the same training/accumulated knowledge? Now there's engines and all sorts of things that they didn't have back then. How do we weigh that? It's so weird that we'd want to ignore time.
That's your opinion bud. How are you sure of this? What measure are you using?
"Kasparov has had a better career but Carlsen is better."
Then why has Kasparov had a better career? 👀
Truth is we'll never know unless we had a time machine. I think the two would be an interesting match, not sure who'd win.
@@sylvesteruchia5263 Kasparov had the better career because he played longer. Carlsen is only 30. By every other measure, Carlsen is the superior player. He's been undefeated in classical for longer, achieved the highest peak ELO (and has hovered above Kasparov's peak for years), became the #1 Rapid and Blitz player (whereas Kasparov struggled to dominate non-classical), became the youngest #1-ranked player ever, and his playstyle reportedly resembles a computer's more than any other player in history.
He's the best ever. Time will tell if he'll become the most accomplished.
@@siphillis Robert James Fischer is the greatest....
20 game win streak
6-0 Taimanov in 1970 then Larsen at 6-0 at Candidates 1971....
Destroyed the entire Soviet Chess Federation ....BY HIMSELF ALONE.
Fischer was the greatest blitz player ever...Would dismantle both Kaspy and Carlsen...
Lol at the mispronunciation of Alekhine. Makes me chuckle every time.
So fun fact about Petrosian. He become qualified for the Candidates by 23 and he qualified for the candidates every cycle until he was 50. He also was in the top 10 until age 50. Also another impressive thing about Petrosian, Karpov wasn't able to beat Petrosian until Petrosian was in his 50's and in serious decline.
Regarding Morphy's estimated difference of 400 ELO points... one also has to take into account that there were far fewer Chess players back then, and many potentially great talents back then never learned the game. It's safe to assume he would still be the best today, but probably not that far ahead
Good point. There was a lot less opposition in his day so a dominant player would have an easier time racking up rating points. Imagine if Carlsen only had 5-10 serious contenders to deal with as opposed to hundreds that on a good day could defeat him. The amount of prep that a world champ needs today is mind boggling.
Capablanca, fischer, and carlsen all earned their rankings and definitely were the best players of their era, capa definitely feeling underrated in my opinion but bobby is the #1 player for me while Raul should be in the top 5
Can you explain how Fischer's 2 year dominance beats Kasparov 20?
@@kasparov937 i mean even kasparov admits that he was no match for fischer at that time, he destroyed anyone and would arguably be considered better in terms of skill than record
He would have lost to Karpov had they played in 78
@@BlitzWizard94 kasparov never said that
@@josemanuico5613 give me a second then to find it but i am pretty sure one of them said that they werent a match for fischer in his prime
thanks for the informative video, now I know who's books I need to read
I got a question , hows Karpov behind Capablanca, when Karpov has been better in almost everything, and a longer career
Their list doesn't use any real metric to compare players. It's not easy to do either. I guess they just liked capablanca more because of him being a child prodigy, and naturally gifted. But on paper, Karpov has outperformed him in all ways really
@@vexnightmare6364 Karpov was also reallllyyyyy gifted, he's prolly the most unique player ever, in terms of understanding the game and technique
Lol Capablanca was greater than Karpov. Longevity doesn't mean greater.
Capablanca only lost 36 games in a career of 40 years, playing the best players in the world. I don’t think anyone else could claim that
Very nice point
With all due respect to super GM Nakamura, I like to mention Karpov's top 5 list (from about 10 years ago when he was asked that in an interview). Karpov went like this: 1. Kasparov. 2. Fischer. 3. Capablanca. 4. Tal and No.5 myself.
In respect to Tal I agree with Karpov. Nakamura knowledge of chess history is good but not exquisite. Karpov, unlike Nakamura, managed to look a bit deeper and he took into account Tal's overall imprint on the game, his victory over Botvinnik in the WC match, the number of stunning games against most top players from the late 1950's to late 1980's, 4-2 positive score against Bobby Fischer (only Efim Geller had 5-3) and Tal's 4-time USSR championships (even winning it once was a tremendous achievement as it was strongest chess tournament until the end of the USSR in 1991). Petrosian, Kramnik, Fischer, Kasparov and other super GMs were of the same opinion. Hikaru's statement that some of Tal's games were "weak" is unfounded. Tal played in all kinds of Soviet tournaments under various conditions and his health of notoriously problematic, however, even if this anecdotal evidence has some merit, Tal's brilliancies outnumber his so-called "weak" games. Nakamura should take a deeper look at Tal's games and read more about Tal and his legacy to revise his evaluation.
I wanted to add one more thing. Nakamura like every top GM has at least one computer guy who gets paid for using an engine to benefit his play. First 20 or so moves of every game Nakamura plays on top level is basically computer generated. Tal on the other hand had to create everything by himself...even the chess literature was in deficit in the 1950's and 1960's. I am not taking anything away from Nakamura, he is a child of his age, but lets face it, a nowadays lot comes down to just memorizing a bunch of computer generated output so its easier to have better quality games. All great GM's, with the exception of maybe Capa, Fischer, and Karpov had a lot of "weak" games. Hypothetically if Tal played a match against Nakamura starting from the end of a computer analysis, from a certain tabiya, I would put my money on Tal. I know its not totally sound to match players from different epochs but Tal shone brighter in his time than Nakamura ever would (including 5-min blitz).
Well said. I would put my money on Tal too.
But you dont understand what he was saying… never did hikaru say tal was bad or that he is better… he just said other players were better… for example paul murphy… he had less books and no engine and he wasnt on that list… hikaru is just saying players like murphy should be on that list and tal maybe on the honorable mentions because he was good but not as good as others…
@@chill7705 morphy
@@chill7705 *Morphy
Fischer actually said that Morphy was the best.
Both Fischer and Morphy were miles better than their rivals.
Hikaru's list 23:28
Kasparov
Carlsen
Fischer
Capablanca
Karpov
Anand
Kramnik
Botvinnik
Lasker
Morphy
if fisher isnt on 1 it must be russian disinformation campaign
The Best 15 Chess Players Ever:
1. **Magnus Carlsen** (1991 - present, FIDE peak 2882 in 2014) - Holds the highest FIDE rating ever and dominates modern chess.
2. **Garry Kasparov** (1963 - present, FIDE peak 2851 in 1999) - Renowned for his long reign as World Champion and significant contributions to chess theory.
3. **Bobby Fischer** (1943 - 2008, FIDE peak 2785 in 1972) - Remembered for his World Championship win and transformative impact on chess.
4. **Jose Raul Capablanca** (1888 - 1942, peak in 1921) - Celebrated for his innate talent and mastery of the endgame.
5. **Anatoly Karpov** (1951 - present, FIDE peak 2780 in 1980s) - Distinguished for his positional skills and sustained dominance.
6. **Vishwanathan Anand** (1969 - present, FIDE peak 2817 in 2008) - Esteemed for his rapid chess skills and multiple World Championship titles.
7. **Vladimir Kramnik** (1975 - present, FIDE peak 2817 in 2008) - Acclaimed for ending Kasparov’s reign and his profound strategic understanding.
8. **Mikhail Botvinnik** (1911 - 1995, peak in 1963) - The founding figure of the Soviet Chess School and a pivotal figure in chess history.
9. **Emanuel Lasker** (1868 - 1941, peak in 1921) - Held the World Champion title for 27 years, known for his pragmatic approach to chess.
10. **Paul Morphy** (1837 - 1884, peak in 1850s) - A trailblazer of modern chess renowned for his brilliant attacking play.
11. **Alexander Alekhine** (1892 - 1946, peak in 1930s) - Recognized for his aggressive playing style and deep combinational insight.
12. **Mikhail Tal** (1936 - 1992, peak in 1960s) - The ‘Magician from Riga’, revered for his creative and daring attacks.
13. **Boris Spassky** (1937 - present, peak in 1970s) - A versatile player with a World Championship title and a wide range of skills.
14. **Tigran Petrosian** (1929 - 1984, peak in 1960s) - ‘Iron Tigran’, famous for his nearly invincible defensive play.
15. **Max Euwe** (1901 - 1981, peak in 1930s) - The only Dutch World Champion, respected for his scientific approach to chess.
“All the suspense” between Magnus and Gary :)
Vishy definitely deserves to be in the Top 10 imo.
he shaved his bear I thought this was a older video because of that
Awesome 👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼
TOP 50 CHESS HEROES OF ALL TIME ???
My suggestion for the Criteria are as follows.
- World Champion
- World Cup Champion
- 2800+ Club
- Top 25 Rating List Consistently
- Top Innovator - Theoretician.
- Consistent Tournament Finalists
- Candidates Winner
- Top Women Rated player which
Top 50 Open (for 2-3 Spots)
Here are my Nominees
In no particular order:
50. Hou Yifan
49. Judit Polgar
48. N Gaprindashvili
1 G Kasparov
2. M Carlsen
3. RJ Fischer
4. V Anand
5. V Kramnik
6. A Karpov
7. V Topalov
8. M Tal
9. B Spassky
10. T Petrosian
11. M Botvennik
12. M Euwe
13. V Smyslov
14. E Lasker
15. JR Capablanca
16. P Morphy
17. W Steinitz
18. A Alekhine
19. RL Segura
20. A Nimzowitsch
21. J Zukertort
22. M Najdorf
23. P Damiano
24. A Petroff
25. A Philidor
26. H Staunton
27. B Larsen
28. S Winawer
29. A Andersson
30. A Rubinstein
31. S Tarrasch
32. M Chigorin
33. L Aronian
34. F Caruana
35. H Nakamura
36. T Radjabov
37. G Kamsky
38. P Svidler
39. R Ponomariov
40. MV LaGrave
41. S Karjakin
42. A Grischuk
43. W So
44. V Ivanchuk
45. A Shirov
46. B Gelfand
47. V Korchnoi
If I would make an all time 10 chess influence, my list would look like in random order :
1. Robert James Fischer
2. Gary Kasparov
3. Magnus Carlsen
4. Vishy Anand
5. Jose Raul Capablanca
6. Paul Morphy
7. Emmanuel Lasker
8. Vladimir Kramnik
9. Mikhail Botvennik
10. Anatoly Karpov
11. Judit Polgar
12. Ruy Lopez Segura
Nice, the intro is back!
Carlsen, Kasparov, Tal, Vishy, Caruana, Kramnik, Karpov, Morphy, Fisher, Capablanca (no certain order)
Caruana respecter
@@herminio9961 Caruana? naw...
Swap out Caruana, Tal and Kramnik with Lasker, Alekhine and Botvinnik in the top 10.
@@donkbonktj5773 Tal was probably the most inspirational in my opinion, Magnus and others would beat him from a positional standpoint, but his chess was so beautiful, he was super creative with his attacks
@@th6n I also agree he's very inspirantional :) He is in my top 3 favorite players.
Yes, "Hikaru's Hot" takes on the the ten best chess players of all time
LMAAAOO 💀
are u gonna upload the mouse slip arena?
Botvinnik is in my personal top 3 because he gave us the glorious 1.e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 Caro advance.
Which by itself is responsible for over 1200 points of my elo rating.
I’m curious if morphy vs carlsen, or morphy vs casparov or vs fisher in their primes given the same resources would actually go in favor of morphy or not, its hard to know, but oh boy would i pay a lot of groncs to find out.
Carlsen would beat Murphy with his eyes closed. Literally. The game evolves and people get better and better. You can see this in sports or anything else humans have been doing for years :)
@@therussianmachinists2409 Read his comment again ... he explicity said given equal resources.
@@aesir1ases64 even if Morphy had an engine and full collection of Magnus's games, Magnus would still destroy Morphy. Chess has not only evolved in terms of openings (which could be compensated by memorization), but endgames and positional concepts, which takes years to master and even then you have to have a talent to excel in those things. Look at today's top gms - they spent decades mastering chess with engines and modern knowledge, and yet Carlsen is still better in situations where "feel" and "talent" matter. So, even if we give Morphy 10 years to study with engines and modern books, he would reach 2500 at best.
@@gmdm9319 bro read his comment again .. he explicitly said "given equal resources" which means if all of them were born in todays era with their natural talents honed all by the same modern techniques and methods. He was basically asking in a free for all match between all of them, who is most naturally talented and why.
You also had no argument as to why morphy would only reach 2500 at best
@@swooosh6937 yeah agree.. people are quick to conclude Carlsen would smoke Morphy. I haven't seen any chess player dominating the way Morphy did!! Definitely Morphy should be in top 3 of all time
Had Fischer kept on playing seriously (and not been such a wackjob) he would have crossed 2800 by 1980 - a greater feat than Kasparov doing it in 1990. Fischer was 2785 in 1972, a rating good enough to be top 5 today. He was way ahead of the field and the most dominant player of all time. His back-to-back wins against top GM's in set matches (Candidates), without even conceding a draw, will never be equaled.
That's the thing. Anyone could have done anything if only... that's why the people who beat the if onlys and actually went and did it are the people who deserve it.
He lost interest in chess so yeah.
We don't know what would have happened, we know Fischer avoided his strongest opposition in Karpov in 1975. Fischer had a great 2 year run, but maintainig that rating would have been incredibly difficult.
I recently, a little over a week ago, got into chess (though I do not know if it's just going to be a phase or something I do as a hobby) and I have been finding videos on chess to be more interesting than I have in the past. My brother played chess, almost professionally, but I was never really interested. I don't know why I find it more interesting now, maybe because my other hobby, video games, is not as interesting to me of late and I need something to simulate my mind.
Hikaru always says Jose Raul Capablanca like an announcer introducing a fighter into the ring. lol
I agree on Kramnik's point. You don't put Kramnik into top 10 and leave Anand out. Personally for me it's a big question if Kramnik belongs in top 10, while Anand definitely does.
Nah, that analogy of Magnus needing to be 300 points higher rated than his opponents to be equivalent to Morphy is all kinds of wrong. For one, ELO systems get harder the higher you go. But even beyond that, a 300 point gap at 2200 is nowhere near as impressive as a 100 point gap at 2800, IMO. Especially when you consider all the tools and information out there now, it's absolutely outrageous for Magnus to be so far ahead. While Morphy only had a couple of real contenders, you only have to see how crowded it is behind Magnus to see the difference, the competition is incomparable now.
Same reason I'd always say Messi or Ronaldo over Pelé: Pelé was great, but he was playing against literal farmers for 50% of his career, and chain smokers/alcoholics for the other 50%. Messi/Ronaldo are doing it against highly tuned athletes, in teams that train tactics 5 days a week. Same principle with Magnus.
What years did magnus have a 100 point gap? Fischer had a 130 point gap in 1972 which is the most impressive gap ever.
@@MrTedMcForehead Well FIscher didnt face the same competition
@@arkos1179 yes he did. he faced the best players on earth at the time, so does magnus right now.
@@MrTedMcForehead Yes but the average rating of Magnuses opponents is higher. And with more theory, there is a smaller chance for mistakes
@@MrTedMcForehead He's been around 80-90 points clear for the last 6+ years or so. Sustaining that is insane.
Fischer's was insane too, but you still had a gap between Spassky and everyone else. The gap between 2nd and 8th these days is almost non-existant. The competition is so underrated now.
My list:
1. Kasparov
2. Fischer
3. Carlsen
4. Murphy
5. Capablanca
6. Karpov
7. Anand
8. Lasker
9. Alekhine
10. Botvinik
“Uh let me check who wrote this, ah ok, I’m gonna say off the bat this is not going well” 😂😂😂😂😂
I always compare Morphy to Newton. My high school physics teacher knew more than Newton but I'd never EVER say he was smarter. He's standing on the shoulder of everything Newton put forth. That's how I see Morphy.
Morphy may have been an above average GM today, but that doesn't mean he was a worse player. Without access to any of the games and especially no access to engines. Much like Newton discovering calculus at 26，Morphy retired at age 22. So before he was even near his prime he quit the game... insane how much he could have accomplished. Morphy was truly a titan of the game and always deserves a top 10 spot imo.
your physics teacher knows more than newton about what about his creations then good joke 😂
We hear a lot about the GOAT in chess and tennis and golf. The way I see it, if a player like Paul Morphy or Rod Laver or Bobby Jones was able to continue playing for decades without decay of their talents, then it would be reasonable to expect them to be able to compete with the recent players who have built their own games on their antecedents' games.
Gotta have Tal in the top 10, even if only #10. Were there plenty of dubious games? Sure, but they were AWESOMELY dubious! lol, that's what made Tal so great, his games were exciting. And he was a great attacker, which of course everyone loves as well.
Vishwanathan not being in the top 10 was wrong, from what I've read and seen he's a top 10 player of all time without a doubt. Morphy as well, he was god-tier in his time.
I do have a hard time with the top 3, tough call to make. Kasparov has the track record and skill, but Fischer imo was the best pure chess player (before going off the rails and over a cliff), dude was a latter day Morphy times 1000. But now we have Carlsen, who appears to have outdone even Fischer for pure chess skill and has the track record to boot.
Who would you boot out the list in favor of tal?
According to the captions, Karpov defended his feeding world champion title also! Truly an immense gustatory champion. Only a shame he never got to out-eat the notorious fuss-pot bob finnick.
Kasparov
Bobby fisher
Magnus
Capablanca
Karpov
Paul morphy
Lasker
Vishy anand
Kramnik
Mikhail tal
Botvinik
Frank marshall
Nikaru hakamura
Morphy definitely belongs in the top 10. He was lightyears ahead of his competition.
Lightyear is distance, use other words like millenium , century or eon etc
if you tell me the strongest players then 1. kasparov 2. magnus 3. karpov , karpov is massively underrated because firstly because of his style and secondly he lost to kasparov in very tight matches , looking at his win loss record against kasparov I would say he was very close to level of kasparov, that in itself makes him a top 3.
Very nice point.
We all know if fischer didn't drop off the deep end he would have beaten Karpov, and finally meeting his match against kasparov
@@simpletimes2819 We actually don't know that. Fischer would be the favorite to win but by no means would it be a certainty.
@@somekoswe9123 true... only if we could manipulate time... Have fischer play magnus in their primes.. even bring Morphy into the picture lol...but honestly i don't even think fischer was in his prime yet when he beat boris, I do think he was the best ever. He prepped 60 move games..
@@simpletimes2819did you know that Fischer did not play a single game between his match against Spassky in 1972 and the match he was supposed to have against Karpov. Even then Spassky himself said Karpov could dethrone Fischer in 1978.
My Chess Top 10:
1. Garry Kasparov - The top 3 is obvious
2. Magnus Carlsen - The top 3 is obvious
3. Bobby Fischer - The top 3 is obvious
4. Anatoly Karpov - A player that depicted the old soviet slow and positional playing style.
5. Vishwanathan Anand - Influenced a whole nation and didn't have any real weaknesses. Was great at all styles.
6. Rose Raul Capablanca - Of course, the GOAT of positional play
7. Paul Morphy - The first attacker of his kind
9. Mikhail Tal - Ok, not the best player, some of his moves are dubious, but his influence over a whole generation of chess player to play aggressively and really was the first mad man on the chess board. Bear in hand and siggars in fingers, this man had his own style.
10. Vladimir Kramnik - I mean, hes the same as Anand, but not as great with tactics.
Tal, Morphy, Fischer
is my top 3
I don't understand how someone could love chess and not want Tal in the top ten. Sure, maybe some of his games weren't engine-precise but the man made magic on the board. That said, nice video. Cool to hear perspective from today's greats.
Tal was surely a unique character and world champ. Sure he made a lot of mistakes on the board but he also outcalculated his opponents on a regular basis. Tal was an ill person and many of his blunders could be attributed to his poor health. I firmly believe he belongs in the top ten although he didn't have the consistency of other champs.
I need a cigarette.
i would put capablanca third. as many masters had to study his end games to become who they are.
A friend of mine gave me the complete games of Alekhine that he had made a hobby of compiling into a database. I was shocked at how many of the games were really badly flawed with Alekhine missing things in complicated positions (i.e. blundering).
I've only studied a few of Alekhine games and found some serious unjustifiable blunders. Alekhine was a great player on a good day like any other champ. Nothing more.
In complex positions everyone blunders.
@@dannygjk Agree, but Alekhine was drunk a lot and it shows in his games in a way that is not apparent in other top tier players. BTW I am going through Euwe's 2 books on The Middle Game, and it is rather surprising to see the total disconnect between his analysis and modern chess. I remember when I first studied the books in the 60s thinking that the analysis did not match my own, but I thought that it must be me. I now realize that I was just reading chess dogma that is not apparent in modern high level chess anymore. In one endgame analysis Euwe gave an exclametion point without explanation to a move that I thought was really bad. and deserved ??. Ran it through an engine and I was right. And he managed to beat Alekhine for the world championship!