@@renishisrael9520 Modesty is maybe his redemption, because some of his less flattering comments about his opponents have on occasion made him come across as impolite.
Magnus gave a genius rating of 8 to himself. His basis for the rating (in his own words) is based on original ideas vs copied ideas from other people's games.
@@Smileater But an attack, you must be honest here, opens a Pandora's box at the 2600+ level that mortals can't really imagine. You enter positions that are probably beyond even a GMs experience, and how do you deal with that? Nobody deals with it like Carlsen, and I think he takes into consideration, how often you actually succeed from that decision vs. falling on your face. But I'd given Judit a 10 in entertainment.
He only gave Kasparov 10 of 10 for genius. And he said Kasparov is the best of all time, finding ideas no one else could. It is not a score you can give lightly. Props.
The only two players that deserve a 10 for genius are Fischer and Tal. Both, at their peak were nearly unbeatable. Tal, unfortunately, suffered from health conditions that robbed him from consistency in the chess world and Fischer, of course, abandoned chess too soon.
@@MrSupernova111 Kasporov was pretty unbeatable aswell, it's just that during Kasporovs time Chess was a lot more competitive than while Fischer was alive. Magnus is also a genius, but as you can see he loses a lot because of how competitive chess is.
@@Smileater lmao yeah totally it's the most sexist, racist, mysoginistic, thing ever, it's sexist against both men and women and it's racist against every race ever
@@alexcao7502Kasparov had access to computers and 20 Russian GM’s helping him prepare in every tournament. They had a computer make a 10,000 position book for him, he had a massive advantage in the openings thanks to the use of computers and the Russian support system. Fischer, on the other hand, had nobody. He was famous for refusing help, he didn’t want anyone’s opinion, he didn’t use any computers, and even as a child he played most of his matches alone against himself. Fischer was a true genius, who had pure natural intellect to dominate chess, he should be the only 10.
He gave Anand a 9. He gave fischer a 7, himself a 8. He said "Anand has an unbelievable natural understanding of the game". Knowing Carlsen doesn't shower compliements easily, its a great thing.
@@dixidum2380 You are Full of S..t! and a mysogynist! at her best she was 8 in the world against the best man with an Elo of 2735! In 1991, Polgár achieved the title of Grandmaster at the age of 15 years and 4 months, at the time the youngest to have done so, breaking the record previously held by former World Champion Bobby Fischer. She was the youngest player ever to break into the FIDE top 100 players rating list, ranking No. 55 in the January 1989 rating list, at the age of 12.
Man, I really hope people don't take this the wrong way! That was a huge show of respect for Judit as a player from Magnus. A 7 is a good score, and his criteria for the category probably isn't exactly what you are picturing when you think of the word "genius". He was more trying to fit that word into chess the best way he could and settled on original or unique ideas with their play. He was simply saying that her strength came more from copying others than some of the other all-time great chess players, but he absolutely sees Judit as one of the best chess players of all-time (not just among women). If he just gave her all 10s that would kind of cheapen the whole thing and show a lack of respect would it not?! As many have said, all of us and nearly everyone in the world would get less than a 1 across the board here. lmao
Not being a genius (by that i mean a prodigy who was born with insane skills) is the whole path of Judit Polgár, her father László was pshychologist and teacher who conducted a human "experiment", the subject being his 3 daugthers. He trained them in chess (he chose chess because it was a very measurable form of skill with the Elo system and all) from a very young age (2 years old if I remember correctly). The topic of the experiment was whether someone can show prodigial feats if they were not born but trained. And he apparently succeeded, all of his daughters hold official titles, one of them being a GM and former #1 female player and the other being an IM and a 5 time chess olympiad gold medalist.
Anytime a women excels in something usually dominated by men, she's going to influence men who, like Kasparov, who think/thought men were superior. Also, young women/girls interested might see someone like Judit and think, 'Yes, I can do this too.' For Influence, I think Judit is a solid 10.
Yeah, that was the only one I disagreed with but I mean it's his choice to rate however he wants and ratings like this always have a great deal of subjectivity to them. We really aren't allowed to criticize other than to give our own opinion. A 9 is still saying that he views her as one of the most influential figures in chess history and that's saying something. You can tell he has nothing but respect for her.
@@IwasabletoDisappearafterlitsen No, I said Kasparov and meant him. He said: " there is real chess and women’s chess. Some people don’t like to hear this, but chess does not fit women properly. It’s a fight, you know? A big fight. It’s not for women. Sorry. She’s helpless if she has men’s opposition. I think this is very simple logic. It’s the logic of a fighter, a professional fighter. Women are weaker fighters"
@@IwasabletoDisappearafterlitsen Citing wikipedia: "Kasparov had once described Polgár as a "circus puppet" and asserted that women chess players should stick to having children." also "However, Kasparov expressed early doubts: "She has fantastic chess talent, but she is, after all, a woman. It all comes down to the imperfections of the feminine psyche. No woman can sustain a prolonged battle."" In his defense, he later changed his mind: "Later in life, however, after he had lost a rapid game against Polgár himself in 2002, Kasparov revised his opinion: "The Polgárs showed that there are no inherent limitations to their aptitude-an idea that many male players refused to accept until they had unceremoniously been crushed by a twelve-year-old with a ponytail."" But yes, Kasparov was highly misogynistic (in the 90s) and definitely did say that women were simply inferior at chess due to genetics or something.
@@BaneHydra I mean even if they were inferior it wouldnt matter that much because the average of the population is irrelevant. You only have 1 opponent at a time, not an average. It is like saying people under 2m are inferior in basketball and in general thats true but Jordan and Bryant were both under 2m tall.
If was a tournament game/challenge match LOSS, you'd be right/accurate. But "blitz" losses happen to all the greats if they DARE to play them.....often like Carlsen does.
Do you have any idea how many times he's whupped her in the past? If anything he'd change his opinion to "if at first you don't succeed, try try again". Besides, it was a lightning game with 3 minutes on the clock.
Are you kidding? She's way beyond 10 in terms of influence. Bobby Fischer held the youngest GM record for what 35 years before it was broken by a girl?
@@divergentlife493 To be clear, "I'm not sure" is a polite phrase you add before telling someone they are wrong. It doesn't actually mean you aren't sure. I'm perfectly sure that it has nothing at all to do with influence. I suspect you don't know what influence is.
I didn't like kajas first sentence, Magnus didn't rate the male world champions, he rated world champions.. World championships have been open vs women's for quite some time..
What's the difference? All world champions was a male human beings. There's nothing wrong in the sentence. But Magnus decided to rate Judit, although he was evaluating only world champions here.
@@z483gk "All world champions are male human beings " is why that sentence was incorrect. They represent a larger group of people, they are the world champions in the open category. It's not right surely, to say something like "Black sub-10 sprint runners", surely!?!?
@@AnandSivaram22 firstly, there has never been a female chess champion in the whole history of chess, ever, not once, judit was the only one who ever got even close, a lot of has to do with history and tradition anyways but yeah there has never been a sprinter champion "title", gold medals are gold medals and records are records, they are medalists they are not comparable just cause you think the thought sounds kinda offensive, and thinking that helps no one and makes no sense, especially because there's no deeper meaning behind it in the first place
@@unculturedswine5583 first of all, your first "paragraph" makes little to no sense in this context, I know that, you know that, everyone knows that. Your second para addressed my analogy first, which was just meant to refute the previous gentleman's point. Viswanathan anand or Magnus Carlsen was the world champion of all the world and not men alone. That was simply my point. Whether or not thinking that way helps me, leave it to me I say. I just stated my opinion that I didn't like how Kaja said it. Also yes, my pointing it out also clears the concept in at least some people(i personally know a lot who have this misconception) that the world championship is divided into men's and women's, which isn't the case. I guess that's it. :-)
@@AnandSivaram22 I'm just saying that there's no reason to find a problem where none exists, and even if chess titles worked differently and there were female champions in the past, your explanation for why it's wrong is overspecific, and nitpicky to prove some moot point that doesn't apply in this context just cause you missed the reason for her specificity, (and the first guy was right anyways) she said male champions because they were rating world champions only, all of which happen to only be male, two things which judit is not, but she's also justified by being by far the best female player and not just another dude, which is why they're rating her. Which is why she had to clarify the sex and why I thought you couldn't understand that, because you didn't know that there have been no female champions. But I guess you do know.
I agree with Magnus's scores. However I think there are good grounds to rank her influence at 9.5 or 10. Since women represent a small minority of professional chess players, I don't think it's right to judge "influence" in the same way as Kasparov/Fisher/Anand. They have been influential, but only for the men's game. In some ways, they were detrimental for the women's game. So I think "influence" needs to be scored according to the particular circumstances. Read up on Susan and Judit's biographies and you will have nothing but admiration for how they broke through barriers and paved the way for women's chess, despite unfair treatment and discrimination. Without Judit, there would be no empirical evidence that women can compete with men at super GM level (2700+ ELO). The influence of that alone cannot be underestimated.
@@dixidum2380 You are Full of S..t! and a mysogynist! at her best she was 8 in the world against the best man with an Elo of 2735! In 1991, Polgár achieved the title of Grandmaster at the age of 15 years and 4 months, at the time the youngest to have done so, breaking the record previously held by former World Champion Bobby Fischer. She was the youngest player ever to break into the FIDE top 100 players rating list, ranking No. 55 in the January 1989 rating list, at the age of 12.
Influence: 10 VERY CLEARLY. That was brazen to give her anything but a 10 there. And her influence has extended WELL beyond her being a woman chess player. She's influenced teams she's coached, she does amazing commentary, and she's taken leadership roles. HUGE influence - possibly more than anyone alive right now.
And 8.5 at genius at least. At her best she was 8 in the world against the best man with an Elo of 2735! In 1991, Polgár achieved the title of Grandmaster at the age of 15 years and 4 months, at the time the youngest to have done so, breaking the record previously held by former World Champion Bobby Fischer. She was the youngest player ever to break into the FIDE top 100 players rating list, ranking No. 55 in the January 1989 rating list, at the age of 12.
@@markcouture4726 You really think her influence is on the same level as Kasparov? Come on, be serious. Even Nakamura has introduced way more people to the game
I thought so first too, but I guess Kasparov, Fischer and even names like Alekhine and Capablanca are still more famous in parts of the world. And himself ofc
it seems magnus is saying judits play didnt follow an intellectually sound winning strategy. for magnus and garry, their playstyle resembles the opposite of judits. carlsen wins games using sound, studied and strategic methods, also consistently out-calculating the opposition > judits style of spectacularly intricate novelties, often incalculable and dubious to which, more often than not, refutations did exist.
I’ve paid attention to Magnus over the years. I think he’s usually very honest and he only mildly modifies his opinion simply not to be mean. But otherwise he says it like he sees it. I think I saw though he’s no longer World Champion? There’s a 17-year-old guy from India who’s playing for the title this fall. Now THAT’S pretty amazing.
No? Judit is an outstanding player that can hold her weight against super-GMs. He has no need to hold back here and I think his ratings were actually quite fair.
@@SuperYtc1 At her best she was 8 in the world against the best man with an Elo of 2735! In 1991, Polgár achieved the title of Grandmaster at the age of 15 years and 4 months, at the time the youngest to have done so, breaking the record previously held by former World Champion Bobby Fischer. She was the youngest player ever to break into the FIDE top 100 players rating list, ranking No. 55 in the January 1989 rating list, at the age of 12.
@@dixidum2380 You are Full of S..t! and a mysogynist! at her best she was 8 in the world against the best man with an Elo of 2735! In 1991, Polgár achieved the title of Grandmaster at the age of 15 years and 4 months, at the time the youngest to have done so, breaking the record previously held by former World Champion Bobby Fischer. She was the youngest player ever to break into the FIDE top 100 players rating list, ranking No. 55 in the January 1989 rating list, at the age of 12.
It doesn't mean anything in a Chess game. It's just sanity in real life...like Fischer gets a low sanity score because of his paranoia and his extreme views and stuff.
How so? He was very objectively giving a rating, like with anyone else! She got the same genius rating as Fischer and it's absolutely deserved! I mean, he knows how it is to be beaten by her;)
It's a scale for the elite of the elite, he 'only' gave himself an 8 and he is arguably the greatest ever, definitely the strongest ever to. He wasn't slighting her by giing a 7 at all.
John McEnroe was also objective about Serena Williams. Carlsen's luck is that Judit Polgar could beat the best of men. And even here he's flirting with outrage when giving Judith a 9 on influence. Dear protesters: Anand, who singlehandedly turned India into a top chess nation, only got an 8 from Carlsen.
Just going to copy and paste my reply to someone else so everyone complaining about the 7 can actually understand what Magnus was saying. "You are making a mistake here by getting caught up in semantics and possibly even your own biases about what chess skill is. Do you perhaps think that chess skill is synonymous with intelligence and therefore are interpreting Magnus as essentially giving her a 7/10 in IQ and a 7/10 in chess skill? Because that isn't at all what he is saying or insinuating here. He is using the term genius to describe a player that has unique ideas and creative play that goes way outside the norm among even other GMs. He still acknowledges Judit as being one of the all-time greats, but he isn't going to lie just to satisfy your feelings. You could be the best chess player to have ever lived and still not get a 10 in this category according to how Magnus is defining it."
I was pretty good when I was 17 and I think I was rated 1600 just before I quit. But I’d give Judit a run for her money in my prime. She wouldn’t have beaten me for at least 10 or 15 moves ;-)
I actually think he doesn’t speak that well considering he’s from Norway, I haven’t met a Norwegian that doesn’t speak it and Magnus would rank a bit low compared to some of my friends from there.
@@MADGennaro And no doubt he would checkmate each and every one of them with ease! I would suggest that your comment is itself short of a couple of commas, so one could point out that your own English grammar is far from perfect!
@@MADGennaro When it comes to magnus I think he's just extremely self concious and doesn't want to make any mistake, I experience this myself even today when I get told I am on a "mother tongue" level of english (which I still deny because I'm aware of the things I don't know) but still I would rather take my time and sound like I need to think to get any word out than not getting exactly my point across. The more languages you do speak the harder it is to even speak your own language perfectly because your brain will mix up things, all of the sudden you're remembering english words you know perfectly well the meaning to but can't translate it. That being said I think magnus has a decent amount of vocabularies safed up and also his understanding of the english language is really good. He might never reach the heights of someone like Russel Brand, but his skills are more than well suited for all interactions he will encounter, and that is what matter in the end isn't it?
@@Efical You neglected to insert a comma after 'horse'! Definitely something you need to work on. And what's this waffle about Russell Brand? You sound rather confused, to be honest.
I think any player that attacks as much as Judit must have a high level of creativity. Also, he might want to update the number now, in light of their latest game: ua-cam.com/video/hvbZCRid5CY/v-deo.html
If it was a tournament game/challenge match LOSS, you'd be right/accurate. But "blitz" losses happen to all the greats if they DARE to play them.....often like Carlsen does.
@@kargs5krun even it was an official match, it wouldn’t make any difference at all. One game doesn’t mean shit. Magnus rated himself 8 in terms of genius and his peak is over 150 elo higher than that of Judit. 7 is more than fair
At her best she was 8 in the world against the best man with an Elo of 2735! In 1991, Polgár achieved the title of Grandmaster at the age of 15 years and 4 months, at the time the youngest to have done so, breaking the record previously held by former World Champion Bobby Fischer. She was the youngest player ever to break into the FIDE top 100 players rating list, ranking No. 55 in the January 1989 rating list, at the age of 12.
@@kargs5krun She has won or shared first in the chess tournaments of Hastings 1993, Madrid 1994, León 1996, U.S. Open 1998, Hoogeveen 1999, Sigeman & Co 2000, Japfa 2000, and the Najdorf Memorial 2000. Polgár is the only woman to have won a game against a reigning world number one player, and has defeated eleven current or former world champions in either rapid or classical chess: Magnus Carlsen, Anatoly Karpov, Garry Kasparov, Vladimir Kramnik, Boris Spassky, Vasily Smyslov, Veselin Topalov, Viswanathan Anand, Ruslan Ponomariov, Alexander Khalifman, and Rustam Kasimdzhanov.
Extreme repetition from practiced games are bound to happen when you have the responsibility to prove something and you can't go about it with Tal's recklessness.
Curioso qie diga que no es tan genio, que se debe más a repetición de patrones cuando era joven... Cuando la mayoría de los grandes jugadores empiezan haciendo repeticiones cuando niños, inclusive él mismo 😅
No, with genius comes a tendency to sometimes lose touch with what is normally considered as sane. There is so much going on in those heads it is sometimes difficult to keep it all straight, to keep it all in perspective, to see the forest, and not completely geek out on certain individual trees, so to speak. Look at Bobby Fischer, clearly a genius, but went off balance without any clear reason why. It's complicated, if that makes any sense. So the question may occur to people, where is this particular genius on the scale of keeping a grip on reality, keeping perspective on the big picture. Are there issues with sanity.
@@attilahalmai4590 dear god why is this conversation keeps on going? OK she was top 10. Why is that SO SPECIAL? Magnus gives himself an 8 and he is n1 for the last 10 years. Why are people annoyed with the mark he gave her? WHY is a 7 for a top 10 worth posting a comment on utube? I'll tell you why: Because she is a woman. Be objective pls, this is getting kinda stupid. A chess player is a chess player. Sex does NOT matter.
@@insectpolitician7278 Maybe she did...but he was a world champion n she wasnt...no disrespect to her...she is a great player...i jus think ppl are getting a bit carried away coz she beat Magnus in a park game that he clearly wasnt taking seriously..shes nowhere near the level of Carlsen..
@@krisshjaiswal8285Yes, it does. We could play this game with 100 of the top players of all time vs the best of their era and it would look as bad. How many recent Niemann fans realise that Carlsen's overall record against him is as dominant as Gary's over Judit? Few I imagine. Gary is possibly the greatest player who ever lived, and Judit handily beat him with drastically worse opening theory, meaning her middlegame had to be spectacular. Every major pro has commented on this, but you seem to know better. What is your fide rating incidentally?
Fischer was the greatest of all times… because in his prime he was way ahead of the best players of his time. There were at least a dozen Soviet players, both world champions and champion-class players, during his time, and he beat them all convincingly on his way to the throne. To get a 4 point advantage against a ruling champion, as he did in his championship bout against Spassky, was an unheard of feat in those times. Besides, he didn’t have world class seconds as his Soviet opponents did, and had to prepare for his matches practically alone.
Even if we assume for a second that how much better you are compared to the rest of the field is the only metric to judge who is the greatest like you are implying fischer still wouldn't cut it because Morphy and phillidor were both better than the field they played against by a way bigger margin than Fischer was. And also no fischer did not prepare alone stop waffling he stayed and prepared in multiple chess clubs in America and also had a second named William Lombardy for his wcc match who at the time was the second best player in the us and a good friend of fischer. So you are wrong on so many levels here
Doesn't matter how many games you win or how spectacularly you play, as long as you didn't invent those ideas, you are not a genius, according to Magnus.
@@Radrook353 genius in terms of creativity. In the game between magnus and nepo (game 6, 2021) magnus placed his rook in front of his passed pawns and managed to convert a dead draw
You are making a mistake here by getting caught up in semantics and possibly even your own biases about what chess skill is. Do you perhaps think that chess skill is synonymous with intelligence and therefore are interpreting Magnus as essentially giving her a 7/10 in IQ and a 7/10 in chess skill? Because that isn't at all what he is saying or insinuating here. He is using the term genius to describe a player that has unique ideas and creative play that goes way outside the norm among even other GMs. He still acknowledges Judit as being one of the all-time greats, but he isn't going to lie just to satisfy your feelings. You could be the best chess player to have ever lived and still not get a 10 in this category according to how Magnus is defining it.
@@philj9594 Actually I used an objective metric and told you my standard. Anyone 2700 or higher must at least be an 8, maybe higher. Why? Because if not, there is no sample size for 9 or 10. 9 could be 2750-2800 and 10 could be 2800 plus.
@@nossenkanterhe did not rate them according to their strength if he did so then she will maybe get a 5 but he is giving her a rating on the basis of new ideas created or maybe new opening or something that she contributed to the theory ( basically a natural understanding of a position ) a genius in this scale would be capablanca and Kasparov Her style was aggressive that's why she got good on entertainment
So Polgar not really a genius because of its repetition habits but still entertaining… 🤷♂️ ? Not sure he can himself rate 8 on genius with such a remark
@@Smileater not sure what your saying. I think magnus actually showed a lot of respect for her here. She herself has talked about the fact that she was trained in chess from a young age. One thing that magnus doesn’t mention and many others fail to mention is that almost all the male super gms also started playing at a super young age and practiced a ton so saying she’s only good because of repetition is a little unfair.
At her best she was 8 in the world against the best man with an Elo of 2735! In 1991, Polgár achieved the title of Grandmaster at the age of 15 years and 4 months, at the time the youngest to have done so, breaking the record previously held by former World Champion Bobby Fischer. She was the youngest player ever to break into the FIDE top 100 players rating list, ranking No. 55 in the January 1989 rating list, at the age of 12.
i mean i have not a clue about chess... but what i can see from this guy is the same as the best tennis players do... get on the nervs of the other players 😂 that is leterally the best tactic in any sport that is played against an other party. So that is his biggest move...that he is annoying. ✌️ but it definitely works!
@@dixidum2380 You are Full of S..t! and a mysogynist! at her best she was 8 in the world against the best man with an Elo of 2735! In 1991, Polgár achieved the title of Grandmaster at the age of 15 years and 4 months, at the time the youngest to have done so, breaking the record previously held by former World Champion Bobby Fischer. She was the youngest player ever to break into the FIDE top 100 players rating list, ranking No. 55 in the January 1989 rating list, at the age of 12.
We are talking about chess so if I will rate Judit's Intelligence in chess I will give her a 9. I want how honest Carlsen is in rating other grand masters but 7 is low for a world chess champion AND DUBBED THE STRONGEST WOMAN IN CHESS, the strongest in her era!
@@awakenedsoul2638 I mean, he rates genius as in finding ideas that no-one has found before. That's why he rated Kasparov a 10, because he was revolutionary in his strategical and tactical genius
@@HellBound1100 yes talent don't exist. Prove me that it exists. Give 3 balls to anyone that never tried juggling before. Yep, you now know balls will fall. Where's the talent?
@@HkFinn83 I didn't say anything was necessarily invalidated. I'm saying it's funny that he rated her as lower on genius than himself, but then he blundered his queen to her recently. Just because Magnus may be the best Chess player in the world doesn't mean he has the credentials to rate her intelligence. It's subjective.
@@stevenknight6756 you’re totally confused. He’s being asked about her genius...at chess. If he isn’t qualified to rate that, nobody is. I don’t know if English is a second language for you, but he wasn’t asked about her ‘intelligence’, and didn’t comment on it.
@@HkFinn83 I'm not confused at all. "Genius at chess" is completely subjective. Magnus himself has said himself that he doesn't consider himself a genius outside of chess. His ability, as a prodigy, to have every position from every game in the database memorized isn't "genius." A large percentage of his wins aren't from inspired attacking sequences, but from pulling wins out of drawing endgames. That's because he's mechanically better than most of his competitors. But some, like me, could consider players like Polgar, Tal, and Anand to be higher ranked in the genius department because of the magic they create on the board. No, Magnus isn't a God. He blunders, he loses (apparently to people like Hans who was way less ranked), and his opinions aren't the Supreme law of the land.
@@HkFinn83 And perhaps you should study up because genius and intelligence are often connected. There's no official "genius" definition in the Chess dictionary. XD
"Sanity"? Why is that on the list. What value is that anyway? The most interesting and best chess player of all time (Fischer) certainly had none of that "sanity" crud.
That's exactly why it is on the list. And he was the best 1970-1972, that's not even three years, not certainly not the best of all times. For that you need stamina a quality not found in Fischer or Morphy.
The series is called magnus carlsen rates world champions but judith was never a world champion. But since she is a woman they have to include her... The same for Hou Yifan
Fischer was not exactly well headed, and is consequently low rated by Magnus in this one. On the opposite you have great champions such as Anand or Polgar who are perfectly sane
Some are mentally ill, not many... some are just very emotional, meaning that if they lose a game during a tournament, they can have trouble coming back and playing their best. I think Magnus' ratings on that point were a mix.
She did beat him last week in 9 moves... At her best she was 8 in the world against the best man with an Elo of 2735! In 1991, Polgár achieved the title of Grandmaster at the age of 15 years and 4 months, at the time the youngest to have done so, breaking the record previously held by former World Champion Bobby Fischer. She was the youngest player ever to break into the FIDE top 100 players rating list, ranking No. 55 in the January 1989 rating list, at the age of 12.
She has won or shared first in the chess tournaments of Hastings 1993, Madrid 1994, León 1996, U.S. Open 1998, Hoogeveen 1999, Sigeman & Co 2000, Japfa 2000, and the Najdorf Memorial 2000. Polgár is the only woman to have won a game against a reigning world number one player, and has defeated eleven current or former world champions in either rapid or classical chess: Magnus Carlsen, Anatoly Karpov, Garry Kasparov, Vladimir Kramnik, Boris Spassky, Vasily Smyslov, Veselin Topalov, Viswanathan Anand, Ruslan Ponomariov, Alexander Khalifman, and Rustam Kasimdzhanov.
@@joannewilson6577just one achievement and feminists are flying in skies that too in a casual match She got her ass whooped by magnus many times The score stands 11-2 and 5 draws And in classical 2-0 and 1 draw
Magnus is very genuine and honest when it comes to rating other GMs
And while rating himself he is too modest
@@renishisrael9520 Modesty is maybe his redemption, because some of his less flattering comments about his opponents have on occasion made him come across as impolite.
@@renishisrael9520 Maybe it's a false modesty.
@@dixidum2380 She just beat him easily in 9 moves last week...
@@dixidum2380 She did, she beat 11 world champions!
The sexist Nigel Short she owned
Magnus gave a genius rating of 8 to himself. His basis for the rating (in his own words) is based on original ideas vs copied ideas from other people's games.
In that matter Judit is 10, she got everybody shocked with her attacking style
@@Smileater she is not more creative than magnus , so 7 is more accurate
@@Smileater But an attack, you must be honest here, opens a Pandora's box at the 2600+ level that mortals can't really imagine. You enter positions that are probably beyond even a GMs experience, and how do you deal with that? Nobody deals with it like Carlsen, and I think he takes into consideration, how often you actually succeed from that decision vs. falling on your face. But I'd given Judit a 10 in entertainment.
He only gave Kasparov 10 of 10 for genius. And he said Kasparov is the best of all time, finding ideas no one else could. It is not a score you can give lightly. Props.
Capablanca as well no
@@vidul7498 it is a possibility, as I haven't watched them all. It just stuck to me that he gave Kaspi a 10..
The only two players that deserve a 10 for genius are Fischer and Tal. Both, at their peak were nearly unbeatable. Tal, unfortunately, suffered from health conditions that robbed him from consistency in the chess world and Fischer, of course, abandoned chess too soon.
@@MrSupernova111 we will never know what is the correct answer, unfortunately. Genius is subjective anyway
@@MrSupernova111 Kasporov was pretty unbeatable aswell, it's just that during Kasporovs time Chess was a lot more competitive than while Fischer was alive. Magnus is also a genius, but as you can see he loses a lot because of how competitive chess is.
So basically Judit Polgar is a shonen protagonist
lmaoo. This is an underrated comment.
What is shonen? Is it something sexist and poorly thought?
@@Smileater its an anime thing
@@Smileater lmao yeah totally it's the most sexist, racist, mysoginistic, thing ever, it's sexist against both men and women and it's racist against every race ever
@@Smileater He said that Judit is basically Son Goku!
A crushing win against Fisher on the sanity rating
@@storiesreadaloud5635 😆 keyboard corrected to Fisher. These things happen to the best of us.
*Fischer
💀
ppl that love bobby know how to spell his name - other wise you appear like a booby
But fisher was better
Magnus speaks so objectively when talking chess or even other sports. Even when comparing GMs or even himself he sees things as they are.
A useful trait if you're gonna be a chess player. Objectivity
He gave Judith the same genius rating as Fisher, certainly not a low score
If Fischer isn't a 10 for genius, who the hell is?
@@elidrissii the only person with a 10 was Kasparov
@@alexcao7502Kasparov had access to computers and 20 Russian GM’s helping him prepare in every tournament. They had a computer make a 10,000 position book for him, he had a massive advantage in the openings thanks to the use of computers and the Russian support system. Fischer, on the other hand, had nobody. He was famous for refusing help, he didn’t want anyone’s opinion, he didn’t use any computers, and even as a child he played most of his matches alone against himself. Fischer was a true genius, who had pure natural intellect to dominate chess, he should be the only 10.
@@Glock7eventeen Ironic talking about natural genius on a video about Judit Polgar
@@knee-to-body She’s a 4
He gave Anand a genius score of 8 I believe?
The genius score is coming from an actual genius. an average person would get minus scores
He gave Anand a nine
He gave Anand a 9. He gave fischer a 7, himself a 8. He said "Anand has an unbelievable natural understanding of the game". Knowing Carlsen doesn't shower compliements easily, its a great thing.
@@ajaysabarish9645 oh maybe I confused Anand with Karpov. anyways genius score 7 from magnus is never a low number
I don't think so. A score of 3 for instance would mean someone is not a genius.
@@dixidum2380 You are Full of S..t! and a mysogynist! at her best she was 8 in the world against the best man with an Elo of 2735!
In 1991, Polgár achieved the title of Grandmaster at the age of 15 years and 4 months, at the time the youngest to have done so, breaking the record previously held by former World Champion Bobby Fischer.
She was the youngest player ever to break into the FIDE top 100 players rating list, ranking No. 55 in the January 1989 rating list, at the age of 12.
And then she beat him in a park.
emphasis on "in a park"
Still didn't win in the candidates. Oh wait she can't make it to one.
@@joeybiden9582 sexist spotted
@@joeybiden9582 Fact: she beat him in a park. And you?
@@gabriellaranga6301 I beat Kasparov and Bobby Fischer in my dreams 6-0. Your point is?
Man, I really hope people don't take this the wrong way! That was a huge show of respect for Judit as a player from Magnus. A 7 is a good score, and his criteria for the category probably isn't exactly what you are picturing when you think of the word "genius". He was more trying to fit that word into chess the best way he could and settled on original or unique ideas with their play. He was simply saying that her strength came more from copying others than some of the other all-time great chess players, but he absolutely sees Judit as one of the best chess players of all-time (not just among women). If he just gave her all 10s that would kind of cheapen the whole thing and show a lack of respect would it not?! As many have said, all of us and nearly everyone in the world would get less than a 1 across the board here. lmao
except for sanity maybe ... we might get a two there ;)
He gave Judith a 7 for Genius and himself an 8...that says it all. Women can match and beat the best male
chess players in the World.
@@deevnnNo, they can't. 😅
Not being a genius (by that i mean a prodigy who was born with insane skills) is the whole path of Judit Polgár, her father László was pshychologist and teacher who conducted a human "experiment", the subject being his 3 daugthers. He trained them in chess (he chose chess because it was a very measurable form of skill with the Elo system and all) from a very young age (2 years old if I remember correctly). The topic of the experiment was whether someone can show prodigial feats if they were not born but trained. And he apparently succeeded, all of his daughters hold official titles, one of them being a GM and former #1 female player and the other being an IM and a 5 time chess olympiad gold medalist.
Anytime a women excels in something usually dominated by men, she's going to influence men who, like Kasparov, who think/thought men were superior. Also, young women/girls interested might see someone like Judit and think, 'Yes, I can do this too.' For Influence, I think Judit is a solid 10.
Yeah, that was the only one I disagreed with but I mean it's his choice to rate however he wants and ratings like this always have a great deal of subjectivity to them. We really aren't allowed to criticize other than to give our own opinion. A 9 is still saying that he views her as one of the most influential figures in chess history and that's saying something. You can tell he has nothing but respect for her.
That was Bobbie not Kasparov tf you talking about?
@@IwasabletoDisappearafterlitsen No, I said Kasparov and meant him. He said: " there is real chess and women’s chess. Some people don’t like to hear this, but chess does not fit women properly. It’s a fight, you know? A big fight. It’s not for women. Sorry. She’s helpless if she has men’s opposition. I think this is very simple logic. It’s the logic of a fighter, a professional fighter. Women are weaker fighters"
@@IwasabletoDisappearafterlitsen Citing wikipedia: "Kasparov had once described Polgár as a "circus puppet" and asserted that women chess players should stick to having children."
also
"However, Kasparov expressed early doubts: "She has fantastic chess talent, but she is, after all, a woman. It all comes down to the imperfections of the feminine psyche. No woman can sustain a prolonged battle.""
In his defense, he later changed his mind:
"Later in life, however, after he had lost a rapid game against Polgár himself in 2002, Kasparov revised his opinion: "The Polgárs showed that there are no inherent limitations to their aptitude-an idea that many male players refused to accept until they had unceremoniously been crushed by a twelve-year-old with a ponytail.""
But yes, Kasparov was highly misogynistic (in the 90s) and definitely did say that women were simply inferior at chess due to genetics or something.
@@BaneHydra I mean even if they were inferior it wouldnt matter that much because the average of the population is irrelevant. You only have 1 opponent at a time, not an average.
It is like saying people under 2m are inferior in basketball and in general thats true but Jordan and Bryant were both under 2m tall.
I would like to see Matt Damon playing magnus carlsen in movie
This is was random but yes yes
Bit too old tbh
Playing an older Magnus?
Matt Damon is probably no genius.
@@williambeckley3029 Actually he is a genius with an IQ of 160. Carlsen's IQ is about 180. 160+ is classified as genius.
I really appreciate his honesty. Well done Magnus.
Please, Magnus rate Vasily Ivanchuk.
Sanity?
Imagine if in "sanity", Magnus said: "ok she is uber crazy, so I have to give her a #1" lol.
Bobby Fischer's sanity
@@user-bk9fk2tq2zBobby Fischer only got a 4!
Now magnus can change his opinion to "OMG" (last game was brutal).
19......Bb6 ( Magnus : OMG, at a certain park in Madrid )
It's a blunder, nothing genius triggered here
I don’t think the park game would change the scores he would give
If was a tournament game/challenge match LOSS, you'd be right/accurate. But "blitz" losses happen to all the greats if they DARE to play them.....often like Carlsen does.
Do you have any idea how many times he's whupped her in the past? If anything he'd change his opinion to "if at first you don't succeed, try try again". Besides, it was a lightning game with 3 minutes on the clock.
Hope Magnus returns soon! 20.07. '22
Are you kidding? She's way beyond 10 in terms of influence. Bobby Fischer held the youngest GM record for what 35 years before it was broken by a girl?
I'm not sure age at which you become a GM is particularly relevant to influence...
@@thomasdalton1508 OK? Does not matter what you're sure if if it has everything to do with influence.
@@divergentlife493 To be clear, "I'm not sure" is a polite phrase you add before telling someone they are wrong. It doesn't actually mean you aren't sure. I'm perfectly sure that it has nothing at all to do with influence. I suspect you don't know what influence is.
@@thomasdalton1508 lmao then you did the same with "I suspect" 😂
I didn't like kajas first sentence, Magnus didn't rate the male world champions, he rated world champions.. World championships have been open vs women's for quite some time..
What's the difference? All world champions was a male human beings. There's nothing wrong in the sentence. But Magnus decided to rate Judit, although he was evaluating only world champions here.
@@z483gk "All world champions are male human beings " is why that sentence was incorrect. They represent a larger group of people, they are the world champions in the open category. It's not right surely, to say something like "Black sub-10 sprint runners", surely!?!?
@@AnandSivaram22 firstly, there has never been a female chess champion in the whole history of chess, ever, not once, judit was the only one who ever got even close, a lot of has to do with history and tradition anyways but yeah
there has never been a sprinter champion "title", gold medals are gold medals and records are records, they are medalists
they are not comparable just cause you think the thought sounds kinda offensive, and thinking that helps no one and makes no sense, especially because there's no deeper meaning behind it in the first place
@@unculturedswine5583 first of all, your first "paragraph" makes little to no sense in this context, I know that, you know that, everyone knows that.
Your second para addressed my analogy first, which was just meant to refute the previous gentleman's point. Viswanathan anand or Magnus Carlsen was the world champion of all the world and not men alone. That was simply my point. Whether or not thinking that way helps me, leave it to me I say. I just stated my opinion that I didn't like how Kaja said it. Also yes, my pointing it out also clears the concept in at least some people(i personally know a lot who have this misconception) that the world championship is divided into men's and women's, which isn't the case.
I guess that's it. :-)
@@AnandSivaram22 I'm just saying that there's no reason to find a problem where none exists, and even if chess titles worked differently and there were female champions in the past, your explanation for why it's wrong is overspecific, and nitpicky to prove some moot point that doesn't apply in this context just cause you missed the reason for her specificity, (and the first guy was right anyways)
she said male champions because they were rating world champions only, all of which happen to only be male, two things which judit is not, but she's also justified by being by far the best female player and not just another dude, which is why they're rating her. Which is why she had to clarify the sex and why I thought you couldn't understand that, because you didn't know that there have been no female champions. But I guess you do know.
I agree with Magnus's scores. However I think there are good grounds to rank her influence at 9.5 or 10. Since women represent a small minority of professional chess players, I don't think it's right to judge "influence" in the same way as Kasparov/Fisher/Anand. They have been influential, but only for the men's game. In some ways, they were detrimental for the women's game. So I think "influence" needs to be scored according to the particular circumstances. Read up on Susan and Judit's biographies and you will have nothing but admiration for how they broke through barriers and paved the way for women's chess, despite unfair treatment and discrimination. Without Judit, there would be no empirical evidence that women can compete with men at super GM level (2700+ ELO). The influence of that alone cannot be underestimated.
Why are u arguing 1 fucking point? People like u need to actually spend their time more wisely
@@macdonaldnnadi he is right, you are not.
Where can I see more of these
Seeing this after I just watched her beat him in a fun match in a park in Madrid.
@@dixidum2380 You are Full of S..t! and a mysogynist! at her best she was 8 in the world against the best man with an Elo of 2735!
In 1991, Polgár achieved the title of Grandmaster at the age of 15 years and 4 months, at the time the youngest to have done so, breaking the record previously held by former World Champion Bobby Fischer.
She was the youngest player ever to break into the FIDE top 100 players rating list, ranking No. 55 in the January 1989 rating list, at the age of 12.
@@dixidum2380 Yeah right. Pretty weak response. I guess you would have another response if he beat her at the fun match.
@@dixidum2380 Lol. I hope that was a bad joke from you. I hope that for you at least.
That's why that was a fun match
This in light of last week’s Madrid video is fun.
People have to remember that she is being compared to world champions.
7 out of 10 is still very high. We would get 1’s and 2’s
We would not be in this video lol this is about world champions
He gave anand 9 for genius ...and 10 for kasparov
Kasparov is genius
Kasparov IQ is 140+ which is genius
@@Quidoute Kasparov himself says that his IQ was tested to be 130s.
@@user-bk9fk2tq2ziq tests are rubbish. The man was champ for 20+ years. He is the best ever. End of story.
What kind of scale is that
Polgar solved uncountable chess puzzles from a very young age on, her tactical awareness was developed.
Influence: 10 VERY CLEARLY. That was brazen to give her anything but a 10 there. And her influence has extended WELL beyond her being a woman chess player. She's influenced teams she's coached, she does amazing commentary, and she's taken leadership roles. HUGE influence - possibly more than anyone alive right now.
Agreed.
Considering that I play chess for two years now and only learned about her two months ago, I second his score
And 8.5 at genius at least.
At her best she was 8 in the world against the best man with an Elo of 2735!
In 1991, Polgár achieved the title of Grandmaster at the age of 15 years and 4 months, at the time the youngest to have done so, breaking the record previously held by former World Champion Bobby Fischer.
She was the youngest player ever to break into the FIDE top 100 players rating list, ranking No. 55 in the January 1989 rating list, at the age of 12.
@@DrinkWater713 Your ignorance and possible bias are hardly metrics.
@@markcouture4726 You really think her influence is on the same level as Kasparov? Come on, be serious. Even Nakamura has introduced way more people to the game
just realize that sanity rating is there because of fischer......lmao
Influence a 9? It's 11, bro. There is like no stream chat where she is not mentioned at least once with admiration.
Males are more inclined towards danger. I think that's a factor in his assessment of her genius.
Polgar is a 10 on influence. Cmon Carlsen
I thought so first too, but I guess Kasparov, Fischer and even names like Alekhine and Capablanca are still more famous in parts of the world. And himself ofc
He gave Fischer a 7 for genius also. Which is a bit suspect
outrageous😎
it seems magnus is saying judits play didnt follow an intellectually sound winning strategy. for magnus and garry, their playstyle resembles the opposite of judits. carlsen wins games using sound, studied and strategic methods, also consistently out-calculating the opposition > judits style of spectacularly intricate novelties, often incalculable and dubious to which, more often than not, refutations did exist.
You mean like Tal. That's quite a compliment for JP.
Sanity such a cold category
But a relevant one for top chess players. 🙂
Another way to think of her "repetition" is that she worked her @ss off for many years to become as good as she is.
I’ve paid attention to Magnus over the years. I think he’s usually very honest and he only mildly modifies his opinion simply not to be mean. But otherwise he says it like he sees it. I think I saw though he’s no longer World Champion? There’s a 17-year-old guy from India who’s playing for the title this fall. Now THAT’S pretty amazing.
Gukesh acts very mature for his age but yes, he's only 17.
Alternate title: Magnus treading very carefully and not stepping on any landmines.
Nah, this is Magnus just being honest like Magnus usually is.
Or he is just not stupid like you
No? Judit is an outstanding player that can hold her weight against super-GMs. He has no need to hold back here and I think his ratings were actually quite fair.
@@philj9594there u go again.
Magnus did explain why he gave her that score, and its his opinion plus forget about that park game it means nothing,
Hasn't she beaten every world champions of the modern times in some form or another?
Yes
What about cuteness?
She was cute as young girl and is still very cute.
A sanity category?! 😂
The underlying assumption being that you have to be a little crazy to be exceptionally good at chess.
It's intended as a joke... probably.
"on her genius" Magnus: "I don't see her genius" LOL
Interesting seeing this after she beat him in the Park in Spain last week
Not really. A blitz game at the park doesn't mean much.
I don’t think the park game changes anything
@@SuperYtc1 At her best she was 8 in the world against the best man with an Elo of 2735!
In 1991, Polgár achieved the title of Grandmaster at the age of 15 years and 4 months, at the time the youngest to have done so, breaking the record previously held by former World Champion Bobby Fischer.
She was the youngest player ever to break into the FIDE top 100 players rating list, ranking No. 55 in the January 1989 rating list, at the age of 12.
@@dixidum2380 You are Full of S..t! and a mysogynist! at her best she was 8 in the world against the best man with an Elo of 2735!
In 1991, Polgár achieved the title of Grandmaster at the age of 15 years and 4 months, at the time the youngest to have done so, breaking the record previously held by former World Champion Bobby Fischer.
She was the youngest player ever to break into the FIDE top 100 players rating list, ranking No. 55 in the January 1989 rating list, at the age of 12.
@@joannewilson6577 Not sure what any of that has to do with a game of blitz at the park.
what does sanity mean in a chess game?
It doesn't mean anything in a Chess game. It's just sanity in real life...like Fischer gets a low sanity score because of his paranoia and his extreme views and stuff.
Magnus saying she is the greatest female is enough. What more can you ask for?
People just keep asking this guy to rate others, why?
yep, 7 to her, 8 to himself, and only Kasparov scored 10.
He tried so hard to not offend anyone with that first answer 😂
How so? He was very objectively giving a rating, like with anyone else! She got the same genius rating as Fischer and it's absolutely deserved! I mean, he knows how it is to be beaten by her;)
Total 35: pretty good!
What does Magnus know. Judith is definitely a GENIUS.
It's a scale for the elite of the elite, he 'only' gave himself an 8 and he is arguably the greatest ever, definitely the strongest ever to. He wasn't slighting her by giing a 7 at all.
He knows better than you
John McEnroe was also objective about Serena Williams.
Carlsen's luck is that Judit Polgar could beat the best of men.
And even here he's flirting with outrage when giving Judith a 9 on influence.
Dear protesters: Anand, who singlehandedly turned India into a top chess nation, only got an 8 from Carlsen.
Is bro wearing a nike tech??
fischer is the greatest to ever do it
Sometimes you just don't know that you don't know
Just going to copy and paste my reply to someone else so everyone complaining about the 7 can actually understand what Magnus was saying. "You are making a mistake here by getting caught up in semantics and possibly even your own biases about what chess skill is. Do you perhaps think that chess skill is synonymous with intelligence and therefore are interpreting Magnus as essentially giving her a 7/10 in IQ and a 7/10 in chess skill? Because that isn't at all what he is saying or insinuating here. He is using the term genius to describe a player that has unique ideas and creative play that goes way outside the norm among even other GMs. He still acknowledges Judit as being one of the all-time greats, but he isn't going to lie just to satisfy your feelings. You could be the best chess player to have ever lived and still not get a 10 in this category according to how Magnus is defining it."
Magnus Carlsen was at our school :) he gave me a 0.5 in Genius :(
You are half the way there!
I was pretty good when I was 17 and I think I was rated 1600 just before I quit. But I’d give Judit a run for her money in my prime. She wouldn’t have beaten me for at least 10 or 15 moves ;-)
Magnus speaks remarkably good English. As does Judit and Susan. Their obvious great intelligence is not confined to chess alone!
I actually think he doesn’t speak that well considering he’s from Norway, I haven’t met a Norwegian that doesn’t speak it and Magnus would rank a bit low compared to some of my friends from there.
@@MADGennaro And no doubt he would checkmate each and every one of them with ease! I would suggest that your comment is itself short of a couple of commas, so one could point out that your own English grammar is far from perfect!
@@williambunter3311 Get off your high horse my dude. ua-cam.com/video/J7E-aoXLZGY/v-deo.html
@@MADGennaro When it comes to magnus I think he's just extremely self concious and doesn't want to make any mistake, I experience this myself even today when I get told I am on a "mother tongue" level of english (which I still deny because I'm aware of the things I don't know) but still I would rather take my time and sound like I need to think to get any word out than not getting exactly my point across. The more languages you do speak the harder it is to even speak your own language perfectly because your brain will mix up things, all of the sudden you're remembering english words you know perfectly well the meaning to but can't translate it.
That being said I think magnus has a decent amount of vocabularies safed up and also his understanding of the english language is really good. He might never reach the heights of someone like Russel Brand, but his skills are more than well suited for all interactions he will encounter, and that is what matter in the end isn't it?
@@Efical You neglected to insert a comma after 'horse'! Definitely something you need to work on. And what's this waffle about Russell Brand? You sound rather confused, to be honest.
I think any player that attacks as much as Judit must have a high level of creativity. Also, he might want to update the number now, in light of their latest game: ua-cam.com/video/hvbZCRid5CY/v-deo.html
😂😂😂😂
If it was a tournament game/challenge match LOSS, you'd be right/accurate. But "blitz" losses happen to all the greats if they DARE to play them.....often like Carlsen does.
@@kargs5krun even it was an official match, it wouldn’t make any difference at all. One game doesn’t mean shit. Magnus rated himself 8 in terms of genius and his peak is over 150 elo higher than that of Judit. 7 is more than fair
At her best she was 8 in the world against the best man with an Elo of 2735!
In 1991, Polgár achieved the title of Grandmaster at the age of 15 years and 4 months, at the time the youngest to have done so, breaking the record previously held by former World Champion Bobby Fischer.
She was the youngest player ever to break into the FIDE top 100 players rating list, ranking No. 55 in the January 1989 rating list, at the age of 12.
@@kargs5krun She has won or shared first in the chess tournaments of Hastings 1993, Madrid 1994, León 1996, U.S. Open 1998, Hoogeveen 1999, Sigeman & Co 2000, Japfa 2000, and the Najdorf Memorial 2000.
Polgár is the only woman to have won a game against a reigning world number one player, and has defeated eleven current or former world champions in either rapid or classical chess: Magnus Carlsen, Anatoly Karpov, Garry Kasparov, Vladimir Kramnik, Boris Spassky, Vasily Smyslov, Veselin Topalov, Viswanathan Anand, Ruslan Ponomariov, Alexander Khalifman, and Rustam Kasimdzhanov.
In order to be among the greatest in chess, you need to be a little insane.
Extreme repetition from practiced games are bound to happen when you have the responsibility to prove something and you can't go about it with Tal's recklessness.
@@dixidum2380 That is a major achievement being the best of your sex. Why you putting her down?
@@dixidum2380 you think judit polgar doesn't destroy gms in chess? Educate yourself
The shining women of my country Hungary. The most recent being Katalin Karikó with the Nobel Prize.
Curioso qie diga que no es tan genio, que se debe más a repetición de patrones cuando era joven... Cuando la mayoría de los grandes jugadores empiezan haciendo repeticiones cuando niños, inclusive él mismo 😅
lmao "sanity"
Sanity 10 is too funny 😂😂
Is that last question a joke? Haha so the assumption is all great chess players are potentially crazy.
Korchnoi said that no chess players were normal, they only differ in the extent of their madness
@@dash_r_media Shit take, you can say that about all people and it will make as much sense. There is not a single "normal" person in the world.
@@Jagang8 I think sanity in this case means humbleness more than mental health
No, with genius comes a tendency to sometimes lose touch with what is normally considered as sane. There is so much going on in those heads it is sometimes difficult to keep it all straight, to keep it all in perspective, to see the forest, and not completely geek out on certain individual trees, so to speak. Look at Bobby Fischer, clearly a genius, but went off balance without any clear reason why. It's complicated, if that makes any sense. So the question may occur to people, where is this particular genius on the scale of keeping a grip on reality, keeping perspective on the big picture. Are there issues with sanity.
@@williambeckley3029 Einstein was not insane so has most of the genius..
The sanity scores are stupid
Why do they have Sanity??
To avoid going crazy i guess
The 7 points for Judit's genius is a little surprising and underrating, I think. The other points are perfect.
To lay people all chess grand masters are geniuses. Grand masters themselves, on the other hand, are a lot more selective on whom they call "geniuses"
You do know that she was just a top 20 GM right?
Not so much when you consider he gave Bobby Fisher a 7 too lol
@@iluvatarchem She was top10. She was the 8th on the world ranking list at about 2005.
@@attilahalmai4590 dear god why is this conversation keeps on going?
OK she was top 10. Why is that SO SPECIAL? Magnus gives himself an 8 and he is n1 for the last 10 years. Why are people annoyed with the mark he gave her?
WHY is a 7 for a top 10 worth posting a comment on utube? I'll tell you why:
Because she is a woman. Be objective pls, this is getting kinda stupid. A chess player is a chess player. Sex does NOT matter.
19 moves :P
Put her against him in a real match that he actually cares about n we will see why being the "best female player ever" doesnt really mean shit...
@@reefkayoss She sat Kasparov down in his prime when he was pulling no punches.
@@insectpolitician7278 Maybe she did...but he was a world champion n she wasnt...no disrespect to her...she is a great player...i jus think ppl are getting a bit carried away coz she beat Magnus in a park game that he clearly wasnt taking seriously..shes nowhere near the level of Carlsen..
@@insectpolitician7278yeah 11-2 score says it all how great she is 😂
@@krisshjaiswal8285Yes, it does. We could play this game with 100 of the top players of all time vs the best of their era and it would look as bad. How many recent Niemann fans realise that Carlsen's overall record against him is as dominant as Gary's over Judit? Few I imagine.
Gary is possibly the greatest player who ever lived, and Judit handily beat him with drastically worse opening theory, meaning her middlegame had to be spectacular. Every major pro has commented on this, but you seem to know better. What is your fide rating incidentally?
Fischer was the greatest of all times… because in his prime he was way ahead of the best players of his time. There were at least a dozen Soviet players, both world champions and champion-class players, during his time, and he beat them all convincingly on his way to the throne. To get a 4 point advantage against a ruling champion, as he did in his championship bout against Spassky, was an unheard of feat in those times. Besides, he didn’t have world class seconds as his Soviet opponents did, and had to prepare for his matches practically alone.
Even if we assume for a second that how much better you are compared to the rest of the field is the only metric to judge who is the greatest like you are implying fischer still wouldn't cut it because Morphy and phillidor were both better than the field they played against by a way bigger margin than Fischer was. And also no fischer did not prepare alone stop waffling he stayed and prepared in multiple chess clubs in America and also had a second named William Lombardy for his wcc match who at the time was the second best player in the us and a good friend of fischer. So you are wrong on so many levels here
You are the only person on the planet that says Fisher was the best, bet money you are wrong.
Doesn't matter how many games you win or how spectacularly you play, as long as you didn't invent those ideas, you are not a genius, according to Magnus.
Perhaps the ability to easily use the established ideas in a overwhelmingly effective way might be a sign of genius.
@@Radrook353 genius in terms of creativity. In the game between magnus and nepo (game 6, 2021) magnus placed his rook in front of his passed pawns and managed to convert a dead draw
Carlsen: Genius - 10
He gave himself an 8, I think.
I just disagree with 7 for genius lmao I mean there's only 100 or so players ever to reach 2700, if she's a 7 almost no one is an 8 let alone 9 or 10.
You are making a mistake here by getting caught up in semantics and possibly even your own biases about what chess skill is. Do you perhaps think that chess skill is synonymous with intelligence and therefore are interpreting Magnus as essentially giving her a 7/10 in IQ and a 7/10 in chess skill? Because that isn't at all what he is saying or insinuating here. He is using the term genius to describe a player that has unique ideas and creative play that goes way outside the norm among even other GMs. He still acknowledges Judit as being one of the all-time greats, but he isn't going to lie just to satisfy your feelings. You could be the best chess player to have ever lived and still not get a 10 in this category according to how Magnus is defining it.
@@philj9594 Actually I used an objective metric and told you my standard. Anyone 2700 or higher must at least be an 8, maybe higher. Why? Because if not, there is no sample size for 9 or 10. 9 could be 2750-2800 and 10 could be 2800 plus.
@@nossenkanterhe did not rate them according to their strength if he did so then she will maybe get a 5 but he is giving her a rating on the basis of new ideas created or maybe new opening or something that she contributed to the theory ( basically a natural understanding of a position ) a genius in this scale would be capablanca and Kasparov
Her style was aggressive that's why she got good on entertainment
@@MONSTERGAMING-jl4ze I mean again, 2700 rating speaks for itself.
Yep weird because he has 2882 rating but still he gave himself 8
So Polgar not really a genius because of its repetition habits but still entertaining… 🤷♂️ ?
Not sure he can himself rate 8 on genius with such a remark
I like that Magnus wasn't all politically correct and gave an honest analysis.
A sexist analysis, disregarding the chess world has been always hostile to women and girls, and Judit had to overcome both.
@@Smileater not sure what your saying. I think magnus actually showed a lot of respect for her here. She herself has talked about the fact that she was trained in chess from a young age. One thing that magnus doesn’t mention and many others fail to mention is that almost all the male super gms also started playing at a super young age and practiced a ton so saying she’s only good because of repetition is a little unfair.
@@Smileater cry more libtard
@@SkiingIsBelieving859 agreed. Well stated.
At her best she was 8 in the world against the best man with an Elo of 2735!
In 1991, Polgár achieved the title of Grandmaster at the age of 15 years and 4 months, at the time the youngest to have done so, breaking the record previously held by former World Champion Bobby Fischer.
She was the youngest player ever to break into the FIDE top 100 players rating list, ranking No. 55 in the January 1989 rating list, at the age of 12.
Genius hopefully defined as.....
i mean i have not a clue about chess... but what i can see from this guy is the same as the best tennis players do... get on the nervs of the other players 😂 that is leterally the best tactic in any sport that is played against an other party. So that is his biggest move...that he is annoying. ✌️ but it definitely works!
meanwhile she beats him today
@@dixidum2380 You are Full of S..t! and a mysogynist! at her best she was 8 in the world against the best man with an Elo of 2735!
In 1991, Polgár achieved the title of Grandmaster at the age of 15 years and 4 months, at the time the youngest to have done so, breaking the record previously held by former World Champion Bobby Fischer.
She was the youngest player ever to break into the FIDE top 100 players rating list, ranking No. 55 in the January 1989 rating list, at the age of 12.
19
We are talking about chess so if I will rate Judit's Intelligence in chess I will give her a 9. I want how honest Carlsen is in rating other grand masters but 7 is low for a world chess champion AND DUBBED THE STRONGEST WOMAN IN CHESS, the strongest in her era!
He gave himself an 8
@@pieter7947
You wait until he lose!
@@awakenedsoul2638 I mean, he rates genius as in finding ideas that no-one has found before. That's why he rated Kasparov a 10, because he was revolutionary in his strategical and tactical genius
@@pieter7947
I get it. I want to see Carlsen loose this year when they do the World Chess Championship!
@@awakenedsoul2638 what are you talking about he’s not even playing
as a natural born loser i had to down vote 😀
Male world champion???🤣
Well, it was extreme repetition for him too, since Inate talent doesn't exist. That was also what polgar experiment showed
Oh really ? Then the #2 just have to do more repetitions and will become world champion. Thanks !
@@Ryu53898 exactly. But is not "just" because would need to do even more than Carlsen xD
But well, can you prove me that talent exists?
Talent doesn't exist? What a ridiculous thing to say
@@HellBound1100 yes talent don't exist. Prove me that it exists. Give 3 balls to anyone that never tried juggling before. Yep, you now know balls will fall. Where's the talent?
@@HellBound1100 besides, read about the polgar experiment that proves talent is a fantasy
Pues te ganó en un parque macho
Beauty rate? Lolz.
Ranking sanity is ridiculous
Just saw him get smoked by her in 20. Hahahaha
Not lets see her do it in the candidates, oh wait
Smoked him😂
11-2 officially not some friendly casual match 😂
This didn't age well since she tricked him out of his Queen about 3 months ago in El Retiro Chess Park in Madrid.
How does that invalidate anything he said? 2400 players can beat super gms in a game
@@HkFinn83 I didn't say anything was necessarily invalidated. I'm saying it's funny that he rated her as lower on genius than himself, but then he blundered his queen to her recently.
Just because Magnus may be the best Chess player in the world doesn't mean he has the credentials to rate her intelligence. It's subjective.
@@stevenknight6756 you’re totally confused. He’s being asked about her genius...at chess. If he isn’t qualified to rate that, nobody is. I don’t know if English is a second language for you, but he wasn’t asked about her ‘intelligence’, and didn’t comment on it.
@@HkFinn83 I'm not confused at all. "Genius at chess" is completely subjective. Magnus himself has said himself that he doesn't consider himself a genius outside of chess. His ability, as a prodigy, to have every position from every game in the database memorized isn't "genius." A large percentage of his wins aren't from inspired attacking sequences, but from pulling wins out of drawing endgames. That's because he's mechanically better than most of his competitors. But some, like me, could consider players like Polgar, Tal, and Anand to be higher ranked in the genius department because of the magic they create on the board. No, Magnus isn't a God. He blunders, he loses (apparently to people like Hans who was way less ranked), and his opinions aren't the Supreme law of the land.
@@HkFinn83 And perhaps you should study up because genius and intelligence are often connected. There's no official "genius" definition in the Chess dictionary. XD
"Sanity"? Why is that on the list. What value is that anyway? The most interesting and best chess player of all time (Fischer) certainly had none of that "sanity" crud.
That's exactly why it is on the list.
And he was the best 1970-1972, that's not even three years, not certainly not the best of all times. For that you need stamina a quality not found in Fischer or Morphy.
The series is called magnus carlsen rates world champions but judith was never a world champion. But since she is a woman they have to include her... The same for Hou Yifan
You were beaten buy her...
Carlsen is not the Messiah. He's not perfect.
She isnt crazy ?
gee thats disappointing :(
Very funny.
What does Sanity rating mean? Are some pro chess players mental ill?
Treat every man after his deserts and who should scape a whipping?
@@kreek22 ?
Fischer was not exactly well headed, and is consequently low rated by Magnus in this one.
On the opposite you have great champions such as Anand or Polgar who are perfectly sane
Some are mentally ill, not many... some are just very emotional, meaning that if they lose a game during a tournament, they can have trouble coming back and playing their best. I think Magnus' ratings on that point were a mix.
narrow minded. a genius would never mark a human with numbers.
Nahahahahahyssss
I can't say that I see genius in her... uh... her play!
Sad
She did beat him last week in 9 moves...
At her best she was 8 in the world against the best man with an Elo of 2735!
In 1991, Polgár achieved the title of Grandmaster at the age of 15 years and 4 months, at the time the youngest to have done so, breaking the record previously held by former World Champion Bobby Fischer.
She was the youngest player ever to break into the FIDE top 100 players rating list, ranking No. 55 in the January 1989 rating list, at the age of 12.
She has won or shared first in the chess tournaments of Hastings 1993, Madrid 1994, León 1996, U.S. Open 1998, Hoogeveen 1999, Sigeman & Co 2000, Japfa 2000, and the Najdorf Memorial 2000.
Polgár is the only woman to have won a game against a reigning world number one player, and has defeated eleven current or former world champions in either rapid or classical chess: Magnus Carlsen, Anatoly Karpov, Garry Kasparov, Vladimir Kramnik, Boris Spassky, Vasily Smyslov, Veselin Topalov, Viswanathan Anand, Ruslan Ponomariov, Alexander Khalifman, and Rustam Kasimdzhanov.
..seriously?
Grass. Now.
@@joannewilson6577just one achievement and feminists are flying in skies that too in a casual match
She got her ass whooped by magnus many times
The score stands 11-2 and 5 draws
And in classical 2-0 and 1 draw