Going down the stretch, I thought Fischer and Alekhine were going to be the top two. But when Fischer came in at #2, I knew Alekhine wasn't going to be #1. It used to be that everyone put Alekhine in the Top 3, but nobody put him at #1. Fischer's statement that Morphy would beat anyone in 1960 was patently false. Morphy was absolutely ahead of his time. But Morphy's time was 1860. By 1960, the rest of the world had long since caught up to what Morphy knew. Morphy did what he did because he discovered the principles of the Open Game. The rest of the world didn't know those principles. But they didn't understand the principles of the closed game either, until Steinitz discovered them, and Morphy was distinctly weaker in closed games. Reuben Fine opined that chess *theory* reached its full maturity between 1930 and 1945, and the basic ideas were unlikely to advance further, only be refined. Morphy tops this list not due to his overall playing strength (as Fischer claimed), but due to his *dominance*. That's fine, only I think Steinitz and Philidor were equally dominant in their times. Philidor was the best in the world for 50 years. Nobody will ever do that again. I can see leaving Philidor off just because so few of his games still exist. But Chessmetrics shows Steinitz as high as 200 points above his nearest contemporary, which is absolutely in Morphy's league, although Steinitz doesn't make the list at all. Like Morphy, Steinitz discovered major principles all by himself, rather than mastering principles that someone else discovered. Steinitz doesn't get the love Morphy does, because his style was boring and unheroic. While Morphy won dashing games, Steinitz let himself get beat up for most of a game, in order to hang onto a long term advantage until it paid off. That's not exciting. But arguably if Morphy belongs on this list, Steinitz belongs on it somewhere too.
Morphy was my gut choice due to his total dominance of his contemporaries. Like Ben says, “How did he do it? How did he get so good?” Morphy was a chess giant in a time of midgets. His dominance was otherworldly.
Morphy was a naturally gifted chess player. One of the earliest chess prodigies to ever live. He was never taught, didn't have coaches, didn't have computers, to assist him. He even beat a Union General when he was a little kid.
Objectively though, as academics have found, Morphy was not as accurate as the other masters. If you look at error per move, using a strong engine as a reference, Capa, Kasparov, Kramnik, Karpov, Carlson and pretty much every other master were more accurate. Back in Morphy's time you didn't have to be accurate since the opposition was so weak.
@@pwx13 Maybe true but difficult to prove. How much stronger did players get when the Hypermodern school was founded? When the Soviets started studying openings and finding out the best lines from the meh lines? Been going on since before engines were created. GM John Nunn analyzed an old tournament, I think it was the Carlsbad 1911 round robin, and found even past the opening (where you can argue the players were following recommended theory and therefore playing more perfectly), the masters there made more blunders and howlers than modern players. Statistics do bear this out, that the old masters made more mistakes. Keep in mind almost any opening is playable if you don't make blunders. The old masters were blunder prone.
One thing about Morphy's chess - His games often struck me as strokes of lightning brilliancy. He did with chess pieces what Wayne Gretzky did with a hockey puck. He could see moves that other players simply could not see.
True, I studied one of his games. Morphy was brilliant as a chess player. He made moves that went way beyond even a master chess player makes. He was an absolute beast on the chess board, and single handedly beat the best players of his day, even the best Western Europe had to offer of his day, without the help of coaches, computers, and self help chess books.
Well said. When I watch his games I can't predict his moves. Sometimes even from move two or three, he would make insane moves like sacrifice a knight from the opening just to open the lines and bring more pieces. Then he would find a checkmate out of nowhere, making moves you would not look for because they re counter intuitive such as moving his pieces into his opponent's pieces to attack something else entirely. These modern players are arrogant because they use engines and study old games and old lines, I guarantee some of them when faced with Morphy would not know what to do.
I believe I've never come across a more convincing argument for Paul Murphy's top-ranking. The analogy of a player consistently engaging with 1000 ELO opponents, how could he ever markedly distinguish himself from them; it appears to be an impossible task!
Just the same argument about Tal, Spassky, Petrosian, Lasker , Alekhine, Karpov , Kasparov, Capablanca, Botvinik etc. They were almost same in strength just taking turns in becoming champion and some of them dominate for a bit and that puts them just above the rest slightly but Fischer and Morphy were just built different.
Putting Capablanca ahead of Lasker is literally like putting Kramnik ahead of Kasparov. Not only was Lasker more dominant and for a much longer time, but he was still better than Capa in tournaments after he lost the title.
I think a lot of the arguments about these kinds of rankings come down to the difference between "best" and "greatest". (In the lecture Ben always says "greatest", but the video title has "best".) Magnus is almost certainly the most accurate (human) chess player of all time. In the age of engines it's likely impossible for anyone to dominate like Morphy, Fischer and Kasparov did in their prime. It's still damned impressive that Magnus has managed to maintain a healthy 2800+ rating for as long as he has, given the level of competition.
The algorithm behind the elo system will bring a slight inflation over time, so it's Not soo impressive that Carlsson is over 2800 for so long, never the less his consistence is very impressive
Can barely compare modern chess in the computer era even just for the fact there is no adjournment anymore. Then having the better seconds really mattered for having better prep and sailing through the moves after move 40. Now chess is much more fair until somebody comes up with unexpected means of cheating.
Yeah, but the current world number 1 is almost always the most accurate because of advancement of engines as well as openings and theory. For example 25 years from now the world number 1 is going to be playing the most accurate chess of all time, almost definitely. It's not interesting at all to contemplate who's playing the most accurately. I like your point about not being able to dominate with engines the same way as past players, that's very very true. It's much much harder to show domination over the other top players with engines today because engines level the playing field to some degree, so it's ever more impressive when someone is dominant. Morphy played in a completely different time, and very very few people played chess at all then. For someone like Morphy, there's just not enough information about him to know where he would stand vs modern players. Bens list is very interesting though.
The very definition of a GOAT is complete dominance of all competition. That person is Morphy, and I've been saying this for 20 years. If you take away the bias of how much you enjoy a player's style then the statistics point to Morphy. He wasn't the strongest of all time (highest ELO = Magnus) but the strongest compared to his peers.
The very definition of GOAT makes the term nonsense. How can we know who will have been the Greatest Of All Time when, by definition, we know nothing about future players of chess.
My list: 1. Paul Morphy 2. Magnus Carlsen 3. Robert J. Fischer 4. Garri Kasparov 5. Anatoli Karpov 6. Vishwanathan Anand 7. Mikhail Tal 8. Tigran Petrosian 9. José Raúl Capablanca 10. Howard Staunton ( no, I don't really know much of any of these chess players, just big chess names I've heard of at various times :))
I knew he'd be on the top 10, but genuinely surprised he beat out Karpov. I recall multiple times Ben complaining back in St. Louis that prime Karpov was clearly better than Magnus due to his much superior tournament performances.
He is top 10. during the era of fischer and kasparov and backwards. playing and developing in chess is difficult for many countries. in western and europian country players always have the advantage but now in the age of digitalization everyone can play and develop their talent at their desk. for Carlsen to be on top of this generation despite the almost equal opportunity given to all is amazing.
Karpov not having computers in his time was an advantage - he had a team of seconds to analyze openings, and you didn't have an objective score of every line and position like today. Same with Kasparov. They could sit on opening novelties for years. Computers are the great equalizer, and makes Magnus' performance even more impressive.
@@trondeg74Good point. They had human helpers instead of the computers. That's why I thought Fischer was one of the greatest of all times because he had no computers, and unlimited coaching, seconds like the old style Soviet, Russian players.
No way is Magnus that far ahead of the competition. He only beat Caruana on a tie-break to remain World Champ which is not even dominant. He loses with far greater regularity than Morphy did. @@peterkoch3777
36:54 I was checking Letelier-Fischer in book fifteen minutes before watching the video (lol), so for those interested, the final analysis of Fischer was, after Qxf4 : « On 24. Kxf4, Bh6 mate ! Or 24. Kf2 Ng4+ 25. Kg2 Ne3+ 26. Kf2 Nd4 27. Qh1 Ng4+ 28. Kf1 Nxf3, with a winning attack. » (So yeah it's Nd4)
nobody can hate this review , its very spot on, all the players who lost to great players were indeed great players themselves , there are GOAT's that stand out, and there are new ones found by research and great hosts such as yourself, i appreciate it and plan to support with the simple heart shaped thanks, its a lot of work you put into these lectures/ speeches/ reviews/ lessons in reality, thanks Ben
Actually, there are 2 mates in 1 in Morphy's game in the end. You showed that game in one of the videos from 2017. when you did a Morphy lecture. I think moving the queen to e6 is also mate, but I believe you said in that video that moving the queen to e6 requires moving it 2 squares, while moving to d7 requires only 1 square, so it's quicker :-) With that said, good list. I would most likely agree with the players you put there although I would probably put Anand a bit higher and most likely Kasparov on number 1. All lists are subjective in the end, they were all amazing players who had tons of amazing games. Thank you for the video!
I can't believe I watched that video yesterday and didn't recognise the position until I saw this comment. I need to pay more attention hahaha. The comment Finegold made was very funny
Kaprov being underrated that men was a undisputed world champion for over ten years and then was a fide champion until he was nearly 50. Had the greatest tournament of all time and competed with the goat h2h for multiple matches
@95Oktay agree with you 💯, Karpov's greatly underrated. Even in his 1984/85 match vs Kasparov, he scored 4 wins in 9 games. Under today's rules, he would have retained his title easily. But, being 33 at the time and Kasparov 21, he didn't have as much stamina, hence faded as the match progressed (5 and a half months)!
*The transcript speaks for itself:* fiser Beats basy everybody's like who's basy he's the guy who lost to fiser okay but don't underestimate Boris basy...
Regarding thirty-two-year-old Magnus Carlsen, Ben says, "I can't rank someone that young number one. If he's still on top in another ten years, okay." Then, a few moments later, he gives his number one ranking to a guy who retired from the game at age twenty-two; a guy who never beat any monster players on the level of Magnus's competition...or Kasparov's, or even Fisher's. Now that's some wicked logic. You go, Aristotle Feingold!
I guess the difference is is that Morphy was retired and Magnus is still playing, so he wanted to see how Magnus continues to perform, either way stupid. Morphy being the GOAT can definitely be argued with. You can't even compare a player who played chess that long ago, chess was so new compared to the game today and the players in it, it's just so different. Morphy was dominant, but I don't believe there is enough information at all to put Morphy on top of a GOAT list. Putting him above players like Kasparov, Carlsen, and Fischer seems insane to me, but it is an interesting list that's for sure.
@@billj4525it's not about comparing chess, it's because morphys strength is incomprehensible. He was modern GM strength without literally anyone or anything on the planet to learn how from. Without even being dedicated to chess, being focused on becoming a lawyer. It's insane
@@AquaticSkipperno he wasnt mordern gm strength lmao, chess accuracy means nothing here, I can rack up 97℅ accuracy against weak players But even for 2600 players its impossible to put 97℅ accuracy against magnus, cos he will pressure you into making mistakes
@@AquaticSkipper Morphy was not modern grandmaster strength then. 2300-2400, but with that said it's not his rating that matters, it's what Morphy was able to accomplish and the dominance he displayed over his peers. That said, it was much much easier to be dominant when chess was a new game with no theory and very few people playing. These days engines level the playing field a ton. All the games and databases are available. There are just so many things you can do to improve and stay up to date. For those reasons, it's much much harder to be dominant today, and even a tiny bit of dominance is impressive. I definitely believe Kasparov, Carlsen, and Fischer are the 3 GOAT. I'm not putting down Morphy, but like I said, he stopped playing at 22 and very little happened in his chess career, so It's impossible to rate him accurately, especially against modern players. It's a completely different game and situation for the players.
Morphy’s greatest strength was his positional grasp and rapid adaptation to his opposition. The tactics flowed naturally from the superior positions he routinely achieved. He was in every sense a ‘modern’ player 100 years ahead of his time. He might lose a game or two early and then steamroll the remainder (e.g., Harwitz, Andersen). That was how quickly he adapted and ‘figured you out.’ He also used virtually no time on his moves (like Anand) while his opponents thought for 10, 20, 30 or even 60 or more minutes on a single move (because there were no time controls). Thus, what few mistakes he made usually came through apathy to the situation during these protracted games. He would easily adapt and excel to modern formats. Of all the players of the past I would say Morphy is the EASIEST to call for how well he would perform today. Morphy would have destroyed Steinitz. No contest. Maybe Lasker would be the first to level the playing field. Certainly Capablanca. But like I said, Morphy’s greatest strength was rapid adaptation so just as Alekhine found Capa’s weaknesses, I suspect Morphy would have done the same, but more organically.
@@joecotter6803 oh, no! That weren't "no name games". He crushed Taimanov 6:0 in the candidates, after that Larsen in the semi finals of the candidstes agaim 6:0 and finally ex world champion Petrosjan, who just could win one game against him. As far as I know, nobody in the history of chess had ever achieved something like this - not before nor after the days of this "brutal chessmonster" named Robert James Fisher.
He never out himself on the line following his great run of candidates and WC final. His performance in Reykjavic was flawed because of his persistent gamesmanship. Arriving late, refusing to play, changing the playing conditions. Spassky should have refused to play. When Karpov assumed the title he went on an amazing run in top tournaments. He defended his title twice succesfully against Korchnoi, one match over 32 games. His 5 matches with Kasparov rendered a score of -2. Karpov had bottle. Fischer was a mentally unstable anti-semite. A vile human being. Fischer ran away from his big challenge.
@@joecotter6803Karpov did not Fischer. Most specifically USSR. A match was arranged and agreed and Soviet team turned it down watch a Karpov interview where he admits it.
Greatest chess players of all time: (from the past) 1. Garry Kasparov 2. Robert James Fischer 3. Jose Raul Capablanca 4. Mikhail Botvinnick 5. Mikhail Tal 6. Paul Morphy 7. Sultan Khan 8. Alexander Alekhine 9. Tigran Petrosian 10. Anatoly Karpov
NN doesn't get the love they deserve. We only ever see NN's losses, but how do you think NN was able to compete against so many elite GM's throughout over a century? I suspect the reason we don't see NN anymore is that this higher being finally ascended back to their original plane of existence and left us mortals to continue pondering the many intricate facets of this remarkable game of chess. Thank you for gracing us with your presence, NN.
Morphy and Fischer stopped playing the game very young. I would have loved to see what they would have achieved if they played for 30 years competitively.
@@davidcopson5800 I imagine most don’t have Tal on the list. He’s an iffy top 10 because of his lifestyle choices. He would’ve been so much better had he not drank himself to death while chain-smoking.
I think you should get an honorable mention for just clearly and astutely thinking this exercise through, and then demonstrating examples in such skillful fashion. I would nominate Ben Finegold for somewhere in the field of top 10 chess commentators of all time!
That is a good point about Morphy. I think he was just brilliant and taught himself, basically, to play at a much higher level than his opponents. Maybe he had incredible visualization skills and could do advanced tactical puzzles and combinations that he made up in his head for hours a day.
I completely agree with this list , absolutely without doubt ...Morphy's games are flawless and just pure genius,Fischer was like Morphy from a different time!
1. Garry Kasparov - Often considered the greatest of all time, Kasparov dominated the chess world for over 20 years and was World Champion from 1985 to 2000. His legacy includes innovations in numerous chess openings and a highly aggressive playing style. Magnus Carlsen - His consistent performance, modern approach to preparation and play, and his ability to remain the World Champion since 2013, along with his highest ever Elo rating, position him among the very best. Bobby Fischer - Known for his eccentric genius and the 1972 World Championship victory against Boris Spassky, Fischer revolutionized the game with his deep opening preparation and intuitive grasp of dynamics. Jose Raul Capablanca - Renowned for his natural talent, simplicity of play, and positional mastery, Capablanca was World Champion from 1921 to 1927 and remained a top player without much formal study. Anatoly Karpov - World Champion before Kasparov, Karpov was known for his positional style and deep strategic understanding. His reign and subsequent battles with Kasparov marked one of the most significant eras in chess history. Vishwanathan Anand - Anand's rapid playing speed, versatility, and longevity at the top level, along with being World Champion multiple times, place him among the greats. Mikhail Tal - Known as "The Magician from Riga," Tal was famous for his imaginative and aggressive style, particularly his daring sacrifices. Emanuel Lasker - World Champion for 27 years, Lasker was known for his psychological approach and practical style of play, making him one of the most resilient champions. Boris Spassky - Known for his universal style and being World Champion during a competitive era, Spassky's legacy also includes his famous match against Fischer. 10. Paul Morphy - Often considered the first unofficial World Champion, Morphy dominated the chess world in the late 1850s. His understanding of open games and development principles was ahead of his time.
Same, most people definitely have Kasparov over Fischer, especially if you're comparing everything about them to each other, not soley dominance. I have Kasparov as the GOAT, Carlsen as 2 currently, and Fischer as 3. I think that's a decent list, although it's an opinion. Morphy is just too hard to compare with modern players, not enough information.
There are 24 possible ways to rank the top 4, and I can’t think of one that is bad. Also, just think how long Karpov would have been world nr 1 or world champion if Kasparov didn’t exist. All the lists would be calling him the greatest ever for dominating from Fischer’s retirement in the mid 70s to the turn of the millennium.
The thing is, Karpov was beating Kasparov in their match comprehensively. But, the rules back then were, whoever scored 6 wins first, was the winner. Karpov took an early 4-win lead (in the first 9 games) but, at 33, being quite a bit older, did not have the stamina of the then 21 years old Kasparov. Had their match been played by today's rules (the best of 12 games wins), it would not have even been close.
With a shorter 1st title match (12 or 24 games) v Kasparov the rankings here would be very different; Kasparov was getting crushed, but cling on tenaciously, had stamina, will and learned a lot
Mr. Finegold, I love this video! As I see it, the problem with these perennially popular lists is that the criteria is a subjective blending of various aspects and considerations which defies an agreed upon 'rubric'. Are we talking about incredible God-given ability? (Your arguments for Morphy were excellent.) Are we talking about how advanced the actual chess played was? (If so, the most recent players will always have the advantage.) What weight do we give to longevity? (This would hugely detract from Fischer.) Etc. That said and acknowledged, I'll have a go, just for fun: 1) Magnus Carlsen 2) Garry Kasparov 3) Bobby Fischer 4) Anatoly Karpov 5) Paul Morphy 6) José Raúl Capablanca 7) Emanuel Lasker 8) Viswanathan Anand 9) Mikhail Botvinnik 10) Vladimir Kramnik The biggest reservation I have about my own list is the absence of Alexander Alekhine, and I am open to being persuaded to include him in place of a current placeholder.
I disagree. In modern usage, very is used to add emphasis. A case could be made that one list like this is unique, and another with Nakamura on top is very unique. As this is not formal technical language, it works just fine in the vernacular. This is how language shifts over time. Next you will be saying that "yo" is incorrect or someone slaying has to be actually committing homicide.
@@PeteQuad "very" is not only illiterate in this case, and in your second example, it is trite and unnecessary. Unique is a "strong verb" it accomplishes what you intended to say without embellishment. Ben's list is unique says it all. (but of course, is only true if no one else has made the same list!) lol
@@bunhead8 unique is an adjective, not a verb. That is why people use very with it, like they do with many other adjectives. It is grammatically correct and the usage is understood. Saying it is "illiterate" is arguably a greater break with common usage than very unique, as illiterate typically applies only to people not to incorrect word usage.
Morphy is my favorite player. THIS list is the definitive list. Got any good Morphy book recommendations? I read one a couple years ago and it was amazing, talked about his trip to Europe.
Two must reads in my mind are "the pride and sorrow of chess"? by Dave Lawson and "Paul Morphy, the chess champion" by Frederick Milnes Edge, the latter one particularly as it's contemporary, a bit harder to read but all the more insightful.
Hey, I'm with you Ben about Morphy. The guy was way too dominant at a time when he had no right to be that dominant. Even if we had a time machine there's no way to know if Morphy would dominate today, but there's also no way to know if someone like Carlsen would be as strong back in the 1800s since he wouldn't have been raised with chess engines and modern learning techniques.
Well you can't dominate like that today. Engines level the playing field so much, and every single player has access to them, and that cuts down on dominance big time, so it's just not possible to dominate like past players anymore. Chess was a new game back then so dominating was much easier to do since so much hadn't been figured out yet. That said, Morphy was the most dominant player of all time by far, and he should be given credit for that. Who knows how Carlsen would do in the 1800's and how Morphy would do today? It's also possible they were both best suited for their specific time periods, rather than being able to be the best in each others time period. Interesting and fun to compare though.
@@Qhsjahajw Carlsen learned in an era of computers. He's said himself that he uses computers to verify lines and whatnot. Learning in the 1800s is completely different than today so it's hard to know whether he would have been any good.
@@rathelmmc3194 sure he does what he wants, but he doesnt need to. We saw in 2013 how he beat Anand even tho he was playing obscure li es, and anand was equalising right out of the opening and still losing
@@rathelmmc3194 no, and no allegations are any healthy it was a different time, nobody was serious about chess in 1800s, there might have bern hundreds of ppl who wouldve been as good as morphy but never had the chance to know about chess, thats not the case now, exposure is pretty high. Similar to how in fortnite, back when ppl were very uncompetitive ninja/myth used to dominate, but once it got serious and price funds increased, more players came up who were far stronger than those guys, they were just lucky to be in an easy time where it wasnt hard to be called a genius, thats what morphy was
Great, I enjoyed this a lot. I always thought that Morthy was great although I've heard people say that he would not even be as good as a master today. That he became the best in the world by far and had no comparable player in the U.S. before go on to play in Europe really is convincing of his greatness.
I totally agree with Ben, putting Fisher above Carlsen and Kasparov! Explanation: Bobby Fischer was worse than Carlsen in every statistic: tournament wins, WC titles, duration as world no 1, opposition strength, duration as WC, rating average, peak rating and he even retired from chess at age 29 (Carlsen is 33 now). In addition, Carlsen won tons of Rapid and Blitz titles and is constantly one of the best in all 3 time controls, but this is just additional info as Blitz and Rapid weren't taken that seriously in Fishers time. I hope this makes sense...
My list before I watched the video is: 1) Morphy 2) Fischer 3) Kasparov 4) Carlsen 5) Anand 6) Capablanca 7) Karpov 8) Botvinnik 9) Lasker 10) Korchnoi So, close enough I guess. I disagree with Anand being 10th. Although, I have never been a fan of Anand, one have to admire that he has been playing top level chess for decades now despite the very heavy competition. He is disciplined, tactically and positionally very sound, good opening preparations, no weaknesses etc.
@feyyaznegus3599 don't you think there's no way Anand can be higher ranked than Karpov? Btw, there's no way Korchnoi makes the top 10. He's achieved nothing.
@@spartanthe300ththermopylae4 You are probably right about both points, especially with the second one. But this was how I initially made my the list and I didn't want to alter it afterwards, so...
People forget Morphy and Steinitz had one common opponent, watch Morphy vs Bird (1858) where Bird is beaten easily, then the match Bird v Steinitz (1866)and see how much difficulty Steinitz had beating him in a close match. I think Morphy was at least 100 years ahead of his time in terms of chess.
I'm so glad Spassky made it, he's my favorite player! You can learn nearly everything from his games. I always play The Spassky Gambit when possible with great results. 😁👍 I'm not sure how he would feel about Karpov being above him, or on any list at all.
Karpov has a 14-1 record, was world champion for more years, was 2nd best for a long time too. All spassky did was relax and play tennis, howd u call him greater than karpov
Ben: 2 things: 1) I played against you in Dearborn in 1994 in a simul you gave at the National HS Chess Championship and 2) I've seen "Russia With Love" many times, it's my co-favorite James Bond movie along with "Casino Royale" with Daniel Craig. Thanks for this video.
Better of course 19:50 Bh6+, not Rf5 ?? In blitz, Capablanca gave the entire elite a 1v 5 advantage and won rather easily. He would probably be the best in the rapid game. He often played entire games at a blitz pace. Unhealthy habits hindered him in the classical game... As for Fischer, he had the greatest advantage over the others, apart from Morphy. As for madness, it is easier to say which of them was not or is not mad. Maybe there hasn't even been one like this before.
Excellent list! I would have ranked Capablanca a bit higher, but then I noticed that Alekhine and Petrosian didn't make the list. I would have honorable mentioned Steinitz as well, just because I'm a contrarian. NN also played some brilliant games, especially in exhibitions against much higher rated opponents, but he (she?) didn't have the P.R. machine of the top ten.
Something I really like about Anand not mentioned is his longevity. Of course, the GOATs are the people who stand above their peers for the longest amount of time and with the furthest gap between them and the others. But, it's incredible that Anand has maintained his status as a top player, floating within the top 10 for decades. He's been around during the times of dominance of several of the guys on this list, and the entire time he's remained within their reach, drawing and winning against them consistently despite never quite being as dominating.
Agree with the players but somewhat disagree with the places coz Anand has greater feats than Spassky and Tal so he should atleast be at 6 and I would put Botvinik on top 10 insted of Tal coz his play was much inaccurate. Also Magnus should be above Kasparov and Fischer in my opinion.
I also noticed that Morphy and The Turk were both active 1849-1854, but they never played a published game. Maybe The Turk was Morphy's secret practice partner.
I think the problem with assessing just how good Morphy was is that there is a big unknown. We know that he was very accurate when wiping players off the board at a time before it was understood how to defend properly. What we will never know is how he would do against players who could defend themselves.
Yeah, not even close to enough information about Morphy. We have no clue at all how he compares to modern players at all, in fact we really don't know how he compares to Capablanca or that time period either, or really how he compares to anyone throughout history. We know of his super talent though and his dominance.
Morphy himself was fantastic at defense, how did he get good at defending himself if everyone is shit? That is the entire argument for morphy, the definition of genius is hitting a bullseye when you didnt even know the target existed.
@@LordLegender If he sees attacking possibilities for himself, he sees them for the other player too. + the players of his time played ultra-aggressive, so he kinda had to know some defense too, to win 80% of his games
Very good video with interesting games. My top 10 : 1. Fischer 2. Morphy 3. Kasparov 4. Carlsen 5. Lasker 6. Capablanca 7. Alekhine 8.Tal 9. Anand 10. Karpov
I agree with your list. I personally find it weird that Hikaru Nakamura said "If Morphy were alive today, he'd be an IM around 2400." Pffff if Morphy were alive today, he'd memorize all of Magnus' games in just a couple of days and beat him in a jiffy. But what the hell do I know.
I think he meant if Morphy at the level of play he was playing at in his day was to be transported to our time, he would be around that level. Not that his potential if he were born today would be that high.
This is not true, he is goat candidate, you can compare different eras and say he knows mlre chess then yes, but if you judge for rhe era, then it is debatable
His explanation why morphy is the best is very logical. Would magnus or tal win against morphy? Maybe. But in 1850 there is no way that would turn as good as morphy did. And that is a very valid point. It is nothing else but a miracle.
I was shocked to discover my name absent from the list.
I am shocked too, i don t know you!
I’m shocked too, I don’t know neither of you
Real shocker lol
Kinda expected that tbh
Are you Rufus?
1. Ben Finegold
2. bonerici
3. Karen Boyd
4. tryingtolearn123
5. Fen Binegold
6. Levy of course
This list is missing the legend kdub1242
GM ken west
Don't forget Arjun
6. Rufus
7. Dufus
Going down the stretch, I thought Fischer and Alekhine were going to be the top two. But when Fischer came in at #2, I knew Alekhine wasn't going to be #1. It used to be that everyone put Alekhine in the Top 3, but nobody put him at #1.
Fischer's statement that Morphy would beat anyone in 1960 was patently false. Morphy was absolutely ahead of his time. But Morphy's time was 1860. By 1960, the rest of the world had long since caught up to what Morphy knew. Morphy did what he did because he discovered the principles of the Open Game. The rest of the world didn't know those principles. But they didn't understand the principles of the closed game either, until Steinitz discovered them, and Morphy was distinctly weaker in closed games.
Reuben Fine opined that chess *theory* reached its full maturity between 1930 and 1945, and the basic ideas were unlikely to advance further, only be refined.
Morphy tops this list not due to his overall playing strength (as Fischer claimed), but due to his *dominance*. That's fine, only I think Steinitz and Philidor were equally dominant in their times. Philidor was the best in the world for 50 years. Nobody will ever do that again. I can see leaving Philidor off just because so few of his games still exist. But Chessmetrics shows Steinitz as high as 200 points above his nearest contemporary, which is absolutely in Morphy's league, although Steinitz doesn't make the list at all. Like Morphy, Steinitz discovered major principles all by himself, rather than mastering principles that someone else discovered.
Steinitz doesn't get the love Morphy does, because his style was boring and unheroic. While Morphy won dashing games, Steinitz let himself get beat up for most of a game, in order to hang onto a long term advantage until it paid off. That's not exciting. But arguably if Morphy belongs on this list, Steinitz belongs on it somewhere too.
Morphy was my gut choice due to his total dominance of his contemporaries. Like Ben says, “How did he do it? How did he get so good?” Morphy was a chess giant in a time of midgets. His dominance was otherworldly.
Correct
Morphy was a naturally gifted chess player. One of the earliest chess prodigies to ever live. He was never taught, didn't have coaches, didn't have computers, to assist him. He even beat a Union General when he was a little kid.
Objectively though, as academics have found, Morphy was not as accurate as the other masters. If you look at error per move, using a strong engine as a reference, Capa, Kasparov, Kramnik, Karpov, Carlson and pretty much every other master were more accurate. Back in Morphy's time you didn't have to be accurate since the opposition was so weak.
@raylopez99 they weren't weak, they didn't have the material to study
@@pwx13 Maybe true but difficult to prove. How much stronger did players get when the Hypermodern school was founded? When the Soviets started studying openings and finding out the best lines from the meh lines? Been going on since before engines were created. GM John Nunn analyzed an old tournament, I think it was the Carlsbad 1911 round robin, and found even past the opening (where you can argue the players were following recommended theory and therefore playing more perfectly), the masters there made more blunders and howlers than modern players. Statistics do bear this out, that the old masters made more mistakes. Keep in mind almost any opening is playable if you don't make blunders. The old masters were blunder prone.
Called his #1, but that just proves I watch a lot of Ben Finegold videos. Go Ben!
I'm really happy to see Morphy at number.1.
I expected Alekhine for the whole video haha, didn't think of Morphy, silly me.
I really hate Morphy because I always come up against it when playing the Ruy Lopez and i know I have to avoid Noah's Ark.
I called his top 5 😂
One thing about Morphy's chess - His games often struck me as strokes of lightning brilliancy. He did with chess pieces what Wayne Gretzky did with a hockey puck. He could see moves that other players simply could not see.
True, I studied one of his games. Morphy was brilliant as a chess player. He made moves that went way beyond even a master chess player makes. He was an absolute beast on the chess board, and single handedly beat the best players of his day, even the best Western Europe had to offer of his day, without the help of coaches, computers, and self help chess books.
Well said. When I watch his games I can't predict his moves. Sometimes even from move two or three, he would make insane moves like sacrifice a knight from the opening just to open the lines and bring more pieces. Then he would find a checkmate out of nowhere, making moves you would not look for because they re counter intuitive such as moving his pieces into his opponent's pieces to attack something else entirely.
These modern players are arrogant because they use engines and study old games and old lines, I guarantee some of them when faced with Morphy would not know what to do.
Loved this Ben, you are ridiculously entertaining!!
I believe I've never come across a more convincing argument for Paul Murphy's top-ranking. The analogy of a player consistently engaging with 1000 ELO opponents, how could he ever markedly distinguish himself from them; it appears to be an impossible task!
Just the same argument about Tal, Spassky, Petrosian, Lasker , Alekhine, Karpov , Kasparov, Capablanca, Botvinik etc. They were almost same in strength just taking turns in becoming champion and some of them dominate for a bit and that puts them just above the rest slightly but Fischer and Morphy were just built different.
Putting Capablanca ahead of Lasker is literally like putting Kramnik ahead of Kasparov. Not only was Lasker more dominant and for a much longer time, but he was still better than Capa in tournaments after he lost the title.
Did you consider the world war era?.
I think a lot of the arguments about these kinds of rankings come down to the difference between "best" and "greatest". (In the lecture Ben always says "greatest", but the video title has "best".) Magnus is almost certainly the most accurate (human) chess player of all time. In the age of engines it's likely impossible for anyone to dominate like Morphy, Fischer and Kasparov did in their prime. It's still damned impressive that Magnus has managed to maintain a healthy 2800+ rating for as long as he has, given the level of competition.
The algorithm behind the elo system will bring a slight inflation over time, so it's Not soo impressive that Carlsson is over 2800 for so long, never the less his consistence is very impressive
Can barely compare modern chess in the computer era even just for the fact there is no adjournment anymore. Then having the better seconds really mattered for having better prep and sailing through the moves after move 40. Now chess is much more fair until somebody comes up with unexpected means of cheating.
Yeah, but the current world number 1 is almost always the most accurate because of advancement of engines as well as openings and theory. For example 25 years from now the world number 1 is going to be playing the most accurate chess of all time, almost definitely. It's not interesting at all to contemplate who's playing the most accurately. I like your point about not being able to dominate with engines the same way as past players, that's very very true. It's much much harder to show domination over the other top players with engines today because engines level the playing field to some degree, so it's ever more impressive when someone is dominant. Morphy played in a completely different time, and very very few people played chess at all then. For someone like Morphy, there's just not enough information about him to know where he would stand vs modern players. Bens list is very interesting though.
Any grandmaster now will beat Morphy easily.
@@torvilasulvstle362 What if you gave Morphy access to a modern chess database, a chess engine and 2 years tho?
The very definition of a GOAT is complete dominance of all competition.
That person is Morphy, and I've been saying this for 20 years.
If you take away the bias of how much you enjoy a player's style then the statistics point to Morphy. He wasn't the strongest of all time (highest ELO = Magnus) but the strongest compared to his peers.
The very definition of GOAT makes the term nonsense. How can we know who will have been the Greatest Of All Time when, by definition, we know nothing about future players of chess.
Big thank you to Robert Venerus for sponsoring this wonderful lecture! Mind Blowing!
My list:
1. Paul Morphy
2. Magnus Carlsen
3. Robert J. Fischer
4. Garri Kasparov
5. Anatoli Karpov
6. Vishwanathan Anand
7. Mikhail Tal
8. Tigran Petrosian
9. José Raúl Capablanca
10. Howard Staunton
( no, I don't really know much of any of these chess players, just big chess names I've heard of at various times :))
Howard Staunton? He's not even top 100 of all time.
The only surprise to me is that Carlsen even made Bens top 10.
I knew he'd be on the top 10, but genuinely surprised he beat out Karpov. I recall multiple times Ben complaining back in St. Louis that prime Karpov was clearly better than Magnus due to his much superior tournament performances.
@@vigilante8374Karpov didn't have the added advantage of being able to use computers to improve his game, unlike alot of modern day grandmasters.
He is top 10. during the era of fischer and kasparov and backwards. playing and developing in chess is difficult for many countries. in western and europian country players always have the advantage but now in the age of digitalization everyone can play and develop their talent at their desk. for Carlsen to be on top of this generation despite the almost equal opportunity given to all is amazing.
Karpov not having computers in his time was an advantage - he had a team of seconds to analyze openings, and you didn't have an objective score of every line and position like today. Same with Kasparov. They could sit on opening novelties for years.
Computers are the great equalizer, and makes Magnus' performance even more impressive.
@@trondeg74Good point. They had human helpers instead of the computers. That's why I thought Fischer was one of the greatest of all times because he had no computers, and unlimited coaching, seconds like the old style Soviet, Russian players.
Thanks for the lecture. Great list! I believe you were right in saying Morphy had two mate in 1s. Qe6 being the other one. (42:15)
I only saw this one so I bugued when he played the other
Yes, I found this one too and was surprised he didn't show it at all.
Most people don't realize that Morphy pretty much retired from chess at 22...
The lesson is if you want to be good at chess, quit chess like Morphy and Fischer.
And Ben said: "won't put Magnus higher because he is 33" 😂
I think Magnus is as ahead of his competition as was Morphy❤
No way is Magnus that far ahead of the competition. He only beat Caruana on a tie-break to remain World Champ which is not even dominant. He loses with far greater regularity than Morphy did. @@peterkoch3777
at 22!!!! are you playing steven
Yeah, crazy to think about. It was a very weird time for chess though. Hardly anyone played, especially at the professional level.
19:52 I think Bh6+ is even more accurate, winning the exchange and completely simplifying after Kxh6 Rxf2
Yeah, Bh6+ and black super duper resigns
Two not very good americans on top. Looks like Trump was helping with the list.
My top 10 chess players list:
10. Pierre
9. James
8. Giovanni
7. Cleetus
6. Suresh
5. Ramesh
4. Babatunde
3. Pablo
2. Alessandro
1. Santosh
I watched on mute, but I see my name. I'm honored to make your list, though I don't remember playing against Tal in 1963.
I've just discovered this lecture series and I'm absolutely loving it! Honestly, thank you soooo much!
36:54
I was checking Letelier-Fischer in book fifteen minutes before watching the video (lol), so for those interested, the final analysis of Fischer was, after Qxf4 :
« On 24. Kxf4, Bh6 mate ! Or 24. Kf2 Ng4+ 25. Kg2 Ne3+ 26. Kf2 Nd4 27. Qh1 Ng4+ 28. Kf1 Nxf3, with a winning attack. »
(So yeah it's Nd4)
nobody can hate this review , its very spot on, all the players who lost to great players were indeed great players themselves , there are GOAT's that stand out, and there are new ones found by research and great hosts such as yourself, i appreciate it and plan to support with the simple heart shaped thanks, its a lot of work you put into these lectures/ speeches/ reviews/ lessons in reality, thanks Ben
Actually, there are 2 mates in 1 in Morphy's game in the end. You showed that game in one of the videos from 2017. when you did a Morphy lecture. I think moving the queen to e6 is also mate, but I believe you said in that video that moving the queen to e6 requires moving it 2 squares, while moving to d7 requires only 1 square, so it's quicker :-) With that said, good list. I would most likely agree with the players you put there although I would probably put Anand a bit higher and most likely Kasparov on number 1. All lists are subjective in the end, they were all amazing players who had tons of amazing games. Thank you for the video!
I can't believe I watched that video yesterday and didn't recognise the position until I saw this comment. I need to pay more attention hahaha. The comment Finegold made was very funny
Nice Florence and the Machine reference. My second favorite random casual reference of the year!
Kaprov being underrated that men was a undisputed world champion for over ten years and then was a fide champion until he was nearly 50. Had the greatest tournament of all time and competed with the goat h2h for multiple matches
@95Oktay agree with you 💯, Karpov's greatly underrated. Even in his 1984/85 match vs Kasparov, he scored 4 wins in 9 games. Under today's rules, he would have retained his title easily. But, being 33 at the time and Kasparov 21, he didn't have as much stamina, hence faded as the match progressed (5 and a half months)!
Kaprov always played a rouge.
It was Karpov's destiny to always have a label of being, underrated. He was a great chess player without a doubt though.
I like this list. Thoughtful and original but also valid points made. Good reasoning for what makes greatness greatness
*The transcript speaks for itself:*
fiser Beats basy everybody's like who's basy he's the guy who lost to fiser okay but don't underestimate Boris basy...
Lmao
Who is 'fiser'?
The guy that beat boris basy@@davidcopson5800
@@davidcopson5800 He's the guy who defeated Boris basy.
Fiser means "farts" in Norwegian 🤣🤣
I wonder why Alekhine never appears on such lists. He was so ingenious.
There's been a lot of chess players and Alekhine is great but just not top 10
Yes, and Alekhine was the only world champion who died as reigning world champion. Of course the Second World War was one reason for that.
I think your question is entirely valid. I posted my own top ten above, but please see the 'footnote' I added about Alekhine.
He ran from Capablanca and would go out his way to never play a tournament he was in
@@xMr.Agenda That's true. Alekhine refused to play a revanche match against Capablanca , but played matches against Bogoljubow instead.
Regarding thirty-two-year-old Magnus Carlsen, Ben says, "I can't rank someone that young number one. If he's still on top in another ten years, okay." Then, a few moments later, he gives his number one ranking to a guy who retired from the game at age twenty-two; a guy who never beat any monster players on the level of Magnus's competition...or Kasparov's, or even Fisher's. Now that's some wicked logic.
You go, Aristotle Feingold!
I guess the difference is is that Morphy was retired and Magnus is still playing, so he wanted to see how Magnus continues to perform, either way stupid. Morphy being the GOAT can definitely be argued with. You can't even compare a player who played chess that long ago, chess was so new compared to the game today and the players in it, it's just so different. Morphy was dominant, but I don't believe there is enough information at all to put Morphy on top of a GOAT list. Putting him above players like Kasparov, Carlsen, and Fischer seems insane to me, but it is an interesting list that's for sure.
@@billj4525it's not about comparing chess, it's because morphys strength is incomprehensible. He was modern GM strength without literally anyone or anything on the planet to learn how from. Without even being dedicated to chess, being focused on becoming a lawyer. It's insane
@@AquaticSkipperno he wasnt mordern gm strength lmao, chess accuracy means nothing here, I can rack up 97℅ accuracy against weak players
But even for 2600 players its impossible to put 97℅ accuracy against magnus, cos he will pressure you into making mistakes
@@AquaticSkipper Morphy was not modern grandmaster strength then. 2300-2400, but with that said it's not his rating that matters, it's what Morphy was able to accomplish and the dominance he displayed over his peers. That said, it was much much easier to be dominant when chess was a new game with no theory and very few people playing. These days engines level the playing field a ton. All the games and databases are available. There are just so many things you can do to improve and stay up to date. For those reasons, it's much much harder to be dominant today, and even a tiny bit of dominance is impressive. I definitely believe Kasparov, Carlsen, and Fischer are the 3 GOAT. I'm not putting down Morphy, but like I said, he stopped playing at 22 and very little happened in his chess career, so It's impossible to rate him accurately, especially against modern players. It's a completely different game and situation for the players.
My List :
1Paul Morphy
2 Fisher
3 kasparov
4 Carlsen
5 karpov
6 capblanca
7 Mikhail Botnavik
8 Lasker
9 Tal
10 Anand
"I like what Ben Finegold says so when he says some crazy stuff I'm going to agree with it." Wiser words have never been said...by me.
I am a Master and I absolutely Love his list!
Morphy is the Real Goat!
I agree with you, Paul Morphy was the GOAT, he was a badass at Chess, real life Chess Superman.
Retko je da je neko tako pametan i duhovit. 🎉❤
Духовит? Има отприлике 5 фора и, једном кад их чујеш, чула си их све.
Imho, what he says about Morphy being lone at the top also applies to Carlsen, except the overall level is way higher nowadays.
Niemann's chess speaks for itself.
Morphy's chess speaks for the ages.
Lol notice how when someone is hacking on a video game they sound EXACTLY like neimann? 😂😂😂
1. Capablanca
2. Kasparov
3. Fischer
4. Karpov
5. Carlsen
6. Botvinnik
7. Morphy
8. Anand
9. Lasker
10. Tal
Morphy did play some beautiful chess.
TaL too
My list:
1 Kaspárov
2 Carlsen
3 Bobby
4 Karpov
5 Botvinnik
6 Lasker
7 Capablanca
8 Alekhine
9 Anand
10 Kramnik
Honorable mentions: Morphy and Korchnoi
'Bobby' was a nasty anti-semite. Why make him sound all nice and cuddly, he was a vile human being.
Morphy’s greatest strength was his positional grasp and rapid adaptation to his opposition. The tactics flowed naturally from the superior positions he routinely achieved. He was in every sense a ‘modern’ player 100 years ahead of his time. He might lose a game or two early and then steamroll the remainder (e.g., Harwitz, Andersen). That was how quickly he adapted and ‘figured you out.’ He also used virtually no time on his moves (like Anand) while his opponents thought for 10, 20, 30 or even 60 or more minutes on a single move (because there were no time controls). Thus, what few mistakes he made usually came through apathy to the situation during these protracted games. He would easily adapt and excel to modern formats. Of all the players of the past I would say Morphy is the EASIEST to call for how well he would perform today. Morphy would have destroyed Steinitz. No contest. Maybe Lasker would be the first to level the playing field. Certainly Capablanca. But like I said, Morphy’s greatest strength was rapid adaptation so just as Alekhine found Capa’s weaknesses, I suspect Morphy would have done the same, but more organically.
Very good point re Morphy's time management
Excellent analysis but I'm still a fisher man
I've played a lot of chess games out with a chessboard and a book. Morphy and Yaz are the only ones where I was thinking, "Of course that's the move"
I think I fully agree with your top 10 list Mr. Finegold, it makes sense to me.
bobby Fischer was the greatest player in history - He had the highest gap rating in history - And won 18 games in a row against top 10 players -
He bottled the match with Karpov. 18 games is a blip in the world of chess.
@@joecotter6803 oh, no! That weren't "no name games". He crushed Taimanov 6:0 in the candidates, after that Larsen in the semi finals of the candidstes agaim 6:0 and finally ex world champion Petrosjan, who just could win one game against him. As far as I know, nobody in the history of chess had ever achieved something like this - not before nor after the days of this "brutal chessmonster" named Robert James Fisher.
He never out himself on the line following his great run of candidates and WC final. His performance in Reykjavic was flawed because of his persistent gamesmanship. Arriving late, refusing to play, changing the playing conditions. Spassky should have refused to play.
When Karpov assumed the title he went on an amazing run in top tournaments. He defended his title twice succesfully against Korchnoi, one match over 32 games. His 5 matches with Kasparov rendered a score of -2.
Karpov had bottle. Fischer was a mentally unstable anti-semite. A vile human being. Fischer ran away from his big challenge.
But Gary was champion for forever
@@joecotter6803Karpov did not Fischer. Most specifically USSR. A match was arranged and agreed and Soviet team turned it down watch a Karpov interview where he admits it.
Greatest chess players of all time: (from the past)
1. Garry Kasparov
2. Robert James Fischer
3. Jose Raul Capablanca
4. Mikhail Botvinnick
5. Mikhail Tal
6. Paul Morphy
7. Sultan Khan
8. Alexander Alekhine
9. Tigran Petrosian
10. Anatoly Karpov
NN doesn't get the love they deserve. We only ever see NN's losses, but how do you think NN was able to compete against so many elite GM's throughout over a century? I suspect the reason we don't see NN anymore is that this higher being finally ascended back to their original plane of existence and left us mortals to continue pondering the many intricate facets of this remarkable game of chess. Thank you for gracing us with your presence, NN.
Seriously considering sponsoring lecture, "Greatest games of NN".
@@MrBonified66Same here, but I’m poor
Morphy and Fischer stopped playing the game very young. I would have loved to see what they would have achieved if they played for 30 years competitively.
“I guarantee no one else has this list”
Yea because everyone else on the planet has Botvinnik on their top 10.
And not Spassky.
@@davidcopson5800
I imagine most don’t have Tal on the list. He’s an iffy top 10 because of his lifestyle choices. He would’ve been so much better had he not drank himself to death while chain-smoking.
I think you should get an honorable mention for just clearly and astutely thinking this exercise through, and then demonstrating examples in such skillful fashion. I would nominate Ben Finegold for somewhere in the field of top 10 chess commentators of all time!
Interesting list. I like Alekhine myself because his dynamic games were so exciting to me. But greatest is subjective.
That is a good point about Morphy. I think he was just brilliant and taught himself, basically, to play at a much higher level than his opponents. Maybe he had incredible visualization skills and could do advanced tactical puzzles and combinations that he made up in his head for hours a day.
I'm sure some people will be mad that Alekhine wasn't even given an honorable mention. I know Grischuk values him quite highly.
This is why Grischuk is 2750 and Ben is 2550.
@timirbiswas3834 Exactly! 😂😂
@Dr.S-ct2bq I respect doctors like you who rates unknown people like me. That's why FIDE rates Kasparov and Carlsen and YOU rate me.
I completely agree with this list , absolutely without doubt ...Morphy's games are flawless and just pure genius,Fischer was like Morphy from a different time!
1. Garry Kasparov - Often considered the greatest of all time, Kasparov dominated the chess world for over 20 years and was World Champion from 1985 to 2000. His legacy includes innovations in numerous chess openings and a highly aggressive playing style.
Magnus Carlsen - His consistent performance, modern approach to preparation and play, and his ability to remain the World Champion since 2013, along with his highest ever Elo rating, position him among the very best.
Bobby Fischer - Known for his eccentric genius and the 1972 World Championship victory against Boris Spassky, Fischer revolutionized the game with his deep opening preparation and intuitive grasp of dynamics.
Jose Raul Capablanca - Renowned for his natural talent, simplicity of play, and positional mastery, Capablanca was World Champion from 1921 to 1927 and remained a top player without much formal study.
Anatoly Karpov - World Champion before Kasparov, Karpov was known for his positional style and deep strategic understanding. His reign and subsequent battles with Kasparov marked one of the most significant eras in chess history.
Vishwanathan Anand - Anand's rapid playing speed, versatility, and longevity at the top level, along with being World Champion multiple times, place him among the greats.
Mikhail Tal - Known as "The Magician from Riga," Tal was famous for his imaginative and aggressive style, particularly his daring sacrifices.
Emanuel Lasker - World Champion for 27 years, Lasker was known for his psychological approach and practical style of play, making him one of the most resilient champions.
Boris Spassky - Known for his universal style and being World Champion during a competitive era, Spassky's legacy also includes his famous match against Fischer.
10. Paul Morphy - Often considered the first unofficial World Champion, Morphy dominated the chess world in the late 1850s. His understanding of open games and development principles was ahead of his time.
Putting the two Americans top! I find it hard to rate Fischer over Kasparov.
Same, most people definitely have Kasparov over Fischer, especially if you're comparing everything about them to each other, not soley dominance. I have Kasparov as the GOAT, Carlsen as 2 currently, and Fischer as 3. I think that's a decent list, although it's an opinion. Morphy is just too hard to compare with modern players, not enough information.
Now this is some content worth viewing.
19:50. Nope. It's incorrect. Bh6+ and you'r keeping the extra rook instead of extra piece which is much stronger.
There are 24 possible ways to rank the top 4, and I can’t think of one that is bad. Also, just think how long Karpov would have been world nr 1 or world champion if Kasparov didn’t exist. All the lists would be calling him the greatest ever for dominating from Fischer’s retirement in the mid 70s to the turn of the millennium.
Yeah, if the freak of nature Kasparov didn't exist then Karpov would been so much more incredible. No one would have been able to stop him.
Just think how shortly Karpov would have been World #1 if Bobby had kept playing
The thing is, Karpov was beating Kasparov in their match comprehensively. But, the rules back then were, whoever scored 6 wins first, was the winner. Karpov took an early 4-win lead (in the first 9 games) but, at 33, being quite a bit older, did not have the stamina of the then 21 years old Kasparov. Had their match been played by today's rules (the best of 12 games wins), it would not have even been close.
Yeah if you're sticking around for too long, someone will come around eventually and beat you, making you lose your GOAT title.
With a shorter 1st title match (12 or 24 games) v Kasparov the rankings here would be very different; Kasparov was getting crushed, but cling on tenaciously, had stamina, will and learned a lot
Mr. Finegold, I love this video! As I see it, the problem with these perennially popular lists is that the criteria is a subjective blending of various aspects and considerations which defies an agreed upon 'rubric'. Are we talking about incredible God-given ability? (Your arguments for Morphy were excellent.) Are we talking about how advanced the actual chess played was? (If so, the most recent players will always have the advantage.) What weight do we give to longevity? (This would hugely detract from Fischer.) Etc. That said and acknowledged, I'll have a go, just for fun:
1) Magnus Carlsen
2) Garry Kasparov
3) Bobby Fischer
4) Anatoly Karpov
5) Paul Morphy
6) José Raúl Capablanca
7) Emanuel Lasker
8) Viswanathan Anand
9) Mikhail Botvinnik
10) Vladimir Kramnik
The biggest reservation I have about my own list is the absence of Alexander Alekhine, and I am open to being persuaded to include him in place of a current placeholder.
I love this list. Agreed!
I'm surprised Alekhine is not on your list and not even on your "honorable mentions.I
@@martinrlevine236 because he was a Nazi.
Very very unique list Ben. Not your typical list, but very interesting.
nothing is "very unique"...it is either unique or it is not.
@@bunhead8 The most abused term, after "literally".
I disagree. In modern usage, very is used to add emphasis. A case could be made that one list like this is unique, and another with Nakamura on top is very unique. As this is not formal technical language, it works just fine in the vernacular. This is how language shifts over time. Next you will be saying that "yo" is incorrect or someone slaying has to be actually committing homicide.
@@PeteQuad "very" is not only illiterate in this case, and in your second example, it is trite and unnecessary. Unique is a "strong verb" it accomplishes what you intended to say without embellishment. Ben's list is unique says it all. (but of course, is only true if no one else has made the same list!) lol
@@bunhead8 unique is an adjective, not a verb. That is why people use very with it, like they do with many other adjectives. It is grammatically correct and the usage is understood. Saying it is "illiterate" is arguably a greater break with common usage than very unique, as illiterate typically applies only to people not to incorrect word usage.
Great vid Ben, keep churning out the bangers!
Morphy is my favorite player. THIS list is the definitive list. Got any good Morphy book recommendations? I read one a couple years ago and it was amazing, talked about his trip to Europe.
Two must reads in my mind are "the pride and sorrow of chess"? by Dave Lawson and "Paul Morphy, the chess champion" by Frederick Milnes Edge, the latter one particularly as it's contemporary, a bit harder to read but all the more insightful.
Well it's a very very arguable list, but pretty much any GOAT list can be argued with. It's a very interesting list though, and he has his reasons.
@@thekurdishtapes8317 the latter was the first book i read a couple years ago and it was amazing, just finished the former and it was also great
I almost guessed Ben's top 5: I had Carlsen and Karpov switched. Great video! And Morphy _did_ have two checkmates-in-1: there was Qe6# too.
He has a unique take on top 5. Interesting take, but not not typical.
@@billj4525 You're right. I guessed his top 5 by knowing his opinions expressed over the years.
I really liked the Kapov game because I learned that i could break Bens rules learning this game.
Hey, I'm with you Ben about Morphy. The guy was way too dominant at a time when he had no right to be that dominant. Even if we had a time machine there's no way to know if Morphy would dominate today, but there's also no way to know if someone like Carlsen would be as strong back in the 1800s since he wouldn't have been raised with chess engines and modern learning techniques.
Well you can't dominate like that today. Engines level the playing field so much, and every single player has access to them, and that cuts down on dominance big time, so it's just not possible to dominate like past players anymore. Chess was a new game back then so dominating was much easier to do since so much hadn't been figured out yet. That said, Morphy was the most dominant player of all time by far, and he should be given credit for that. Who knows how Carlsen would do in the 1800's and how Morphy would do today? It's also possible they were both best suited for their specific time periods, rather than being able to be the best in each others time period. Interesting and fun to compare though.
Wdym by that, carlsen is all natural, he can play anything and beat his opponents, be it london or colle, none of that is affected by computer prep.
@@Qhsjahajw Carlsen learned in an era of computers. He's said himself that he uses computers to verify lines and whatnot. Learning in the 1800s is completely different than today so it's hard to know whether he would have been any good.
@@rathelmmc3194 sure he does what he wants, but he doesnt need to. We saw in 2013 how he beat Anand even tho he was playing obscure li es, and anand was equalising right out of the opening and still losing
@@rathelmmc3194 no, and no allegations are any healthy it was a different time, nobody was serious about chess in 1800s, there might have bern hundreds of ppl who wouldve been as good as morphy but never had the chance to know about chess, thats not the case now, exposure is pretty high. Similar to how in fortnite, back when ppl were very uncompetitive ninja/myth used to dominate, but once it got serious and price funds increased, more players came up who were far stronger than those guys, they were just lucky to be in an easy time where it wasnt hard to be called a genius, thats what morphy was
Great, I enjoyed this a lot. I always thought that Morthy was great although I've heard people say that he would not even be as good as a master today. That he became the best in the world by far and had no comparable player in the U.S. before go on to play in Europe really is convincing of his greatness.
Hi Ben, excellent list and really enjoyed the video.
I actually agree with this list completely.
“The only defense is to resign” 😂
GM feingold is so freakin funny…
Thanks for the great video!
Morphy all the way - the greatest genius of chess ever
Fantastic Video! Just found your channel, soooo good.
Very good...Interesting...I would have Alekhine and Kramnik over Tal and Spassky...Thanks!!
I totally agree with Ben, putting Fisher above Carlsen and Kasparov! Explanation:
Bobby Fischer was worse than Carlsen in every statistic: tournament wins, WC titles, duration as world no 1, opposition strength, duration as WC, rating average, peak rating and he even retired from chess at age 29 (Carlsen is 33 now).
In addition, Carlsen won tons of Rapid and Blitz titles and is constantly one of the best in all 3 time controls, but this is just additional info as Blitz and Rapid weren't taken that seriously in Fishers time.
I hope this makes sense...
My list before I watched the video is:
1) Morphy
2) Fischer
3) Kasparov
4) Carlsen
5) Anand
6) Capablanca
7) Karpov
8) Botvinnik
9) Lasker
10) Korchnoi
So, close enough I guess. I disagree with Anand being 10th. Although, I have never been a fan of Anand, one have to admire that he has been playing top level chess for decades now despite the very heavy competition. He is disciplined, tactically and positionally very sound, good opening preparations, no weaknesses etc.
@feyyaznegus3599 don't you think there's no way Anand can be higher ranked than Karpov? Btw, there's no way Korchnoi makes the top 10. He's achieved nothing.
@@spartanthe300ththermopylae4 You are probably right about both points, especially with the second one. But this was how I initially made my the list and I didn't want to alter it afterwards, so...
@@spartanthe300ththermopylae4 Korchnoi achieved being the best player to never win the world title.
@davidcopson5800 don't believe it's an official title. Besides, I'm sure Chucky would have something to say about that.
"Fischer said Morphy was the best."
Yea but Fischer said a lot of weird crap when he was older.
"He said that in the 60s."
Oh well. It's Morphy then.
Glad you included Spassky, he is so underrated.
Paul Morphy was my number 1 after watching Finegold's Morphy lecture, and for the same reasons as Ben gave in this video
People forget Morphy and Steinitz had one common opponent, watch Morphy vs Bird (1858) where Bird is beaten easily, then the match Bird v Steinitz (1866)and see how much difficulty Steinitz had beating him in a close match. I think Morphy was at least 100 years ahead of his time in terms of chess.
I'm so glad Spassky made it, he's my favorite player! You can learn nearly everything from his games. I always play The Spassky Gambit when possible with great results. 😁👍
I'm not sure how he would feel about Karpov being above him, or on any list at all.
Ben Finegold viewer and "great results" don't go well together! Nice try though
Karpov has a 14-1 record, was world champion for more years, was 2nd best for a long time too. All spassky did was relax and play tennis, howd u call him greater than karpov
@@Weebi1242 I didn't, there's a whole story it, not too difficult to find if you search both their names.
Karpov has a HUGE PLUS SCORE VS SPASSKY...Look it up
@@user-ts2co4ov5h I was making a joke in reference to a controversial part of their tournament history.
Ben: 2 things: 1) I played against you in Dearborn in 1994 in a simul you gave at the National HS Chess Championship and 2) I've seen "Russia With Love" many times, it's my co-favorite James Bond movie along with "Casino Royale" with Daniel Craig. Thanks for this video.
I have a poster of Morphy on my wall, looking down disdainfully upon my many blunders. Great video Ben!
LOL, at least he's not haunting you!
Better of course 19:50 Bh6+, not Rf5 ?? In blitz, Capablanca gave the entire elite a 1v 5 advantage and won rather easily. He would probably be the best in the rapid game. He often played entire games at a blitz pace. Unhealthy habits hindered him in the classical game... As for Fischer, he had the greatest advantage over the others, apart from Morphy. As for madness, it is easier to say which of them was not or is not mad. Maybe there hasn't even been one like this before.
Excellent list! I would have ranked Capablanca a bit higher, but then I noticed that Alekhine and Petrosian didn't make the list. I would have honorable mentioned Steinitz as well, just because I'm a contrarian. NN also played some brilliant games, especially in exhibitions against much higher rated opponents, but he (she?) didn't have the P.R. machine of the top ten.
Petrosian doesn’t deserve a top ten spot. Nobody took up chess after seeing him play.
@@bosshogster6715 Yeah. He was a defensive master though, and he did beat Kasparov once.
Something I really like about Anand not mentioned is his longevity. Of course, the GOATs are the people who stand above their peers for the longest amount of time and with the furthest gap between them and the others. But, it's incredible that Anand has maintained his status as a top player, floating within the top 10 for decades. He's been around during the times of dominance of several of the guys on this list, and the entire time he's remained within their reach, drawing and winning against them consistently despite never quite being as dominating.
Agree with the players but somewhat disagree with the places coz Anand has greater feats than Spassky and Tal so he should atleast be at 6 and I would put Botvinik on top 10 insted of Tal coz his play was much inaccurate. Also Magnus should be above Kasparov and Fischer in my opinion.
If Morphy would have been born today, with all the theory, who could stop him? Good list
Morphy would play chess in his youth, then become a lawyer 😃
Who knows honestly, maybe he would be better suited to a non engine era.
I also noticed that Morphy and The Turk were both active 1849-1854, but they never played a published game. Maybe The Turk was Morphy's secret practice partner.
And Alexander Alekhine, why is noon the list?
Very Good lecture, Thank you, Ben!
Great games great presentation. Go Morphy, sorry NN but that is some record, Go Ben.
I would probably squeeze in Alexander Alechine in greatest 10 chessplayers of all time...after all he beat Capablanca and became WC.
I think the problem with assessing just how good Morphy was is that there is a big unknown. We know that he was very accurate when wiping players off the board at a time before it was understood how to defend properly. What we will never know is how he would do against players who could defend themselves.
Yeah, not even close to enough information about Morphy. We have no clue at all how he compares to modern players at all, in fact we really don't know how he compares to Capablanca or that time period either, or really how he compares to anyone throughout history. We know of his super talent though and his dominance.
The point of his greatness is not his relative skill in history, it's the impossibility of his skill in time.
Yes, it's a great pity that Morphy never played a match against Steinitz! He decided to work as a lawyer instead, but unsuccessfully.
Morphy himself was fantastic at defense, how did he get good at defending himself if everyone is shit? That is the entire argument for morphy, the definition of genius is hitting a bullseye when you didnt even know the target existed.
@@LordLegender If he sees attacking possibilities for himself, he sees them for the other player too. + the players of his time played ultra-aggressive, so he kinda had to know some defense too, to win 80% of his games
I had you on:
10) Anand
9) Lasker
8) Tal
And I figured 1 would be either Morphy or Petrosian.
Awesome list, thx!
Very good video with interesting games.
My top 10 :
1. Fischer 2. Morphy 3. Kasparov 4. Carlsen 5. Lasker 6. Capablanca 7. Alekhine 8.Tal 9. Anand 10. Karpov
@MickThal Ahahahah, you placed Anand ahead of Karpov! 🤣🤣
I think Alexander Alekhine should be in the top ten.He had some amazing games.
I agree with your list. I personally find it weird that Hikaru Nakamura said "If Morphy were alive today, he'd be an IM around 2400." Pffff if Morphy were alive today, he'd memorize all of Magnus' games in just a couple of days and beat him in a jiffy. But what the hell do I know.
If Paul Morphy was alive today, he'd turn in his grave!
I think you're right, he'd clean up on Nakamura and steal his nickname in the process, The H Bomb! 😅
I think he meant if Morphy at the level of play he was playing at in his day was to be transported to our time, he would be around that level. Not that his potential if he were born today would be that high.
I saw "From Russia with Love" in the theater when it first came out! A super grand movie.
Morphy was truly gifted
Magnus Carlsen is definitely the greatest of all time, it’s undeniable
👍 True
undeniable... lmao bullshit
How would he have been with no coaching, computers, and had to learn mostly on his own, as Fischer did?
This is not true, he is goat candidate, you can compare different eras and say he knows mlre chess then yes, but if you judge for rhe era, then it is debatable
His explanation why morphy is the best is very logical. Would magnus or tal win against morphy? Maybe. But in 1850 there is no way that would turn as good as morphy did. And that is a very valid point. It is nothing else but a miracle.
No Alekhine. Very suspicious.