Greatest chess player of all time | Botez Sisters and Lex Fridman
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 вер 2022
- Lex Fridman Podcast full episode: • Botez Sisters: Chess, ...
Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors:
- Calm: calm.com/lex to get 40% off premium
- Weights & Biases: lexfridman.com/wnb
- BiOptimizers: www.magbreakthrough.com/lex to get 10% off
- InsideTracker: insidetracker.com/lex to get 20% off
- Indeed: indeed.com/lex to get $75 credit
GUEST BIO:
Alexandra and Andrea Botez are chess players, commentators, educators, entertainers, and streamers.
PODCAST INFO:
Podcast website: lexfridman.com/podcast
Apple Podcasts: apple.co/2lwqZIr
Spotify: spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
RSS: lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/
Full episodes playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast
Clips playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast Clips
SOCIAL:
- Twitter: / lexfridman
- LinkedIn: / lexfridman
- Facebook: / lexfridman
- Instagram: / lexfridman
- Medium: / lexfridman
- Reddit: / lexfridman
- Support on Patreon: / lexfridman - Наука та технологія
The question should be: If they all had the same tools, who would prevail? My bet is on Bobby.
Bobby Fisher All day long, the question is geting boring, individually no one gets close to Fisher. Magnus, Kasparov etc, all of them had a lot of people and resources investing in them, what Fisher did, all by himself, no one can replicate, a good chunk of all top players today is engine memorized lines... "preparation", old Fisher was already sick of chess becoming who memorices the most, and leaving instinct and talent for chess in a second plane, that why he said "I hate chess" and also why he invented Chess960
if bobby had internet he would have ended up on 4chan instead of playing chess
Fischer already ended the game of Chess long ago more than 20 years ago. Classic chess in pro play been dead. Chess960 is the new chess. Mangus can’t even win in Chess960 cuz he rely too much on theory. Fischer is definitely the GOAT.
@@lrvz7187 Yes it is getting boring. The fact it that Fischer didn't have the tools so you can only guess what would happen and we'll never know.
Magnus have to face way better opponents than Fischer and Magnus is the strongest player in history, that's a fact.
Magnus is the goat of classical chess and no matter how much you liked Fischer that won't change.
@@Kay-jg6tf agreed. Fischer was good during his time but he could barely even function with cameras in the room. He wouldn’t even be able to function in todays society much less perform better.
Watching a young Kasparov utilizing modern resources vs Carlson utilizing modern resources would be the ultimate game to watch.
Kasparov wins. Even now at this age, carlsen hasn't won a game against Kasparov.
Kasparov wins. Even now at this age, carlsen hasn't won a game against Kasparov.
Kasparov wins. Even now at this age, carlsen hasn't won a game against Kasparov.
Kasparov wins. Even now at this age, carlsen hasn't won a game against Kasparov.
Kasparov wins. Even now at this age, carlsen hasn't won a game against Kasparov.
That was great. Every person present said really important and yes, profound, things about chess. Many new points of view for me to mull over and to be inspired by. And, I have to say, it is probably the most serious Alex and Andrea have been in these situations, at least from what I have seen. There's always room for photo ops and wacky funny stuff, and the Botez sisters do plenty of that, but here, you get to see them when they really care, when they really mean it, and it makes a difference -- to me, at least. Beautiful.
My top 5 are Morphy, Alekhine, Fischer, Kasparov, and Magnus. Honorable mention Capablanca
No Capablanca should be there instead of Alekhine man, cmon. Alekhine is toooo much overrated, he shouldn't even be in top 10, probably like top 15.
@@Ash-rx5wl it's my top 5, not the top 5. You're welcome to make your own if you disagree. To me, Alekhine's games are more impressive than Capablanca's.
@@Grannyknockers I've studied and analyzed more chess games than I care to admit, and Alekhine is probably the one player who is the most consistently impressive, in terms of creativity, strategic plan and coming up with brilliant tactics on the fly.
To me, anyone who doesn't have Alekhine in their top 5 outs themselves at being a false chess fan only familiar with the last 20-30 years of chess history.
@@Grannyknockers Alekhine purposely avoided Capablanca.
I choose Bobby Fischer .. because Magnus said it already .. the huge gap between Fischer and all the rest .. he's like the AI of his generation, and he did it by himself. Bobby Fischer is a Chess God. The idea for others no to accept Fischer is like Fischer's era wasn't that competitive where in fact it was, it was just that he's way above all the rest .. idk just my opinion
But magnus also had to face harder opponents than fisher.
@@Drtu576 not harder, but more computer influenced or more tools. chess players today has same tools against each other, the gap of magnus carlsen and the rest is close. while bobby has less tools against other players at his era, like people to work with, yet check the gap between his peers and him.
Bobby. Period.
Great conversation in the middle of the video. I'd have to go with Fischer.
the historical circumstances of bobbys victory over the soviets made him THE household name of chess in the West.
These young women are very gracious in their answers, they have been raised with manners. Thank you for your insights.
Jesus that girl on the left is so sexy
If there was head to head set of matches between Magnus, Kasparov and Fischer. My money is on Fischer. Reason being, give Fischer 6 months to read and study all of Carlsen's or Kapsarov's matches and he would win - he would learn and memorize every match they played until he got into their head (that's why he was a genius). Fischer hated losing more than Carlsen and Kasparov combined.
There is no GOAT. And even if there was it would be near impossible to judge. However... Fisher and Morphy were strangely creative players, with respect to their individual eras.
Frankly, I have always been prejudiced towards these girls because they are so pretty and quite often in their channel they emphasize on the fun element. This made me think they are just a stunt, pretty girls playing chess, click bait, etc. But I was wrong. They both are extremely sophisticated, witty, educated, eloquent. Was a pleasure to watch this episode, excellent conversations between smart and knowledgeable young people.
well i watched one of their streams on twitch, they seemed very arrogant
Hopefully your pickup line works for you
Morphy, Lasker, Capablanca, Botvinnik, Fischer, Kasparov, AI.
Like Jordan said: there is no goat. There are periods, so many variables you have to consider. There are legends though. And leaders of their era.
Tf you talking about. Jordan have mentioned he’s the goat many many times. In chess Fischer is the GOAT, no question.
Al? You're referring to Alekhine? I agree with all your picks. It's so hard to pick which modern players can be spoken about in the same breath as those legends. Carlsen for sure but who else? So many modern greats would get left out.
@@kelvin303 /watch?v=JfJYyN2GGts&t=1895s he does there
False. Chess is a stagnant game that never changes. There are no eras and no leaders of eras, only leaders of all time.
@@WeaponsGradeNeurofunkif you think about this for more than a second you will realize how wrong you are.
Enjoyed the video. For what it's worth, here's my own top ten list:
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 list is the absence of Alexander Alekhine, and I am open to being persuaded to include him instead of a current placeholder.
you have to look at the times people played seperately, but not say "magnus has these tools so he's not the best". that would mean nobody in the current day and age could become the best chess player anymore.
it would also ironically mean that because ALL players are better these days, the best players these days would in turn be VERY VERY good, as opposed to being the best player in a weak era. so that argument really doesn't work.
The tools argument is stupid because everyone else has access to the same tools Magnus has today so he’s not at an advantage in that regard and he’s still dominated for a decade.
@@roronoalaw7772 He's at advantage of people like kasparov who learned the game and practiced for decades without the tools. Thats the argument for not being able to compare players from different decades with eachother
It also ignores that those like Fischer didn't start from scratch either, he built upon what was discovered by previous generations just like we do today. There's a reason why we always tend to improve at pretty much everything in time. Just look at sports, give me a single world record that still stands today that was set in the 1960s.
@@BazzGamez Of course you can compare them. Carlsen is objectivally stronger. Sure he had more tools, just like Fischer had more tools than Emanuel Lasker but that doesn't mean you can't compare their playing strength. If it's fair to compare them is another question entirely. But nothing is ever fair, some people are born with greater natural talents than others, that isn't fair either.
Without the aid of computer and chess book, talented like Morphy fischer or Tal would came out dominant.
Lex argument for magnus is perfect
Magnus does not want to be a clone of his mentor Kasparov.
I believe when it’s all done magnus will wear the crown
When Carlsen plays the Norwegian government doesn't care if he wins or loses. With Kasperov however he was under significant pressure to winm
lex you have to get anna cramling on
The question should be if all lived in the same time period who would be world champion. And that’s undoubtedly between Bobby Fischer and Paul Morphy in my mind.
It’s really hard to answer that question, though. Morphy was the most dominant over his era, but it’s ambiguous because Morphy’s era was undoubtedly less professional and less systematized than Fischer’s. If something like the Soviet school of chess existed in Morphy’s day, would he have been similarly successful? There’s also a reasonable argument for either Kasparov or Magnus. If I recall correctly, Kasparov actually accomplished similar levels of dominance during the early to mid 90s (excluding Karpov), and of course was number one the longest, dominating multiple eras and generations of players. Magnus is at the very top of the strongest era in chess history, which at least opens up the possibility that he’d be as dominant as Fischer, Kasparov, or Morphy if he’d played in their eras.
@@ultrafly100 I agree it pretty much comes down to personal opinion there’s no real answer. I think if Fischer had the same technology (chess engines, theories etc.) he would be the best there ever was he was so far ahead of his competition and had an elo rating of 2785 in the 1970s while all of the 2800 Elos were accomplished all basically 30 years later. And ratings are much higher nowadays.
you might forget that Booby Fisher had to defeat an entire nation of chess players and at the same time worm out from under the US State department who stripped his citizenship at the height of his powers for playing a game in Yugoslavia. I suspect he would give the current champs fits. But, we will never know, he didn't come home.
he put bobby traps all over the place
classic idiotic USA move
Boyy that was just 1 year. I need longevity. Idc if he beat all of them. It's like you become billionaire one day and suddenly you lose all of your money coz you went crazy. He has brain disease which help him became genius same with kaspatov but the only thing different is those 2 handled the pressure in their brains while fischer cant. So he is nothing. Idc about what if. Casual american
Hee hee booby
Kasparov - could you describe him as loss averse?
Can’t help but compare this to the Jordan vs Lebrun debate! Lebron has all the modern tools and changes of rules, Jordan was a trailblazer who in many ways shaped the NBA.
I'm just fanboying Garry Kasperov here going off the impression of a documentary I watched, but...Garry's experience of being defeated by a computer aided opponent seems like one that could have uprooted his understanding of the human psyche on an instinctual level.
He might have won. Then imagine the egotistical madman that could have been unleashed on the world.
That's just some fun sci-fi postulation. I'm sure he's a fine gentleman.
He did win for a couple of years I believe. They just kept improving the computer.
Boby Fischer was the best chess player of all time... his analysis are confirmed by computers TODAY.. that's how good he was, he was ahead of his times
Computers do think that Capablanca and Carlsen are the greatest! Morphy Tal Alekhine Kasparov had More beautiful games than Fischer! Fischer beat the weakest chess World champion Boris Spassky only 17 wins 10 losses! Capablanca would beat Spassky easily 8 wins 6 draws zero losses! Carlsen would beat Spassky easily 6 wins 6 draws zero losses!
Fischer vs Geller in 1967 Fischer moved 17:exf7? 17:Rook f6!! Wins! Fischer vs Stein famous Bishop f5! But earlier 26:Knight f7! Or a3! Wins! Fischer vs Larsen game one in 1971 Fischer played Bishop f3??? Bishop d6! Wins! Fischer vs Spassky in 1966 olympiad Fischer played Queen a6?? Rook e3! Wins! Stockfish 16 would beat Fischer 999-1 easily!!
Strange not seeing the sisters being silly.
Game 6 of the 1972 match answers the question.
Fischer beat the weakest chess World champion Boris Spassky only 17 wins 10 losses! Capablanca would beat Spassky easily 8 wins 6 draws zero losses! Carlsen would beat Spassky easily 6 wins 6 draws zero losses! Morphy Tal Alekhine Kasparov had More beautiful games than Fischer! That game 6 in 1972 was dry safe opening so boring!
@@RaineriHakkarainen Fischer had no trainer. End of discussion.
Bobby Fischer said whoever gets 10 wins, should become a champion. Draws don't count. Nowadays black will just aim for a draw and whoever gets a few wins, will try to draw out all remaining games just to cruise to victory.
Lex cares more about the drama, but I care less about drama. I also prefer the long chess matches compared to short chess matches.
The GOAT Bobby fischer!
Is this an interview with Lex? he does all the talking.
For me it was always Magnus And The magician from Riga
You can't rate Kasparov and not give him the benefit of computers.
That is silly.
My son met Kasparov at Phillips Academy -Andover yesterday. IMO G. Kasparov is the best chess player based on their current resources at their peak.
The best player of all time is Magnus but many Grandmasters would argue if all chess players in history were given access to computers Paul Morphy would be the greatest ever. He is like the Isaac Newton of chess. He played before FIDE and most chess theory even existed. He played at a modern 2400 level during a time when it was believed the Kings Gambit was the best opening. His games created a lot of chess theory and played modern openings and lines a century before they were even made based of raw intuition.
Chess favours the later guys because they can build on the ideas of the previous players.
Same can be said about a lot of things..Humans get better with time
@@aformula4198 true but I think in chess it's a bit more definite. In boxing for instance I wouldn't say that today's group of fighters is necessarily better than those from earlier eras. In chess they have to be able to refute the ideas that came before. In boxing they only have to beat the best around at the time.
I don't see how it can be anyone apart from Kasparov..At his peak , he is as dominant or even more than Magnus and he was number 1 for about 20 years..Fischer's reign was too short
Zero idea if you enjoy MMA/UFC whatsoever but Fischer is very much akin to Khabib Nurmegomedov in terms of how people view him, to me anyway. Fischer was bordering on untouchable in his time, was easily the best and most impressive chess player to (arguably ever exist) have played at the time and he ended when he was so far on top that people still debate his potential to this day. Khabib went undefeated in UFC, utterly dominated every person he ever fought and retired in his prime.
@@TrippyTheShroom but Kahabid ain’t the GOAT (no even top 5). So for u who is the Jone Jones of chess? But to be honest there are merit in a long MMA, Soccer or Baseball career than in Chess because u don’t get injury in chess, any pro athlete get 5 surgery in his career easily
@@eddyd5169 Lots of people regard Khabib in the conversation for GOAT. I don't necessarily agree, I think GSP holds that title even over Jones due to Jones' incredibly spotty track record, but the comparison works well enough.
@@TrippyTheShroom The problem is that Khabid only had 3 defences, even Oliveira has 3 (counting the last one but tbh doesn’t count officially). And agree, GSP is my pick as well if Jone Jones wouldn’t exist lol
@@eddyd5169 Oliveira missed weight more times than he defended his belt. Khabib is the goat. Jones and Silva were steroid junkies
Chess used as an educational tool can make you smarter. Magnus is smarter in chess then anyone that has played the game. Andrea yell. I'm right. Lmao. Let's see this result in Toronto. Fabiano got another chance at this Title.
Tal was an artist and to my mind the greatest but that's just like my opinion, man.
I agree with Andrea saying that Magnus is the strongest of all time. The current number 1 player is always the strongest player of all time because chess is always evolving, and engines are always improving, which helps the players. Kasparov I think is the GOAT, but honestly there is no true GOAT. It's really hard to compare player's of the past to player's today with any degree of accuracy. It's also very likely that certain player's were the best with what they had. For example Magnus may be the best ever with tools today, but wouldn't have been able to beat Morphy in the past with limited tools and Morphy wouldn't do as well in Magnus's era. It's hard to say for sure though.
Not true at all. Magnus has not beaten Kasparov a single time. Also, Karpov was no.1 for a long while there were significantly better players. They just werent competing
We can objectively compare their playing strengths by using engines to analyze their games so it's not really difficult to compare at all. You think it's unfair to compare because today they have more tools. Well that's always the case, Fischer had more tools (information) than Morphy had, we build upon what previous generations have discovered. Some people are born with talents other's aren't so they learn more easily and that's not fair either, that hardly makes it impossible to compare people. The entire reason for comparing is to highlight the differences. We can only compare them as they are, to imagine what they'd be like without the tools or with tools they didn't have makes no sense because then it's just guessing.
Gary Kasparov is so far the greatest. Consistency is the most difficult thing in any professional sport. Not only it requires the most discipline, you are also exposed to compete against an overall bigger talent pool when you're on top for a longer period compared to someone who is on top for a short period.
Since Carlsen is objectively the strongest player of all time I think he's the greatest for now. Someone that becomes stronger than Carlsen was in his prime will obviously exist one day. We always push the bounderies.
Yes but why would we compare them to players in their time and not overall. Like a 100m sprinter - we wouldn't was X is the best because in the 1920s they could run proportionally faster than his opponents. People's speed has increased due to the science training and preparation just as peoples chess skill increased.
1:40 Sorry but that's not how it works. Alex thinks a player's rating is absolute whereas it is defined relative to other players. So while you have access to computers, so does your opponent and that shouldn't affect their ratings at all.
to me chess is a bit like football in the sense that you can play well and not always win. If you play a risky, inventive game that doesnt necesarily drink off previous sources, you'll probably be beaten by an efficient, savvy player, but that player won't have your invention and audacity. In that sense I prefer players like kasparov, fischer, capablanca to players like karlson
Carlsen is the most accurate player in history so that comparison doesn’t quite work
@@roronoalaw7772 yeah, reading again what I posted the comparison doesn't make much sense, but I meant, and I'm not chess expert obviously, that taking risks in chess is not always rewarding, same as football
then again doesn't make much sense so discard it
@@juanaltredo2974 I meant in the risk taking sense, it seems to have worked out for Carlsen
@@roronoalaw7772 yes, you're right. kasparov also took many chances and won plenty of things
it was a pretty dumb comment I gotta admit, but what are you going to do?
Agree with Lex on this one.. Carlson seams to love the game for the process not just the results.. with that level of experimentation would make him extraordinary hard to beat at any Era
This is why MMA is one of the fastest growing sports to date. It's whoever was the best on that night that ends up winning, with the exception of the occasional shitty judging. What Magnus wants doesn't seem realistically achievable from a World Championship standpoint unless he's expecting them to go by a standardized chess rating scale of measurement at which point they select the top 2 and have them play against each other for a month straight...
Andrea is obviously still insulted, because Magnus roasted her for not knowing how a knight moves!
My top 5:
1. Paul Morphy
2. Bobby Fischer
3. Magnus Carlsen
4. Garry Kasparov
5. Capablanca
Perfect.
@@Ennis007 Thank you 🙂
missed by a mile... of course someone like the American Fischer or Mikhail Tal had more natural talent, or even Morphy. Today's GMs are the antithesis of Fischer... who hated "programmed chess". Don't compare cyborgs to humans😎
Botvinnik would kill them all this days
Magnus tapped out of competitive play due to stress and fear.... Kasparov would never 🐐👑
shouldnt the person with most rating in a year be the best player ?
Too Not mention capablanca is just an insult to chess.
I don’t care how wrong they are, they are so beautiful I just don’t care.😂❤
Magnus is more accurate than anyone ever, which is expected. Not only that, but by the time the next world championship is finished, he will have held the title for 10 years, compared to Garry’s 15.
In modern day chess, it’s much more difficult for one person to remain on the top year after year. Magnus will presumably continue to remain world #1, soon reaching 12 consecutive years now.
Everyone has access to the most incredibly chess engines and have access to virtually every chess game in various databases that have ever been recorded. It’s so much more difficult to create a gap between you and the field. Magnus has, oftentimes, had a fairly large gap between #1 to #2. Like, even now, he’s roughly 45 points ahead of Ding.
His current elo is higher than everyone EVER other than Kasparov and he is frequently on par with Kasparov’s peak. Modern chess has many, many players who are amongst the ~50 greatest players ever and Magnus has a considerably noticeable difference with win rate / win+draw rate. His scores are favorable against virtually everyone of his peers. The era of the chess engine has not stopped him from being clear #1.
well, he is not. Fischer at his prime made more top engine moves than Magnus did.
@@morenovrancich9118 data that was collected through 2017 showed that Magnus played the top engine moves more often than any world champion ever. and regardless, even if it wasn't the case, it is known that Magnus intentionally plays less accurate lines as it helps increase the odds he can get his opponents out of prep, which would decrease accuracy, even if he knows what was probably best
People don't understand that dominating now is much much impressive than in Fisher's generation. Now this is impossible to have 200+ elo difference between 1 and 2 best players. That fact that Magnus has ≈80 elo difference is just terrifying. That terrifying as Fisher difference
idk, the studies looking at chess score inflation are convincing and did multivariate legit analysis. I personally think Magnus, by claiming essentially that his comp at the championships aren't at his level, is really a psychological mechanism to protect his standing. It is essentially like a fighter retiring before their peak, after winning a belt, so they can say they retired on top and the world doesn't have the opportunity to remember once they've lost or someone has surpassed them. A weaker player cannot beat a stronger player, definitionally, once they have they are the better player in the moment. That is like a boxer with 7 title defenses losing the 8th and claiming their competitor just got lucky. Nah, that competitor is now champ. Magnus' explanation is just rationalization.
Fischer!
The people choose Fischer. Sorry your narrative didn’t fool any one.
The chess world isn't built around Carlsen. Let him go play for points. Imagine a boxer in his prime saying he's not gonna fight for the title because he's got more to lose than win but he'll keep playing in other matches where his title wouldn't be on the line.... Carlsen is a bit of a coward really
Not the same. He's already proven himself and has openly criticized the format.
If there's anyone who actually has the power to change the format, it's him, and he's actually planting his flag.
I know nothing about chess and I'm gonna say its Garry Kasparov
TAL
Paul Morphy. Case closed.
Morphy is my choice
Literally only watching because the girl on the left is so dam beautiful.
😂
@@annelouise3379 hi babe
The Who sisters? Never heard of them. 🤷🏽♀️
Open your ears
Magnus is the Strongest player of a times.
Kasparov is the biggest legend in chess history
Fisher is in a differend league, the league below that is.
Kasparovs run as the World champ for 20 years is the greatest acomplisment in chess history.
Could kasparov have been better, with the right technology? Propaply - but we will never know.
José Raúl Capablanca
Well there was no official greatest chess player, many players and enthusiast pick their own based on preference.
KASPAROV is the goat !
I think its based as fuck that Magnus abandoned his title and is leaving the world championship behind him, deligitimizing it in some sense because the best player in the world is not playing.
I don't like overly centralized systems dominated by a seemingly ominpotent institution, that can arbitrarily decide a large number of things for the better or worse. Wouldn't it be cool to have competing world championship tourneys? maybe even a crowdfunded one made by and for chess fans and players without some overarching entity in the background. propably would end up more fun for viewers and more profitable for players as well without all the bureaucracy and whatnot
Morphy was the goat easy
What do women now about chess anyways
Iam selling the Stockfish Buttplug at Amazon.
What is your price. I am asking for a super GM friend. I trust your secrecy in this matter
@@jiggs8073 15% of prize money.
Hans Niemann
Magnus will never get to 2900.
ok listen without a video...you two sisters play a fine game,and when i can i would like to play you two...
The girl on the right said one of the dumbest comments ever, per her logic she is at Capablanca level cuz any GM today would beat Capablanca but are they greatest than Capablanca?? Ofr course they are not!!!
They say a lot of dumb things,and like most people on youtube they dont give a proper answer
Yeah, who knew Andrea was more intelligent. Capablanca would have a peak rating of 2877 according to chessmetrics method of rating players. She barely scratches 2000 with computer and 100 years of extra knowledge. She also thinks elo doesn't get inflated which is adorable. This happens in any method of relative measurement. The more people that play; the more numbers you need to distinguish the difference between them. This happens in every videogame I've ever played.
Magnus might be the GOAT, it's really hard to say, but I suspect that some of the greats would be able to beat him even with the help he gets from computer analysis. People seem to think that they have memorized every possible iteration of pieces or something, not even close. Magnus had success in the earlier part of his career by simply taking people out of their preparation. Same could be said for any of the past greats. My hunch is that Bobby Fischer is probably the greatest talent chess has ever seen (2895 chessmetric rating) and that's without even considering his potential which he was probably the farthest away from reaching out of any player.
Idk, she's just comparing all the world champions and calling the GOAT whoever is the strongest. Seems reasonable. Although I wouldn't decide on the GOAT that way.
@@seams4186 Strongest by a metric of measurement that gets inflated the more people play. There are other metrics to determine strength besides elo which is only useful for comparing peers.
@@chungboislim2061 Yeah it really is shame about Fischer. He was 120 points ahead of the next highest rated player at this peak (and that guy was the world champion!). If he played throughout his 30s he could have cemented his legacy. But since he didn't, it's really hard if not impossible to say whether he is the GOAT or not - all because he quit for good after the Spassky match.
I think rating inflation is real.
They hot, but they dont seem that good at chess....
All sports talk is boring.
Know what I would recommend for you then? Not listening to it.
@@jackbicknell4711 it’s interesting to me how similar it is to my football loving friends when they chat about their favorite teams and plays.
Thank you for your permission to not listen.
@@SolzhenitsynBoogie You don't need my permission bud, just a recommendation.
That's because you don't like sports. If only you knew what you're missing!
@@SrMway I like sports fine. There’s a difference between talking shit and doing shit.
Magnus Carlsen the GOAT?? He couldn't even take down four-eyed Fabiano in classical chess. By definition he can't be the greatest if he couldn't even beat someone in a classical match. Is Magnus the greatest at blitz? Maybe. But definitely not classical chess.
Agreed. Massive amount of recency bias for a dude who is too scared to defend his title and instead relies on an inflated elo system to make his mark.
@@chungboislim2061 don't be ridiculous, magnus has been champion for 9 years now, in an stronger era. He beat nepo in sinquenfield cup effortlessly, the challenger in next world chess championship. In this inflated rating era, he is only one. Who has never gone below 2800 and maintains healthy lead of 50 rating points against second best. Some people say Kasparov is best, but Fisher dominated his contemporaries more conclusively than Kasparov, and there has been no better chess mind than Morphy. Morphy quit chess too, was he a coward?
@@knightf8648 Lol. Morphy stopped at 22 to pursue a law career when there wasn't a world championship. Totally different.
It's funny how everybody who wants to argue about Magnus says the same shit and writes things like "an stronger" and "he is only one. Who has never gone below 2800 and maintains healthy lead of 50 rating points against second best.". Have you heard of the word 'the' or 'a'? You sound like a caveman.
Magnus is overrated, there's a reason he chickened out of World Championship.
@@smartfck4 tellem
Magnus using computers in today’s world vs Kasparov in the 80s and 90s is not an argument because Magnus’s opponents also use computers. Whatever advantage he gains from computers they do too. Arguably computers are a way of levelling the playing field where Kasparov was known to have the best opening preparation in history. Obviously he put a lot of effort in that which gave him a significant advantage over his competitors. Magnus cannot have this advantage because his opponents can use computers to work out the best openings. Not taking sides in this debate just pointing out poor argumentation. It’s a very difficult question to answer which IMO would require a combination of records, level of dominance, time at the top and various strengths and weaknesses as evaluated by their peers. My instinct would give it to Magnus IF he manages to stay at the top for another 10 years. That’s a big if and if he doesn’t then a strong argument could be made for Kasparov. Fischer doesn’t even come close to be part of the conversation, i don’t know why people keep bringing him up.
Magnus is the GOAT. Don’t think its a question tbh
These people don't get it. If Fischer was doing shit the computers only now are putting forth, how in the fk do these clowns all think hes not the best by far. Thats like some modern day dingy saying Batman is the greatest ever film, lol, or any modern movie is greater than Gone wit the Wind or Casablanca. Its just self ignorance.
Bobby is obviously the best