I get what Anish is saying, i also see its "close" a lot of times, but I think what Anish underestimates is that close means coming up with 3 best moves in the game where everyone else wouldnt be able to come up with them and this "close" is exactly what seperates Magnus's brilliance. This "close" is what it takes to beat someone. Actually, when u think about it, if it was much more than this "close", you are getting in a computer territory. So it makes sense its "close" since Magnus is human. The truth is, the term "close" is very relative. Literally one move can decide the whole game. And sure, Magnus is definitely beatable, but thats why we have the stats. They show you how often he loses and how often he wins. It speaks for itself.
It's not close. Beating Magnus or any person in any single game is not a highlight. Everyone has bad days; everyone has those brainfart moments, etc. Likewise, everyone has very good days where they're able to find all the best moves. What makes Magnus so good is his consistency. When Magnus has a bad day, he is still very strong compared to others like Hikaru, Ian, Anish, etc. where they fall off a cliff. Magnus doesn't win every tournament, but he's almost always in contention. The same can't be said for the others. If Anish has a bad tournament, he's at the bottom.
@@arunnath6549 Can't compare the two because players today are so much stronger due to the advent of strong computer engines. And with all the online platforms, it's a lot easier to play the game compared to before.
Magnus is the GOAT. no question. Kasparov was great. But longevity isn't the only factor. Magnus's peak has surpassed Kasparov greatly, and he's done it in all forms of chess, bullet, rapid, traditonal, computer, in person.
Today there is a 100 times larger chess talent pool because every one has access to engines and database unlike Kasporov era where only Soviets had access.
It's not only about longevity, even though it's very important. In classical tournaments Kasparov was way more dominant +++ notice how Magnus was not even stronger than Karyakin and Caruana with classical control during WCC matches, winning championship on a tie break. Plus in terms of innovative ideas and influence Kasparov does not have rivals either (his rivalry vs Karpov and games against Deep Blue attracted a lot of attention to chess - much more than Magnus vs any opponent in any match). So your "no question" statement is just ridiculous.
Considering the competition that Magnus has compare to Kasparov who had a heads-up of using Chess Engines, Magnus legacy is better. Kasparov had the longevity but Magnus doesn't have anything to prove right now.
@@Nyxyz999 GOAT = Greatest of all time. There is no "generation Goat", you either are the GOAT or you arent. At least try to not be stupid if you are going to be disrespectful
Reasonable assumption, but Kasparov is just as reasonable. You can make a case for both, some even make a case for Fischer, but I don't think there is as much of a case to be made for him. You have a ton of talent from the past, but you can't really accurately compare players like that to today. Magnus is definitely the strongest player ever, but the current world number 1 always is because of evolution of the game evolution of computers. In 20 years the current world number 1 will be stronger than Magnus, but not greater.
@@さぼせんぱい A little more longevity. Magnus himself has said Kasparov is greater, but Magnus is pretty modest. He mentioned he needs more longevity. I have them neck and neck. I don't even know who to pick.
There are tons of top ranking seeded players in modern chess today but until now nobody can kick Magnus from no.1 spot for more than 10 years. Magnus is the GOAT!
Anish mistakenly compares the era of Magnus with Kasparov's or Fisher's where there was no computer theories .. of course being a champion in this era is way more difficult because of the easy access for all contestants to all theoritcal information and hence there is a closer competition between rivals ..
That's true, and something a lot of people fail to realize. It is harder to be dominant in this era because of all the information all the players have with computers these days. It makes it harder to assert that dominance over other players. That's a good point regardless of what side you're on when it comes to this Magnus, Gary, and Fischer GOAT argument. I don't see people mentioning it enough. In the future as computers continue to improve and chess get's played out even more, it's going to be closer and closer in terms of the top players in the world in my opinion, and much harder to assert dominance.
@@billj4525That's very true. Unlike previous generation, C currently players have database of all previous games and have engines too to have them the best possible understanding of chess. Youngerstars today are better than ever. Several upcomming chess players in US, Russia, Europe, Central Asian. And India basically got like a golden generation of youngsters with like 4-5 possible future champions.
@@redeyexxx1841 Absolutely, so many amazing youngsters right now, and part of that is because of the improvement in databases and engines as well like you said. So many amazing prodigies. Firouza, Pragg, Gukesh, Norbik A and a few others. One of them may be Magnus's successor at some point.
@@billj4525 I really doubt if we can get a successor to Magnus. The World Championship titles will be likely going back and forth between Alireza, Abdusattarov, Arjun, Pragg, Vincent, Gukesh, Nihal, etc etc. This is a very stacked generation.
@@redeyexxx1841People said the same thing when Kasparov was active that no one will surpass Kasparov but now we have magnus that has arguably surpassed Kasparov. So you never know .
kasparov would be goat in computer era. his talent was second to none. people underestimate ex gen players, but raw talent of kasparov's calculations and intelligence transcended generations.
@@kilzoldyck5114well there is a saying that everyone is entitled with their own opinion. I understand that you're not a Magnus fan. If we say as a fan that our Goat is magnus that's none of your businesses grandpa 😆
Literally everyone has access to computers and can learn deep chess. And despite that, he still outplays the top 10 easily, he is the GOAT no question.
Strongest is not greatest though. Magnus is the strongest, but I hate the he's stronger argument to prove that, because it doesn't mean a lot. The current world number 1 is always stronger than the last generation because of evolution of the game and computers improving now as well. I mean in 20 years the world number 1 plays better chess than Magnus 100%, but that's not greater to me. Having said that, Magnus has accomplished so much in chess, that I do believe he's the GOAT or very close to it. I don't really want to choose between him and Kasparov.
@@billj4525The thing is current #1 in engine era levels a lot of playing field. Earlier only Soviets had access to most database followed by Americans. Secondly, youngsters have a longer curve because they learn only with experience. Now youngsters have complete access to database and engines. This is a much much tougher era to dominate.
@@redeyexxx1841 Yes I would agree with those things. That's why we have so many incredible prodigies right now. I also agree with this era being much stronger overall, which I expect to continue though. In the next generation the players will be even stronger, and it will likely be harder to assert dominance. I'm just saying that the reason a lot of these players are better than past ones is because of engines. The current era is always going to play stronger chess than the past generation. Magnus has accomplished so much in chess though, and one impressive thing about him is asserting dominance in an engine era where it's harder to dominate. People don't mention that enough, the fact that it's harder to assert dominance over other players these days.
Maybe not currently, other than Hikaru at times like he said, but your statement is untrue if we're taking about past players like Gary. Most players who have followed both of their careers think it's about 50 50. Magnus said a couple years ago he needed to have more longevity before he was greater than Gary, but Hikaru believes Magnus is likely slightly better than Gary. A lot of other players are all over the place. I'm just trying to explain you that this far from undisputed. I have no bias, and Magnus is my favorite player ever, but you can't discount arguments for Gary being the GOAT at all. I don't know who to choose personally. I feel like most people who say either Magnus, Gary, or even Fischer just pick the player they like the most, and then argue from there based on that.
Anish Giri: "Magnus is fighting for the spot of GOAT with Kasparov" Anish Giri has had a lot of weird comments over the years, for example his idea that One needs luck to become a World Chess Champion (maybe trying to say the lack of luck on his side has prevented him to become a world champion, but in my opinion he lacks many other qualities besides luck) We all know by now Magnus Carlsen is a GOAT, the chess standards are so much higher than in Kasparov's time and in most of the time of being the best Karpov was just a small margin behing Kasparov, while Carlsen is completely dominant, nobody can touch him at his best. And if we consider another criteria like how many years a chess champion was at the top, the title still (and will perhaps always) belong to Lasker who was a great champion of his time!
@@brkwebdesigns179 He has 7 likes and you have 0. Also, your favorite player Hikaru thinks Magnus is the GOAT so I think it's fair to say that Magnus is the GOAT.
@@brkwebdesigns179without engine, Kasparov really looks like a transcended being while Magnus looks like a human when the engine doesn't favors him in some games. But if you asks their peers, Magnus just doesn't have clear weakness. Also, it's unfair to compare them. The most safe thing tp say is, "Garry is the GOAT in pre-engine era, Magnus is the GOAT in engine era."
You can make reasonable arguments for Gary too, so it's far from undisputed. If it really was undisputed then they're wouldn't be so many different opinions and arguments. Some people think Fischer is the GOAT and above both Magnus and Gary, but I disagree with that personally, but it's still is some peoples opinion.
I respect you thinking Magnus is the GOAT, as many do. You're being biased though saying he claimed that spot a long time ago. Even people that love Magnus and hate Gary would mostly disagree with your opinion of thinking Magnus claimed that spot long ago.
Anish might say for a move or match his rivals are very close but if you then go and watch matches which is almost impossible to draw according to humans and the engine and then magnus still wins those stupidly not so obvious positions and the time it takes to find these moves is mind boggling he is certainly better then kasporav , imagine 13yr old magnus drawing to kasporav? It happened the 2nd match he did lose but at 13 years he drew to the GOAT at that time
When discussing the goat of chess, there should be two. One goat pre-computer era and one goat post-computer era. Both taken during their respective peak periods.
Well it depends on how you look at it. If you consider that the players are much stronger today then you could see the difficulty today as well. I know what you mean though. Kasparov had to be much more dominant to get there though since the players were lower rated overall. Kasparov and Carlsen are about equal to me. I have a hard time choosing between them.
3 seconds of increment in rapid is ridiculous Rapid should be at least 10s increment. This tournament should be called what it is - a blitz tournament.
Its hard to tell who's the goat here. People bring the fact that garry the g pawn was world champ for 20 years...But that also depends on what kind of generation you are in....And if we talk about quality of play...we can all say that magnus got that..I mean if peak garry and peak magnus would play ....I think magnus will win that one. GOAT is a relative term..for everyone. Specially in chess, it depends what you call a goat ?...Is it time of dominance or is it quality of play....is it a tactical masterplay or is it positional dominance.... Personally, I feel the quality should be the term...But yeah that is different for alll...
Yeah, Magnus is stronger. The current generation is always going to be stronger than the previous because of the evolution of chess and computers improving. In terms of greatest though, they're both so unbelievable in terms of accomplishments and what they did in their career that I don't know who to pick. They both can be argued to be the GOAT. Love them both as well.
That's arguable with Gary, but he's definitely up there with Gary, and I don't know who to choose considering how great they both are. Magnus himself think he needs more longevity to catch Gary, but Magnus is incredibly harsh on himself.
Agreed, the GOAT is clearly Magnus, if you took a vote between them the results would be about 95% of the vote to Magnus and 5% to Gary. Argue with those stats.
No, he hasn't surpassed him, Gary's loss ratio was far lower than Magnus's plus rarely did he lose first place in a tournament he competed, whereas Magnus has lost many first places in tournaments to other players be it Fabi, be it Wesley, be it any other top GM. Garry's objectivity was also unsurpassed. And many many other facts that can be used in his favour, for example in the January list in 1990 Garry had already reached 2800 with Karpov being the only player over 2700 (2730) and all the rest in the 2600's. It's equivalent to Magnus having 2900 nowadays with only Fabi or Naka over 2800 and like only 15-20 players above 2700... PS: I just looked it up again and in 1990 imagine that 20 players had between 2600 and 2625 and only 7 between 2630 and 2680. Imagine how huge a gap Garry had from the field...!
Not sure if Hikaru or Magnus , someone said this line: In the future there will always be stronger gms due to more sources (internet , learning with computer , pattern training,etc.) Sofor its only logical that current GM's are higher rated than any of the top GM's from the past. And future GM's most likely will be stronger aswell, so the GOAT debate is always depending who had which sources available.
Also remember that Garry was not so good in faster time formats. He was dominated by Kramnik in Blitz. Carlsen is GOAT and at this point its not even close.
@@raeeskhan6 Agreed. I don't think fischer deserves to be mentioned as the GOAT with them. That said, there are a lot of people that still have Fischer as the GOAT above Kasparov and Carlsen.
WRONG - he relinquished that title as soon as he STOPPED playing the World Championships - his WORST chess career decision to date IF he indeed ever wanted to be considered GOAT - Kasparov will retain that title AFTER Magnus has retired no matter what Magnus does from here on out - he will NEVER eclipse Kasparov as the "consecutive years title held" comparison is clearly won by Gary - Magnus lacked the same level of motivation and commitment to go there - which shows just how impressive Kasparov's run was - even Magnus could not beat it - it is THAT hard to accomplish otherwise Magnus would have done it and it will forever be a blemish - an asterisk - on his stellar career and he KNEW that but still did not play - BRUTAL choice - he did it to HIMSELF - it would have been better to play and be defeated than to quit - tainted goods - end of discussion - PERIOD
When it comes to ELO measurement, Magnus is the strongest, but don't forget that Kasparov hit 2850 without supertechnology like nowadays. Scared to think how powerful Kasparov would be if he was born 20 years later. Anyways, I love both and it's debatable who the is the GOAT.
Wrong metric. He should have reached 3000+ or even higher since his opponents are weaker as compared to this era where almost all have access to everything
He's definitely the strongest player ever. No one in history can play better chess than Magnus, but that's always true of the current world number 1. They always play better than the previous generation because of the evolution of the game and computers improving.
If there was no discussion really, then there wouldn't so many varying opinions. Most new players from this generation think Magnus is the GOAT, but there is a lot of bias there. Most top players have it about 50 50 when it comes to picking the GOAT between Gary and Magnus. Magnus himself said a couple years ago, he needed more longevity to catch Gary. Magnus is likely stronger, but that doesn't mean as much since the new generation is always stronger than the previous because of evolution of the game and computers improving. They are both so incredible that it's hard to choose for me. I have them neck and neck, and one else near them, not even Fischer, but some have Fischer as the GOAT as well. I do believe they're the top 3 though.
@@billj4525 There is always discussion about the things there should be "no discussion" about. That's because some people love to argue just for the sake of arguing. And of course Magnus is not going to say himself that he is the best player of all time. No one says those things publicly about themselves.
@@akuseru85 What do you mean? Magnus says he's best player in the world by far right now, and that no ones close to him. He says that even Hikaru isn't even a rival. He's very very honest. Being honest is not bragging. He also said one time recently that he can't imagine anyone overtaking him lol. Magnus doesn't brag publicly, but I don't think he was every trying to brag with any of these statements. Magnus is very very critical of himself though. He may be too hard on his opinions of himself. Overall though, Magnus being so harsh on himself and his moves is a big part of why he's the GOAT or close to it. Regardless of how well he plays he's always looking for flaws and ways to improve. Magnus wasn't really arguing when he said he Gary was the GOAT and slightly better than him. He was just discussing a lot of top players throughout history and where he thought they ranked. He's discussed this a couple times I think. Magnus just may not give himself enough credit overall. I have no bias when it comes to the discussion though since I love both Magnus and Gary, and most people have bias when it comes to a GOAT player. A lot have Fischer as the GOAT, but I completely disagree with that. People who say Magnus is definitely the GOAT or Gary is definitely the GOAT without any discussion are both being biased and unreasonable to the other side though. I have no problem with someone saying Magnus is the GOAT or saying Gary is the GOAT because there are very good arguments you can make for them both. Both of their careers and accomplishments are just so unbelievable and their dominance is almost hard to imagine. Magnus is the strongest player ever though, but like I said the current world number 1 player will always be stronger than the previous generation because of evolution of the game and engines getting better. 20 years from now the world number 1 plays better than Magnus now, but he almost definitely won't have done enough to be greater or even close.
Carlsen and Kasparov are both goats in my eyes.... Some Kasparov Stats: World Champion 15 years World No.1 20 years 6 Time Classical World Champion 85,86,87,90,93,95 Won Linares 9 times Beat the Almighty Karpov 'top 5 player of all time' 3 times outright! In WCC matches...85,86,90, 87 was drawn, but won the last game to tie the match! Won 15 tournaments in a row from 1981 to 1991 a record Won 10 super tourneys in a row up to Linares 2002 Was above 2800 from 1990 40+ Super Tourney Wins According to chessmetrics had 17 x 2820+ tournament performances, Lasker had 6, Karpov had 4, Fischer had 2, not sure about Carlsen... Kasparov beat Morozevich, Gelfand, Bareev, Shirov and Adams by 50-0!! in decisive classical games, all were world top 10 and 2 were WCC challengers, though the Shirov match never happeend.... Beat Deep Thought in 1988 and Deep Blue in 1996 narrowly losing the return match in 1997 Kasparov had only 108 losses! From 1532 games that's a 7% loss rate Carlsen's is 14% ....double, though Carlsen has played 1902 games with 279 losses.. Kasparov win rate 46% Carlsen win rate 40.6%
@kasparov9944 In all Your statistics You for some reason barely mention Karpov, his real great rival and I have to mention Lasker (again), he was a champion 27 years! And the stamdards today are so much higher, still Carlsen is so dominant, undisputed -GOAT for most. And of course GOAT (Greatest Of All Times) can only be one person!
@@alf8718 In defense of Kasparov though. Most people judging are the younger generation who are biased in favor of Magnus, and don't know nearly enough about Gary or even chess in general. In fact a lot of people who judge have very low ratings and barely play chess, so there opinions don't matter much. When players a the highest level or a high level of chess judge it's definitely 50/50 when it comes to a Kasparov and Magnus debate. Magnus is very very strict on himself, but he legitimately has said that he believes that Kasparov is the GOAT, and the has to do more to catch Kasparov. He has put himself 2nd on the GOAT list. Hikaru on the other hand sees it as very close, but he puts Magnus as the GOAT now. I personally have no bias towards either, in fact Carlsen and Kasparov are my 2 favorites ever. I also can't choose between them for a GOAT, both of their careers have been unbelievable. Magnus is the strongest player of all time, since the number 1 player of this generation is always stronger than the last generation because of chess evolution, and the improvement in engines. Some have Fischer as the GOAT above them both, but I disagree with that. There are so many amazing players throughout history, but it's impossible to compare players like Lasker, Capablanca,and other others to players today. It was a completely different game in many many ways back then. Morphy would be even harder to judge, because even less was going on with the game back in his time.
Very nice comment thankyou, I often wonder what would happen if you got a time machine and had all the strongest players from history 6 months prep and play a tournament together..I don't think it would be so easy for Carlsen. Back to the goat debate, like you say, many choosing Carlsen have recency bias, they witness Carlsen so obviously want him to be the goat since they were there to witness it, I stick up for Kasparov since I followed him from the mid 90s, I do believe that the further a great player is from the present the less you care about him, like no one really talks much about Lasker. I also believe Garry's games are far more exciting than Carlsen's games, you will never see Carlsen play something like Kasparov vs Topalov 1999 Kasparov was a tactical monster and always leaned toward the sharper line that includes heavy attacking and sacking pieces, Carlsen is more solid and positional but super strong and accurate, stylistically he would have given Kasparov problems, kind of like a super Kramnik. You know bud, no one ever counters me with Carlsen stats, they just say goat and that's it, it would be nice to back it up with statistics for once.@@billj4525
Arguable. Magnus thinks he needs to do more. He said it recently, which I can show you if need be. He said he need more more longevity in his opinion, but he's very harsh on himself. I think they're both so GOAT that I can't even choose. An argument can very very easily be made for either of them.
@@billj4525Magnus also often says that he didn't do his best while winning all the matches and that's champion's mentality so Magnus saying "He needs to do more" doesn't means that he is not the greatest already!!
@@GrandDad_001 It's a reasonable argument, but I could feel the same way if someone argued that about Gary. So my personal opinion is they're equal in terms of who's greater. I don't want to put one above the other, both of their careers have so very incredible. Magnus is very very critical of his play, and is never happy with it, and that is a champions mentality and part of what keeps him playing so amazing, especially lately. I agree with that. Magnus is my current favorite player. I have no bias in this argument at all. Not saying you do either, but a lot of younger players who just watch chess loosely, and don't really follow chess at all are more biased and don't know chess history. I just totally disagree with anyone that thinks it's super clear that Magnus is greater than Gary, because that's just not even close to true. People who think that didn't follow Gary's career. Magnus be slightly greater, but like I said i'm unsure of who's greater.
@@billj4525 ya you are right and I also don't believe in comparing players specially when their playing styles are so different but still there are certain things that we cannot overlook for example Magnus playes in an era in which heavy engine prep is a crucial part of chess and even in non professional games such as in lichess and other platforms, players at 1600 level are using engine prep and know certain theory so you can understand that the competition is much more stronger than it was in Garry's era and if you consider other variables being constant then you will find that Magnus is in a league of his own!!
Recency bias. If Garry was playing right now and doing the same things he did in his career, and Magnus had done the same things 30 years ago. You would almost definitely be calling Garry the GOAT since you would be so focused on his career, just like you are of Magnus's now. This isn't true just of you, but of many many people. Realistically, Magnus thinks he need more longevity to catch Garry. I agree with that. I think that's the reality. Magnus is getting pretty close though, so I won't be surprised if he does.
Garry is still the GOAT but okay I can see Magnus sharing this title with Garry soon. Even though they are so completely different as players that I wouldn't pick one over the other as a GOAT. In my opinion it would be wrong to say that Magnus is the sole GOAT even after some years' time.
@@Musicdudeyoutub Sorry man but the GOAT doesn't necessarily pass on from one world champion to another. For example there's still a case to be made for Fischer, or even Morphy for GOAT. Or for me Garry is still the GOAT regardless of Magnus's successes
@@TheBlade1985 It's really hard to compare players from very very long ago to players today, you really can't in any real way. Technically you can make an argument for a lot of them I guess though if you really wanted to. If you mention Morphy from that long ago, then an argument for Capablanca and others could also come up, as he was supremely talented and an amazing player in those times. Gary and Magnus are both equal to me, or I should say I don't know who to choose because they're so incredible in terms of what they did in their careers.
It's a tough one. We don't know how good Kasparov could have been if he'd had access to today's chess engines. Would he have dominated if he was against today's players with this knowledge? Probably, but we can't be sure. Every player today has access to engines, and Magnus stands head and shoulders above them (although Hiakru comes close). I love Kasparov, and I know he dominated for 20 years, but we're not asking "Who was the best player of their era for the longest time?", we're asking "Who is the greatest player", and I don't really think Kasparov, as amazing as he is/was, can take that from Magnus.
Well being more intelligent that Magnus doesn't beat he's the GOAT over Magnus. I would tend to agree though since I have heard Gary Kasparovs IQ is legitimately close to 200. I have heard 180 or 190 IQ, but who knows how accurate that is? I think they're both equal when it comes to being the GOAT. I don't know who to pick with them since they both have had amazing careers.
That's not the reality at all. Sounds like major recency bias. If Garry was playing right now and Magnus had played in Garry's time you would be saying the same thing about Garry being the GOAT for sure in place of Magnus. That's so evident, recency bias is so prevalent.
Anish is just saying what he thinks is Magnus's perspective, and it is likely true as Magnus himself has said that he doesn't think he has surpassed Gary yet
Kasparov is just as reasonable as Carlsen, and I love them both. I have no bias either way. They have both been so amazing, that it's hard to say one is better than the other. That said, Anish may be salty and saying that for that reason. I have heard before that Anish has been annoyed with Magnus a few times.
He never compared them with each other, he never said who he thinks is better or why. He just said that he think that according to Magnus's perspective his goals are to be the GOAT over other players who could compete for that title, rather than beating any rivals from his peers since he doesn't see them as close to his strength
Yeah, Magnus has talked about this. He says he's chasing the GOAT title from Kasparov, and that Kasparov is the obvious clear GOAT. He didn't have great things to say about Fischer in the GOAT argument. Carlsen says he's 2nd to Kasparov, but many think he's the GOAT now. Magnus is very hard on himself as it is. He has Karpov and Fischer at about the same spot I believe.
@@egoistIsagiX Magnus was a grandmaster at 13, so one draw out of 3 games isn't as shocking as it might sound. I mean it was definitely very impressive by Magnus, and showed his potential, but it doesn't prove anything at all when comparing them. David Howell drew Kramnik at 11, and isn't anywhere near Kramniks strength. Magnus is amazing though, everyone knows that.
God Anish is butthurt. 99% of chess games are "close", that is what theory has done. "Mango has most trophies because he has been playing longer" the cope, lmao.
You have wildly misunderstood what he said. He said that if someone is stronger and plays over a long period, ofcourse they will collect more trophies. This means that he clearly agrees that the data shows that Magnus is stronger, and he literally said that numerous times in the video
I could understand thinking Gary or someone else is the GOAT, but why would bullet or Fischer random matter so much? Fischer random is not even official chess, it's a different game. I mean understand it's value, but putting Magnus's career as the GOAT on it seems extreme
@@STUDYHARD-tx2nn Oh, that's why he thinks so much should be risked on bullet, and that makes even less sense. For one, bullet should have nothing or almost nothing to do with how great someone is at chess overally. When looking at what someone did in their career, bullet would be the last thing that mattered. Hikaru is not even on the list when it comes to GOAT players, and even Hikaru himself knows that. The only thing he's best at is bullet and even in that Magnus gives him a hard time. I respect Hikaru and his speed chess skills, especially blitz and rapid, but no one in their right mind should have HIkaru anywhere near a GOAT debate. Some of these Hikaru fanboys are nuts man.
Nobody is even close to fisher pls stop the bs just think that this man had no help and beat the biggest chess country by himself no help no coaches stop disrespecting the goat
@@giorgospap276 from ur comments I can tell ur probably some 1k> Bobby fischer meat rider. Ur misunderstanding the whole concept of preparation and preparation teams. individual skill is paramount in World Championship chess. While prep teams provide valuable support, a player's ability to make decisions, calculate variations, and adapt during the game is the most critical factor in determining success at the highest level of chess competition. Even besides world championship magnus' feats are much more impressive, he plays more accurate on average and his domination of his field is not questioned(although a bit shaky at times). U can't even make the argument of 'modern day recourses and engines' as magnus competes with people who also have that access and still dominates, engines nowadays are used mostly for openings, magnus' insane average accuracy is in all phases of the game (mostly endgames)
