Greatest chess player of all time | Botez Sisters and Lex Fridman 

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.

The question should be: If they all had the same tools, who would prevail? My bet is on Bobby.

My top 5 are Morphy, Alekhine, Fischer, Kasparov, and Magnus. Honorable mention Capablanca

Watching a young Kasparov utilizing modern resources vs Carlson utilizing modern resources would be the ultimate game to watch.

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

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.

Bobby. Period.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Lex argument for magnus is perfect

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.

Magnus does not want to be a clone of his mentor Kasparov.

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.

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.

Without the aid of computer and chess book, talented like Morphy fischer or Tal would came out dominant.

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.

I believe when it’s all done magnus will wear the crown

lex you have to get anna cramling on

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.

Strange not seeing the sisters being silly.

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.

When Carlsen plays the Norwegian government doesn't care if he wins or loses. With Kasperov however he was under significant pressure to winm

Kasparov - could you describe him as loss averse?

Game 6 of the 1972 match answers the question.

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.

The GOAT Bobby fischer!

Is this an interview with Lex? he does all the talking.

Lex cares more about the drama, but I care less about drama. I also prefer the long chess matches compared to short chess matches.

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.

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

You can't rate Kasparov and not give him the benefit of computers. That is silly.

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.

For me it was always Magnus And The magician from Riga

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

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.

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.

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.

Andrea is obviously still insulted, because Magnus roasted her for not knowing how a knight moves!

Magnus tapped out of competitive play due to stress and fear.... Kasparov would never 🐐👑

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

Tal was an artist and to my mind the greatest but that's just like my opinion, man.

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...

My top 5: 1. Paul Morphy 2. Bobby Fischer 3. Magnus Carlsen 4. Garry Kasparov 5. Capablanca

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.

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

shouldnt the person with most rating in a year be the best player ?

Too Not mention capablanca is just an insult to chess.

I know nothing about chess and I'm gonna say its Garry Kasparov

Botvinnik would kill them all this days

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😎

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.

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.

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

Morphy is my choice

Paul Morphy. Case closed.

Fischer!

The people choose Fischer. Sorry your narrative didn’t fool any one.

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.

The Who sisters? Never heard of them. 🤷🏽‍♀️

Literally only watching because the girl on the left is so dam beautiful.

TAL

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.

KASPAROV is the goat !

Iam selling the Stockfish Buttplug at Amazon.

Morphy was the goat easy

Hans Niemann

What do women now about chess anyways

Magnus will never get to 2900.

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

Well there was no official greatest chess player, many players and enthusiast pick their own based on preference.

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!!!

ok listen without a video...you two sisters play a fine game,and when i can i would like to play you two...

José Raúl Capablanca

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.

I think rating inflation is real.

All sports talk is boring.

They hot, but they dont seem that good at chess....

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.

Magnus is the GOAT. Don’t think its a question tbh

Bobby is obviously the best