It's tough crowning one singular GOAT *Largest gap between himself and his contemporaries GOAT = Paul Morphy* *Strongest at their peak GOAT = Bobby Fischer* *Longest reign at the top GOAT = Garry Kasparov, for now* *Strongest player in the world during the most difficult era with the biggest and most intensely competitive pool of rivals and worthy opponents GOAT = Magnus Carlsen*
What do you mean by strongest at their peak? I assume you still mean relative to the time period? Because any super GM today would crush Fischer’s 1970s play style
Yeah that's true I find myself reminded of Paul Morphy but still every generation has more knowledge and each generation of great players are unique to their time technology and circumstances. I think they are all the greatest in their own way and time and place.
Well put. That's a better way of presenting it. That is a much more accurate way of explaining what what I was trying to say. They are all goats or greatest of their time and place in their own unique way.
I’d disagree with strongest at their peak GOAT. Surely that would have to go to Magnus? He’s had the highest ELO rating ever and adjusting for inflation I don’t think Fischer ever broke 2800 whereas I think around 10 players have to this date. Magnus at his peak is most likely the best player to have played.
@Adam Mikesic Kasparov also answered that. He said that every new generation is in a higher state than the previous generation of players. For example Einstein is considered a top scientist for his era but today's scientists have greater knowledge of science than Einstein had even though they didn't discover some scientific facts by themselves, they learnt these scientific facts as they were served to them. He also said about Maradona and Messi meaning that Messi met football game in a higher state (than Maradona) and excelled from there. It's a collective building progress (football, science, historic decisions etc.) so there is no meaning in comparing individuals and results in different eras. For example Archimedes is a great ancient mathematician, but for today's standards he is a beginner in the science of mathematics. But that is not belittle Archimedes' work.
Yeah, just like in chess. Every piece has it's place and time to move and play a role. Some of them play big roles, but die faster. Some of them are naturally skilled, while some need time and opportunity. And also some of them live long enough to see the victory. But they're all controlled by a player. Chess conspiracy ? Big Tabletop ?! Jk jk, unless...
Magnus is goat because he is at the top when everyone with access to internet has almost the same resources as Magnus. Back in the day US and Soviet players had an unfair advantage over the rest.
This was a grounded answer. Confident enough to acknowledge one's own greatness but humble enough to acknowledge the greatness of those who come after.
Magnus is number 1 when everyone has equal chess resources which is strong engines and a PC. Magnus still has more resources than others and was trained by Garry. Kasparov had a lot more resources than his comrades other than maybe Karpov.
I wouldn't say Kasparov is in the GOAT conversation even after such a long run at the top. He cheated against a 17 year old girl and that wasn't an isolated incident. He used underhand approach many times in his career.
@@akashsinha2880yeah one illegal move in a game nullifies his 35 super tournament wins out of 45 attempts, 6 WCC wins (4 undisputed), continuous reign at the top of the rankings for 20 years, and highest rating of all time which has since been broken only by Magnus? Sure bud
@@diptodeepmajumder9746yeah buddy there were multiple instances of garry cheating. He even accused the deep blue team of cheating after he lost and later said it's water under the bridge. He doesn't get to say that. Imagine if Hitler said that to you know who. He's well known to create nuisance during his games, most infamous was against Vishy when garry was trailing in their championship match.
The comparison of Fischer, Himself and Magnus to Pelè, Maradona and Messi is actually really good. Both have around the same time difference and all are the top players of their time
Magnus is a beast with no underdog aspect at all. Not even close to Messi status. Magnus is however not attractive nor has rape allegations or the SAME TYPE of controversy as Ronaldo so can't be the Ronaldo. I also don't understand how only strikers were mentioned... Fischer is a striker type as is Kasparov for sure but Magnus Carlsen is a hybrid that grinds opponents down. Magnus Carlsen - Xavi Hernández Garry Kasparov - Gerd Müller Bobby Fischer - Cristiano Ronaldo
@@251rmartin : whatever man.. It's not even a right comparison.. It's more like Einstein wouldn't have been the same if haven't got all the theories and maths which he required for his work..
@@251rmartin : It's not even right to compare old generations with him . There's no comparison between Newton and Einstein because both existed in different times so have different resources. It's not right to say that Einstein is better than Newton..
@@251rmartin : yes but chess has been evolved since then. Same as science.. Newton has to work very hard because he don't have enough math's and theory to back-up his statements; so he have to first discover theorems like calculus just to calculate accurately for his theories.. Later came scientists like Einstein don't have to grind that hard because all the base is set them for work. Even calculators and computers carried most of their burden which was not possible back then. Same goes for chess. Players like Morphy or Alkhine don't have much luxury of theory.. They have to work very very hard just to correct a theory. They worked so hard that their theories and openings are still in use today with little to no correction. Later came players learned everything with ease because they don't have to grind much hard to learn everything. Even Magnus today knows that he is nothing without that help from books and computers.
@@251rmartin and i think we cant say that we smarter then Aryabhata and Khawarizmi because we know zero and algebra at elementary school and junior high school while they found it at adult
@@brucewayne7875some questions may be interesting and thought-provoking, but it doesn't guarantee they have one correct answer. an objective answer is impossible here, because it depends how you define "the greatest" to begin with. what does it mean exactly? it's a vague term.
Very well said. That is how the conversation about GOATs should happen. How better were you than your competition, than the people who competed with you in the same circumstances. Well said Gary, Well said
For the modern era I will agree. Hard to choose a number one - Kasparov was longest lasting, Fischer the most dominant and Carlsen facing the most competition.
@@danielorr7124 For me Kasparov is the greatest of all time because he reached 2850 at his peak pretty much without engines. Only Carlsen has reached higher but he has had plenty of computer help with his studies. I still appreciate Carlsen very, very much. Kasparov was the reigning WC when I started to play chess in the mid 90s or so, so my opinion might be 'biased' but I still think reaching 2850 without engines is something extremely legendary.
@@Zamppa86 bro because of the enggine too , magnus is better , because he also play againts many people who can see the enggine too ...! And thats more harder
Paul Morphy was and is the greatest of all time with every single factor added in the equation! its a FACT ! no feelings in here Like in Ronaldo vs Pen-Essi debate ok we dont care about your feelings! and THEN you cant distinguish between Fischer Kasparov Karpov and Carlsen! if anyone needs to win it will still be Fischer! and meybe he even Beets or matches Morphy cause he took down AN EMPIRE! The Russians! AGAIN NO EMOTIONS JUST FACTS! period
@@testingsomething5280 you simply can find out easilly with His games analized by modern computers and its EXACTLY his rating plus minu 10-25 points Max ! the end ! your welcome
@@lazaruschrist6575 No emotions just facts 😂😂 , two seconds later Ficher is the goat 😂😂 The first is estimated to be 2500 elo. The second never even passed 2800 his peak was 2785 elo. Now these are facts. This is hilarious 😂😂.
You can. The best players now are much stronger than Louis Paulsen. Unfortunately Morphy got to play & beat Paulsen which makes him the Greatest Of All Time.
My thought is that chess rules are always the same (correct me, if i wrong) regardless of eras. Hence nothing wrong to compare players of different eras.
@@william_shakespeare it very much was the ussr vs soviets. They had the strongest players in the world. Former world champions. All of them analysing fischers game and positions even during games, conspiring together against him to come up with refutations and lines. Fischer had no one. There was no one outside of the ussr that was anywhere close enough to his level that could act as his second. He demolished all of them. He was the goat.
Kasparov was on top for 20 years. most zoomers are legit deluded on this lol. everything magnus achieved, kasparov did it first and better. The only thing magnus did was beat kasparovs rating by a few points but trying to compare elo across generations like kasparov said is stupid
@@paveldas7036He is easily clear of both Maradona and Pele lmao, Pele played in a regional league and didn't contribute to the world cup wins whatsoever, Maradona was a dirty cheat
Haha good point. A good A-level or college graduate knows much more than Pythag. A 1st year university student knows more than Newton. But Newton was an animal. Absolute genius.
@@rax1899 That's not true at all. We only read what we have been taught. But Pythagoras was the one who discovered it. So it's obvious that he had gone through 100's of knowledge sources and possibilities before concluding the right one. So he does know more about it than any other person in the world.🤦🤷♂️
Smarter! Smart! Not knowledgement. He is asking about the mind, superior level of thinking. Fisher and Magnus are the Best ever. And the answer is Pitágoras is smarter than rhe student and his friend together.
Not even close. Quite obviously pythagoras. Would you let him study for one hour he would grasp whatever your average wanking teenager cannot in 6 years of high school. I was amazed to see that in these 6 years kids are being taught the same stuff again and again and again and again. They just cannot comprehend and have no interest so society keeps spamming them. People like pythagoras are shown 1 thing and deduce 1000. And also your average teenager might only marginally really know more than the average teenager 400 years ago. They only thing they care is their maturing reproductive organs.
I'd also argue that it would've been harder to be at the top back in their day because so many more people were playing chess then than now. I think I remember a stat that said something like around Bobby Fischer's time, 70% of the population admitted to having played at least 1 chess game in their life. The percentage would be much much smaller now though. Also, the accessibility of growth was completely different back then too. You can more or less self teach nowadays with an engine that tells you the best lines and you can dive as deep as you want into each line, but back then you were more or less just limited to books and word of mouth.
4 years before the invention of stockfish, a 13 year old Magnus drew Garry and beat Karpov at the 2004 Reykjavik open. Garry surely had access to the best training aids, but a pubescent Magnus pressured him from start to finish. Magnus at his peak eats every other chess player in history, and the further back in time you go, the more lopsided it would become.
@@KKSuited yes but ability to learn at a younger age is much higher than your ability to learn at an older age. I could counterargue that a 51 year old man drew with a youthful 13 year old boy who has the best access and ability to learn.
No you're just wrong dude. It is STILL 70% with lots more people now. Chess computers now allow ALL players the ability to face off against the top, unlike back then when those at the top had a massive advantage due to having teams being able to analyse for them. It is now an even playing field, all down to your own skill. Magnus reigns supreme, much tougher competition, talent pool and era🏆🐐
Every era is different. Especially in chess the computer coaching 24 hrs with amazing chess machined for free since childhood is a huge change moment, a zero moment - singularity moment.
No particular order: fischer, carlsen, Kasparov, Morphy is the Mount Rushmore of goats.. we are talking about a player and the gap between their contemporaries.. if you told me I had one game for my life, there is no question I am choosing Morphy over any of those players.. he was so good, the closest player to him (Adolf Andersen) was no match for him.. he’d be lucky to win 1 game out of 20 against Morphy.. each other player had a player he had to fight for his meal.. not Morphy
@@mubaraksenju7521 kasparov literally said the top 3 guys now would crush bobby, kasparov himself, karpov, morphy, capablanca and so on. it's not even close. in terms of accuracy, you could even put keymer back into the 1950s and he would crush everybody
No he didn’t. He named the best from each generation to point out how hard it is to compare across generations, not that Ronaldo isn’t top 3 or whatever.
Exactly. Ranking GOATs in any sport is tough because they all faced different competition in their career. Same goes for the MJ vs Lebron debate. Who knows how well Lebron would have done in that era and vice versa
Chess is a difficult thing to rank. Much more difficult than conventional sports. Magnus has the benefit of the wealth of knowledge from players like Fischer, Kasparov, Morphy, Capablanca, etc. And instant access to the greatest chess players to ever exist, with chess engines. Information is a lot easier to come by. It's a question of how players would be if they grew up in the era of the person they're being compared to. Fischer had to translate old chess books from Russian, because there were so few high quality books in English he hasnt already exhausted. Morphy had effectively 0 resources beyond some fringe and rudimentary chess theory. It was a gentleman's game more than an actual sport. Fischer said Morphy was probably the most talented player to ever live, if we're talking pure talent. Put Magnus in their era and he likely wouldn't even have come across chess, or taken a liking to it. He definitely wouldn't have become so dominant. Put them both in our modern times, it'll probably be a very very close game. Also, if you were to take the rumors of Bobby's games after his retirement to be true, Bobby became the crazy OP hermit that's a true master of his craft. His rumored stories have become actual chess legends.
@@crusaderman4043Frankly that's a stupid assumption to make. Considering that the talent pool was far far smaller back then vs now, it makes it far more likely that Magnus would be even better back then.
One of two greatest Non Soviet champion of the last century, Mr Anand from India. He is also one of the best rapid chess player of all time nicknamed the Lightning kid. Although way less sophisticated when he started out (compared to Russian players), he eventually went on to become a 5 time world champion, World Cup winner and World Tournament winner. He is still going strong at 48 years of age - he won the rapid chess tournament. Magnus used to mention Anand along with Kramnik and Aronian as the strongest chess players in the world apart from himself.
If you mean Morphy he retired because he couldn't make a career out of playing chess professionally for a living because it was around 1860 and organized chess play was a rarity compared to now. He was one of the most gifted to ever play the game no doubt, but he barely played before he stopped in his early 20's when people usually start their careers.
Fisher said it best when he said it had become just a game of memorising the best moves. A lot of the creativity has been lost. Thats why he invented the random chess game.
That's precisely what commenters here are missing. Chess has become a game of just memorizing lines and strategies. Creativity and continuous strategy has taken a backseat to brute memorization.
Carlsen is pushing the limits of how strong of a chess player it is possible for a human to be. Outclassing the likes of Ding, Nepo, Fabi, Hikaru, etc by the same margins that Fischer or Kasparov -- let alone Morphy -- had over their competition... we would first have to start genetically engineering bigger brains.
Though Kasparov's margin of dominance was arguably closer to Carlsen's than to Fischer's. For the current month, Carlsen leads the field by 69 elo (nice!), which is almost exactly the gap between the peak ratings of Karpov and Kasparov (71 points). The legendary rivals had a very close head-to-head as well. Only when you exclude Karpov does Kasparov's distance to the rest of the pack resemble peak Fischer.
@@typoilu3413 Why not? If I remember things correctly, Ding’s spot in the WC very nearly went to him. Other than Magnus, all or most of the ”Super GMs” are close enough in strength right now that I could easily have said 4 other names and made the same valid argument.
@@yesyouareright9800 people who have been better than Hikaru career wise (std): caruana ding Nepo grischuk so mvl mamedyarov aronian. Nakamura is better only when is comes to online blitz/ bullet
You could make the case for saying that the best ever is a shared title. We simply cannot tell what other players from the past would have done today. So we appreciate equally.
@@coreosad2261 You must be kidding. Kasparov had to face Karpov who was almost as strong as him and was a world champion for a decade. Magnus never had to compete with his almost equal except Caruana who has drawn almost all 12 games
You can argue for several people for sure but for my money, the greatest chess player of all time is Mikhail Botvinnik. World champion for fifteen years. Teacher of three future world champions (including kasparov). Father of computer chess. Father of the Soviet chess program. Really one of the most outstanding individuals produced by the Soviet Union full stop. He only played Bobby once, and Bobby made a lot of noise about how he would easily defeat Botvinnik- but the game ended in a draw despite the fact Botvinnik was well past his prime.
This is the second time I’ve heard someone talk about the best and say it’s about the gap from the top to the next down and not how much they win, or the trophies they have.
@@balazsio yeah , but never want to play agains capablanca for another wcc ?? He always run from wcc rematch cause he know capblanca now is prepare , and alkhine know he will lose that ...!
He is letting everyone know, in a subtle way, that GK is the all time greatest More achievements A far far far greater time at dominating the world Also Magnus has said the same And Hikaru Both said the same, GK is the greatest pf all Magnus is the strongest in rating Strongest and greatest is two different things Fischer and Casablanca are the two strongest, naturally strongest players of all times
@@joephillippe Magnus would need another 10 years for a discussion to happen. Kasparov was the top dog for 20 years. Magnus needs to match kasparov before a discussion happens. And even then, kasparov probably could have been the best player for even up to 30 years (until the emergence of magnus) as after kasparov retired, it was only kramnik and anand on top... Guys who spent their entire career below him.
Nicely put, I agree with you 100% regarding the distinction between relative playing strength and overall greatness. It's fair to say that Bobby Fischer was----at the peak of his powers----probably the strongest player ever, even more so than Capablanca. However, in terms of greatness and overall legacy, Bobby simply didn't compete or defend his title long enough to even be in the GOAT conversation. Paul Morphy, Kasparov, and even Magnus would be much more deserving of that honor.
This goes for every sport out there btw. Things evolve, grow learn new things. That’s how it is. Stop living in the past thinking some dead person is the great still.
Hes right thats just how any game evolves. People will find new strategies and the future generation will take what they learned and improve upon it and so on and so forth
Morphy was so strong that no one dared even play for the World Championship until he had died. Even though he wasn't playing for 20 years. Fischer was rated no 1 for about 20 years.
@@fahrenheit2101 I've heard all bobby interviews I can find. he was the greatest chess talent and a fearless great man. I do not separate his personal life and beleifs from his chess talent because both are extraordinarily great. sorry but a genius is a genius, both your chess ability and personal beleifs pale in comparison to his
@@ayyleeuz4892 mf thought women belonged in the kitchen for an astonishing period of his life, and should stay away from intellectual affairs. You're highly unlikely to change my mind on this, but since you've seen all the other interviews, and I've only seen the one, by all means point me to something that somehow undoes that ungodly belief of his. He seemed like a massive fucking narcissist that happened to also be intelligent judging by that interview.
Pele won 3 world cups. Messi won 7 ballon d'Ors playing against Pepe and Ramos who were ready to break his leg. Pele in his 20s played against part time shoe makers with atrocious fitness levels in a league that's not even on par with the english 3rd Division. Messi blows Pele out of the Water when it comes to football creativity and playmaking. Pele won his world cup in an era where only England, Germany, France, Brazil were allowed to really compete.
@@lordcezar4657 And just to demonstrate your lack of knowledge about football, of the 3 world cups that Pelé won, none was against these countries that you mentioned (and even said that they were the only ones qualified to face Brazil). Totally layman about football.
Sit your ass down Ronaldo fan. I didn't say those were the only teams that played the world cup. It seems your 'e having trouble grasping. Pele is not on Messi's level as it regards actual footballing ability.@@josecleiton5913
Rating, gap between them and their contempories, longevity, titles won, influence on those who follow. What mix you use of those will determine the answer. Anyone who gets in the discussion is an all-time great. The question isn't entirely fair in any sport or game since each subsequent generation have advantages previous ones didn't. That's doubly true in a game like chess which makes a study of previous player's games. They are standing on the shoulders of those who came before.
Im happy that kasparov, one of the greats and an arguable goat recognizes the fact that the newer players are more well equipped than older ones and in turn makes them better players. Unlike other sports where legends belittle the new generations. The thing though, is that kasparovs argument actually bolsters his claim for goat since he was at the top for so long..its like a counter argument for a certain player
Paul Morphy was giving the top players in the world a rook handicap, and crushing them. In terms of gap, the only person that can do that in the current landscape isn't even human. It's only stockfish, and the other top engines.
