Who is the greatest chess player of all time? | Hikaru Nakamura and Lex Fridman 

Hikaru speaks truth about everyone except himself. Because he dont know. :)

Magnus is #1 at endgame ALL TIME. Nobody can beat him in endgame historically.

Yes, great clarity!

He premoved this answer 100%

well he made a clear blunder about boby , yes boby did quite early but he was too good for his age, boby is the biggest margin between a player and all other players in the history , relatively he reached the peake elo in history for a long time and some research labs declared that his elo at his time 2785 is almost near 2900 for this time

@@abdelerahmanekhaldi6228that’s not a blunder.

such pun

He only pretends not to care.

Doesnt care about what?

@@petuphiri4002 of course he cares, but I think he has very good perspective on life and doesn’t let losses ruin his life

@@karatechap555 it’s a meme that people started in his stream cuz he says that saying a lot of “I literally don’t even care”

would be a really funny comment, problem is I literally do not care

Have you seen magnus play?

It's not really just respect he's spitting facts. From a pure strength point of view Magnus is the best. Kasparov/Tal the most brilliant.

@@Shipdacheese What's the difference between strength and brilliance in terms of chess?

@@FlameableMusic Good question. To me it means neither Tal, Kasparov, Fischer or Morphy in their prime can take on the current version of Magnus Carlsen, let alone in his prime. It has to do mostly with computing power, Magnus and others, benefitted a lot from chess engines. Brilliance is a number of superb games called 'Immortal', by Morphy, Fischer and Kasparov. Unfortunately, due to the chess engines, brilliant has been losing its meaning in chess, due to the fact nobody quite knows now if a 'brilliant' move or line is brilliant because of one's brilliancy or it was brilliant because it was studied with a powerful engine.

@@FlameableMusic I will give an example...Kasparov has a game where he has a move that's not seen even by the engine today, let alone back then when engines were way weaker. That's brilliant! Tal had a reputation of sacrificing everything, every piece, for a powerful attack, as a result he has a number of absolutely stunning 'Immortal' games. Etc...

Same.

😂😂😂 that’s my signature move

nailed it 😂

“They won’t expect this!” *Checkmates me next move*

😂

Has to get finegold on next

Botez? Wtf

@@bartholomewlyons I mean he’s not wrong. They certainly play chess.

I'm waiting for Agadmator

@@bartholomewlyons Well, the game is more than just the game, so to speak. They are chess creators and they are a notable voice in the space. If you wanted to only hear from top players, and only hear about top level chess theory, then you would probably get the same comments over and over. There's a whole universe of human experience that comes from the game. If you don't care about that then you can just interview the developers of Stockfish and be done with it!

I literally don't even care.

@@figsaregood mkay

@@figsaregood who cares that you don't care?

His up there with Magnus for sure. Even though Magnus has more trophies (1st places) in blitz than Hikaru I still think Hikaru can match him. It's like he over things against Magnus starts doubting himself. Anyways at least for me in blitz Hikaru and Magnus are 50-50.

for bullet, 1-0, hes the absolute goat.. but for say 3-2 magnus is better

Yeah the people who think he's boosting his ego are just haters. I think it could be interesting if Lex Friedman started asking grandmasters about the gameplay, playstyle, strengths, and weaknesses of other gms.

The thing is.. He might be pushing his own ego but he isn't exaggerating and keeps it short. He is convinced of himself about his chess skills and there is nothing wrong with that in his case. If you're between the best, you have to think like that. CR7 does it, Michadl Jordan has done it. Even Michael Jackson.

@@Kidoss11 The thing is he also states that he is nowhere near the being in the conversation of being one of the greatest and he doesn't even think he is one of the greatest to never play for the World Championship. It isn't who driven because of how honest he is about his weaknesses as a chess player.

I think a level of ego is justified when you are literally the number 1 in a particular field.

Yeah destroyed strong GM with a3 🔥

Agreed, Naroditsky can articulate his thoughts very clearly which would translate well in a podcast. The one thing is that a lot of non chess players aren’t going to know him and perhaps won’t appreciate just how good he is.

Danya is amazing and i think Eric Hansen would be great too.

+1

Seconded!!!!!

Absolutely! Love Danya!

It will be more like a classical game between Magnus and Stockfish (with blitz control)

😂

Cabablanca might beat him with equal blitz time

​@@gamma9141If Magnus gets hours per move and stockfish only allowed 2-3 min to think for the whole game as the comment suggests, would be interesting.

@@Morphysince94 Stockfish stomps dude, Stockfish is so strong if you let it process for 2mins, maybe 2 nano seconds or something, it would be hard even then if it has a pre built knowledge base.

I think it's probably because he has played against magnus and he's seen what magnus is capable of in action. Imagine training your entire life, become a grand master, then lose multiple times to this guy. Magnus 86 - Nakamura 37 and 105 draws (Currently total all games including exhibition matches)

@@leinardesteves3987 tbf my ego would be massive if i beat who i consider the goat 37 time and drawed 107 times

@@kriaz9916 exactly. And besides you gotta be extremely great to even come close to beating magnus and he did it multiple times

Interesting that you say ceiling

Id call it situational awareness more than anything.

You can make the oppesite argument. Where would the greats of old would be with thousnds of games played?

This comment makes no sense at all

@@TribalWarsRDA Only to you 🤣

@@TribalWarsRDA It makes perfect sense. Your reading comprehension is just shit lol

@@FiryaFYI if I wanted to make that argument, I would have.

Magnus is almost certainly the best of all time but I still think Kasparov take the title of greatest of all time

@@aimboat709 ... I don't get the difference between "best of all time" and "greatest of all time". Could you elaborate?

@@danielmartinmonge4054 best of all time is if you are to play any player from any time period you should win, simply put it means you are the strongest player. greatest of all time is you are the most accomplished and dominant player. Actual strength is irrelevant when talking about the greatest of all time what matters is relative strength. a good example of this would be Paul morphy, he has an argument for greatest of all time but would likely lose to every current gm without taking a single game.

@@aimboat709 interesting distinction. I had never heard it before, and it actually makes sense. Thx for elaborating!

@@aimboat709 Fischer probably had the largest gulf from his contemporaries when he left the game in the early 70’s. Probably the highest peak but his lack of longevity perhaps excludes him from the GOAT title. But if he grew up in the engine era and benefited from the extensive chess theories of today, he would challenge Carlsen.

Please have some respect for the player who invented the Anal Beads Gambit.

tbf in that instance the chess did speak for itself *wink* *wink*

Well it wouldn't be fair. Today's guys study yesterday's guy's matches. It's just not a thing that can be calculated.

A Mike Tyson of chess of sorts

Agree. Bobby was a ridiculous freak, making basically engine moves before there were decent engines.

Agreed. You could argue that he was the most naturally gifted player of all time, without the help of computers and extensive opening theory.

Chad Summerchild Morphy was way ahead of his time, but it was a really long time ago. I don't think saying he would lose against random 2400 players nowadays is too much of an exaggeration, people nowadays have so much more knowledge about openings that I think it would be almost insurmountable. Or maybe let's say 2500 (GM territory) if it seems more fair to you

Thank you for typing this out.

I feel the unconsious mind is the part of your brain that already tells you the answer before you have time to format it into words. A feeling is far faster than a thought consisting out of words. I also have a feeling that you notice these two functions of the brain cooperating more closely when the answer you seek consists out of 1 word. That 1 word almost pops out like a feeling, an intuition. Anyway, I'm in no way an expert, these are just my own thoughts on the matter lol. Nice and interesting subject to brainstorm about though!

They are also at such a high level that when he is asked “what do you see” and Hikaru just says it’s the feel, but it’s more than that to us normal humans. He has 10 arrows going in his head of why he’s not blundering anything else in that split second but it’s just natural to them. We normal humans would call still that calculating lol

feeling is faster than thinking

there is more differend board state in chess than stars in universe. In GO there is even more.

It can be formalized I’m sure

That's what im trying to say, i think the sentence "greatest player in history" is vague and obscure, leaving no room for pure chess intuition and genius, you can easily become a master or even a grandmaster nowadays compared to earlier eras of chess by simply following the lines suggested by modern chess engines, i admire people like Tal, capablanca and alekhine regardless of their achievements or the period of their prevailance.

@@void7366 Right. Chess theory has developed at lot since Fischer’s day and computers have made human grandmasters look like babies.

@@void7366 You can only fairly compare players to their contemporaries. By that standard, Fischer was way ahead of anyone else in his time.

Only Fischer

Also Fischer may be the best play level of all time relatively speaking as similarly Morphy.

WooOOoOoOoOo.... Someone has a crush on Hikaru!

@@steelsteez6118 Aaaand someone has an extra chromosome. Nice pumpkin emoji, queef.

There was a bit of a cheating scandal recently, I think that's why.

@@nkxseal8398 jumping on that hype 😄

DMT to Joe Rogan

@@ChauncyCharm Have you ever tried Elk meat?

Magnus' interview was before the cheating scandal started, though after the candidates and his decision to not defend the title. But Lex also interviewed Kasparov a few years ago.

Brood war.

😂

Lol not even close. Karpov never accomplished anything near as difficult as what Fischer did

@@crushedscouter9522 So what did Fisher accomplish that Karpov didn't?

@@chewi8560 facing the Soviets solo, according to the engines Bobby made the most accurate moves of all time. People like to think he chickened out, but he most certainly did not. He was just as difficult when he faced Spassky, he was no different against Karpov

Bobby also exerted to most influence in chess compared to any other player. He literally won the US championship with an 11-0 score, unheard of even today, he beat some of the best international GM's with scores 6-0 (also hasn't been accomplished to this day).

@@fred7408 I'm not undermining Fisher's achievements, he was definitely one of the greatest players ever but only proved it shortly, and having an 11-0 win at the US championships was not so difficult at that time since the US hardly had any good players then, also Fisher did not have the most accurate moves (he might have had it if you take a certain period of games but that doesn't count) and regarding your influence argument, the most influential player ever was by far Kasparov.

Fischer didn't disassemble anything, he read the Russian chess journals and was so immersed in Russian that he was basically an expat Soviet. He was touted as "the best" by the capitalist propaganda machine. Karpov would have defeated Fischer resoundingly, which is why Fischer didn't play.

@@annaclarafenyo8185 Ok - a valid perspective I suppose.

@@annaclarafenyo8185 Well he did disassemble Russian dominance up until that point. And yes, to beat the enemy he needed to learn the enemy. It’s a common myth that he was scared to play Karpov hence why he left the game. Fisher had many other demons. It’s complete conjecture to say he would have lost resoundingly.

@@seanking1775 Carlson > Anand > Kasparov > Karpov > Fischer. Kasparov was already two steps above Fischer. Fischer was truly great, but he didn't have the same ideas as later players. Kasparov was a far better player in the same style.

@@annaclarafenyo8185 He had no other players ranked as high as him, making it much more difficult to raise his ELO, and it was TWENTY YEARS before someone had a higher ELO, You are an ass-clown.

Did you call Hikaru Nakamura humble? I don’t know what you smoke but that must be amazing

@@IZn0g0uDatAll thanks nice internet person! x

I am hoping that you're serious and not sarcastic. I advise you to read up a bit more on Nakamura. He's definitely very good at chess, very popular in streaming, but definitely not humble.

Yep I meant it seriously, he comes across very well in this video.

@@patrickfitzgerald927 Good for him, he has been able to craft a humble image for the newer chess fans.

Watch his games against street hustlers

Above Bobby?

Probably bc people undervalue the defensive masters.

It's not clear that he is number 3, but he is often given less attention/consideration than he probably deserves.

@@ahmadrezamoradpour9194 Definitely above Bobby. Karpov was World Champion for 10 years, on top of spending the 3rd longest time as highest rated player only behind Carlsen and Kasparov. Karpov also holds the record for most tournament wins; he finished first in around 160 events.

Agree.

Unless it’s a watch

It’s a recent development in Hikaru!

Lol he has none

Definitely recent development. I used to watch his streaks but his ego was too big for me. He says a lot of things that are kind of dickish. But he has been changing as of late.

​@@micahclawrence He literally started this by saying he doesn't belong in the conversation of the "greatest", even the "greatest who never won the big show" despite being the highest elo Blitz player in the world and even then mentioned Magnus may be as good or better than him at the single reason why he's the highest elo Blitz player the world. There's humility and there's false humility, and it seems you want him to pretend to be worse than he is.

@@sammysoseOFFICIAL I've only been playing a year, was Hikaru not chill before? He always seemed pretty cool whenever I saw his videos, a bit blunt sometimes but I've liked watching him

Not that he tries to find critical moves he starts doubting himself and that is the main problem. Magnus has been his problem like forever. Every Carlsens move in some tight spots semms difficult for him to find (he starts overthinking) even though he could find the best move 99 out 100 times. It's unfortunate that he crumbles like that for me at least he is right there with Magnus in blitz games.

Hikaru and Levy are definitely bringing people in. Hikaru has 2 million subs and Levy 4 million. Which for chess is ridiculous.

I will newer understand why Naka take the draw against Nepo in candidates tournament really he still have a chance to get to finals

No need the cheating speaks for itself

Down to earth... Yea...

Lmao down to earth🤣🤣

There's severe misinformation here. Stockfish does use a neural net. A neural net does not separate chess engines. The methodology to learn to play is what separates them, not just some random machine learning model. The interesting part about AlphaZero is that it learned to play using (deep) reinforcement learning; the first engine of its kind. The neural net is just a flexible model to model the environmental dynamics because other models aren't feasible to learn such a complex target. You also mean that there similarity in that we don't know exactly what goes on under the hood in a blackbox model. A decision-maker can model environmental dynamics using a neural net without knowing exactly the shape of the model, then use the same neural net to inform decisions. A neural network itself is not anything like a feeling. The feeling would still be from a decision-maker, not a model. That doesn't make any sense. AlphaZero does actually do chess calculations very similar to a human. Humans have internal models of the environmental dynamics in a game of chess from years of training and AlphaZero uses a neural net and years of chess data to learn environmental dynamics. AlphaZero uses deep Q-learning with a k-step lookahead (i.e., it leverages the network model the value of each state for k-steps ahead), which is basically identical to how a human does calculations. Just different models; replace human brain with neural net. The feedback (from Kasparov, I think) was that AlphaZero played remarkably similar to human compared to previous chess engines (stockfish). Lastly, saying a neural net trains by trial and error is a stretch. The neural net was initially trained using years of professional chess games from a database. After that, it mostly trained using ficticious play (playing against itself) and used massive computing power to play many, many games. The neural net was retrained using the data generated. It's not what you'd call trial and error, unless your target audience is composed of toddlers.

@@fangiscool1 There is ton of misinformation about your comment. 1. You said that stockfish has neural network too, but it DID NOT had by the time alphaZero took the world. Its nn was introduced later on. So it is totally fine to say that stockfish and alphaZero used different approach. The second mistake you did is saying that alphaZero thinks like humans because humans have neural networks. When a regular human sits in front a chess board he goes like this: "what would my opponent move be if my move is this and so on". This is very similar to what stockfish does, just like the op said. It is if-else-if. Yes, we are able to do if-else-if thanks to our neural network but we are not using our neural network DIRECTLY when thinking. You said another thing, that the nn was trained uaing professional data, that maybe is true for newer version of stockfish, but alphaZero trained from zero - it literally started by olaying random moves against itself until it was teached what a better move is. AlphaZero ia not doing calculations, at least that is not how alphaZero chooses its moves. Perhaps AlphaZero has some sort of calculations immediately before playing a move just so that it does not blunder, but idoubt it. The way alphaZero works is... Hard to explain, scientists are not always able to axplain the logic behind every single neural network in the world. A neural network in the end is just simply billions of if-else-if that gives you an answer, but you are not going through all of this if-else, you just input the position in ches, who is about to play and alphaZero gives back an answer by calculating weights, unlike stockfish that xhecks a lot of possible moves one by one, then what would be the next move for each of these moves and so on until it uses its time limit. Now, that is what I know, bu I could be the one misinformed since I have just pieced together random lieces of infornation

@@delanmorstik7619 I did not make your first two claims. Read my comment again. Thirdly, alphazero was trained initially on real games. It did not start playing randomly. And most of your comment is incorrect regardless. I don't mean to make an appeal to authority, but I actually work in reinforcement learning and have worked with people from DeepMind. You don't know what you're talking about. Even the fact that you are obsessed with the neural net and didn't mention RL in your comment all shows that you don't even work in this field. The neural net is not the novelty of alphazero. It's the implementation of RL with a k-step lookahead. The neural net is just to model environmental dynamics.

@@fangiscool1 You did claim 2 things that are mistake. Why lie? 1. You claimed that stockfish has nn, but it did not have one by the time alphaZero beated it. 2. You claimed that alphaZero uses very similar to a human calculations witch is simply wrong. Humans thinks more like stockfish trying out moves one by one. So yeah, you did claim those things. What you probably missunderstand is that alphazero is considered to be playing moves that looks like humans moves. This does not mean that alphazero thinks like human. Perhaps AlphaZero"s style looks like humans' style becase it considers moves on random using monte carlo, but not sure about that. I did not mention reinforcement becose my description of alpha zero includes that by itself - alpha zero played million of games against itself only knowling the rules of chess. This is basically the definition of reinforcement learning. So you have made yet another miatake. You said you worked with deepMind, but you definitely did not work at a positios that brings you understanding about alphaZero. "First, let’s reflect on what happened. AlphaZero was developed by DeepMind (a Google-owned company) to specialize in learning how to play two-player, alternate-move games. It was primed with the rules of chess, and nothing else. It then started learning chess by playing games against itself. Game one would have involved totally random moves. At the end of this game, AlphaZero had learned that the losing side had done stuff that wasn’t all that smart, and that the winning side had played better. AlphaZero had taught itself its first chess lesson. The quality of chess in game two was a just a tiny bit better than the first. "

@@delanmorstik7619 two things. First, almost everything in your comment is wrong and I'd love to correct your fundamental misunderstandings of this topic in person, but that is impossible. Second, I concede that alphazero was initially trained completely randomly. Though this seems pretty pointless imo