Who's The Man??? 

Hikaru is so stupid. Ofcourse the graph will look like it does. Shall we measure their elo compared to other top players at the time, or shall we measure something else? Hikaru wants to measure things in another way obviously.

What? ​@@scottwarren4998

calm down timmy damn. @@scottwarren4998

stupid maybe but not on a chess scale lol @@scottwarren4998

Ok do not EVER say that about one of the best chess players of all time. @@scottwarren4998

Just wait till ‘drunk Magnus’ gets added to this poll..

​@@LukeMakiidrunk Magnus is already there

I wonder what chess programs Magnus and Hikaru are using to beat the opponents?

​@@tongobong1????

@@sakireren9310 sadly almost all the top chess players cheat. Kramnik is one of few that don't cheat.

The russians dominated chess for a very long time. Nobody could've predicted Norway though...

Yeah if there was no Kasparov Karpov could have been number 2 from 73 to 97 (overtaken a couple of times for a short periods).

By a huge margin, not advantage

@@occultsymbols Thanks. I'm not a native English speaker. I've fixed the comment

Karpov was there for how long dude? Sick

Bro💀💀💀💀

Kramnik was the only one who reached Garry´s rating althought for a short time, maybe 6 or 7 months

Kramnik: Interesting Hikaru: Interesting Us: Interesting

Fischer: I simply do not exist. Almost 20 years to someone get his rating

🤔🤔@@MauricioRomanov

The mittens bot is based off of him, and he was an expert in all styles of chess. Says a lot lol.

Idk about wild, but it's definitely very interesting. 🤔

Some people's brains actually get better with age

The only girl in the top 10 ever, I think at number 8. What I think is a good way to see who was best is number years at top1× mean rating points to number 2 . It is harder to use ratingspoints across years as every player could learn from the ones before him, and then when the computers came, that changed everything. But immagine Fisher or Karpov in todays world with acces to computers, maybe they would break 2950/3000 ?

@@MrAlanfalk73 usually with better access to technology and (sports) science the gap between competitors closes. We can see that in chess now as the order behind Magnus shifts violently while earlier there was quite stable pecking order even in lower positions. I would say the technological advancement would have roughly the same impact the opposite way as the inflation of Elo scores due to larger player base which would leave Fisher, Kasparov etc. at rougly the same rating but would close the gap between the other players below them.

​@@MrAlanfalk73tbh I think that number years on top is more important too

@@MrAlanfalk73 Reason? Maybe the reason was that there were less competitors in 1972 or less games being played at the top, which explains why the elo then didn't reach as high as now. Maybe the opponents then had less talent then compared to today. There are so many reasons...

​@@vojtechnovacek7776 Larger playerbase decreases the ratings, not increases them: the more players there are, the more chances everyone has to play, and learn from, each other, increasing everyone's objective level of play without influencing the ratings. Therefore, a higher objective level of play is now required to attain the same rating. Moreover, advances in computer chess and online resources have made it much easier to improve without playing OTB, meaning a lot more players are now underrated OTB, resulting in even further deflation. This phenomenon is especially apparent in India, where a lack of FIDE tournaments on the club level means the FIDE ratings are about 200 points lower than in countries such as the US. Research has convincingly demonstrated that, on average, FIDE ratings are now around 300 points lower than they were 10 years ago ─ although this effect diminishes at higher ratings, with the deflation only amounting to around 50 points at the very top level. In fact, this research is exactly what motivated FIDE's recent rating change, which progressively increased the ratings of everyone previously rated between 1000 and 2000 by an average of 200 points.

During their World Championship match, Carlsen was 2835 and Fabi was 2832. Had Fabi won the match, he also would have overtaken Carlsen in the ratings.

It makes sense considering he drew Magnus in all 12 classical rounds of the World Chess Championship.

​@countryman032 The world championship has 14 rounds, doesn't it?

@@nl3064 It was 12 at the time.

Bear in mind the video starts after Tal’s strongest point. Tal was champion before Botvinnik’s second reign as champion, who reigned before Petrosian, who reigned before Spassky, who is the person that Fischer beat to get the title himself, where the video starts.

Yeah Tal was dying from cancer those years if i am not wrong, sooo yeah.. All those cigarrates got him at the end.

The people's champ.

and the age. when was the last time someone 36 was 2nd highest rated?

@@boohoohoohoo Anand, probably. Other than that, Karpov and Kasparov, too.

@@maxkho00 hah okay i guess its not that rare.

@@boohoohoohoo I think Korchnoi too. Ivanchuk hit number 2 at age 38.

And she was only an experiment from her father to prove than anyone could become top in any field if they just practice from little kids, to refute the idea that "genius are born". This mean one girl having the same training than all the other tops has accomplish the same. This taking into account all the social and cultural aspects that were against her, I will say without those she could have become top 1 maybe.

​@@angellestat2730bruh just no that is just too huge "I'd say" bro it is same as "I'd say I could become top 1 in history", you cant say smh like that cuz gap between her and some of ppl above her is not that little

@@MihajloNasticyou arent good enough to measure the gap with your skills but numbers so you shouldnt be saying this too.

@@flacsomtodosclas2165 I can measure my skills perfectly lmao, cry harder now, she is top1 only for women and not even close to be top 5 not to talk abt top1. I can measure my skills but you cant accept your fav is not best

Don't mock Mr. Towel!

She doesn't get enough credit.

@@MrSupernova111 100% agree! She would be throwing down with Praag and So and Ding and similar names today.. And is like the combined Magnus, Kasparov and Karpov of the ladies!

​@@MrSupernova111bruh she does get enough credit I would even argue that feminists give her even more credit than she deserves, she was 8th and some "SMART" feminists want to say that she is better than top 3

@@MihajloNastic I've been playing chess for many years. Never in my life have I heard anyone say J Polgar was a top three player in the world. And no, she doesn't get enough credit for her accomplishments.

@@MrSupernova111 she does get enough credit and in this comment section some idiot said she should be 2nd ranked

crazy to think what kasparov or fischer could have done with today's technology in their prime years.

@@rockdude1122 . Unstoppable! But better yet, imagine both Fischer and Kasparov competing for #1 with today's technology. My guess is one of them gives up and moves on. There can only be one dominant #1.

​@@MrSupernova111fidcher would have became an actor in this time period and would most likely hate chess as he has said before. He wouldnt di that well tbh. Garry already had this type of innovation and was one of the first to use computer engines. But I don't think he could have gone much further with it even with today's level if technology.

​@@MrSupernova111fidcher would have became an actor in this time period and would most likely hate chess as he has said before. He wouldnt di that well tbh. Garry already had this type of innovation and was one of the first to use computer engines. But I don't think he could have gone much further with it even with today's level if technology.

​@@ramanahveljeyaseelan5406dementia be like

He went straight up

he was most likely worse than kasparov and magnus in absoloute strength because chess education evolved but the difference between him and players of his time is very comparable, possibly even greater.

​@@TheRiquelmeONE there's quite a bit of comparison done between players throughout time, like comparing accuracy compared to computer moves. Obviously there is no perfect way to measure it, but what's remarkable about Fischer is that he still keeps popping up in the top 3 in most methods, together with Magnus and Kasparov. He was just a very strong player, not just relatively

​@@jpietersen519Thats ridiculous considering opening preparation wasnt nearly as deep back then and no computer supported ideas. With that in mind he was probably the strongest chess mind ever

@@TheRiquelmeONElow iq logic from a weeb(not surprising) elo measures relative strength implies intrinsic ability for chess, Fischer was above others in the same chess knowledge framework

@@warrioremperor6320 isn't that what he just said

haha that was soooo bad

Anand is a legend in the chess world! He is STILL a top player at age 54, although he doesn't compete often. The guy was a top 10 player for like 30 years and even a world champion at the age of 37, the oldest modern world champion.

Nobody who actually knows chess history underrates Karpov. Only people new to the game would dare not give Karpov proper credit.

@@MrSupernova111still underrated in terms of public opinion. so underrated.

Karpov is basically chess's jaedong.

I think Karpov's public image suffers from two factors: When he played Kasparov, he was regarded in the West as a Soviet stooge. And he had a positional style of play that people found boring.

Looked like an incredibly soft era for chess. I have no idea how you came to your conclusion.

India no 1 spot is not really important, sorry to say and I would say staying as the number 1 ranked Chess player for the longest time is infinitely more impressive than staying in the top 10 for the longest time

@@williamrobert9898 He's not comparing Vishy to Kasparov lol.

Magnus neither, he perfected it. Not fair to even mention him. Magnus should be remembered as the God of Chess, the Father, the Son and the holy Spirit.

​@@CeRzso u mean to tell me that the god of chess can't beat an engine, bro i think saying god of chess is too much. Humans are prone to errors

@@1stlullaby484 no one cares about the engine

@@applehead2004mj many do

​@@CeRzcant beat am engine so no.. he is not any g0d or perfected it

Pretty sure she was 8th?

@MihajloNastic Why even comment this? Just watch the video, she hits 7th before she drops off.

@@PlaygroundMafia kk google tells me she peaked at 8th probably cause she had highest rating while being 8th but nvm

Evan ชุกมันหล่อเวเยยย

Dont undermine karpov bro

The old ratings updated every six months. And I'm guessing there were less games played.

Kasparovs is crazier

And his games art works of art

The GOAT!

Garry was 150ish ahead of 3rd place for some period in there

​@@MrSupernova111yes Magnus is the gkat

To be fair, in 1990 Garry was 140 points ahead of the competition except Karpov. So I think Kasparov didn't just come close, he surpassed Fischer's dominance and extended it for 20 years

@@bobing1752 No he didn't

Korchnoi also left an impression on me. A younger me that read about the story of chess championships enjoyed the controversy of the 1978 and 1981 world championships between Korchnoi and Karpov, not to mention that his playing style is the kind that I personally favor, as well. When I started playing chess tournaments, I got to meet him at the Quebec Open in July of 2004, in which he was the most renowned participant in the open section. Obviously I didn't go and talk to him or anything like that, but man, I was amazed. He had a very real "presence" to him. Like a sort of aura. May he rest in peace.

I mean look at Anand; he has essentially the same strength and career as Kramnik + being a world champion a few more times than Kramnik and yet is still rated about the same as Kramnik by a bunch of people, even though he should be rated a bit below him. That's not really being underrated, unless you mean something like both Anand and Kramnik are underrated in the grand scheme of things, then yes.

Magnus…. Better even

@@patogordo1385 Magnus is better than Fischer? Are you crazy? Fischer would destroy Magnus.

@@bryantcullen1377 Magnus is better than Fisher

@@patogordo1385 Fischer would destroy Magnus.

​@@patogordo1385Fischer can fatally destroy magnus if he could study stockfish

So wrong. We have the greatest chess genius of all time alive.

@@CeRz Magnus? Fischer would destroy Mag.

​@@bryantcullen1377and then you would wake up with a wet blanket

@@bryantcullen1377 magnus would intuitively win blindfolded with time odds.

@@notsoeloquent LOL

Kasparov, Karpov, Magnus are there for quite a long too? Setting her at something over 8th is just playing favorites

2500 cuz he'd be new to this generation

could be also 2700

@@necrobryze . You're clueless if you think peak Fischer is below top ten in any era. All he would need to do is do some catch up in opening prep to get back as a contender for chess dominance.

@@MrSupernova111 nah, he didn't study computers so yeah 2700-2800 to be accurate

@@MrSupernova111if he grew up in this age he would be so ahead

bruh

I think most do but eventually they'll accept it. That darn Magnus ruined everything for them. All they will remember is, I was good, real good, you know, just not better than magnus. Then when they grow old and get dementia or alzheimers they'll mumble in their sleep "Magnus... Magnus... Magnus" then wake up in terror after a god awful nightmare. He will haunt them even when they cant remember what breakfast they had.

@@CeRzthen he accuses everyone of cheating.

all chess players in the entire chess scene has suspicions about who cheats. Do your research before falling for the social media bubble like a slow person. The thing is, Magnus is such an important person in the chess scene and dominant that he gets all the media attention when other people who says the same things as magnus do and get no attention for it. There is not a single master in chess that hasn't accused someone of cheating. And of course you're american, it's not your fault. Maybe you'll get it right one day.@@rickdonnelly3937

@@CeRz Very true. A way to escape this "Second in Rome" situation is to recognize the struggle for a single first spot as a false dichotomy and concentrate on other things.