lichess.org
Donate

Who do you consider the greatest chess player in history (GOAT): Kasparov, Carlsen, Fischer or Capab

@swimmerBill said in #39:

... I couldnt find the quote so it was likely someone else.

Well, at any rate, Morphy played Löwenthal, Harrwitz, and Anderssen on equal terms.

@swimmerBill said in #39: > ... I couldnt find the quote so it was likely someone else. Well, at any rate, Morphy played Löwenthal, Harrwitz, and Anderssen on equal terms.

@kindaspongey said ^

... I couldnt find the quote so it was likely someone else.

Well, at any rate, Morphy played Löwenthal, Harrwitz, and Anderssen on equal terms.

but not equal results. He beat them like rented mules.
Later he said he'd play any European at pawn and move odds and any American at knight odds. (except Paulsen who he'd play at pawn and move odds).

I think Morphy is way underrated.

@kindaspongey said [^](/forum/redirect/post/uvdZ8FG8) > > ... I couldnt find the quote so it was likely someone else. > > Well, at any rate, Morphy played Löwenthal, Harrwitz, and Anderssen on equal terms. but not equal results. He beat them like rented mules. Later he said he'd play any European at pawn and move odds and any American at knight odds. (except Paulsen who he'd play at pawn and move odds). I think Morphy is way underrated.

@swimmerBill said in #42:

... but not equal results. He beat them like rented mules.

There is no doubt that Morphy was much better than Löwenthal, Harrwitz, and Anderssen, but one can actually look up some players to whom Morphy DID give knight odds. I am not aware that the opponents are regarded as representative of the era.

@swimmerBill said in #42:

Later he said he'd play any European at pawn and move odds and any American at knight odds. (except Paulsen who he'd play at pawn and move odds).

As I understand it, this is what was reported in the New York Saturday Press of October 20, 1860:
"... Morphy has again and again declared ... that he would play no more even matches without having been first conquered at odds. ..."
I suspect that that was a strategy to discourage requests for matches from the strongest players.

@swimmerBill said in #42:

I think Morphy is way underrated.

"... The greatest player of all time. I'm the only person who thinks this unless you follow me and you're like, 'I like what Ben Finegold says, so when he says some crazy stuff, I'm going to agree with it,' but, if I never said this, nobody would say it. But I have to say it loud for the audience in the back. The greatest player of all time is Paul Morphy. ..." - GM Finegold
https[colon]//www[period]youtube[period]com/watch?v=tdLZmsaOs4I

@swimmerBill said in #42: > ... but not equal results. He beat them like rented mules. There is no doubt that Morphy was much better than Löwenthal, Harrwitz, and Anderssen, but one can actually look up some players to whom Morphy DID give knight odds. I am not aware that the opponents are regarded as representative of the era. @swimmerBill said in #42: > Later he said he'd play any European at pawn and move odds and any American at knight odds. (except Paulsen who he'd play at pawn and move odds). As I understand it, this is what was reported in the New York Saturday Press of October 20, 1860: "... Morphy has again and again declared ... that he would play no more even matches without having been first conquered at odds. ..." I suspect that that was a strategy to discourage requests for matches from the strongest players. @swimmerBill said in #42: > I think Morphy is way underrated. "... The greatest player of all time. I'm the only person who thinks this unless you follow me and you're like, 'I like what Ben Finegold says, so when he says some crazy stuff, I'm going to agree with it,' but, if I never said this, nobody would say it. But I have to say it loud for the audience in the back. The greatest player of all time is Paul Morphy. ..." - GM Finegold https[colon]//www[period]youtube[period]com/watch?v=tdLZmsaOs4I

"Rating Inflation" makes direct rating comparison undependable.

Everybody @tpr mentioned -- wisely and well, I might add -- and even several others -- are simply in a tier above even "strong grandmaster." To the list of the unusually superb, one might, for example, add Smyslov or Korchnoi or Bronstein.

In their own, unique way each might be considered the GOAT. Each is "a" GOAT, perhaps -- rather than "the" GOAT. Consider Korchnoi, for example -- for sheer, lifelong, sustained combative creativity, who really surpasses him? Najdorf and Smyslov need to be considered -- sure -- but Korchnoi was still terrifying and creative well into old age.

Comparing them feels a bit like comparing really inspired, historically valued painters. They each brought something special -- not at all routine -- to the game. They added, enormously, to the craft. It's a bit like comparing Monet and Van Gogh. Or pick two others.

Their excellence goes beyond mere competence, and it can't quite be captured by ELO alone, I think.

No, I haven't been drinking. It's not Friday evening, after all.

"Rating Inflation" makes direct rating comparison undependable. Everybody @tpr mentioned -- wisely and well, I might add -- and even several others -- are simply in a tier above even "strong grandmaster." To the list of the unusually superb, one might, for example, add Smyslov or Korchnoi or Bronstein. In their own, unique way each might be considered the GOAT. Each is "a" GOAT, perhaps -- rather than "the" GOAT. Consider Korchnoi, for example -- for sheer, lifelong, sustained combative creativity, who really surpasses him? Najdorf and Smyslov need to be considered -- sure -- but Korchnoi was still terrifying and creative well into old age. Comparing them feels a bit like comparing really inspired, historically valued painters. They each brought something special -- not at all routine -- to the game. They added, enormously, to the craft. It's a bit like comparing Monet and Van Gogh. Or pick two others. Their excellence goes beyond mere competence, and it can't quite be captured by ELO alone, I think. No, I haven't been drinking. It's not Friday evening, after all.

Magnus Carlsen is the best chess player ever since he was 11

Magnus Carlsen is the best chess player ever since he was 11

@TheDifferenceOfTier5 said ^

The greatest of all time: Kasparov. Carlsen himself said so.
The greatest now still active: Carlsen.
The most ahead of his peers: Fischer.
The most genial: Capablanca.

Obviously Carlsen wouldn't say that he was the best. He was just being modest. He is undeniably the best.

It's like how Fischer was asked the same question and he said Morphy is the best

@TheDifferenceOfTier5 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/9zHWo7cN) > > The greatest of all time: Kasparov. Carlsen himself said so. > > The greatest now still active: Carlsen. > > The most ahead of his peers: Fischer. > > The most genial: Capablanca. > > Obviously Carlsen wouldn't say that he was the best. He was just being modest. He is undeniably the best. It's like how Fischer was asked the same question and he said Morphy is the best

Fischer, obviously. His play wasn't the most accurate, he wasn't the most brilliant, he didn't have great stamina, he just dominated in a way that noone ever came close to doing.

Fischer, obviously. His play wasn't the most accurate, he wasn't the most brilliant, he didn't have great stamina, he just dominated in a way that noone ever came close to doing.

Mikhail Tal. Wasn't the "best" but his legendary chess moments are so weird but undeniably reasonable. He plays move that you don't see so that's why i consider him as the goat

Mikhail Tal. Wasn't the "best" but his legendary chess moments are so weird but undeniably reasonable. He plays move that you don't see so that's why i consider him as the goat

@crusader5 said ^

Fischer, obviously. His play wasn't the most accurate, he wasn't the most brilliant, he didn't have great stamina, he just dominated in a way that noone ever came close to doing.

Carlsen held the world championship for 10 years and didn't even lose it in a match. Is that not dominance?

@crusader5 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/qfP3LhdV) > Fischer, obviously. His play wasn't the most accurate, he wasn't the most brilliant, he didn't have great stamina, he just dominated in a way that noone ever came close to doing. Carlsen held the world championship for 10 years and didn't even lose it in a match. Is that not dominance?

Garry Kasparov.

This is an objective assessment cos 20 years no 1., 3 times defense against Karpov.

Fischer only cleanly best from 1970-1972. Wasn't dominant against Soviets in 60's.

Carlsen only no.1 for 16 years vs Kasparov 20 years. Carlsen also reduces Classical play to a minimum and quit World Championship to reduce chances of losing, which negatively impacts GOAT claim.

Top 4:

  1. Kasparov
  2. Carlsen
  3. Karpov
  4. Fischer

Karpov above Fischer cos longer time as no.1, longer longevity and more World Championships + almost equal record against Kasparov.

**Garry Kasparov.** This is an objective assessment cos 20 years no 1., 3 times defense against Karpov. Fischer only cleanly best from 1970-1972. Wasn't dominant against Soviets in 60's. Carlsen only no.1 for 16 years vs Kasparov 20 years. Carlsen also reduces Classical play to a minimum and quit World Championship to reduce chances of losing, which negatively impacts GOAT claim. ----- **Top 4:** 1. Kasparov 2. Carlsen 3. Karpov 4. Fischer Karpov above Fischer cos longer time as no.1, longer longevity and more World Championships + almost equal record against Kasparov.