Who is the Greatest Chess Player of All Time?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ม.ค. 2021
- World Chess Champion Magnus Carlsen, Alexander Grischuk, Teimour Radjabov, Wesley So & more Airthings Masters on who is the GOAT! Watch the tournament: chess24.com/en/watch/live-tou...
♜ Visit our deals page for daily deals! events.chess24.com/deals/
♜ Become a Premium member to get access to everything chess24 has to offer: explore.chess24.com/premium
► Watch live and on-demand shows: chess24.com/en/live/video/
► Follow top tournaments with our state-of-the-art broadcast system: chess24.com/en/watch/live-tou...
► Play chess in our playzone: chess24.com/en/play/chess
► Improve your chess by learning from grandmasters in interactive videos: chess24.com/en/learn/videoseries
Let’s stay in touch!
► Subscribe to our channel: th-cam.com/users/chess24m...
► Like us on Facebook: / c24live
► Follow us on Twitter: / chess24com
► Follow our Instagram: / chess24_official
#MagnusCarlsen #ChessChamps #AirthingsMasters - เกม
You can subscribe to our channel to see our new content :)
first
Note bene how Giri refuses to say Carlsen's name xd
He meant it was a draw between Kasparov and Magnus.
@@temper44 no he didnt you dolt lmao
@@temper44 My man did you even listen to what he said? He said that the level of chess has been growing with time and that the current best player (Magnus) is the strongest player of all time.
@@jasonlee7928 Sad how your casual ass didnt get the joke.
@@EmperorThePro this guy gets it
Kasparov has the best resume. Fischer was the most talented. Carlsen would probably be most likely to win a tournament consisting of everyone who ever played the game.
The most talented was, in all likelyhodd, Morphy
@Rocco Muscarella Yeah. There's a variant called Fischer Random where they shuffle the bank rank pieces and stop any opening theory that has become very popular in recent years. Magnus is still a great player at it, but he got crushed in the Finals of the World Championship tournament by another player named Wesley So.
@Rocco Muscarella Well we can't stop the computers from being used. But in Fischer Random tournaments (also known as Chess960) they usually don't reveal the position until 30 minutes before the game starts and don't let the players use computers. It's very nice. You see opening blunders all the time, haha.
@Rocco Muscarella correct me if I’m wrong, wouldn’t that mean anyone with the inclination and a photographic memory could beat or at least draw Magnus? Doesn’t seem to be the case...
@@ThePlaintext Yeah I’d like to hear chess players opinion on what this guy is claiming. I assume a photographic memory would also fail you as soon as the position demanded more pattern recognition than pure book knowledge.
What fischer did is absolutely legendary. He was so much better than his peers and came out of nowhere. The only comparisons are morphy and capablanca who also came from nothing. For longevity you have to give it to Kasparov. Magnus might surpass in the next 5-10 years
You sum it pretty much up
Strictly talking longevity Lasker was on top longer than Kasparov. If you go by gap between the best and next best of a generation Morphy probably edges out Fischer.
What do you mean Morphy came from nowhere?
What Carlsen was doing when he was in his early twenties was on par with Fischer imo. This guy came close to 2900 which is insane.
Also we didn't see him go up against Karpov. Spassky and Petrosian were all-time greats no disrespect but there are levels even to the all-time greats. Though, again, given the difference in resources and preparation what Fischer did is still crazy.
So in my eyes Carlsen was Fischer-esque in his early days but unlike Fischer he didn't just disappear. We don't know if Fischer's performance level would drop. If he played at that for 10 years he'd be GOAT since we've never seen that (Carlsen himself could not sustain this level) but you can't assume it would happen.
@@theo7371 the big difference is Carlsen has had access to chess computers which is the great equalizer in today’s game. Bobby was basically on his own against the closest the era had to a modern chess computer, a team of soviet former world champions and grandmasters. Comparing who did what at what age is totally missing the enormity of what Fischer accomplished
Grischuk is the GOAT in top level chess interviews. His chess is also fantastic.
th-cam.com/video/LgCeBpPopnY/w-d-xo.html Magnus pissed with Hikaru comments
Alexander the great, his name brought fear into the hearts of men.
gangsta!
th-cam.com/video/LgCeBpPopnY/w-d-xo.html Magnus Carlsen pissed with Hikaru comments
We can all agree that Tal is the most entertaining.
Oh yeah. And the most beloved one...
most entertaining is Hikaru :-)
I was actually thinking why no one said Tal. Maybe because he didn't live long.
@@pentaflouride3213 because he was inaccurate compared to other chess players. But that doesn't matter to me, he was amazing. He was magical. He is my favorite chess player.
Morphy IMO
If by "greatest" you mean with the most skill and not accomplishments, it's obviously magnus. The reason is simple, magnus grew up in a generation with chess engines and more knowledge about chess than any other generation before him. He became the first person in history to ever be ranked #1 in classical, blitz, and rapid.
Not at one point. He is currently
@@stopwritingthatreplyjohnat6638 you think Kasparov in his 20s could have beaten Magnus at the same age? delusional
@@stopwritingthatreplyjohnat6638 The evidence speaks for itself. Magnus is near unbeatable in classical he went over 120 games undefeated and across all those 120 classical games stockfish said he played with an average accuracy of 98%, against some of the best players.
@@akaakaakaak5779 i agree magnus in his 20s was unstoppable especially in classical
@@stopwritingthatreplyjohnat6638
At no point in his career would Kasparov have beaten Magnus. Magnus achieved GM title four years earlier, has played in much more competitive tournaments, super tournaments with other top players, that is, and due to the much higher level of competition, Magnus’ achievements are much more impressive. At his peak, Kasparov was 35 points ahead of the no. 2. At his, Magnus was 57 points ahead of no. 2 Kramnik. Magnus is the best ever, it’s not even close.
it is hard to point one of them, they all had briliant playing moments, everybody did their best.
I'm doing my best too
@@gmatsue84 are you sure?:)
@@gmatsue84 nah, you're just a mere human
th-cam.com/video/LgCeBpPopnY/w-d-xo.html Magnus pissed with Hikaru comments
Did they tho
It's unlikely Teimour would vote for Garry after how rudely he was treated when he beat him aged 16.
More like, because he schooled Garry when he was 15 (with the black pieces). So Garry isn't anything special to him
If I put this in Basketball terms
Kasparov= Micheal Jordan
Carlsen= Kobe Bryant
Fischer=Kareem Abdul Jabbar(Cause back in the day he was untouchable in the 70s)
If we put also in classical composter terms
Kasparov= Johann Bach
Carlsen= Mozart
Fischer= Beethoven
Morphy is technically the Mozart of Chess, but between Fischer, Kasparov and Magnus, Magnus would be.
I would say that Carlsen is Lebron James cause Kobe Bryant is not even close to MJ
@@kevinbuenrostro2668 Magnus Carlson is Kasparov student/successor
Football terms would be
Kasparov = Maradona
Carlsen = Messi
Fischer = Adriano
If I put this in Tennis Players terms
Kasparov= Roger Federer
Carlsen= Rafael Nadal/Novak Djokovic
Fischer= Rod Laver
This chest player generations are incredibly insane.. I mean top 10 GM's right now easily can put Kasparov in pressure. Same like football you can't compare Pele to Ronaldo or Messi, because so many different rules and quality players.
top 10 gms in 1990s can also put kasparov in pressure i think even today kasparov is way ahead in terms of calculation ability than most of the super gms
"Not in the present but en the passant"
th-cam.com/video/LgCeBpPopnY/w-d-xo.html Magnus Carlsen pissed with Hikaru comments
Good one.
Too hard to choose between them 3. They are all special and they will always be chess legends
Capablanca and Morphy had the most natural ability in my opinion.
Morphy has been praised as the most talented by many HOF players. Played moves instantly, dominating all comers, and was considered the unofficial world champ before retiring after 2 years of competitive play at, like, 23...? (leaving a brief but brilliant legacy)
No telling what he could've done if a) he took the game more seriously, and b) faced competition that really tested him
and Sultan Khan.
People sleep on Tal too much
@@chaddicusmaximus Tal might be the most creative/artistic but he is pretty far from being in the best of all times discussion.
@@rosshewage6893 He couldn't have done anything. That's precisely the reason why he retired. He considered himself so much better than anyone on the planet (and he was) that there was no real competition and that it was not possible for him to play the game seriously as he had no worthy opponents.
We all know that when Carlsen retires, he'll have this title of GOAT sealed.
Uhh...not really no. Although I'm a big fan of his, I feel that in chess it's hard to predict the future, more so than in other sports
Kasparov, Fischer and Carlsen will be the top 3 contested for a long time I imagine.
It depends, if he holds the world champion title for as long as Kasparov and continues to go on unbeaten and win streaks in the meantime, I think he'll be the uncontested GOAT
@@jonathanandrianavalona5384 You are a fairly new in chess in than yes? Lol fischer would wipe the floor with win only in endgame carlsen
@@Narrowcros I feel like all three of them have very different albeit completely legitimate cases. Fischer is more of a legend, a true pioneer and a creative mastermind. Kasparov is the one who dominated an entire era. Most dominant player of all time. Peak Carlsen is probably the single greatest iteration of a human chess player in the history of the game.
Fischer gave away 2 points and still managed to win the World Championship by 4 points. Do you have any idea how wide that margin is? He didn’t even have the resources that Spassky had. He only had William Lombardy analysing his games for him after adjournment. Spassky had a whole team.. Can you imagine Carlsen having less resources than Anand and still beating him by a margin of 6 points? If Fischer hadn’t quit he would have dominated for 20+ years
Carlsen's score against Anand is actually better than Fischer's in 1972.
6.5-3.5 is better than 12.5-8.5, actually Carlsen's score is the best ever for a challenger.
Carlsen scored 65% vs Fischer's 59%
@@kasparov9 I argued with you a few days ago on this very subject
@@TheUltimateSay Ah right, sorry I didn't realize, at least this time I added percentages :)
Just read your last sentence, well Fischer would have had to go through Karpov multiple times and also Kasparov, I say one of them beats him. They were just so strong. He would have probably beat Karpov in 1975 and maybe 1978, but I think come 1985 he would have lost to Kasparov, Garry's style was so annoying, and Fischer hated unclear positions, which Garry was a maestro at.
@@kasparov9 Ah well, we’ll never know will we? :)
@@TheUltimateSay That's right, we can never know. It's fun to speculate though. The only thing that is certain is that some players like Fischer and Morphy were so dominant vs. their contemporaries that they deserve consideration as all-time greats on that basis alone. Carlsen is great, but he has had two very close WC matches and he said it himself, he felt Caruana was his equal during the last match (at least in classical chess). For that reason, I think claims of him being the best of all-time are premature. Kasparov was great, but he lost to Kramnik, although he might have been shaken by his experience vs. the computer (just like John Henry way back when). Like Karpov, Kramnik is an underrated all-time great, one of the few challengers to beat a champ who most experts and fans put at or near the top or as Ric Flair used to say, "To be the man, you've got to beat the man." The 2007 WCC when Anand won the crown over Kramnik was not a legitimate challenge, as it was not a head-to-head match. Kramnik lost just one game and not ot Anand and they took his title away. Does that make sense to anybody? Anand did beat Kramnik in 2008, which puts him in the top echelon of champions, but still Vlad had a relatively long period as champion (about 7 years) and he deserves credit as the man who first successfully unified the title as undisputed champion and brought sense back to the professional world of chess. It could never be played, but it If a Fischer random tournament could be set up with all the all-time chess greats at their peak, my bitcoin would be on Bobby or Morphy winning (with Tal and Kasparov as an outside threat because of their tactical brilliance). I think it would take several games for the other greats to catch up with them, which I expect they would do, but by then it might be too late.
The way Magnus dominates all chess formats the classical, rapid, blitz and all major chess tournaments is insane. We've never seen anything like this before.
I compeletely agree. Thats why carlsen should be the GOAT. Kasparov and fischer had championships and dominations all of that. But what carlsen did and does is just makes him better imo. Because being able to play chess in any kind of way and being top player in all of that is just amazing.
Ficher destroying some 20 grand masters in a row with no L is more impressive
@@JavHos98 Not at all. Yes, Fisher was dominating at his years much better than Magnus, but you didn't compare years themselves...
Our century is the most difficult in terms of chess dominating without any words. 20 century can't even compare and Magnus still at the top and he's sitting there 11+ years really comfortable. At 2014 his dominating was just horrifying + his unbeatable strike at 125 games continue admire me
Um, no. Fischer won the 1970 Herceg Novi blitz tournament with a score of 19/22, absolutely crushing the other best players in the world. Capablanca dominated in speed chess as well. This is normal with players at that talent level.
It's crystall clear that he is the best . Ofcourse we don't say he's the GOAT till he finishes his career but deep down we all know it
Now you are the Greatest Player Teimour Rajabov! Since now, everybody will talk about you!
Fax
Kasparov wins by the testimony of the greatest players.. it is well known fact that the best 3 in the second half of 20th century are Kasparov, Karpov, and Fischer.
Magnus already put himself as the first player of the first half of the 21st century
All time best is impossible to assess. Back then the theory wasn't what it is now and the Centaur (association of man and engine) has increased the mean level of chess players by orders of magnitude. I still am fascinated with both Capablanca's and Tal's styles and play. Albeit being at the very opposite of the chess spectrum as regards of playing style, these two have brought something to the game, a new way of handling the game, that no other did before.
It has to be Carlsen. He has the highest ever rating for a human being and his peers are much stronger than those around when Kasparov and Fischer were at the top.
Kasparov was better than Carlsen....the Ranking at the end was totally justified
@@AbhishekYadav-bc8ek No he wasn't lol, computers prove it
@@boxnow8774 must be nice. Kasparov didnt have dial up internet during his reign
@@boxnow8774 Well the strongest chess player is Carlsen, but that doesn't say a lot because the current world number 1 is always going to be stronger than the previous one in terms of moves based on computers and chess evolution. Kasparov is the GOAT though, but Carlsen is right behind him.
Kasparov without a doubt. His dominance for decades was the thing of legends.
Magnus said Fischer was the best when asked this question before.
Couldn't say himself.
Nah...he said that it was himself from 3-4 years ago in 2018😂😂😂
@A 1000 he said that ..carlsen said himself about 3-4 years ago in 2018.. He meant carlsen said that 3 years ago.. so 3-4 years before 2018 is of course 2014-2015.. don't misunderstanding the sentence
He always says Kasparov
Carlsen said that Fischer probably was the best in the history on his peak, but he see it different as the "greatest".
The greatest for him is Kasparov because of his long top ranking.
MY FAVORITE CHESS PLAYER IS TAL ... HE WAS SO CREATIVE AND CREATED SO MUCH CONFUSION FOR HIS OPPONENTS OVER THE BOARD
This is like Hall of Fame... Its ok if we dont say Magnus cause he's still playing, but we all know he will be up there eventually.
I think people confused greatness and best. Being the best is being the strongest player. The most unbeatable no matter era or circumstances. This would be Magnus.
Being the greatest is so much more. It’s accomplishments, championships, reign, your legacy, impact on the game, fame, importance in history, and in that case people like Bobby and Garry kick it farther.
There isn't a big enough gap between the best so far to declare one of them as the GOAT with 100% certainty.
Yeah, well the strongest I would call it, and the strongest player is almost always the current world number 1 player, which really just means it's the player who's currently the best or greatest, but not of all time necessarily.
Im with what radjabov said. Fischer did it all by himself against the biggest and best chess nation in history. So for that he is the GOAT. Period.
Disagree with Radjabov's assessment, all the nation's knowledge still had to get processed through a single person Spassky, who was just weaker than Fischer, all that knowledge was for nothing. They were not at his level, and had no engine to tell them any better. Kind of like stuck on stupid.
@@kasparov9 only cause your name is kasparov you disagree and your argumentation is nonsense. You mean taimanov was stupid, larsen was stupid and petrosian too? Come on man ... and especially without engines that is the main reason why fischer is the goat he had that engine moves back than without computers without a team or a nation that was behind him, without a sevond who would analyse games for him and so on ... that is something unmatched and will never happen again... even your kasparov is a big fan of fischer you can tell by his eyes the admiration for fischer when he is talking about him
@@TheGreatest89er But that's the thing, Fischer was just stronger than them, and with no engine they could not figure out how to beat him, with an engine the field is more level, with no engine you can never see where Fischer is beating you or how, and engine would show you how to stop him. When I say stuck on stupid, I mean that without an engine, they could never figure him out.
I've read on chessgames.com in the comments there that Fischer did have a team for the 1972 World Championship, 3 or 4 people, I forgot their names and what their roles were.
@@kasparov9 bro did you know what you have written? You clearly given probs to fischer for being the GOAT.
You said he was so strong that he couldn’t be beaten without engines. Even if you have a whole Team of grandmasters working for you.
If thats not worth being the GOAT then I don‘t know.
Put Carlsen back then without engines or anyone else Fischer would be still to strong to beat him without engines. I mean he had the top choices of engine moves nowadays and that without using an engine back then. How can you even TRY to argue that he is not the goat ...
@@TheGreatest89er Sure, over that 2 year stretch against that group of players, but he didn't play Karpov, who was stronger than all of those guys.
Yes I think they were just weaker than him, Karpov would have given a much better fight, but Fischer ran from that, so no goat, a goat doesn't run from their best competition, they beat it. Though you could certainly argue some of the things Fischer did fall into goat territory, but his length of domination was way too short, zero title defenses and zero games as champion.
Same thing for Kasparov and engines up until maybe 1996-97, other couldn't beat him without an engine except for maybe Karpov who was close.
Even with those early engines Kasparov still dominated, since he too had access to them.
Well tbh most of the people don’t mention magnus as he is still competing with those guys. It’s unlike when you have a game and already telling your opponent that he is better
Magnus has so much class
0:10 exactly, it is important to dominate for a long time but what is more important and more impressive is HOW to dominate.
Quality over quantity.
@@rouenyu exactly.
Sorry, you don't understand the question! It was not asked who played for a long time, but who is the strongest, the greatest strength of the game. Computers have studied it perfectly. Capablanca and Fischer ruled. And Fischer joined Morphy.
By the way: where's Carlsen here ?? Carlsen makes more misses in one game than Capablanca and Fischer in a lifetime. The longest-running world champion was the brilliant Lasker: 27 years!
@@wjd2339 i did understand the question but not the way you think i did, i mentioned quantity against the argument of who thinks Gary was the greatest. I can not ignore that Gary is one of the best ever and you most include him the GOAT conversation but i just can’t see him the greatest, if being at top for too long is the case then, as you said, Lasker should be the greatest ever (which he is also in the conversation)
@@hebt9mlk Who is to say Kasparov wouldn't have done the same if not better than Fischer if he was in exactly the same circumstances. This is why goat discussion doesn't make sense in any sport. Different times, different competition, different motivations after all etc... Kasparov's W/L% is better than Fischer's, I think Kasparov's games are prettier etc... it depends on what you want to go by. If we really wanted to know who is better, we would have to resurrect them both in their prime and have a match for GOAT title, otherwise it's just personal preference and opinion. In my opinion you can't go simply by quality, because then Morphy would be the best, since he single handedly wiped the floor with everyone else, no one was even remotely close, and the guy had a job beside chess.
@@hebt9mlk difference is Kasparov had quantity and quality...
Grischuk still in prison :/ #ReleaseGrischuk
Watching giris stream
What do u mean he is in prison?
@@alexcristea2080 his hair
I dont understand
@@alexcristea2080 I think it's a joke about his hair? Shaved head makes him look like a prisoner (inmate).
I think to answer this question an engine could be used to analyze players moves and count the percentage of clearly best moves not made and count the number of outright blunders they made. Etc. But personally Fischer's moves were mostly computer moves long before there were computers.
That was already done several years ago. Magnus Carlsen is way ahead of the field comparing his moves with best computer moves. Fischer is not bad, but worse than Kasparov. All this is pretty much expected
For me it is Bobby Fischer. Why? Because a) he did it all by himself to become world champion b) he had the greatest dedication to live and breath chess. In fact: To the point of sickness, sadly enough... c) to me he is without a doubt the most interesting and fascinating chess player of them all d) in my humble opinion Fischer was the most brilliant player. That being said: i like Carlsen very much, also Kasparov.
we have had many ingenious chess players in recent years, but few of them are legends, of those few legends, Carlsen is definitely the most ingenious legend.
People forget Vishy also had a similar story like Fischer.
Vishy has entire floors of hotels booked out for his team with computers during world chess championships, totally different.
@@kasparov9 for real? Is there a yt vid on this?
The argument for Fisher is pretty convincing.
Magnus is the best by objective rating and would probably get near the highest score if all the greats competed in a tournament right now. However, I think this is the product of him being the most up-to-date on the current technology and not as much innate talent like Morphy, Tal, and Fischer. Subjectively I would say Fischer is the GOAT because he crushed everyone by himself and, unlike Morphy, his opponents were extremely tough.
Anish said Magnus :D Also heads up for grishcuk and anton for telling the truth without any ego
Ron Weasley
0:33 plucks a feather for us
I once was on the same plane as Magnus Carlsen to New York, he flew first class tho
Magnus is put in the situation where in order to be humble, he has to lie
Bobby Fisher, Morphy, or Capablana. Kasparov held it the longest, but what does that prove necessarily? Morphy retired at 22 and Bobby went insane. Had either of them existed during the computer era they may very well have beaten Magnus on a consistent basis, but we may never know. However, what Bobby accomplished by himself is extraordinary. He went up against a well oiled machine with little support. It is hard to look past him
It didn’t happen though, and who’s to say if they were born during this era they’d even be interested in chess. You’re just going into what if scenarios.
@@radrichiie If you have a talent or gift, why wouldn't they be interested in chess? Of course this is all hypothetical. But the entire conversation of who the GOAT is is hypothetical. The question is, what player had the most raw natural talent regardless of the level of advancement of chess theory?
@@gideondavid30 You’re assuming they’d even discover they have a talent for chess. Also, raw talent is just one of many factors.
@@radrichiie Yeah your just being dense now. The argument has deteriorated. It is possible to overthink and you my friend are making the debate more complicated then it has to be. Raw talent doesn't replace motivation or hard work. Very good. But raw talent is what we are talking about here.
@@gideondavid30 Raw talent is only a factor and you're being delusional if you think otherwise. Would you consider someome like Sultan Khan to be a greater player than someone like Karpov or Kasparov? The answer would probably be no. Or look at it from a sports point of view. Most people consider Tom Brady to be the greatest player ever, but almost everyone will admit he had nowhere near the raw talent that many other players possessed.
Good one
I think if we’re talking about raw talent alone, it’s probably Fischer. He came from nothing, essentially had to teach himself the game for most of his formative years, and managed to beat what could he considered the greatest chess dynasty in history singlehandedly. His pure understanding of the game was just on another level. However, because we can only speculate how he would have done had he continued playing, I think we still have to give the greatest of all time title to Kasparov just because of longevity. I think it’s also worth considering that Fischer didn’t just beat the Russians, he absolutely demolished the Russians. While his story is often told as that of the underdog, he was rated 120 points higher than Spassky at the time of their world championship match. Though he may not have held the title for long, he did dominate the entire chess world for years.
Kasparov is 🐐
No argument. Top 1 for 255 months
If I put this in American football terms
Kasparov= Tom Brady
Magnus Carlsen= Patrick Mahomes
Bobby Fischer= Aaron Rodgers(the most talented in his prime)
Chess players are talkatuve they arent shy i like that they are too much talkative
Sultan Khan, Jose Raul Capablanca, is forgetten here, although they are older than Mikhail Tal and Garry Kasparov but they have a position that was good as the Engines, also Morphy who made Chess more famous and one of the player that made chess popular
Realistically, I'd pick today's Magnus vs the peak of anyone else, as Giri said, because the game is progressing, especially via engines.
Well, if you're going by the STRONGEST player, its 100% Magnus. Like its not even a debate, its well known magnus is the strongest chess player to ever play in terms of raw strength.
But the GOAT is a lot more than just raw strength. Its also about legacy, and relative dominance, and advancements to the game. When you calculate these things in, it gets a lot more complicated.
I do agree that Magnus is the GOAT though imo. But just wanted to point out that being the GOAT is more about just being the strongest.
@@eragon78 Yeah, but strongest player is always the current world number 1. In 20 years the current world number 1 will be the strongest ever and that goes on and on. You can't use that as criteria to determine the GOAT.
@@billj4525 I didnt say that meant he was the GOAT. I literally specifically mentioned otherwise.
I was just basically saying the exact same thing you did.
Although I would argue that the current #1 isnt ALWAYS the strongest player ever, there are some exceptions, especially in intermediate players where the current #1 retires or something. But yea, generally thats true still. As the game progresses, the average level and skill of players increases, which means the current #1 at any given time is generally stronger than the past #1s. The skill trends upwards. Again, some exceptions, like if Magnus retired right now, Ding would be world #1, but he wouldnt be stronger than Magnus was. But give it 5-10 years, and someone stronger than Magnus would probably show up as the average skill increases again. So generally its true that the most current #1 is the strongest player ever, but there are some minor exceptions and edge cases.
They can not say Magnus as he is rivals for them and their career still not near ending. If you ask Karpov when they were playing he wouldn't say Kasparov or if you ask Spassky he wouldn't say Fischer at that time. It's the same thing, Radja or Naka or Anish will accept that Magnus one of the bests but they won't say he is the best as they are still playing actively.
If Kasparov and Fischer didn't exist, I think they'd have no problem saying Carlsen.
that stockfish guy is pretty good, I heard
Chess playees are brave and bold they arent coward i like that they are brave and courageous
The question is guys, if we could grab a time machine and bring every chess champion throughout history into modern times, how would they perform against each other?
Sure, there does need to be some preparation for mastering the level of chess theory today, but what GOAT is really asking is who win in a head to head battle all things being equal.?
At that time Fischer did not have the technical capabilities like Kasparow or Magnus!
He sometimes had to get Russian chess books in order to get to the games, tactics and variants.
It was much harder for Fischer than for chess players today.
That's why Fischer is the best chess player ever!
lol literally both Kasparov and Magnus became who they are today without engines
@@williamrobert9898 no you are delu
@@sanssucreajoute6554 They already did, cry about it
Magnus gets blood from stones which admittedly may not seem the best way to approach a Friday night but in chess it always comes down to endgame mastery. ❤
Fischer, for a short time. My favorite is Capablanca. I don’t know how you can compare players from different eras who never faced each other.
You can't, no realistic way at all.
im surprised Fischer didnt get the first place my all time favorite player. He was such an insane grinder without computer etc imagine if he had the modern tools.
Quien gano 17 partidas seguidas contra aspirantes a titulo mundial...nadie ha superado eso...
Fischer = Voldemort
Bob Fisher was just a king of all times.
He was also openly racist :/
@@ovs4744 against his own race, too.but this is not the nicest chess player contest, is it?
@@ovs4744 so what? Easily offended? george washington was slave owner. So what? 99% of America loves him including blacks
Ayn Ml are you some kind of dumbass
@@ovs4744 not as much as you are
The twentieth century is like square with four heads . In one side stands Capablanca and Alekhine . In the other side stand Karpov and Kasparov ( which by the way are modern copies of Capablanca and Alekhine ) . In the center of the square stands Fischer. Those are the best 5 players in 20th century . In the 21st century , Carlsen still stands alone .
1. Garry Kasparov
2. Magnus Carlsen
3 . Robert James Fischer
4. Jose Raul Capablanca
5 . Anatoly Karpov
6. Mikhail Botvinnik
7. Vladmir Kramnik
8. Emanuel Lasker
9 . Mikhail Tal
10 . Alexander Alekhine
11 . Viswanathan Anand
12 . Tigran Petrosian
13. Paul Morphy
14 . Boris Spassky
@inserthandlename Caruana??
Claps... the humility on this guy.
I think it is not right to compare chess players of the past with those that popped up in the computer era. Computers give so much insight into chess, the insight that those that were playing in pre-computer era had to find themselves. So, sure the level of play shown by Magnus is better than Kasparov/Fisher, but take into account that they didnt have access to same tools Magnus has had
yes but it's even more impressive that someone can consistently beat the competition in this computer era. Now they are a lot more chess players, and everyone of these players have access to chess engines, so imo it's crazy that 1 person can be so dominant.
You think so, but... The neural networks compared the game of the entire elite and said that Capablanca and Fischer played the strongest. Carlsen ranks far in this classification. So sorry.
@@wjd2339 I think you saw a different one. The most accurate players are Magnus, Kasparov, Kramnik
@@wjd2339 It can be a useful tool to get an idea of how good someone plays, but it doesn't show the complete picture when comparing players. In complicated games you play worse, but you don't necessarily lose more. For example Capablanca played simple, solid, but very accurate chess. Kasparov played more attacking chess that won him a lot of games but also comes with worse moves as the games are more complicated.
I always hate comparisons like these, because it is never clarified if it is meant "strongest player" or "Strongest player for their time". It is the same in let us say Football when people compare Messi and Ronaldo with Maradona and Pele. Today more people play the game, we have better tactical knowledge, better training knowledge, better training facilities etc. The overall player quality has gone up and I think the same applies to chess with the computer era you mention.
I agree with Darcy
Radjabov and Hashimov are my all time favs
Fisher had the talent, Kasparov the longevity, Magnus the power to absorb from the tools of his era.
that makes 0 sense since Magnus was already 2700+ rated before any engine training lol
@@williamrobert9898 just because he did not directly use engines doesn't mean they did not affect his progress or influence his playing style at all. plus magnus had more deeply fleshed out theories to study (most of which were a result of engines calculations, so make of that what you will). in terms of who would win a competition between them at their peak, id quite confidently pick magnus.
@@sebastiangraythorne86 Lies lies and even more lies, that is what I make out of it lol engines basically dominated Chess studies and analysis only in the latter half of the 2000’s before that players were dependent on books and individual analysis only, so yeah they really did not influence his playing style until his rating was already well past 2750, I really have no idea who the hell started this myth about Magnus being as strong as he is because of engines, him alongside most of the other currently established Super GMs while they indeed became significantly stronger due to using engines in studies and analysis, they did not need it to reach a rating of 2750+
@@williamrobert9898 even Kasparov was actively using engines since the mid 90s as he himself admitted (as well as his younger rivals like Kramnik and Anand). And Magnus was basically born in the engine era. You can argue that engines weren't that strong by then (which is true) but they already were being used at the highest level of chess.
@yusouph2002 Nope he wasn't, not to mention Magnus literally admitted 2 weeks ago that he very rarely ever uses any engines to prepare
Türk her zaman hakkını verir, helal olsun sana Teymur. Nasıl parlıyor aralarindan yiğidim benim, Fischer diyor.
teimour is jew
For skill it is magnus, for raw power it is bobby fischer, for endgame it is capablanca, for popularity and being able to capture the hearts of the crowd it is the great Mikhail Tal
For talent, it is clearly Morphy.
@@donkbonktj5773Nothing can be clear about Morphy. Well it's clear he was talented, but it's impossible to know how talented compared to other players in different eras. There's no realistic way to compare them at all, it was just a completely different game back then.
Ofc Radja says Fischer, because he has some history against Kasparov
Shortly after becoming a world champion, Magnus said in an interview "it´s between Kasparov and Fischer"
He's changed his opinion, but yes, he did say that a decade ago.
Fischer = Voldemort in the mainstream media.
@@evelynn4273 haha
Alehine, Capablanka, Lasker.
You're still the best,, magzy
Enjoyed the video. 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 greatest chess player of all times is ME, I haven't lost a serious game yet.
Also, I haven't played one yet.
Paul Charles Morphy. No theory, just raw brainpower
Respect :)
Every sports greatest can be beat by the new best. The bar always gets higher.
As Fischer said the theory is being improved every day and the question should be formulated in this way: who is the most TALENTED player not the BEST player? In this way it is still extremely hard to choose between Fischer, Kasparov and MC, they are just all great.
Morphy. When compared to relative strength Morphy completely dominates the debate imo.
Well making relative strength comparisons means comparing grandmasters who trained with computers from their childhood and have memorized thousands of variations with coffeehouse chess players - the kind of opponents Morphy had in the 1850s. Of course Morphy has a relative advantage then.
Unless you could bring back all the top chess players throughout history and have them all play in a world championship tournament, no one will ever really know for sure.
Carlsen would win that tournament easily. As years pass by, they are more equipped with chess technology. Present Magnus would crush 1972 Fischer, I doubt fischer could win a single game against magnus in classical chess.
@@rj5525 in this comment that's what it pertains to so why are you crying
@@jasonlee7928 ok ok deleted
If Carlsen had access to the same tools as Fischer and Kasparov, he would not have a big advantage in terms of skill. Also, Carlsen can learn from the games of Fischer and Kasparov, which is a huge advantage for him to come after them in time. Hard to say he is the best ever compared to these two. In truth, they are probably very close to each other in skill.
Chess of ragnarok incoming
Que sorprendente que los más grandes actualmente en su mayoría coincidan con que Kasparov es el mejor de la historia. Esas opiniones de verdad pesan.
They all did what they did. Enjoy their games and chill.
I don't get why people think Tal is one of the G.O.A.T, very entertaining attacking genius yes. But not even close to one of the greatest. He was able to interrupted Botvinnik's long reign from 1948 to 1963, then got stomped in the rematch. I guess it's like that with everyone who dies early, they are viewed as greater then they really were.
My friend, I like Tal a lot , he is a force but the way he won was unacceptable sacrifices later people started defending positions , he him self accepted on stage. He is a great man .! Legend for sure but not as strong as fisher, Morphy, capablanca, Kasparov, Karpov, Magnus and so on
@@suryakiransuravarapu8081 Yes i agree, a fantastic man. But not when we are talking about the all time greats. Greatest entertainer, yes
Capablanca, Fisher, Tal, Kasparov, Anand, Carlsen, Radjabov.
Kramnik, Carlsen, Karpov? Petrosian was a beast, Spassky pure genious. not even close to a complete list. Beating Spassky in one match proved nothing especially with all drama involved. Kramnik, Anand and Carlsen were the best imo.
Radjabov?
@@who426 or Keres? Aronian... Nakamura. All with world champion qualities who didn't quite make it. But I think the most recent champs were the best because of how much they competed internationally not just by knowing more theory.
Puting Anand above from Carlsen?... Carlsen already achieve much more than Anand and Fischer...
@@paulgoogol2652 Nakamura isn’t even in the top 25 best chess players of all time. It’s a joke to put him on any list like this
Anish giri's answer is more sensible than the rest. I agree, the currently best player is the best player of all time. And who is that, i think its radjabov or wesley, i dont know. Who do you think?
Kasparov himself told that Magnus is the lethal combination of Fischer and Karpov. So You can Predict who is the GOAT !
Tal was the best attacking player, by far.
Morphy vs Tal. My money's on Morphy
Only Raja had the guts to say the truth!
Many of these players are personally friend with Kasparov. That saya a lot. Don't get me wrong, indeed Kasparov is one of the greatest but not The Greatest.
I agree. Many in this comment section says Radjabov picked fischer because of how bad Radja was treated by Kasparov, but I think he would still pick fischer even if kasparov didn't treat him badly.
Quien gano 17 partidas seguidas contra aspirantes a titulo mundial...nadie ha superado eso...
@@donkbonktj5773 Why? Fischer run away from Karpov, and only had two very good years
@@peterlebedev4229 Because of his large gap with his peers. Those two years were legendary.
@@donkbonktj5773 So? The quality of gms severely increased over the years. Two years, arguably are not better than the 7 wins In a row from Fabio Caruana
Obviously me if I didn’t overlook my opppnets fricking Knight... sneaky bastard
It's so difficult to compare chess greats from different times but Giri is right when he says that the level of chess is only going up. With the advents of chess engines, you seriously need to be at the top of your game to beat a GM today. With that said, Magnus has dominated for a decade and he has been number 1 in Blitz, Rapid and Classical at the same time. The GMs of today would beat most GMs of past eras, make no mistake about that (due to the sheer accuracy they develop through engine studies). And to be Number 1 in every format of the game and just eat these super GMs. I mean, its just personal bias if you dont include Magnus in the conversation
In the age of chess engines, Magnus is dominating.
Kasparov got wrecked 8 times in a day in the present tour
In fairness to Kasparov you only stay relevant in the tour if you don't stop learning the latest theory. He was largly retired since Kramnik defeated him. Only so much you can do when your faculties decline with age and you stop training for years. He would still be a difficult oponent for many outside the elite super gm group.
to be fair Kasparov is like 60
He's been retired for 18 years lol without ever playing seriously or studying. What would you expect to happen? That's a really really bad argument.
Everyone's saying that the players from the past had much more difficulties to reach the level without computers.. but those do not get that the competition is the same or even more... Players from the past analized for hours like the ones in this era but regarding computers the level has increased so much I think is even more difficult to compete right now...
Nah. Before for example, to get a novelty in Sicilian for example you had to study a position and books of positions for years.
Now memorization of a stockfish new position its enough
@@barranquillarespondetv2512 Did you reply to the wrong comment?
@@barranquillarespondetv2512 but the engines give even more lines to study.. it's the same logic...
@@baltazarcarlos6829 so it's just memorization and not creativity and logic anymore
@@barranquillarespondetv2512 as a chess player you utilize creativity and logic in every game whether you memorize computer lines or not... You cannot memorized every possible outcome so at some point in everygame you'll start to utilize your understanding... I find your point invalid
I know Kaparov is quick to point to Carlsen as GOAT. But my question is was he always deflecting claims that he is GOAT before Carlsen was around, pointing to Anand or Fisher for example? If so he's being polite, if not he truly thinks Carlsen is better, he knows best.
Everybody forgot about Karpov, except his 10-year being champion, he was also able to try to get back his title so hard, he was so near in 1984 match, but it was cancelled, he was in 1 point behind in 1985 and 1986, equal in 1987 and again only one point in 1990, after Kasparov quitted FIDE, he was Fide world champion over 6 years. Comparing to Fisher it was unbelievably stabile from him on the very top level for even 25 years
@Insert Username
I don't understand, what you're trying to say, I just want to say, that person, who was at the very best level for 6-7 years and retired being 29 years old can't be the best chess player especially, and Karpov's achievements are very often forgotten
@Insert Username not comparable to Kasparov and Carlsen for sure, I think he can even be in top 5 best of all time
Magnus Carlsen is the GOAT, period.
If fischer continued playing he will be best. Remarkable self learning. Of course Mikhail Tal also magician from riga.
hes like the human alphazero
But he didn't continue, cuz he was scared. Which means he wasn't the best
fischer was too insecure to play against karpov. Idk how anyone can say fischer is the all time best when he didnt even defend his title.
fischer also began to go crazy
@@hashirnajmi8387 He is not scared he doesn't want to. After defeating spassky and even Tal how can he be scared?
Bobby Fisher told "we cannot compares all the great chessplayers " You cannot compare Bjohn borg to Djokovic: not the same tennis gear , not the same training etc...
agree for Kasparov
Fischer is the most talented player, but Carlsen plays in higher level because chess is growing up thanks to engines like Giri said.
If Dubov is not at that room by the time of voting, then Magnus )
Carlsen is still in his career and he is still the reigning world champion, when Fischer or Kasparov was 30 no one said they were the GOAT, but even Carlsen still playing chess, and he has 10 years to go, majority of people call him the GOAT, lots of are saying Kasparov as Kasparov retired, it's kinda showing respect but I think when Magnus retires, he will be the GOAT
Wrong Selim, Kasparov was already heralded as Goat as early as 1989, watch the Deep Thought Documentary where he plays that computer. Doesn't mean that he was Goat then, but it was definitely mentioned. Remember Kasparov won 15 tournaments in a row from 1981 to 1991 a record.
@@kasparov9 it is not important though, a GM from the USA has a record of winning 865 tournaments, check out the wiki. So is he the goat?
Carlsen has 111 consecutive wins, which is harder and he was unbeaten for 2 years and 125 matches. He won rapid blitz world championships at the same time and he is still the world champion in all the formats.
Kasparov has 1 upper hand over Carlsen which is being at the top for 20 years. Carlsen is top for 10 years but he is still in his career, other than that Carlsen achieved what Kasparov has achieved so far, and even more. Carlsen now is arguably the GOAT AND if he can be in the top for 5 more years he will be GOAT for sure.
@ 111 consecutive wins? cmon now....just wrong. Carlsen could end up being the goat, we will have to wait and see, a lot of youngsters coming up, he will have to beat them too.
Paul morphy was the real natural talent all these new players are just shown everything that Paul morphy saw without nobody pointing out to him what to look for without all the theory we wouldn’t have so many gms. Real intelligence is about seeing things without somebody showing you how it works
We’ll Morphy played coffeehouse chess. Really hard to compare with chess at later ages, even by 1890 it had turned into a totally different game already.
@@henrykaspar3634 If you put Morphy's games into chess analysis, he still played top computer moves and brilliant sacrifices that many GMs wouldn't spot.
I agree. While Magnus is the goat, morphy is still the best player for me. Fischer and Capa is also impressive