@@josiahmanson thanks for the comments. I am glad you enjoyed it. For the mispronunciation, thanks for the correction. I should have known cos Jose Mourinho is also pronounced as Hose. Thanks once again. Gracias
Let's also remember that comparing players to their peers in different epochs is not enough: we also need to compare the epochs themselves. The modern epoch is orders of magnitude more competitive, to be THIS dominant in the modern epoch is even more impressive!
If anything this video only made me lean more towards thinkong Fischer is the goat. The only argument that seemed to have an unbiased fondation was comparing them to other players of the time and fisher seemed to be goat there. I dont care how many titles you have or if you got 11/11. Thats all very impressive but has no wheight in this question. But I dont think it matters to much, because after all comparing different eras is just for fun and we cant know. Fischer hated computers- so if he would be born now he may would not even like chess im the first place
I’m not really one to stick with Nigerian TH-camrs even though I am a Nigerian myself but damn!! Beautiful script Excellent video editing Much love man You earned yourself a new subscriber
It might surprise many of you to know that there's a Russian GM who had a plus score against Bobby Fischer, though they didn't play many games. His name is Efim Geller and he also had a plus score vs 3 other world champions: Botvinnik, Smyslov and Petrosian.
Number of titles is a horrible way to evaluate the greatness of a player. Some players were prevented from competing in championships for reasons such as war breaking out. Also consider that championship match arrangement was drastically different in Capablanca's day. Lasker had many conditions that Capa had to meet in order to play and several times they didn't play because they could not come to an agreement. That sort of thing limits how many championships a player can win.
I’ve always considered Garry’s opinion to be the most accurate. The gap in ELO between Fischer at his peak rating (2780) and #2 was about the 100 points. Magnus peak at 2881 was second biggest gap. Without Karpov, Garry would’ve enjoyed a similar gap to Bobby & Magnus. They are all the GOAT to me.
Fischer isn't the GOAT. Period. The best evaluation method is CAPS. Everything else is comparing humans with other humans, but to compare them all with virtually unbeatable computer engines is a better standard. Sure, the greats of the past didn't have computer analysis, but players like Morphy and Steinitz didn't have copious master games to study. In the end, those arguments center on who _would've been_ the GOAT, whereas CAPS tells us *who is* the GOAT.
Let's suppose your opponent responds to perfect play with perfect play, but responds to a small blunder on your part with a larger blunder on their part. Against this opponent, you will win more often through imperfect play. Stated this strongly, it's just an edge case. But stated more weakly, it's not an edge case, and you really have to take it into account in any true era correction. CAPS does not do this.
@@afterthesmash my understanding is that CAPS evaluates individual moves, not win rate, so your argument doesn't seem apt. *EDIT:* remember that CAPS is an aggregate system, so it's accuracy will be better when given large databases of games to evaluate. Your scenario seems as if it would only be applicable were you to _consistently_ play worse against less accurate play, which, if that was the case, it would correctly rate you lower.
Yeah, I don't even know what that garbage is supposed to mean. He probably didn't even know half the players, and just threw them on the chart, I see no other way some Paul Keres who I have never heard about, outranks Garry, Tal, Morphy etc in greatness. Just a bizarre video this one
@DanielSilva-gc4xz that was a BLUNDER by me. I mixed up the move order. That is meant to be the label. Thanks for pointing it out. You all are too clever.
Thank you for taking the time to provide constructive feedback! I appreciate your honesty and understand how editing breaks and upcoming segment teasers can be distracting (the aim wasn't to distract you). I'll definitely consider refining my editing style to improve viewer experience. Sorry to lose you at 8:20 minutes, but I hope you'll give the rest of the video another try cos the reason for that cut is stated in there. Don't miss it.😂
So let's see a classical match between Carlsen and Stockfish. Analysis of it could benefit both humans and engines. It could be played using the rules that will apply to the upcoming 2024 world championship match.
@@marcweeks9178 Thank you for correcting me! You're right, it's Bobby Fischer, not Fisher. I appreciate your attention to detail and will make sure to get it right next time. Or better still, edit it.
Excellent video man, keep it up
@@anthonycordina4185 thanks for your kind words. Kindly subscribe for more 🎉🎉🎉
Good video. I like the humor. You deserve more views!
Minor comment that Jose is said with the J sounding like and H in Spanish.
@@josiahmanson thanks for the comments. I am glad you enjoyed it. For the mispronunciation, thanks for the correction. I should have known cos Jose Mourinho is also pronounced as Hose. Thanks once again. Gracias
Let's also remember that comparing players to their peers in different epochs is not enough: we also need to compare the epochs themselves. The modern epoch is orders of magnitude more competitive, to be THIS dominant in the modern epoch is even more impressive!
If anything this video only made me lean more towards thinkong Fischer is the goat.
The only argument that seemed to have an unbiased fondation was comparing them to other players of the time and fisher seemed to be goat there. I dont care how many titles you have or if you got 11/11. Thats all very impressive but has no wheight in this question.
But I dont think it matters to much, because after all comparing different eras is just for fun and we cant know. Fischer hated computers- so if he would be born now he may would not even like chess im the first place
I’m not really one to stick with Nigerian TH-camrs even though I am a Nigerian myself but damn!!
Beautiful script
Excellent video editing
Much love man
You earned yourself a new subscriber
@@Setoncaleb17 I relate appreciate you man. Thanks for putting your trust in me. 💪
at least 2 more subscribers ;)
great start to the video with spelling Bobby's name wrong in the first second lol, either way it was a good video!
Very good video.
🎉Glad you liked it
"Former world champion, now detective"
@@paulm6737 😭😂😂
It might surprise many of you to know that there's a Russian GM who had a plus score against Bobby Fischer, though they didn't play many games. His name is Efim Geller and he also had a plus score vs 3 other world champions: Botvinnik, Smyslov and Petrosian.
@@AndrewKeifer wow. Interesting
@@AdugboChess in fact, I believe Geller was one of Spaasky's consultants for his match with Fischer.
Number of titles is a horrible way to evaluate the greatness of a player. Some players were prevented from competing in championships for reasons such as war breaking out. Also consider that championship match arrangement was drastically different in Capablanca's day. Lasker had many conditions that Capa had to meet in order to play and several times they didn't play because they could not come to an agreement. That sort of thing limits how many championships a player can win.
Excellent video ., this video will go viral . Believe me
@@chessartst1339 thanks for your kind response, I really appreciate sir.
@@chessartst1339 Thank you for your encouragement! I'm thrilled to have your support.
I’ve always considered Garry’s opinion to be the most accurate. The gap in ELO between Fischer at his peak rating (2780) and #2 was about the 100 points. Magnus peak at 2881 was second biggest gap. Without Karpov, Garry would’ve enjoyed a similar gap to Bobby & Magnus. They are all the GOAT to me.
Funny how anyone who calls the content creator out for his poor arguments and anti-Fischer bias is a "hater".
I think you may have underestimated the number of moves ever made in chess history.
lol
My man, please take some lessons on how to make accurate graphs
Fischer isn't the GOAT. Period. The best evaluation method is CAPS. Everything else is comparing humans with other humans, but to compare them all with virtually unbeatable computer engines is a better standard. Sure, the greats of the past didn't have computer analysis, but players like Morphy and Steinitz didn't have copious master games to study. In the end, those arguments center on who _would've been_ the GOAT, whereas CAPS tells us *who is* the GOAT.
WHO IS THE GOAT THEN PLEASE SOMEONE GIVE ME AN ANSWER
@@end.olives Magnus Carlsen is the GOAT.
@@end.olivesMagnus Ofc
Let's suppose your opponent responds to perfect play with perfect play, but responds to a small blunder on your part with a larger blunder on their part. Against this opponent, you will win more often through imperfect play. Stated this strongly, it's just an edge case. But stated more weakly, it's not an edge case, and you really have to take it into account in any true era correction. CAPS does not do this.
@@afterthesmash my understanding is that CAPS evaluates individual moves, not win rate, so your argument doesn't seem apt. *EDIT:* remember that CAPS is an aggregate system, so it's accuracy will be better when given large databases of games to evaluate. Your scenario seems as if it would only be applicable were you to _consistently_ play worse against less accurate play, which, if that was the case, it would correctly rate you lower.
1 axis marked elo and the other 'great chess player' ? What kind of ridiculous psumeudo science is this
Yeah, I don't even know what that garbage is supposed to mean. He probably didn't even know half the players, and just threw them on the chart, I see no other way some Paul Keres who I have never heard about, outranks Garry, Tal, Morphy etc in greatness. Just a bizarre video this one
Its not psmeudo (sic) science. Its a one dimensional metric. Bad data viz. from a massive yt channel.
As I get a little older, I realize life is perspective and my perspective may differ from yours. Thanks.
@@AdugboChess I'm also curious to know what the measuring unit "great chess player" means.
@DanielSilva-gc4xz that was a BLUNDER by me. I mixed up the move order. That is meant to be the label. Thanks for pointing it out. You all are too clever.
The content was pretty good, but the editing in the breaks and the "coming soon" stuff really through me. I stopped watching at 8:20 because of it
Thank you for taking the time to provide constructive feedback! I appreciate your honesty and understand how editing breaks and upcoming segment teasers can be distracting (the aim wasn't to distract you). I'll definitely consider refining my editing style to improve viewer experience. Sorry to lose you at 8:20 minutes, but I hope you'll give the rest of the video another try cos the reason for that cut is stated in there. Don't miss it.😂
At least spell the name correctly.
Bro you're silly
No, I am Adugbo Chess
Nonsense
where is Alehin? (maybe spelled Alechin in English)
Alexander Alekhine?
He's presently in a grave in Lisbon, Portugal.
You should spell Fischer's name correctly at the very beginning of your video.
My keyboard was allergic to C's that day. Lesson learned: double-check spelling, just like double-checking chess moves. Thank you.
So let's see a classical match between Carlsen and Stockfish. Analysis of it could benefit both humans and engines. It could be played using the rules that will apply to the upcoming 2024 world championship match.
HIs name was Bobby FISCHER, not Fisher. If you can't even get that right, who's going to believe anything else you say?
@@marcweeks9178 Thank you for correcting me! You're right, it's Bobby Fischer, not Fisher. I appreciate your attention to detail and will make sure to get it right next time. Or better still, edit it.
you crying bro? 😂 I believe him...
What a dumb comment
Ackshually!!
You can't compare. Video is moot. Try saying fun experiment, this isn't decisive proof, this is devised proof.