The G.O.A.T of Chess - how to compare eras

I am not a great chess player by any means and so this blog would not delve much into the chess technicalities. I lack the chess expertise and the chess intellect to dissect the moves of legends and say that in this particular game this chess legend played (say) b4 on move 10 which was wrong and he should have played that move instead.

This is not that kind of a blog. Instead, I want to focus more on the idea of comparing legends from past eras.

However, even so, it is possible that, despite my best intentions, I may write something that is deemed by the reader as casting aspersions on a great player's ability, and it draws a retort from the reader which is something along the lines of how dare this patzer write such stuff about this legend.

I say to those readers that I make these chess comparisons in the same spirit with which we are all free to compare (say) Messi to Raheem Sterling and say that Messi with better than Sterling, without  needing to having any great footballing skills ourselves or to say that I think Nadal is better than Federer (or vice versa), without the need to be a tennis ace first.

It was a few days back that I was thinking about the greatest chess player ever, and I felt that this debate was reasonably confined to two players - Magnus Carlsen and Gary Kasparov.

The only other name that would generally be mentioned in this conversation would be Bobby Fischer, I felt that he didn't exactly cut it (for me) into the Kasparov or Carlsen discussion.

The point is not to start a debate on who is the greatest and whether Fischer should be in the conversation or not. The point is how to compare.

Issac Newton said, “If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants.”.

This quote is very relevant to chess. Each generation has had the chess knowledge from the previous generation to build upon, and that is why they know more 'chess' than the previous generation.

By that logic, I think it would be fair to say Carlsen at his peak is better than Kasparov at his peak (1989?).

While that is being too simplistic that is something I feel it true. If it was possible for the 2018/2019 Carlsen to meet the 1989/1990 Kasparov, and play a chess match, I do not have much doubt that Carlsen would prevail.

This is where comparing greats of different eras gets tricky. Kasparov was the greatest with the chess knowledge available to his generation, Carlsen is the greatest with the chess knowledge available to his contemporaries.

However, the gulf in the chess knowledge known to Kasparov's generation and Carlsen's generation is substantial and there is no way to balance out this gulf to allow for us to make an accurate and objective comparison.

Hypothetically one could ask, what if Kasparov had access in 1989 to all the chess knowledge that Carlsen has today, complete with modern opening theories and access to computer databases?

One cannot merely enhance the chess knowledge available to one player without taking away the impact of that enhanced knowledge compared to his peers.

If Kasparov in 1989 suddenly got access to all the chess knowledge of Carlsen, then that would be a different Kasparov entirely, who would be far too superior to any of his peers.

He would not closely win world championships against Karpov, he would crush Karpov 8-0 or 10-0 or something. He would win the top tournaments with near-perfect scores of 11/11 or 10/11 regularly (which he did sometimes!) and this would make his legacy far superior than what it is.

We would be so awed by that legacy that even Carlsen (as great as he is) would never even enter into the conversation. We would say, yes Carlsen is great, but he didn't dominate quite like Kasparov. Kasparov would go on to be World Champion for whole another decade in this scenario! How could anyone possibly argue against this version of Kasparov being the greatest ever?

The same would be true if Karpov could access all the chess know-how of Carlsen's generation. Karpov would have won those world championships towards the end of his rivalry with Kasparov and that would mean that Kasparov wouldn't be part of the conversation and it would be Carlsen all the way.

Alternatively, if you brought 'down' Carlsen to the level of what was known in 1989 then this Carlsen would never rise to the top as he did, and would never enter the greatest ever conversation.

Even with these issues, I do not want to settle for a cliched, a comparison is futile, answer.

Newton's quote is a fine starting point for comparison.

How did Kasparov and Carlsen fare against their next-generation opponents? We won't know about Carlsen for a while, but Kasparov fared brilliantly. His record against those opponents who would be considered next generation (barring Kramnik) is excellent.

He has a dominant record against nearly all his next-gen rivals such as Ivanchuk, Gelfand, Short, Vishy, Shirov, Kamsky, Adams, Svidler, Leko, Topalov etc.

Of all the possible tests that could be used to weigh the merit for the greatest ever debate in chess, this I feel is the most relevant.

We won't know with Carlsen for a while yet, but Kasparov clearly scores very heavily in this department.

A second criterion is how dominant were the players in their generation. This is an area where I still feel Kasparov scores over Carlsen. Kasparov won almost all the tournaments he participated in, and he did so with dominant scores.

Carlsen gets his fair share of tournament wins, but, on the other hand, tends to finish 2nd and 3rd far too often. In 2017, Carlsen won only 1 classical tournament.

Kasparov never had such dry runs when he was in his prime. This is another aspect where I would score Kasparov over Carlsen.

Another aspect to judge the greatness across generations is longevity. Kasparov was the best player in the world for over 15 years.

Carlsen is on course to do that, but he isn't there yet. So one has to wait and watch for now.

I feel that those three criteria are the basis for some kind of a meaningful comparison across generations.