How great is Ding Liren?

"No, I mean superstructure, as I wrote."

Then you'll have to explain what you mean by that. I know what the word means in architecture, and even in Marxist theory, but neither meaning seems applicable here, and the dictionary I checked doesn't offer another. I'm pretty sure he didn't set about destroying buildings. My best guess was you meant the educational aparatus, which would typically be called "infrastructure." If you're using this word to mean that instead, fine (though my impression is that's not a usage others share).

"And it was very direct. Fischer beat Soviet player after Soviet player, former world champions, their expected future world champions, and at the end their current world champion."

So he beat them. Some of them. Three, in particular. (Don't forget: Tal and Geller had winning records against Fischer, and Bronstein, Keres, Botvinnik, Korchnoi, and others had equal or close-to-equal records against him.) That's not the same as uprooting the Botvinnik school and the rest of the Soviet chess system. Where's the evidence that takes us from one to the other?

"And remember, Fischer's beating them consisted of "crush[ing] the opponent's mind" and "break[ing] a man's ego"."

Or rather, that's what he said he liked to do. I imagine Taimanov felt that way about it. The others? Doesn't seem so clear. And the system as a whole? I mean, I admire Fischer too, and like his play a great deal more than Karpov's, but I think you're putting a lot too much historical weight on what is essentially swagger.

Sorry, this all just seems very speculative and impressionistic. If you want to argue that the basic pool of chess top chess talent got significantly for a whole decade worse starting in 1975, it needs more detailed evidence than Fischer boasting.

"If you want to ignore the facts and stick to your nostalgic attachment to Karpov..."

Didn't I make it clear that I don't even *like* Karpov?

ssctk commented that "Fischer was exceptionally strong, probably stronger than Karpov, but it's not Karpov's fault that Fischer didn't want to continue playing Chess."

I don't think that was quite accurate. Fischer didn't necessarily want to quit playing chess. Fischer and FIDE could not agree on the conditions and terms of his title defense vs Karpov. He didn't like the location in the Philippines, the playing hall, etc. FIDE basically gave Fischer an ultimatum to agree to the conditions, or he would be stripped of his title. Fischer didnt agree, and was thus stripped of the title, which was just given to Karpov. Karpov never won the world championship, and Fischer, amid perhaps not groundless cries about corruption in FIDE and them being pawns of the Soviets, claimed that they had stolen his title and that he was the rightful world champion. He continued those claims for the rest of his life. Fischer was clearly the strongest player in the world when he beat Spassky, and I don't believe just a couple of years later that Karpov was head and shoulders above him.

Fischer did not play a single game after winning the WC, for me that's the definition of not wanting to play chess.

Yes! I am a great admirer of Bobby Fischer, but he quit competitive chess in 1975. While I think he was a substantial favorite against Karpov in 1975, the match never got played. It's an indisputable fact that Karpov was the dominant active player in the world 1975-84, winning more tournaments than the the next three players combined. Most grandmasters put Karpov among the top 5 or 6 players all time

By "superstructure", I meant the strong players produced by the system, like Botvinnik and the other Soviet world champions and intended world champions. I agree that the training system itself and the farm system that fed it - junior tournaments and such - would be better referred to as "infrastructure".

As I mentioned above, I don't regard overall tournament records as very relevant - ratings are more useful. I do regard candidates' matches, and to a lesser extent interzonals, as relevant. Zonals would be relevant except the US and the Soviet Union were not in the same zone.

I think Botvinnik's remarks at various points - characterizing Fischer's candidates' wins as "miracles" and earlier saying Fischer had "wrecked" his equanimity when they faced off in an olympiad - illustrates how shaken the Soviet chess establishment was by Fischer.

As for Tal and Geller, they encountered Fischer little by his prime.

I don't doubt they were shaken. (And I'll concede the last point for the reason you give -- as I was writing it, I felt like I was trying a bit too hard on that.)

But being shaken didn't *make* the Soviet players into worse players. Especially not after the guy exited the scene. This all sounds like a story that sounds good to tell but has neither any evidence nor any mechanism for how it would work. For a decade, starting in 1975, top players in their 20s and 30s were worse than their peers a decade earlier because . . . why? They were afraid of a guy who was no longer playing chess?

One can disregard this tournament or that one, but I think you may not be appreciating the consistency of Karpov's domination. The guy won nine consecutive top-level tournaments. Nine! It's hard to think of better evidence than that of the guy's utter domination of professional chess for years on end.

Because the strong players, who were beyond their 20s and most beyond their 30s, had left.

17?

I think that is what the average position would be if people ranked him right now. It is also an example of how much the World Championships are valued as compared to other achievements. Karjakin was 49th on that list a few years ago and would be lower now. Still Karjakin won Candidates, World Cup, Wijk, Tal Memorial, Norway Chess (twice), etc. But he lost a rapid playoff against Carlsen while Ding won one against Nepo.

Those rapid playoffs were maybe the difference between #17 and #57 for them both. As for Nepo with his double Candidates win, Dortmund, Tal Memorial etc. One rapid game with a different result and he would be #17 instead of #57. The same thing with Gelfand. Leko didn’t get the chance to play rapid, and his drawn title match, Candidates, Linares, Wijk, Dortmund (twice), Tal Memorial etc only lands him somewhere around #50 today.

I’m sorry, can you be more specific? Who exactly do you mean? Surely you don’t mean Karpov faced weak opposition because Botvinnik retired. And most of the others were still playing during the Karpov era, some of them (Tal, Smyslov, Korchnoi) even doing *better* than expected for their age. 
And there were the newcomers too — Mecking, Timman, Hort, Huebner, etc.

I think a good analogy is the current situation. The best player in the world probably is Carlsen. Ding didn't beat Carlen in match, if they played I'd put my money on Carlsen.

But Carlsen didn't want to defend the title, which is fine, people should do what they want.

The reasons why Carlsen didn't defend have nothing to do with Ding.

The fact that Carlsen didn't defend subtracts nothing from how strong a player Ding is.

Likewise Fischer didn't play a single game after winning the WC, for his own reasons that have nothing to do with Karpov, did he even know who Karpov was in 1973... ? Probably not, yet he didn't play a single game that year.

Likewise this subtracts nothing from how strong a player Karpov was.

Apologies for derailing the current conversation, but I wanted to chime in on this point, because I found it interesting:

I've seen Carlsen mention (in a few different interviews now) that he has begun to feel as if his quality of play is slipping. He's said that he's not as precise as he used to be, and he's noticed that he has begun to miss things that he would not have missed before.

In light of this, I believe his decision to leave the WC cycle comes from some self-evaluation, and recognizing that he's no longer at the peak of his game.

It seems that he chose to leave on a high note, rather than to stumble and tarnish his legacy on his way out ...

”Fischer didn't play a single game after winning the WC, for his own reasons that have nothing to do with Karpov, did he even know who Karpov was in 1973... ? Probably not”

Fischer just didn’t want to play, but he certainly knew who Karpov was back then. He was #2 after Fischer on the rating list and had won top tournaments like for example Alekhine Memorial 1971, ahead of Spassky, Petrosian, Smyslov, Tal, etc

”I believe his decision to leave the WC cycle comes from some self-evaluation, and recognizing that he's no longer at the peak of his game.

It seems that he chose to leave on a high note, rather than to stumble and tarnish his legacy on his way out”

He said in some interview that he for a long time had played title matches not because he wanted to, but because others expected him to do it. My impression is that he never cared as much about the World Championship as about playing the best chess and enjoying the events he played, and then he felt obligated to play matches and enjoyed it less and less over the years.

While I can understand the feeling, I don't see how, say, Kasparov's or Anand's legacies were tarnished by their having kept playing until they were defeated by the next world champion.

“I don't see how, say, Kasparov's or Anand's legacies were tarnished by their having kept playing until they were defeated by the next world champion”

With Anand I think the ”problem” rather was that he went five years in a row as World Champion without winning any of the tournaments he played. At the time of the Gelfand match in 2012 it was clear that it already had passed a few years since he was the best player. Then he had a great 2014 after losing the title, but like Kramnik his GOAT ranking suffers a bit from their results as World Champions.

There aren’t all that many players that scored great results after becoming World Champions since Alekhine’s early 1930s there are maybe only Karpov, Kasparov and Carlsen that had consistent results for many years.

Can't really tell because given his lack of motivation, his play level would drop. So it could be either sequence between cause and effect, he's been saying he doesn't want to continue WC for some time now, so I'm more inclined to go for lack of motivation being the cause.

Now he even said he doesn't fancy playing classical chess anymore, he doesn't want to compete anymore, which is fine, people act according to their wants and motivations and these may change with time.

He devoured every game played, so maybe he noticed Karpov as he was rising.

Can't really tell what changed in him, though in an interview I remember him saying something along the lines of I wanted to become WC, now I don't have something to shoot for.

There's a lot of things and we can only speculate. Maybe he didn't have a goal he wanted to achieve anymore, maybe he wanted to retire after crushing competition like Morphy did, maybe he needed time for himself after dedicating so much time to chess, maybe he simply was close to a burnout.

Who knows really... All we know is that he didn't want to continue playing. I think whatever the terms he wouldn't had played the match with Karpov, not because he was afraid of Karpov but because he had already given up on chess by then.

”he even said he doesn't fancy playing classical chess anymore, he doesn't want to compete anymore”

He clearly thinks it’s more enjoyable with speed chess, even if he does play a bit classical this year. He was second in Tata and then Norway Chess starts at the end of the month, and Qatar Masters in October. Maybe also European Club Cup, apart from some Norwegian league games. Easier to get burnt out today than back in the days when Lasker played a tournament every second year.

If Carlsen’s motivation and/or playing level goes down, it could get quite even with regards to who the best player is rather soon. Over the last dozen months the top players with the highest TPRs are Carlsen 2836, Nepo 2813, Naka 2809, Giri 2777, Ding Liren 2776. Not a big lead for Carlsen as compared to how it usually has been the last decade, and it gets very even from Giri and down.