Oh and of course Bobby Fischer was the greatest.
--- Needless to say he would be on our top 10 list along with 2) Morphy, 3) Kasparov, 4) Tal, 5) Carlsen, 6) Botvinnik, 7) Capablanca, 8) Steinitz, 9) Lasker, 10) Karpov etc etc ( perhaps we need to try for a top 20 ? ).
hikaru.
98% of the people who read this will not understand or some might be angry.
Not Capablanca, Fischer, Kasparov or Carlsen
They are equally Aleksandr Dronov, Roman Chytilek, Arno Nickel, Eros Riccio Matthias Kribben
and maybe a few more.
Here are some of the reasons:
Play so strong as to be never before seen heights in chess.
Produced games without mistakes with the qualities and beauty of a perfectly tactical game and very significant strategic plans
Gave the public an overview of the mental processes of strong human chess players and powerful chess computers and the combination of their forces.
Few have any idea how chess works with these monsters. The machine alone cannot do what is done jointly.
They do Substractive and throwback testing.
[this partly from an article in International Correspondence Chess Federation.]
PEOPLE 98% OF CHESS PLAYERS DO NOT EVEN KNOW.
PEOPLE 98% OF CHESS PLAYERS DO NOT EVEN KNOW.
I wonder how they would fare outside of correspondence tbh
Borislav Ivanov.
Capablanca was unbeaten in 8 years!!. It took my favourite player Reti to finally break that run. Capa was the best
deez
In terms of pure talent, unaided by technology, etc, probably Morphy.
In terms of pure performance, Carlsen. No doubt.
In terms of pure talent, unaided by technology, etc, probably Morphy.
In terms of pure performance, Carlsen. No doubt.
Even Morphy was aided by the technology of his day. He studied the current literature.
I have no way to objectively measure talent. But I am certain that a strong desire to learn is part of that talent. In other words, a person who is willing to devote 6 hours a day to chess already has a talent that many do not.
In terms of pure talent, unaided by technology, etc, probably Morphy.
In terms of pure performance, Carlsen. No doubt.
Even Morphy was aided by the technology of his day. He studied the current literature.
I have no way to objectively measure talent. But I am certain that a strong desire to learn is part of that talent. In other words, a person who is willing to devote 6 hours a day to chess already has a talent that many do not.
Sure, that's a reasonable take. It's not possible to objectively measure talent. But I do think there are strong indicators that you can look to.
For example, I'd make the case that the most talented player is the one that was the best compared to the other players of their time (i.e. who was the best when compared to the other top players with the same access to contemporary chess resources). I can't think of anyone that dominated their day as conclusively as Morphy did.
Others who dominated their day as much as Morphy: Philidor, Fischer and even Kasparov. Kasparov had the "misfortune" to share the stage with Karpov. But He was as far ahead of #3 in the world as Fischer. Don't forget, Steinitz was slightly *older* than Morphy!
Probably Magnus as he has one of the best techniques the chess scene has probably ever seen. I guess other legends such as fischer, kasparov etc.. have a solid chance of claiming the GOAT status, but in my opinion magnus comes out on top.
Later players always have the benefit when compared against earlier ones, not only because of advances in theory and technique, but because they can learn from the masters of the past and carry those ideas farther. It's like the guy who first ran a 4-minute mile. Was supposed to be impossible, but then he did it, and now everyone does it.
People are arguing that Carlsen is the greatest, but just give it 20-30 years, and someone will show up who will be better. So I think you really have to judge players by how they rank against their contemporaries, not how they rank across time. In other words, the greatest was the guy that was the farthest ahead of everyone else around him. And if you judge by that yardstick, I think it's pretty hard to argue against Morphy. The difference between him and everyone around him in his era was like the difference between Stockfish and any GM today.
Steinitz exceeded Morphy (in intrinsic performance rating) and he was older than Morphy.
Morphy, like Fischer, set the imagination aflame and created a loyal following. If he had played Steinitz or even if he had continued playing rather than retire, perhaps he could be considered the greatest.
But I can’t think of a single sport where the greatest of that sport simply stopped playing once they won their first title.
The greatest, for me at least, has to show longevity and be willing to face all comers.
Thanks for the posts.