Question: You mention Lasker and Fischer dominating the competition. How do you know that they were just that good, and not that the composition just wasn't as good. How do you know that Magnus or Gukesh wouldn't completely dominate against the same players that Lasker & Fischer destroyed?
Who would get 3000 rating first in chess?
Sort:
16 days ago
0
#43
King_Red_A wrote:
Question: You mention Lasker and Fischer dominating the competition. How do you know that they were just that good, and not that the composition just wasn't as good. How do you know that Magnus or Gukesh wouldn't completely dominate against the same players that Lasker & Fischer destroyed?
That’s a good point. A 2000-rated player in a random pool with average 1600 rating is still a 2000-rated player. But pretty sure they weren’t that bad.
Getting to 3000 is total rubbish!
Carlsen's rating has got so many of Gen X and Z's thinking he's the G.O.A.T.
Think you all need to look up "ELO creep"
Elo ratings measure the results within a closed pool of players rather than absolute skill.
FIDE's ELO system is designed to creep up, giving the appearance that the latest top GM's are the greatest of all time FYI... FIDE changed how they evaluate ELOs in 1981... Soon after Kasparov reaches the 2800 mark.
Unfortunately, someone will get to 3000... that said there will be a bunch right behind at 2950
Carlsen and Nakamura have been running a scam on most of you who think they are the greatest of all time... How did Nakamura do in the latest Candidate's cycle? 3rd place ... right? and Carlsen has vacated the WC. Why?
because
Gukesh D
Erigaisi Arjun
Abdusattorov, Nodirbek
Praggnanandhaa R
Because of their youth.... Probably would beat both Nakamura and Carlsen in true match play.
Eventually Father Time will win the day,,, PERIOD! Understanding Carlsen and Nakumura (along with about 4 others (So, Wesley, Mamedyarov, Shakhriyar, Sergey Karjakin, Caruana, Fabiano, come to mind...) are all about the same strength ... Carlsen like Capablanca, like Alekhine, Like Botvinik, Like Karpov, Like Kasparov was just a bit better than his rivals...
Notice I didn't cite Lasker, or Fisher. Carlsen has not dominated his rivals in match play like Lasker did for 20yrs (between 1892 to 1909) The FIDE 12 games format in a limited time control and a speed chess sudden death is a far cry from 12 games or more with an open time limit after a certain amount of moves... that was played in the past (if you think Chess at that level isn't a sport you need to read about the First Karpov and Kasparov WC match
***Counting the week break before official termination, the match lasted five months and five days
Of the 48 total games, 40 were draws, including a streak of 17 in a row
Karpov led 4-0 after nine games and had no fewer than 21 separate games to close out the match, but never got his sixth win
Karpov is estimated to have lost about 22 pounds during the match (Both players blood pressure was off the charts! Both players were having health issues ... Karpov more because he was older.)
That's sport!
And.... Fisher... No one ripped through a candidates cycle like he did, basically doing his prep in cheap hotel rooms by himself, or sometimes with a part time second (because he didn't trust anyone)
Then in a 21 game match ..... give the reigning World champ 2 points before the match even started!
Lasker is the G.O.A.T... but Fisher put on the G.O.A.T performance of the last 150yrs
You just have a biased opinion, this is sort of right but tilted on your bad perspective.
Saying I have a biased opinion without offering any evidence to support your charge... is exactly what you have claimed I did. Unlike you, I offered factual stats to support my views. Sorry you don't agree with them... yet they are supported.
1. FIDE ELO's have been creeping upward since the early 1980s (Hence Carlsen is NOT the G.O.A.T. based on his rating)
2. Carlsen has NOT dominated his rivals in match play to the same level as Lasker did.
3. Match play rules are not as grueling as they once were.
Your logical fallacy takes place when you assume that somehow the human brain has gotten smarter in the last 100 yrs. (No.... The sport of Chess changed.... ) To assume the players who gave us great chess in an age without chess engines are somehow inferior to the one who now rely on chess engines, IMO is the true "Biased" opinion
Because of FIDE's ELO creep, its extremely hard to place Kasparov (who won his four matches against Karpov by one game a piece, or Carlsen, who's tournament play outshines his rivals, but his match play was no better the Botvink's or Ewue's. They both belong in the top 10 of all time, but that's about all you can debate... Unlike Lasker or Fisher... who did something concrete, that you can measure against their other peers.