Chess "GOAT" discussion

"SHAQ was a monster purely unstoppable for a very long time."

You means Shaq's butt. They should have put a backup beeper on it.

As for who was the Great of all time.

All of them were. They all added something unqiue to the game and with out them chess as we know it would not be the same. It would be empty. A mere hallow shell with out them.

This year LeBron is proving he is gonna be a NBA GOAT soon enough.  Jordan was 28 when he won his first final, LeBron is 30 has been to 6 finals, and already won 2(and it could EASILY be 3 in a week or 2).

But, what makes him stand out so much 'this year' is how he went to a NOTHING team in Cleveland, and now they are in the Finals already(even after some COSTLY injuries throughout the playoffs).

Steph Curry is a hell of a shooter, but it's PRETTY FRICKING obvious that LeBron was the MVP this year.  

Best basketball player of all time was Wilt Chamberlain. 

bobbymac310 wrote:

Best basketball player of all time was Wilt Chamberlain. 

Objectively and subjectively, you could make the argument he was the greatest physical specimen the human race has ever produced. I believe it--faster than Jim Brown, could jump out of the gym, natural strength that was just overwhelming and the guy was running Ultra Marathons in his fifties. He was the best athlete I ever saw, him and Bo Jackson. He wasn't the best basketball player ever in my opinion but those who argue otherwise might not be wrong.

Here with the goat faux athlete and some midget:

Lasker was a great player but we all need to admit that if he hadn't avoided competing he could have lost the the title earlier. 

"Could have lost" I remind :)

I've been over 2200 rated player for 6 years. 12-15 years ago I used to be a parspective junior (I was 2100 rated in 2002, since then - you know ) and used to take part in Polish Chess Youth Academy Camps.

There were the best polish coaches there and they told those things about Lasker. In addition I read some books and found this information in them. That's not my idea, guys.

What about Botvinnik, Smyslov, Petrosyan, Spassky? Nobody mentioned them, I guess.

WHY?

They somehow worked the system to become WC, but they either faded from the top fast or really didn't impress for long. And Botvinnik will always be stained by his toadying to the Soviet state.

Leontxo García on Petrosian: "his fear of losing overshadowed an understanding of chess very few have achieved".

Of course they all served Soviet Union but does it mean they were worse than the rest of them from chess point of view?

I thought about Smyslov for a moment. He was very strong form 40' to 80' (he played candidates-final match against Kasparov in 1984!). I don't know why nobody mentioned him. Maybe, because he was a champion only for a year? Botvinnik was probably first true professional and also deserves attenition in the "race" to be the greatest. But he had sometimes troubles with finding not so difficult tactics. 

@ DrSpudnik  I don't like evaluating chess players by them political views. This has nothing to do with their value as chessplayer.

It has to do if those political views result in some help from high instances.

Avoided Competing? Are you Serious. He didn't avoid anything. He issued requirements and his competition could not come up with the requirements. It is not Lasker fault they couldn't come up with it.

The World Champion was allowed to make his own conditions during that time. There was no objected from the chess community at that time. William Steinitz before him did same thing.

There was no set requirement back than. Fide didn't exist.Anyone born at that time would of did same thing. Why wouldn't you make your own conditions if it was allowed? It doesn't mean he was running from competition. It is obvious he wanted serious matches.

As for your Polish Coaches talking about Lasker. Maybe they should stick with there day job of coaching and not history. It is obvious they have no idea what they are talking about. Trying to talk bad about Lasker as if he is running from competition. He would of slaugthered anyone.

Making a list of the best chess players ever is getting harder to do. You could ask every member we have to list their top ten and someone is going to get left off who could arguably be there. Here, my own list, from top to bottom:

1. Kasparov
2. Fischer
3. Karpov
4. Anand
5. Carlsen (he'll be top three before all is said and done)
6. Alekhine
7. Capablanca
8. Botvinnik
9. Tal
10. Lasker

There are--what--ten players who arguably belong on that list who aren't there? Perhaps as many as twenty. Someone could argue Petrosian and I'm not sure they'd be wrong. The same could be said for any number of players. It doesn't make it any less fun to talk about but everybody's top ten list is going to be missing somebody who was really, really good at chess.

That is all I have to say about Lasker it is obvious people have a grudge against Lasker. When he was well with in his rights. People have so much hostility toward Lasker. It is obvious I was trying to make a simple discussion.

Do you people even realize Laskers chess accuracy was very close to that of an engines accuracy? This was in a time before an engine was even heard of. Some of his game had moves which were like 90-95% chess accuracy to modern day engines.

People today in 2015 try to use engines to study and practice with in doing there lines. Well Engines today used Laskers moves to study and pracice with in doing there lines. He was an engine before engines. The engines copyed him. He was a monster.

Lasker was amazing, yes. If there is hostility, it's from making all those 'requirements' you mentioned above. People appreciate the best playing against the best and Lasker should have taken on Capablanca much, much sooner than he did.

Imagine the situation that in 2013 Fide stopped to exist and then Anand make a requirment to anyone who want to play a match against him: prize fund must be at least 20 million dollars. Carlsen is winning all tournaments in a year, but don't have so much cash so he can't play a match. That's more or less how it was between Lasker and Rubinstein in 1912.

Magnus

"Imagine the situation that in 2013 Fide stopped to exist and then Anand make a requirment to anyone who want to play a match against him: prize fund must be at least 20 million dollars. Carlsen is winning all tournaments in a year, but don't have so much cash so he can't play a match. That's more or less how it was between Lasker and Rubinstein in 1912"

The difference being that Carlsen was the strongest player in the world for years, while Rubinstein during one year won tournaments where Lasker and Capablanca (none of whom he ever finished ahead of) were absent. When he faced both in 1914 he was far behind both in S:t Petersburg. So even if Rubinstein was a great player and had a great 1912, he was by no means ever clear #1. For that he would have had to at least once in his career finish ahead of Lasker or Capablanca.