Pretty sure magnus has grinded many dead drawn positions to squeeze a win out of them. Lasker's opponents were horrible, carlsen's opponents are not, that's a big distinction.
Carlsen grinds out wins in drawn positions no doubt, but when he's able to get them because grandmaster opponents fail on basic techniques like opposition, I think they qualify as "horrible" in the end game.
Pretty sure magnus has grinded many dead drawn positions to squeeze a win out of them. Lasker's opponents were horrible, carlsen's opponents are not, that's a big distinction.
Carlsen grinds out wins in drawn positions no doubt, but when he's able to get them because grandmaster opponents fail on basic techniques like opposition, I think they qualify as "horrible" in the end game.
Pretty sure none of lasker's opponents were even half as good as opponents carlsen has, for example none of them would even come close to caruana
Somehow cricket manages to survive using three different match time formats with all three having their own merits. It is an almost direct comparison to chess, including tedious arguments about the longer form (test) dying and the shortest form (T20) not being real cricket, etc. They just put an emphasis on different skills and end up growing the game as they also have different merits as spectator and participatory sports.
Classic isn't going to die, it will probably grow, It might seem like it is dying simply because shorter time controls have far, far more potential for growth.
(The classical championship should just go back to when the champion kept the title in case of a tie. It puts more pressure on the challenger but right now it puts more pressure on whoever is worse at shorter time controls, which is far sillier.)
Having four titles of that sort would probably be a good idea. Bullet/blitz/rapid/classical. Using the internet would allow for a very inclusive yearly candidate cycle.
Plus one person holding all four would be extremely impressive.
crick
Cricket is a good analogy. Test cricket would be the equivalent of classical chess. There is far more money now in the shorter cricket formats but Test cricket still has a significant following and is probably more popular now than 20 years ago. Professional players themselves also still consider it the true marker of skill and I think the same applies to classical chess.
Like cricket, I think the shorter formats will actually increase the popularity of classical chess as they will draw in more players and some will gravitate over time to being fans of longer time controls.
@NikkiLikeChikki
I do think for a world championship contender to be established they would have to be strong in most aspects of the game, correct. However there is no denying that everyone has a play style, every world champion has had one whether it be more towards tactics and calculations, or positional dominance, simplicity, endgames, technical players (people who know all or mostly all openings like the Russians; like Botvinnik), or people who are great at positional play who are simultaneously good/great at endgames, however are better at tactics and calculations just like Alkehine or Kasparov.
Every world champion has their own style, and it would be very odd to say they don't. I mean don't you have a style? We all have our own preferred styles of play, whether we like to admit it or not. Moreover there is no "best" and there is definitely not perfection. People strive to be perfect in the game however there is no such thing as everyone has a different style of play, different strengths and weaknesses, will play better or worse in different matches/matchups etc. It is just a human thing, if people were the "best" at everything it wouldn't be a human playing, it would most likely be AI, but even they have their preferences and weaknesses too.
With this said, there is no "best" but rather, a best towards a person's play style. As if you think about it Karpov was like the Modern day Capablanca, nice and simple and though he could play through complications, he loved simple and positional positions that suited him best. The same goes for Kasparov as though he was no slouch to positional chess, his strengths relied on his superior tactics and calculations in which was his primary 1, 2 punch.
So I don't think there is a person who is "best" or perfects such the skills of chess, but in their times of being in world championship contention they make it so that they play to their strengths and somehow beat all of the other GM's. Once they beat these GM's they draw with the drawing master (or the defensive stalwarts) and crush the other competition. This pattern has been seen time and time again from the likes of Bobby Fischer, Kasparov and Karpov and the majority of the other world champions, as that is what it takes to be chess world champion.
This claim can be subjective, but then again it is only human nature to have preferences in such things, especially when considering a game like chess. If chess was a game of how a person could perfect being the best at every aspect, every world champion would be the same, however each world champion is different, and noticeably different from the last. Therefore I don't think there is a person who is "best" at every single skill, however they have their own skillset, preferences, styles, strengths and weaknesses and because of this they play to their strengths to go after the world-class championship in chess.
As regarding to the formats, sure many players need to be great at blitz, rapid and classical, but even so nobody will be the "best", they just have to dominant in the majority as again everyone has strengths and weaknesses, even the Super GM's we know to date. Magnus is the best pretty much at every time format, especially classical, however in blitz/bullet he is not the best in rating or in form. Also in any given day he can lose or he can win it definitely not guaranteed and depending on the variables suited depends on if he actually would win or lose. In other words rating is more of a number than anything, it is more dependent on a person and how they play, but it is proven such that he sometimes is not the best in play, and therefore though he is seen as the best, sometimes he is not the best and it is not due to an off day it is do to him being outplayed. Of course he is in a field where there are other SuperGM’s however it just shows that regardless of “best” or even perfection it matters what is more played than anything seen on paper.
Just giving you different point of view. Hopefully you or someone else has a common understanding to this or if not that, a reasonable case as it is good to discuss such things in the chess world.
Magnus couldn't beat Caruana (and vice versa) because both players were more determined not to lose than they were determined to win.
Breaking someone who's trying not to lose (Capablanca and Petrosian both excelled at this) is very hard well below the super-GM level without inviting at least some counterplay. Kasparov was the last champion to really invite complications, and even he did so as a calculated risk.
The OP mentioned Lasker, which is important, because not a single active player today would be able to handle that style of play in a match. No one today spends 60-70 moves of a dead drawn rook & pawn endgame probing for weaknesses. But Lasker would do it, win, and still be fresh for the next round (I honestly think this is what drove Rubinstein insane). He'd lose a game on occasion, sure, but he made you prove the draw if you wanted one.
There are players active today with the tactical skill to play like a Lasker or an Alekhine if they so chose, but they choose not to. I firmly believe another fearless attacker will come along eventually to break the current drawish complacency. It took Reti and then Alekhine beating Capablanca the first time, and Fischer beating everybody the second time, but it happened before and it will likely happen again.
Pretty sure magnus has grinded many dead drawn positions to squeeze a win out of them. Lasker's opponents were horrible, carlsen's opponents are not, that's a big distinction. Therefore being a "fearless attacker" will be almost impossible in today's chess. You cannot sacrifice 3 pieces like tal and hope your opponent will make a blunder. Top players today are 100 times better than the "top players" of yesterday(30s , 40s and 50s) who would all be rated around 2300 by today's standards.. they made mistakes and that's why there was a huge incentive to sacrifice everything against them
no, the top players of the 1930's or even Lasker's time where NOT 2300 today's lmao, that shows a terrible understanding of their level of play. IF you would have said philidor, you may have been on the right track lol.
Capa has been deemed by engines to be one of the most precise players of all time, and Capa had nothing but the most respect for Lasker's play even in his 50's and 60's. The reason top players back then would struggle agaisnt modern GM's is that the game has been analyzed to death, and later players didnt need to figure it out via trial and error over the board. This is especially so in openings.
I mean yes, classical takes sometime, but its all about thinking, think about your moves, if you find a move look for a better one is what you should be doing.
Pretty sure none of lasker's opponents were even half as good as opponents carlsen has, for example none of them would even come close to caruana
I'm pretty sure few of Lasker's opponents would have botched the opposition the way Firouzja did here:
https://youtu.be/K6WYWwfs9tk?t=874
I think @Dsmith42 brings up a good point. The point being in the fact that it takes a tactical enforcer with strong calculation to consistently beat other opponents to stop drawish games.
His words have truth. Reason being is because Kasparov was that type of player and so was Lasker as well.
Commonly, you are either 1 or 2 types of players:
1. You are either a positional mastermind (like Karpov) with great Endgame skill (like Carlsen)
2. Or you are a player who is great at making complications and is tactically dominant and somehow can shift the position into a winning game with great positional understanding.(like Kasparov or even Tal)[ I know, many people may not agree that Tal was the best pure positional player, but he was, he understood positions well enough to the point where he could break them down and build him up. No he was not a positional mastermind, and nowhere close, but it wouldn't be reasonable to say he wasn't a good positional player, it is just that he ways a way better tactical and calculator that he didn't even bother with the positional nature of the game, he just wanted to complicate and make dubious moves for dubious lines to make matters hard for his opponent. But it is good to know that later on in his life when Tal couldn't sustain his calculations, he became a positional player and was a good one]
This is what seems to make world champions as these players break the loop of drawish games. I do think that the people who are to the extreme of positional understanding, calculation, tactics or endgames face even the strongest of players, they will somehow win.
@NikkiLikeChikki
I don't think this is a forceful statement by @DSmith43, I think some things are great from which he says, and though I may not agree with everything, I do think it takes a person to be like a Kasparov or a Karpov to be a world champion or very successful player. Engines do make a difference however but in terms of strictly being on the next level drawish play would cease and the truth of the matter would be shown if you could push the win or not.
The reason Kasparov was great was due to the fact that he used to be everyone else that was not a drawing master. For the drawing masters he had to draw against unless he would lose, but everyone else he won for the majority. This is the common theme for the uphill climb to be world champion.
Also, this was doesn't only go for Kasparov, but Bobby Fischer as well and also Karpov. What they did was beat everyone they did was beat everyone with their style of play then draw against the drawing masters (such as Smyslov in his time).
Also the claim of @Dsmith42 seems valid to say that both players seemed more determine to not lose than win. As in that level with significant preparation and precision rarely would mistakes occur to the point of an outright loss and because of this most of the time, patience was key and the players would just have to hope they could keep making the strongest moves until an opening would arise.
Breaking someone who is not trying to lose is trying to break Smyslov, and even he was a world champion at one point. He wasn't a joke, and he has a positive score against Bobby Fischer with his drawing play style. He was the type of person who was a defensive tank and was quite literally seeking to draw you if he couldn't find a win, as he didn't really care for the win, he just didn't want to lose. Anish Giri is like the modern-day Smyslov, but Smyslov in his time was called the drawing master, and he was called the drawing master for a reason.
The reason this is important is because when talking about the breaking point of a person in chess, it is hard to beat them if they have a mentality to draw and not care for seeking to win. As there aim would be to draw and make it hard for their opponents to win. This lesson has been taught to Bobby Fischer many times in his playing days because every time he would play against the French he would try to push the position for the win and most of the time end up losing. It just shows you the differences in mentalities and how a breaking point is real.
I do disagree however with the fact that nobody spends 60-70 moves in a drawish endgame. That is actually the opposite of what happens sometimes, especially in the case of Magnus Carslen. It is debatable however when speaking on if people try to grind out Endgames a lot of the top Super-GM's try to do it in top tier competition for the most points. So I don't think that is entirely true, but it all depends on the position at hand.
On the claim that Lasker's opponents were horrible, that is just false. He played top tier competition, and sure they may to be as strong as today's SuperGM's they were no joke. Some of his opponents were Tarrash, Frank James Marshall, Rubienstien and Capablanca. These were some of the old masters and none of them were scrubs, so saying he had horrible opponents is just not true. They are called the "old masters" for a reason; they were definitely tough, perhaps tougher than some GM's and even Super GM's to this day. We will never know but it is always a possibility.
Regardless, it is true that there is needed for a certain balance for the leap of good players or good GM's, great GM's and world championship contending GM's. Honestly I just think that however in order to become a world champion or to be in the conversation you have to be masterful in either positional dominance, the Endgame or tactical skill and calculations, if you are dominant in one area of the game and just good/great in the rest becoming a world champion is probable. It just depends if you beat the rest of the competition and then draw the drawing masters, that is how I view it but everyone has their different opinions.
Anyways, just adding some clarification on the claim from what @DSmith42 was saying, and other comments in which I don't necessarily agree with fully, however is fine as we all have different viewpoints, this is what makes us human, so the more we share the better we can make the discussion!