Is chess experiencing a weak era?

kartikeya_tiwari

Once u started talking about singers i understood that you have no clue how the world works. The best singers are the ones who are marketable, not "objectively good" singers.

Coming back to objective things where market value is not important, more the competition the harder it is to stand out. Capa stood out when 10 people took chess seriously, will he stand out today when 1000 people take it seriously? i won't bet on that

Redgreenorangeyellow
Cinematic wrote:
staples13 wrote:

Magnus did not manage to win one single classical game against Caruana

Chill.... Magnus could beat all of the players from the past easily. Why? Logic. He beat Vishy who beat Kramnik who beat Kasparov and so on. This means that he is better than all of them. If let say, player x beat Magnus, that means he can beat Fisher. 

ONly reason why is that he was spoiled with computes

Redgreenorangeyellow
Epiloque wrote:
Redgreenorangeyellow wrote:
Cinematic wrote:
staples13 wrote:

Magnus did not manage to win one single classical game against Caruana

Chill.... Magnus could beat all of the players from the past easily. Why? Logic. He beat Vishy who beat Kramnik who beat Kasparov and so on. This means that he is better than all of them. If let say, player x beat Magnus, that means he can beat Fisher. 

ONly reason why is that he was spoiled with computes

But Vishy had computers too when Magnus played him. That is unrelated though.

Computers do not magically make you beat a World champ, they just improve your play. So Magnus was already good enough to beat Vishy.

That is why you and me are not WCs, bc no matter how much we use a computer it will not help us beat them.

Ok sure, yeah. Magnus's raw skill is probably better than Vishy's; but what I am trying to highlight is that the reason why there has been this rapid improvement in players throughout the past couple hundreds are years is that chess knowledge has been increasing. Raw skill may vary a bit, but the best of the best have not naturally become significantly more intelligent than they were in the past. Contrary to popular belief, humans have possessed relatively the same raw intelligence throughout the ages (I mean relatively modern humans from a historical stanpoint, not humans from a long long time ago). They only reason why our natural intelligence may appear augmented compared to previous generations is because, again, we have access to more knowledge (and better diet and nutrition but that is besides the point).