is Magnus carlsen the goat?

Yahoo go carlsen

Kasparov:

unparallelled match and tournament record.
Carlsen drew his classical matches against Karjakin and Caruana.

Kasparov lost his classical match to Kramnik, and Kramnik is an absolute joke compared to Carlsen. It's quite difficult to dispute that Carlsen is objectively the strongest player in every facet of the game-openings, middlegame, endgame-amongst the strongest contenders in the history if the game. The top SuperGMs beat the living hell out Kasparov's opponents when he was in his prime.

Were Carlsen transported in time to Kasparov's era, he would be like Morphy amongst them.

Is this sentence supposed to mean something, or is it just a random collection of words?

Because there aren't stronger players in Baku.

No

Try looking up the definition of each word in sequence to parse the meaning of my sentence. In fact, you can actually do this with any sentence you don't understand. This process will help you in your ESL journey moving into the future.

By the way, Super GM-or super grandmaster- is modern parlance for players rated 2700 FIDE and above. Equipped with this factoid, I hope you can rub your two tiny braincells together to figure the rest out on your own.

aaa

Dude, your sentence means nothing. When Kasparov was is his prime, it was him who beat all his opponents almost every time.

Surely you can't be this obtuse? You're just putting on a show, yes?

Kasparov's opponents were not nearly as strong as today's top super GMs Magnus Carlsen routinely and easily dominates. Hence, kasparov's results should be analyzed with this perspective in mind. He was a lion amongst gazelles.

Carlsen is a god amongst lions.

Take a few minutes to actually think about the words you read. I understand english is difficult, but you come off as an absolute buffoon.

This is dumb and untrue. Kasparov's rivals included Kramnik and Amamd, among others. Anand, who is still 11th in the world at the age of 55. That's the guy that you call a "gazelle".

The fact is that the opponents of Kasparov and Carlsen show a lot of overlap, because the two eras are so close together: K was number 1 until 2006, C is number 1 since 2008. So comparing them is not hard. Kasparov was much more dominant, and for longer. Easy choice, unless you are a blind Magnus fanboy.

Legacy means nothing in objective terms. Carlsen is statistically the strongest, most accurate player in the history of the game. This is objective, mathematical truth.

Carlsen dominated Anand in their chamionship match and Kasparov lost to Kramnik who is currently getting stuffed online by GMs of no particular renown. Why should I care that Kasparov dominated while Carlsen was still a child. This changes nothing and your reliance on legacy is a huge cope. Carlsen would have destroyed Kasparov if he'd been born sooner; simply better and more talented.

You are not in a position to question the English language skills of others. It is rude, and so far inaccurate. @magipi's English is every bit as good as yours, and his reasoning is far better. How's your knowledge of Hungarian?

And, btw, please point out the flaws in my reasoning. Otherwise, your commentary simply makes you appear a bitter, old fool clinging on to bygone idols. Like magipi does.