Kasparov is better than Carlsen

L_E_N wrote:

somelikeitshazbot wrote:

the light that burns twice as bright lasts only half as long.

somelikeitshazbot wrote: the light that burns twice as bright lasts only half as long.

Very true

Not true at all. Compare any modern LED bulb... brightness does not impact bulb life 🤓

I'm on tenderhooks as to whom will win this!

Me too...

'the light that burns...' is correct for candles, but to be the best chessplayer I th

Sadly the best chess player ever debate can never be solved, morphy can't play Carlsen. Evolution of chess theory also prevents fair comparison of players of different eras.

Happily that means everyone can have their own 'best' player. Mine is capablanca, out of the three in the op I say kasparov. All are/were awesome, kasparov over longer time.

The butthurt is strong with this one. Also please keep ur tip to urself. We don't know where it's been.

kingofshedinjas wrote:

bunicula escribió:

Prediction of thread summary by op:

every1 on this thread got trolled except ___. Ha ha. I'm a great troll.

Tip:

The fact that you think you are funny doesn't make you funny.

This is even more true if your profile image contains a bunny.

Well... that was 5 months ago. Now... things are different.

So you're saying that because money inflates, therefore everything inflates. Huh. What do you know. I have absolutely no counter to your point. Well done.

What about ChessNetwork (the infamous 4200 bullet rating on chess.com)

That may be true of lights, but with a few exceptions (e.g. Fischer) it is not true of chess players.  In general those that burn brightest (achieve greatest strength) also last the longest.

Strongest player ever ... objectively? ... almost certainly whoever is strongest now, just as in Athletics and just about every other human endeavour. 

Potentially strongest? Most gifted? Who would win if we had time travel? or if Morphy, Capablanca et. al. had time to "catch up" or had been born in our time?

It is IMPOSSIBLE to say.  It may be fun to spout opinions and reasons, but it is all meaningless.

Well I think they mean he didn't have a personal/private coach. You could even say going over master games is getting "coaching" because you're learning from them. But no one means that when they say "coaching," here. A lot of people say that you can't become a GM, stuff like that, without a coach. Hell I've been told I'll need a coach to get to IM, etc. So it's not a trivial accomplishment to contradict that myth like Fischer did. He gave guidance to himself.

And he didn't need a huge team of seconds like Spassky did (at least, I think he had something like that). He got help, but nowhere near on the same level as Spassky did.

I'm not saying he didn't use anything like that, but to get to GM for example I don't believe he had any coaches. Spassky had a good score against Fischer before the match, but it's clear that once you had a decent sample of games, Fischer was way superior.

Well....one of the earlier Posts reporst that Fisher did it all by himself, locked away.... While that is very dramatic, the truth is a bet more pedestrian. He did join both the Brooklyn and Manhattan chess clubs, and did surround himself with excellent players to exchange and learn chess.

Furthermore, the epic unique nature of the publicity surrounding his ascendency amidst the Soviet-American cold war was unprecedented. And that only adds to the Mythos.

My personal bias is that Carlsen is greatest player that has ever lived. When I review his games and watch him play (frequently bored, since he is already way ahead in his mind), I think he is akin to Motzart. Atypical neural processing, in a category by himself.

But, if you will forgive me, this is just personal bias, and non-scientific.

adamny wrote:

Carlson?  Motzart?  Who are these people? :)