The Founding Fathers of Chess are Unappreciated Today

That clickbait title doesn't match the narrative. 

There is a big difference in being called the greatest chess player of all time and being called the greatest contributor to chess as a whole throughout history.

When people refer to Magnus as potentially the greatest, they are probably referring to him in the greatest player of all time sense. 

There are different facets to the game of chess. History, Passion, Accuracy, etc...

Each facet has followers, and that plays a role in who they believe to be the "greatest". 

"This person contributed so much to chess! They are the greatest!"

"No other person has played the game of chess with such passion! They are the greatest! "

But the truth of the matter is this.... pick whichever person you want.... they won't beat Magnus.  

"Greatest" is a very broad term and is nothing more than a debate starter.

Hypotheticals vs Opinions vs Results

Also, in my humble opinion, computers have only dulled the spectator side of chess. As a whole, it has given normal people access to the beauty of chess by showing them things they would never of been able to find from their own games ,most likely, without the help of a Titled Player..

he wasn't around to make the openings either

@K_Brown, yes, I realize that now, that is my mistake. My title is misleading, and at times my original post is inconsistent. When I say "greatest", I mean most impactful, but it seems that when others use it, they mean "most skillful". I did share multiple opinions in my original post, but at the heart of my argument is that the earliest students of this game go mostly unappreciated. Yes, I do accept that Magnus Carlsen can probably beat anyone, alive or dead.

My main point is really not properly addressed in my title, so perhaps it would be best if a few edits were made. Apologies to all.

#25
The most impactful is probably Steinitz.

Nice edit! I think this will lead the conversation in the way you originally intended. 

I can agree with some of your points. People might not give enough credit to the people who played very well for their time without computers, but there is also quite a few people with a mindset like yourself. I would say that, despite what you might think, Carlsen is someone who is intimately familiar with all the founders of chess who made lasting contributions to chess and has studied their accomplishments in details. If you were to give moves from a game played by Ruy Lopez without context to Carlsen, then I wouldn't be surprised if he could not only tell you Ruy Lopez played it, but also when and where.

"Super-GMs" have insane memory and a deeper intimacy with the game than most people realize. 

Have you watched Hikaru Nakamura or another GM stream by chance? It gives you a glimpse into their immense talent and depth in the game of chess. It's a real eye-opener honestly. 

Puzzle rush was what really got me. I knew there was immense skill, but the speed and precision is awe inspiring. Not only did he move correctly before I even saw the whole board in complex positions, but he could also accurately recall that position after going through numerous other positions.

I like the idea of the post, but don't discredit the modern players so quickly. They are very good at the game of chess and have established a bigger fan base for chess than has ever existed. Many people have even recognized chess as a sport because of their efforts. Those seem like big accomplishments for chess to me.