Silas_kid no it meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Who is the chess GOAT?
Sort:
Sep 1, 2024
0
#23
tygxc wrote:
Omg when was this metric created (it looks like around the year 2000) no mention of Carleen, Nakamura, Caruana, Amand etc. in any criteria 1yr, 2yr etc. this thread was made in January 2024 you posted a metric from 24y ago, at least refer to a metric from this century!
Karpov..... all the way!
WC for a decade.....
No#2 (by a super small margin) for the next decade.
Has an Indian summer late in his career, becomes WC again...
Sep 1, 2024
0
#28
Fischer, in my opinion, was a Master in interpreting the game as a schematic battle with particularities against each rival according to individual characteristics. In the G.O.A.T parameters, they could be measured by comparing in a guess the possibility of victory between those on the list of possible candidates on imaginary matchs if they are not contemporaries in the same timeline... Who would win? One thing to know is that Goat's pupils become rectangular when dilated, giving him a particular vision and a horizontality ...Is possible that Chess can have more that one G.O.A.T because our sport have many ways to be observed🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐
I didn't see The Magster on the chessmetrics list.
I nominate the last opponent I played against. I thought I played a very decent game for my level, 400 something, trying out Colle after watching a quick video how it goes. After 19 moves I resigned after he got me in a triple fork. 99.9 percent accuracy. Then he went on to win 5 more games against others with 98.5 percent accuracy or better. Must be a real Champ.
Correction. 99.1 percent or better. :D
100% Magnus
The Mags
Sep 1, 2024
0
#34
MIKHAIL TAL ALL DAY (its magnus but mikhail tal's sacrifices is crazy.)
I think that it is pretty much futile to compare chess players of different eras, just like any other sport. You could make the case for Carlsen as he has been on top for the longest time, at a time when chess has had a renaissance. Rating alone doesn't prove much, as even the most elaborate rating system will have some inflation. And who is to say some of the old masters with same tools, training or conditions wouldn't have been better. They've missed out on decades of theory. And who is to say, they would have had the capacity to make use of all that theory, even if they had it? Nobody can possibly know. Any system for ranking players of different eras will have flaws giving unfair advantage to one era or another.
Goated pfp