Benito-Pussolini wrote:
there are a few disputed ones, but no undisputed.
Boyka
who is the undisputed goat of chess
Sort:
Apr 23, 2024
0
#23
Antonin1957 wrote:
Oh well. Silly me, to hope that a greatest-of-all-time thread on the chess dot com forum would actually be an interesting thread about...chess.
long_quach wrote:
No1_wantsme2havefun wrote:
Dude, they are obviously talking about the most ACCOMPLISHED player and not the MOST INSPIRATIONAL! 💀💀💀💀
Please get your facts straight, bro.
Get your facts straight.
The Soviet Union has a string of chess champions, one after another. The world doesn't care. In today's language, they didn't move the needle.
Only after Fischer did interest in chess skyrocketed.
Most inspirational? Magnus Carlsen can crush Botez in a matter of moves who was already the most accomplished and very inspiring. If u think comparing accomplished players who is both inspiring and the best should get less more attention that your overrated Botez? Get urself a new kit and break a leg on something useful instead of ur blatant points.
long_quach wrote:
Andrewtopia wrote:
Also, the early chess scene is not really the streets. From my understanding, it came from European cafes.
Dial back the clock.
Chess were played by traders on camels along the Silk Road, probably with a roll up cloth board, simple wooden pieces, on a dirt ground.
This is the real scene.
Chess are originally made from beaks.
Apr 25, 2024
0
#26
I think what I learned from all these posts was; there is no undisputed GOAT of chess.
OlafMatus wrote:
I think what I learned from all these posts was; there is no undisputed GOAT of chess.
Well, it was obvious from the start.
No1_wantsme2havefun wrote:
@magipi I’m surprised you didn’t have anything to say about Long_Quach claiming that one of the Botez Sisters is the GOAT…
I never read long-quach, I gave up on that guy years ago. Did he really say that? Probably not.
"Botez bringing chess back to the street" is actually an even dumber thing to say than "Botez is the GOAT". Amazing.
hello anyone wanna talk??
I don’t decide
Apr 25, 2024
0
#32
pcalugaru wrote:
What the general populist doesn't understand.... is that through the decades, the top 10% all have had some form of photographic memory. (that is the one true talent you have to have to even think about making the top 10%)
You also have to take into account the modern ELO system is hyper inflated... that means to all you gen x'ers and generation alpha's: Carlsen rating doesn't mean much. (hate to break it to you, but the next WC if he is truly the best of the crop, will break Carlsen's rating peak (due to the hyperinflation )
You take Capablanca, Morphy, Lasker Alekhine ... any of those pre WWI & WWII gifted players.. and given their photographic memory …
Nope.
That was the working hypothesis of Alfred Binet when he conducted research on the subject in the 1890s. He discovered that pattern recognition is vastly different than photographic memory. Others—de Groot, Chase and Simon, Ericksson—have built on his work.
Apr 25, 2024
0
#33
@long_quach
I’m often reminded of snippets from Anth 510 Advances in Anthropology, which I took in the early 1990s, where two of the four professors discussed cognition, language, and culture. I wish I had taken better notes.
Gotham
Apr 25, 2024
0
#35
long_quach wrote:
There is no such thing as photographic memory. Memories are abstractions...
Are you a Magritte fan?
Rene Magritte painted this:
Notice that the "painting within a painting" obscures and replaces the real-world objects that it represents. The real tree is hidden behind the artist's representation of a tree. The real cloud is hidden behind the artist's representation of a cloud. And so on.
Magritte's point is that people do not interact with the real world. Instead, they internalize their own representations or models of things that exist or things that happen in the real world, and people react to, and interact with, those internal representations.
Botez (I don't know which one is which). She's bringing chess back to the street, where it began.
What? 💀
He is talking about the greatest chess player ever, not the most popular chess content creator of today.
Sylvester Stallone is an actor and not a boxer. He got more people interested in boxing than any boxer in history. Stallone is in the Boxing Hall of Fame.
Besides Fischer, who gets more people interested in chess? Who?
Anand. And whoever started the Soviet chess boom (Alekhine?).
Also, the early chess scene is not really the streets. From my understanding, it came from European cafes.
For the actual thread topic, I suppose I'd say Morphy perhaps. He had a very dominant peak and apparently understood the game much better than his contemporaries. For the sheer length of powers, though, Lasker deserves a nod.