This is a clip from a conversation with Garry Kasparov from Oct 2019. New full episodes once or twice a week and 1-2 new clips or a new non-podcast video on all other days. If you enjoy it, subscribe, comment, and share. You can watch the full conversation here: ruclips.net/video/8RVa0THWUWw/видео.html (more links below) Podcast full episodes playlist: ruclips.net/p/PLrAXtmErZgOdP_8GztsuKi9nrraNbKKp4 Podcasts clips playlist: ruclips.net/p/PLrAXtmErZgOeciFP3CBCIEElOJeitOr41 Podcast website: lexfridman.com/ai Podcast on Apple Podcasts (iTunes): apple.co/2lwqZIr Podcast on Spotify: spoti.fi/2nEwCF8 Podcast RSS: lexfridman.com/category/ai/feed/
Hi Lex, I recommend you invite Prof. Anwar Shaikh to your podcast. He can talk about the parallels and limits of economics and physics, and more importantly, he wrote a fabulous book recently (1,000 pages) providing an alternative to mainstream theory in explaining capitalism. You can see his lectures online to get an idea.
GMeazza Thing is that Garry can’t say much without sounding arrogant. I’ll say this for him. If Garry had all of today’s resources at age 28, he would compete with Magnus today at age 28. Fischer, Kasparov and Carlsen stand alone for the rating gap they enjoyed over their competition.
RaniaIsAwesome He’s been rated World #1 since 2010. He’s won WCC four times. He won Wijk eight times. He’s currently WCC in all time controls. WTF does he have to do to please you!? Either your trolling or you can’t research it yourself. Either way, I don’t care.
It was because of Karpov that Kasparov strived to get better. He knew he had to prepare way beyond the levels of other GMs of those times for facing Karpov. That's what made him legendary..
@@bahasainggrisbersamamradi9308 No way the biggest hit to his confidence was losing the WC to Kramnik and he didn't even win one game. btw the MC vs GK game ended in a draw iirc.
Please, don't forget Fischer. No engines (or so weak), learning Russian and all the Grand Masters games. When he beat Spassky, Spassky had an army of GMs to help him.
@@toilaconhaisam3037 I dont know too much about chess but in fotball if we talk SKILL pele is not even top 20 and Messi is way above Maradona, sure ppl are comparing them but theres no comparation and its not because Messi plays now and Maradona played back in the day....and yeah i would put Cristiano above Maradona as well its as simple as that!
Maradona was the culmination of talent combined with hard work and cocaine. Maybe Stu Ungar could compete ;-) There simply has only been one Maradona in soccer and I highly doubt we'll see another one. He was the best ever and still cheated to make sure he won. I have a passionate hate for cheaters but somehow I still want to give Maradona a pass...
"Because I stand over the shoulders of giants I can see further than them" Isaac Newton Of course the newer generations are better than the previous ones!!! Great point by Kasparov. Comparing players from different times is pointless.
I always ask "was the player dominant in his era"? That is all you can look at because each era is so different. The next generation will be the first to have been tutored and aided exclusively with computers as the dominant factor. Chess will look the same, but it will be a very different game at the highest levels. Who ever comes to dominate the next era will become another name in the "who is the greatest" debate.
Alex Rodriguez because computers of any substantial computing power have only existed for a few decades. Engines have entirely changed the way chess is played. Also, chess engines (outside of very few such as A0 and LC0) didn’t “learn” how to evaluate positions, they were programmed.
As someone that barely understands chess, I gotta say, you chess players (including amateurs) are some of the most civil and coherent people I've ever seen/heard. The youtube comment sections of youtube videos (related to chess) are always a great read!
Such a gentleman, he answered the question acknowledging his own achievements without fake modestly and highlighting the skills of Carlsen, Fischer, Capa Blanca and even his eternal rival Karpov. Great mindset of Kasparow I agree totally with him
I admire Kasparov for his analytical skills and not just his chess skills. He doesnt oversimplify questions and issues and instead probes further to come to a deeper understanding/perspective.
Garry stands head and shoulders above his era, and when he reached 2851 he was 80 points better than Anand. Magnus also stands clearly above his, he was 67 points higher than Aronian at his peak. This interview is funny because while Garry is being both rational and modest, it is clear some part of him wants to say, "C'mon, we all know I'm best." His point is a great one though, it's impossible to compare eras. That's true of all sports, but especially so in chess, where players literally become stronger on the backs of those that came before them.
@Peasant Scrublord nah you cant say, Carlsen has had the opportunity to study the gmaes of Fisher,Kasparov,Karpov,Anand etc etc great GMs that fischer never did. He has access to a lot more material
lets remember though, even while once garry's student Carlsen has been quoted saying he aims to play like Fischer. So without directly saying so it's clear who Carlsen thinks is stronger.
Fischer had a meteoric rise, but the simple fact is he never defended his title. That's why Kasparov rightly says his reign was more impressive. Carlsen is what we would have gotten if Fischer stayed and fought, which makes him the true greatest of all time.
Honestly, I think in sports, a lot will be improvements in technology (better equipment) - there's probably a limit running speed, jump height etc and we're probably pretty close to it. In chess, the ceiling is way above chess GMs (AlphaZero, Stockfish etc) so a new generation can have players that are significantly improved.
Also one important factor is that study becomes more and more important than discovery with the years changing the kind of player that floats to the top.
Is he wrong in saying that, though? “Valuable” is qualitative and relative but “way ahead of the rest of the flock” is pretty quantitative and obvious.
I really like Kasparov's description of Carlsen's style and strength as a combination of Fischer's and Karpov's styles and strengths. It's a accurate description.
@@garbanzogarbanzo2760 Are you trying to suggest that Kasparov is somehow angry at Kramnik? He praises Fischer all the time, and although they never played, Fischer insulted and attacked Kasparov far more than anyone did, calling him an idiot, a thug, a dirty jew, a gangster and an actor. If he was petty enough to hate on Kramnik for losing to him, he'd hate on Fischer as well since Fischer treated him like shit, and he would hate Karpov as well since he lost to him in 1984 too.
In an unsolved intellectual sport like chess the greats always stand on the shoulders of the greats that came before them when it comes to how well they play the board. The only way to really compare them is how dominant they were in their time, given that in those times everybody is playing with relatively the same information and orthodox their contemporaries are playing. Kasparov couldn't have said it better, and basically explained the essence of any sport that could be mathematically Elo rated. The most recent world champ in their prime will likely always be better than those before.
What grinds my gears though, is the difference of being dominant in an era where the study of high level chess was mostly accessible to a scholarly few, and being dominant in the internet era when there's millions of talented people studying the games of GMs and even learning directly from watching them play live on the internet. The "big fish on a small pond" problem. Is it significant enough to make a difference in that regard?
@@ElShogoso this is a very good point, and it’s akin to the arguments in other sports when talking about competition levels have only gotten better and better over time, but I still do agree that because it is based on information and knowledge rather than just physical prowess there is a level of difficulty in straight up comparing different generations
I tried to get good at chess in the early 80's as a young family man. Staying up all night some nights playing blitz in our small local club etc.. I studied games from magazines if I could. To see what a burgeoning young Kramnik was doing took actual study. And no one to explain it to me like Levy or Antonio or even Hikaru would today. Explanations by Hikaru now? Way different. I saved up for a bit to buy a "Encyclopedia of Middle Games" and its still on the shelf over there. Thought about giving it to my grandson but he can watch Ding's magical checkmate in real time or with commentary. The sheer practice repetition that GM's do online today must make a huge difference and comparing to those who never could do that but needed flesh and blood guys across the board to play? That would ruin any comparisons really.
No, computers know very little chess but they play better than anyone else. Therefore the way to see the greatness of each world champion is to give their games to a good computer to give us a correct rating. It is strange that no one has performed such a task.
Bent Larsen made a similar point once; he called Philidor the greatest chess player of all times because he was at least 50 years ahead of his time in his understanding of the game.
@@barath4545 To me that Candidates run of Fischer is a greater achievement than his World championship Match. It would be unheard of for someone to win 20 consecutive classical timed games against top ten players in the world right now. I couldn't imagine Magnus doing that.
@@RUclips_Globetrotter also very far, but back in Morphy's day chess wasn't anywhere close to being a professional discipline. they didn't even use time control / chess clocks. it was a hobby - and chess wasn't really sych such a big exception back in the 19th century, most professional (or even organized) sports disciplines were still in their infancy. of course you can always turn the table on that argument: since the general playing level was rather low, it's all the more impressive for Morphy to attain master strength, since he didn't even have proper opponents to practice on. there's truth to this too, my point is not that Morphy was less dominant than Fischer or vice versa, but that this is an "apples vs oranges" type of comparison because their eras were so very unlike
@@vibovitoldAnyway, the style in which Morphy played is still legendary to this day. He probably is one of the reasons why chess became something more than a hobby!
@@contra1138 You know, hes an international human. His father was jew, mother was armenian, hes born in Azerbaijan, but live in Russia. But now hes living in the US.
You've got to love the legend Kasparov. He is right. There is a player who lived more than a 100 years ago called Morphy. They didn't have chess engines, computers, studies, websites, and it was difficult to find a chess master, let alone play against one, yet his genius and creativity were unbelievable, so that world champions like Carlson and Kasparov all studied his games when they were learning chess. How do you get to say that he is less than any contemporary champion?
Only Morphy and Capablanca played chess for fun. The others have played chess dedicating their lives to the game. Morphy was damaged in the nervous system, like Pillsbury and Fischer. On the other hand, Capablanca went from "flower to flower" until his last days.
When great Kasparov speaks, everybody listens. He is damn right. Magnus is a lethal combination of both and above all, his swag is above par. He took chess to all new different level.
@@goji1928 You don't sound like it. Magnus has the highest FIDE rating of all-time so he did in fact take chess mastery to a new level. Nobody cares about engines. People don't care that Usain Bolt can't outrun a Prius going 28 mph. They only care about his ability to outrun other great human athletes.
Also the fact that he's written an extensive series of books about the history of chess and the playing styles of the masters of previous generations gives him the ability to take that perspective. Which is why he is so good at answering this very question.
Yep, but I think the World Cup argument is moot: Messi is so ahead of the rest of the field (except for Cristiano) in a far greater gap than Diego or Pelé were. This gap is not necesarily in terms of level (Neymar, Mbappe, Lewandosky, Dinho, Kaká, Gordonaldo, Laudrup, Bergkamp, Ribéry, Suárez, Neuer and Xavi come into mind as players who were very close to their level at least one season) but in terms of consistency neither Diego nor Pelé can't compete with Messi and Cristiano. I put ahead Messi due to his longevity tho (he is slowing down less quick than Cristiano).
@Rodrigo Odon Salcedo Cisneros Sorry, but Messi isn't even in the same realm as Pele. The World Cup argument is absolutely on point. Pele, like Jordan, was an inspiration and raised the level of his teammates and achieved ultimate victory. Messi has had the opportunities, but failed to deliver. Messi is so overrated. His skill and character and legacy and accomplishments are all a shadow under Pele's brilliance. There is no comparison.
I wasn't rooting for Kasparov, but against Karpov. I didn't like how Karpov was helped against Korchnoi by Soviet government persecution, and helped by FIDE in the 1984 WCC match.
@@dannygjk Hi Dan. It's like you say, it was his unofficial team (because he was a hero of the Communists). If it were just other chess GMs helping, then no big deal. Karpov was a great player, but from the eyes of many Westerners (citizens of democracy) the "optics" were bad.
@@GrislyAtoms12 It pissed me off that Karpov had such support and Korchnoi barely had any help. I bet if it was fair Korchnoi would have won one of their matches.
Kasparov has become a true hero of mine. How well he talks about Chess, and many other things as well! When Kasparov was younger, he perhaps wasn't the nicest person. But he has matured into a very wise and brave man.
I love that Kasparov takes a historic look at the question. All of these "ranking" questions seem to be more descriptive of those being asked than those being ranked.
You need to lookup Kasparov'a birth name to know how close he is to Lex. Same clan of liars and cheats. Prearranged games. Prearranged interviews. Con artists.
@@eddarby469 yeah but so have people like magnus and other top gms and even people like levy, he gave a super clean answer that really shows what u have to take into consideration unlike just about anyone else.
Precise. The way Gary answered the question reminds of him on the chess board. I really do not mind if he brings him into the analysis as he is one of the greatest of all time and very few individuals are qualified to judge him. He is a legend and listening from him is a learning experience.
@tom donoughue Pretty sure that engine analysis shows that Morphy was still incredibly accurate though. The level of play he faced was low because everyone loved their unsound sacrifices and opening theory wasn't a thing. He refuted everything, and could never be refuted. They may as well have been playing a chess engine brought back from today.
GM Kasparov is not just chess player but intellectual. He deserves to be listened to! Maybe GM Magnus will share and teach as much as this man one day.
One of the greatest pleasures in life is listening to someone well considered talk about something in which they are well versed. Thank you for the video.
Mr. Kasparov, wonderful and insightful commentary, I learned a lot from what you said. Not only in chess but also in any other profession, or even for life in general. Thank you.
Had Fischer kept on competing (and not been such a wackjob) he would have crossed 2800 by 1980 - a greater feat than Kasparov doing it in 1990. Fischer was 2785 in 1972, a rating good enough to be top 5 today. He was way ahead of the field and the most dominant player of all time. His back-to-back wins against top GM's in set matches (Candidates), without even conceding a draw, will never be equaled.
I think he gave a brilliant answer, which applies to all sports, when he said the answer to the GOAT question is largely generational, not only in advanced technology, but also depending on who you ask, from what age group, and who was the greatest when they reached an age where they could comprehend and appreciate greatness. So if you ask younger chess players today, they will overwhelmingly choose the player who made the greatest impression on them NOW (or when they were at that impressionable age), therefore in Chess they will choose Magnus. Ask someone from the prior generation and they probably say Kasparov. Ask someone much older and they will probably say Bobby Fischer. It depends on who you ask and who DOMINATED when they reached that impressionable age. Young people today might say LeBron in Basketball. Ask Gen X and they say Jordan. Ask Boomers and they might say Wilt Chamberlain. Same goes for Boxing or most other sports. So IMO that was a very insightful response. I also like that he said it's hard to compare generations because each generation has access to greater training and information. The proper way to judge it, he said, is by how wide the gap was between #1 and all of their peers. You can also consider longevity, though I personally place a greater emphasis on the former, but all of his replies were quite astute.
if there was a way to quantify that “gap” the better quantitative approach to measuring someone’s greatness is the average of the gap of that players skill to his peers each year to also account for longevity (hope i made sense)
@@lamelo3998 Head-to-head records against the key opponents help. These identify Lasker, Capablanca, Fischer, Kasparov, Carlsen as the strongest players who played the game - with Kasparov arguably the strongest of the 5. Alekhine and Karpov also have very strong records, and champions like Anand, Kramnik or Botvinnik are not far off. But also players who never became champions had strong head-to-head records, such as Samuel Reshevsky, who was the lone challenger to the combined Soviet force in the 1950s, or Akiba Rubinstein, who played a brilliant third fiddle to Lasker and Capablanca in the 1910s/20s. One of the best head-to-head records of all time, if not the best, has Paul Morphy, but he played competitive chess for only a couple of years and played only a handful of strong players (Anderssen, Harrwitz, Loewenthal, Paulsen). Hence it is hard to compare him. Other players with brilliant but (too) short records are Harry Pillsbury and Reuben Fine.
In some sports, I find the question straight out hilarious. For example, motorsports, like say Formula 1. How are you supposed to say who's the goat when they were racing in completely different machinery, completely different track layouts, and completely different qualitity of opponents? In the case of chess, not only is the resources available a factor, but I also think the access to high quality matchmaking is a huge one. You have a much bigger pool of talented players, all playing on the internet, being able to play an absurd number of games per month. Also having easy access to all the accumulated knowledge of the sport, all the support chess computers can give, all the educational advice of grand masters streaming hours of their gameplay almost daily for everyone to see. It increases the quality of the entire sport.
Yeah, me too, but then again, he didn't even try to defend his title against Karpov, and we'll never know what would have happened if that match had been realized. It looks like that Bobby had a huge fear of losing, and that his fear of losing became greater then the joy of winning. And he new that Karpov was something else from anybody he played before. Russian chess federation selected a player with a playing style which would suit Fischer the least, and who would thus have the best chances to beat Fischer. It's worth knowing that Karpov was way better than Spassky, (who Bobby beat in Reykjavik 12 1/2 : 8 1/2), and that Karpov beat Spassky 13 to 1, with 23 draws, which is just extraordinary!!! So, Bobby's preparation for the match with Karpov should have been much tougher as he had never played him before.
Karpov met with Fischer to negotiate a possible match in 1975. The New York Times did an article about their meeting. Karpov said that he had no doubt that Fischer was not afraid of him or of losing to him. Although Karpov has spoken of the meeting he did not confirm that they played chess with each other during the visit but others who Karpov spoke with said they did.
@@theUroshman 1. I don't think Karpov's style would have been particularly hard for Fischer. Karpov liked very logical, methodical, clean, grinding chess, which was to Fischer's taste as well. 2. Karpov was better than Spassky, but had no experience playing a WC match. Experience plays a big role in such match. 3. Karpov didn't have strongest nerves nor stamina (as evidenced by his match with Kasparov later on), and a war of nerves would be even harder for him than it was for Spassky. if Fischer negotiated what would be essentially a long match, Karpov's chances would be decreasing the longer the match would go on, wearing him down. 4. Especially since Karpov would be under TREMENDOUS pressure from the Soviet authorities, because they'd categorically demand that he 'avenges' Spassky's defeat. 5. And note that Karpov, as brilliant as he was, had NEVER reached Fischer's peak rating. For these reasons while I don't deny Karpov would be a very tough nut to crack, I still think Fischer would have won in 1975. However it's not like Karpov would disappear. He'd keep on coming back, and might finally beat Fischer (who was almost a decade older after all) in the next cycle, or the one after that. Interestingly this could cause a domino effect of sorts, creating an even stronger, hardened Karpov. In this timeline Kasparov crashes into a "turbo-Karpov on steroids" (beefed up on his rivalry with Fischer), which he takes emotionally, loses the first match, and even if Kasparov ultimately prevails, his reign is shorter and less dominant. They're both regarded as GOATs, but they sort of swap places - Kasparov ends up in Karpov's shadow.
@@vibovitold Very good analysis, my friend! I agree with all of it, except No1. Karpov was prepared especially for Fischer, as he wouldn't have given him much space for all that Fischer was famous for. Basically, no weakness in a position and no risky business = no chances for Fischer to do his magic. So, it would basically come up to who blinks first, with tons of draws. Everything else would have played probably as you described. Too bad for everyone that that match wasn't realised in the end. Paranoid Fischer, who was in hiding for the rest of his life (except for his rematch with Spassky in Yugoslvia) and the chess federation, which didn't accept his demands which weren't so unreasonable after all, denied us for so many chess masterpieces.
@@Zilray LeBron is below Kareem I think. Kareem's eras got harder, LBJ's got softer. LBJ is like Westbrook, great at amassing stats, but not as good as Kareem and Russell at making your team win.
After hearing Magnus' Podcast and saying he's only good at short calculation (2-5 moves) and evaluating the position. Just how good is he? The fact that his moves relies mostly on intuition and still dominating is just pure talent.
Yeah but could have Brazil won the 1958 World Cup without Pele? No. That's the major difference: he alone won atleast 2 world cups (and I'm not even counting 1962, just to be fair).
@@TheVanillatech Fischer is my #1 as well. "If he had only had some stability", well yes, but I think the instability was a core attribute of him as a human being. It is the reason he was able to be so creative & also the reason why he quit. Without this instability he would not reach such a massive peak. It's a double edged sword for sure, but you can't really take it away from him in a hypothetical scenario, because it would also destroy the upside.
Similar to the sports GOAT arguments. You can only judge a player by how they performed against their competition. Give Gasparov enormous credit for his objective assessment.
I love how he explained how the newer generations are standing on the shoulders of the ones before them and the best way to make an assessment of who's better is to look at the gap between the person and the field. I say this all the time to my friends, and they never understand the point I'm making.
I see Magnus doing Morphy things, Tal things, with today's computer training, Magnus could be anyone in any given game. He is a combination of all chess knowlege up to this point in time. The difference between Magnus and the field is not so great seemingly however, he wins consistently not only in match play, but blitz, bullet, game 30, classical time format, 960, all of it.He considers himself a positional player, but often plays like Tal (LOL). Who can figure him out?
I disagree. I don't think Magnus is nearly as naturally talented as Tal was. In my opinion Magnus isn't even the most tactically talented chess player today. Ding Liren is better at tactics. If we look at the last two blitz games in the Sinquefield cup, Ding Liren beat Magnus with brilliant tactical play. Magnus on the other hand was relying on his positional play (especially more so in the first of those last two games where Magnus had the black pieces).
@@dirty7444 Magnus is not somebody you want to give an initiative to anytime in a game and even more than that, Magnus Carlsen is a strong endgame player (we could say like Botvannik) because his record proves that he can and has forced many players into endgame mistakes and won many games this way. He saced a bishop in the world championship match against Karjakin. That's brave man! He convinced me right there that he will do Tal stuff too and invite players to come after him if they can. Yes Ding is very impressive in every aspect of chess, I'm a fan of Ding also. I'm also a huge Nakamura fan because here in the US Nalamura opened royal cans of spank in chess before he ever went to Europe :-) Also Caruana is an impressive player and I am a fan of his any many others as well. Magnus is the world champion for a reason, and has held it for quite a while now. He's also winning a lot of tournaments too.
@@dirty7444 Magnus will play correct move after correct move. What is more tactical than that? Knowing what your opponent is up to, and taking measures to stop it may not look all that tactical, but it is. It also may be boring chess, but it is winning chess. The thing is that he is often able to overcome the rare mistake he makes, but hardly ever misses the opportunity to punish a mistake his opponent makes. Where does he rank all time? That is up for debate and purely subjective. I will say that the overall quality of chess and the amount of great players is better and more than at any time, but that doesn't automatically put him at the top...just the top of this generation. Each generation goes a little further having learned from the past, and most assuredly the next generation will be a little bit further along than Magnus, and the "who's the greatest" debate will add another name to discuss.
jamie t Sure, that’s the diamond level of tactics for sure, but it ain’t Tal. Just different times and different styles, overall I see Magnus as the slightly more talented but no one will ever play chess like Tal did.
@@NaderHGhanbari Tal was a 2700 player who was considered a risk taker style, kind of like Shirov, but could and did play every style of chess. Tal could not play against the top Grandmasters today in my opinion, because his unsound tactics would get punished by any of them. Could Fischer play today against our top GM's,? Yeah, no doubt because Fischer's creativity over the board, like Capablanca's, was something that can not be taught, but a gift comprised of raw talent and hard work. Fischer could see 20 moves deep and sometimes 30. Magnus Carlsen is more like Bobby Fischer mixed with Kramnik and a little Kasparov and Tal mixed in too. Magnus plays more novelties today than any other chess player, he is creative and works hard.
He starts his answers with benevolence but is really framing his response to make himself the best/correct. "I stayed on top for the longest", "I saw them all that's why", "he learned from me btw". All true statements but it reveals his insecurity
I admire Kasparov because he came at that time between old and new, no computers to AI capable of beating the best human players and he did it with style, passion and grace. It had to be very difficult to be the greatest and succumb to the wave of computers AI. So he is uniquely positioned to offer insight into those differing times.
Magnus played him to a draw when he was 12. The look on his face looking the board over was awesome. Awesome dude and loved his games. Brilliant attacker
Thanks for this highlight, interesting part of the interview. And it's great way to compare different masters as gap between them and their opponents in their times.
If you think about this information matter Morphy needs to be recognized as the greatest of all time, considering the era he played and the performance he had, he was super talented in all areas of the game.he was WAY ahead his time and all others players and with sooooo litlle information about chess in general
Will RevolutionArte Yes Avec i agree with your sentiment but you also have to factor in how much human potential was untapped in chess during Morphy’s time. That same gap in human potential just doesn’t exist today for the simple reason that chess is already played at such a high level by lots of people. Not many people played chess in Morphy’s time. In another example, think about Babe Ruth. He hit more hrs than entire teams in his day. That’s just not possible now because competition has evolved.
The crucial variable that needs to be accounted for across era's, which drastically reduces the case that can be made for Paul Morphy's being #1 of all time, is the competitiveness of the pool of players within that era. Paul Morphy's era was simply not that competitive yet. Although he is definitely great, I think Bobby Fischer's accomplishments put him at #1 over Paul Morphy simply because the era was very competitive already & he STILL managed to be extremely dominant. A dominance we have not seen since.
That's the coolest part for me. Magnus understands the game just like Fischer, if not more so, and he plays better positional chess than Karpov did. His endgame knowledge is head and shoulders above his peers and his drive to win is just enough to edge out wins in dry positions.
It proves that magnus learned a lot from his his predecessors (including kasparov), exact description should be "Magnus Carlsen is a Lethal Combination of Fischer, Karpov and Kasparov!
The last words of Kasporav was completely right. As of now we have engines and we have almost all the resources to learn but in 1990 there were books only and also he was the only 2800 rated player at that time
Which is to the detriment on what he's saying. It's much easier to have high rating against weaker players, if you're good. It's much harder when you have 50 2700+ players, any of which is very capable in their own right.
Well said by Garry Kasparov. You can only compare champions against their contemporaries. Certainly, Magnus is a great champion, as compared to his contemporaries.
@@santiagoarce5672 Exactly. The era needs to be competitive. This is why Fischer is my #1 (I don't care that much about the time that someone has been dominant for, I put greater value on the peak itself. Fischer's peak was simply incredible).
Carlsen is lethal combination of Fischer (genius, very fast), Karpov (gentleman, no mistakes, strategy), Kasparov (powerful, attacker) and Tal (attractive played games, nice combinations) :-) We would never believe someone could be better then them, but Carlsen come and give us clear answer.
Carlsen doesn't play neither too attackingly nor is his play anything like Tal's. Alireza Firouzja's play is most like Tal that i've seen in current chess.
If you're just looking at gaps with competitors, Morphy really stands out but that's so long ago and chess was no where near being as organized as the modern eras of Fisher, Kasparov and Carlsen.
The real ranking of the greatest is to bring him to the future time period and evaluate the abilities. For example if you bring Fischer to our time period and he had access to computer analysis and new information about the game how would he play? I say his rating would be at 2950. Therefore the best player.
I will never tire of this game because I play every match with Tal's philosophy. Mikhail Tal > Quotes “You must take your opponent into a deep dark forest where 2+2=5, and the path leading out is only wide enough for one.” ... “There are two types of sacrifices: correct ones, and mine.” “To play for a draw, at any rate with white, is to some degree a crime against chess.” Forever grateful Mr Tal.
3:34 that's a very strong argument. We stand on the shoulder's of giants. And Gary is one of the shoulder's that we stand on, but if Gary stood on that shoulder alongside Magnus, where would he stand? Idk, but it's different.
Strange Kasparov didn’t mention Capablanca as an example of dominance, which lasted much longer than Fischer’s. Going back in time, one could even mention Philidor.
Kasparov makes Fischer sound like a technical endgame player, which he certainly could be, but Fischer's style is very confrontational and he's mostly known for using tactics to achieve positional advantages (especially checkmate) not so much grinding technically like Kramnik.
Interesting - I just this minute watched an interview between Bobby Fischer and Johnny Carlson, and Fischer said exactly the same thing as Kasparov did about the important of physical health and fitness for chess players.
Kasparov is still the GOAT, for now. Magnus' history is on running yet. But Pelé's history by no means can be reduced to the 1970 world cup! He stayed long time at the top and produced the most incredible stats and beautiful moves, just like Kasparov in chess.
I respect the great chess minds just so much. It's amazing what they can do. They can memorize thousands of classic games and remember every move IN ORDER. That just blows my mind. It would be tough for most people to memorize ONE game even if they had several days to do it. Not only that but they can play blindfolded against several opponents at once and have the board memorized exactly for each player. Just picturing the board against ONE player and never forgetting how it looks and be ab le to plan moves from it would be hard enough. But add doing this for 2, 3, 4 or 5 boards and never mixing up the order of the moves on any board is just behind my level of comprehension. OPf course they also have the3 ability to thing several moves ahead and weight the probabilities of success of all the moves and all the possible opponents moves which turns into thousands of potential board situations the more moves ahead you can think. Unreal.
This is a clip from a conversation with Garry Kasparov from Oct 2019. New full episodes once or twice a week and 1-2 new clips or a new non-podcast video on all other days. If you enjoy it, subscribe, comment, and share. You can watch the full conversation here: ruclips.net/video/8RVa0THWUWw/видео.html
(more links below)
Podcast full episodes playlist:
ruclips.net/p/PLrAXtmErZgOdP_8GztsuKi9nrraNbKKp4
Podcasts clips playlist:
ruclips.net/p/PLrAXtmErZgOeciFP3CBCIEElOJeitOr41
Podcast website:
lexfridman.com/ai
Podcast on Apple Podcasts (iTunes):
apple.co/2lwqZIr
Podcast on Spotify:
spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
Podcast RSS:
lexfridman.com/category/ai/feed/
Hi Lex, I recommend you invite Prof. Anwar Shaikh to your podcast. He can talk about the parallels and limits of economics and physics, and more importantly, he wrote a fabulous book recently (1,000 pages) providing an alternative to mainstream theory in explaining capitalism. You can see his lectures online to get an idea.
A big compliments to Magnus Carlsen
Proceeds to go in a Losing streak few day After this interview
I read this in my mind with your voice.
You a bad interviewer!
Does anyone have the reference of the study that Kasparov referred to regarding burning the calories?
I like the way Kasparov talks about his own achievements without false modesty and also without boastfulness. He's asked a question and he answers it.
Comes with age I think
I think he came across a bit defensive about his own achievements at the end.
Brilliant comment. He was so truthful in his response. His honestly commands authentic respect
GMeazza Thing is that Garry can’t say much without sounding arrogant. I’ll say this for him. If Garry had all of today’s resources at age 28, he would compete with Magnus today at age 28. Fischer, Kasparov and Carlsen stand alone for the rating gap they enjoyed over their competition.
RaniaIsAwesome He’s been rated World #1 since 2010. He’s won WCC four times. He won Wijk eight times. He’s currently WCC in all time controls. WTF does he have to do to please you!? Either your trolling or you can’t research it yourself. Either way, I don’t care.
Hearing Kasparov talk about Karpov with such respect makes me tear up
Karpov is a great guy and a good sportsman afterall
It was because of Karpov that Kasparov strived to get better. He knew he had to prepare way beyond the levels of other GMs of those times for facing Karpov. That's what made him legendary..
Their first match was basically Karpov schooling Gary till the later surpassed the teacher by the end of match
same
Karpov's game n style is pretty much one of the most studied..
*"From 1986 until his retirement in 2005, Kasparov was ranked world No. 1 for 225 out of 228 months."*
DAAAAAAAMN!
One of the reasons of his quiting is the shock that Magnus brought to his face when Magnus was 13 years old
@@bahasainggrisbersamamradi9308 No way the biggest hit to his confidence was losing the WC to Kramnik and he didn't even win one game. btw the MC vs GK game ended in a draw iirc.
@@dannygjk Actually they played 2 games, one win for Kasparov and one draw
@@dimitrism.1814 3 games acutally, 2 wins for kas and 1 draw
Wesley: So?
I came as a Magnus fan.
I left with an understanding of why previous generations regard Garry as the greatest.
Please, don't forget Fischer. No engines (or so weak), learning Russian and all the Grand Masters games. When he beat Spassky, Spassky had an army of GMs to help him.
@Jack park Yes!
Jules Moyaert fishers biggest downfall was himself. only a 1 year peak, but that peak may have been the best out of any chess player ever
@@bassesatta9235 Agreed.
@@Nonesovile96 MJ the GOAT
Who is the best chess player?
Garry kasparov: Maradona
If in world cup he used hand then in chess he used his legs to move pieces
@x33mmm you will get it some day
@@toilaconhaisam3037 I dont know too much about chess but in fotball if we talk SKILL pele is not even top 20 and Messi is way above Maradona, sure ppl are comparing them but theres no comparation and its not because Messi plays now and Maradona played back in the day....and yeah i would put Cristiano above Maradona as well its as simple as that!
@@tiagomota4734 when did i talk about pele or Maradona vs messi?
Maradona was the culmination of talent combined with hard work and cocaine. Maybe Stu Ungar could compete ;-) There simply has only been one Maradona in soccer and I highly doubt we'll see another one. He was the best ever and still cheated to make sure he won. I have a passionate hate for cheaters but somehow I still want to give Maradona a pass...
"Because I stand over the shoulders of giants I can see further than them"
Isaac Newton
Of course the newer generations are better than the previous ones!!! Great point by Kasparov. Comparing players from different times is pointless.
"If I see further than others, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants." - Newton
I always ask "was the player dominant in his era"? That is all you can look at because each era is so different. The next generation will be the first to have been tutored and aided exclusively with computers as the dominant factor. Chess will look the same, but it will be a very different game at the highest levels. Who ever comes to dominate the next era will become another name in the "who is the greatest" debate.
Chess version:
“Because I stand over the shoulders of engines, I can see farther than giants”
@@nikoyochum6974 it took over 400 years of chess games, before a chess engine could learn to evaluate a given position.
Alex Rodriguez because computers of any substantial computing power have only existed for a few decades. Engines have entirely changed the way chess is played.
Also, chess engines (outside of very few such as A0 and LC0) didn’t “learn” how to evaluate positions, they were programmed.
As someone that barely understands chess, I gotta say, you chess players (including amateurs) are some of the most civil and coherent people I've ever seen/heard. The youtube comment sections of youtube videos (related to chess) are always a great read!
Check out PowerPlayChess of Grandmaster Daniel King! ruclips.net/user/PowerPlayChess
Haha. You should come see and play the chess hustlers in Union Square, NYC. Some of the best shit talkers I have heard!
😄 you didn't come across a comment section on a tournament video where everyone says "it's a coughing competition"? 😀😀😀
The no2 calls his paens juicers , u dhould check out hikarus channel
*laughs in chess drama*
Kasparov dropping so much philosophy and knowledge without worrying about sounding pompous. This guy is legit.
His mentality would be well suited in chess. He should play himself.
Such a gentleman, he answered the question acknowledging his own achievements without fake modestly and highlighting the skills of Carlsen, Fischer, Capa Blanca and even his eternal rival Karpov. Great mindset of Kasparow I agree totally with him
Gary is a class act on and off the chess board.
If only Capa had the work ethic of Alekhine or Botvinnik he would have been the very best ever!
kasparov*
I admire Kasparov for his analytical skills and not just his chess skills. He doesnt oversimplify questions and issues and instead probes further to come to a deeper understanding/perspective.
More than anything. Gary always manages to refocuse the sometimes vague questions in an incredible neutral way
Very good interviewee
He has a 180iq
Just imagine
He formulates arguments the way he plays chess
he is incredibly precise, like his style of playing lol
@@arnavrawat9864 fake stats
Garry stands head and shoulders above his era, and when he reached 2851 he was 80 points better than Anand. Magnus also stands clearly above his, he was 67 points higher than Aronian at his peak. This interview is funny because while Garry is being both rational and modest, it is clear some part of him wants to say, "C'mon, we all know I'm best."
His point is a great one though, it's impossible to compare eras. That's true of all sports, but especially so in chess, where players literally become stronger on the backs of those that came before them.
@Peasant Scrublord nah you cant say, Carlsen has had the opportunity to study the gmaes of Fisher,Kasparov,Karpov,Anand etc etc great GMs that fischer never did. He has access to a lot more material
lets remember though, even while once garry's student Carlsen has been quoted saying he aims to play like Fischer. So without directly saying so it's clear who Carlsen thinks is stronger.
Fischer had a meteoric rise, but the simple fact is he never defended his title. That's why Kasparov rightly says his reign was more impressive. Carlsen is what we would have gotten if Fischer stayed and fought, which makes him the true greatest of all time.
Honestly, I think in sports, a lot will be improvements in technology (better equipment) - there's probably a limit running speed, jump height etc and we're probably pretty close to it. In chess, the ceiling is way above chess GMs (AlphaZero, Stockfish etc) so a new generation can have players that are significantly improved.
Also one important factor is that study becomes more and more important than discovery with the years changing the kind of player that floats to the top.
Garry managed to avoid being obnoxious in this. I think I agree with everything he said.
LOL... I just commented about how obnoxious he is. :P
Sorry
@Dimo exactly!! i thought the same.
Is he wrong in saying that, though? “Valuable” is qualitative and relative but “way ahead of the rest of the flock” is pretty quantitative and obvious.
@Dimo Yep. Plenty of humble bragging here!
@Dimo What he said is truth
He's describing the way Magnus plays like someone describes a martial art.
Or war.
@@firewalk7 or joe
@@genericusername4206 Mama?
chess is much tougher than mma for sure
@@yakonlap what😂
I really like Kasparov's description of Carlsen's style and strength as a combination of Fischer's and Karpov's styles and strengths. It's a accurate description.
So glad you agree
@@garbanzogarbanzo2760 Are you trying to suggest that Kasparov is somehow angry at Kramnik? He praises Fischer all the time, and although they never played, Fischer insulted and attacked Kasparov far more than anyone did, calling him an idiot, a thug, a dirty jew, a gangster and an actor. If he was petty enough to hate on Kramnik for losing to him, he'd hate on Fischer as well since Fischer treated him like shit, and he would hate Karpov as well since he lost to him in 1984 too.
But the greatest player none other than himself.
In an unsolved intellectual sport like chess the greats always stand on the shoulders of the greats that came before them when it comes to how well they play the board. The only way to really compare them is how dominant they were in their time, given that in those times everybody is playing with relatively the same information and orthodox their contemporaries are playing. Kasparov couldn't have said it better, and basically explained the essence of any sport that could be mathematically Elo rated. The most recent world champ in their prime will likely always be better than those before.
What grinds my gears though, is the difference of being dominant in an era where the study of high level chess was mostly accessible to a scholarly few, and being dominant in the internet era when there's millions of talented people studying the games of GMs and even learning directly from watching them play live on the internet. The "big fish on a small pond" problem. Is it significant enough to make a difference in that regard?
@@ElShogoso this is a very good point, and it’s akin to the arguments in other sports when talking about competition levels have only gotten better and better over time, but I still do agree that because it is based on information and knowledge rather than just physical prowess there is a level of difficulty in straight up comparing different generations
@@ElShogoso I don't think it's significant for dominance but it is for gap.
I tried to get good at chess in the early 80's as a young family man. Staying up all night some nights playing blitz in our small local club etc.. I studied games from magazines if I could.
To see what a burgeoning young Kramnik was doing took actual study. And no one to explain it to me like Levy or Antonio or even Hikaru would today. Explanations by Hikaru now? Way different.
I saved up for a bit to buy a "Encyclopedia of Middle Games" and its still on the shelf over there. Thought about giving it to my grandson but he can watch Ding's magical checkmate in real time or with commentary.
The sheer practice repetition that GM's do online today must make a huge difference and comparing to those who never could do that but needed flesh and blood guys across the board to play? That would ruin any comparisons really.
No, computers know very little chess but they play better than anyone else. Therefore the way to see the greatness of each world champion is to give their games to a good computer to give us a correct rating. It is strange that no one has performed such a task.
Bent Larsen made a similar point once; he called Philidor the greatest chess player of all times because he was at least 50 years ahead of his time in his understanding of the game.
Yeah Bent was pretty good himself, but sadly is mostly remembered as a victim in Fishers amazing slaughterfest of 20 consecutive wins in 1971 isch.
@@barath4545 To me that Candidates run of Fischer is a greater achievement than his World championship Match. It would be unheard of for someone to win 20 consecutive classical timed games against top ten players in the world right now. I couldn't imagine Magnus doing that.
I wonder how far ahead Paul Morphy was compared to the rest of the world.
@@RUclips_Globetrotter also very far, but back in Morphy's day chess wasn't anywhere close to being a professional discipline. they didn't even use time control / chess clocks. it was a hobby - and chess wasn't really sych such a big exception back in the 19th century, most professional (or even organized) sports disciplines were still in their infancy.
of course you can always turn the table on that argument: since the general playing level was rather low, it's all the more impressive for Morphy to attain master strength, since he didn't even have proper opponents to practice on.
there's truth to this too, my point is not that Morphy was less dominant than Fischer or vice versa, but that this is an "apples vs oranges" type of comparison because their eras were so very unlike
@@vibovitoldAnyway, the style in which Morphy played is still legendary to this day.
He probably is one of the reasons why chess became something more than a hobby!
GK has a typical Russian accent except when he says "you know" where he morphs into a Brit...
He's not Russian, though.
Azerbaijani...i stand corrected..
@@notoverlyacerbic9574 Also, hes not Azerbaijani
Azerbaijani Jew, to be quite correct.
@@contra1138 You know, hes an international human. His father was jew, mother was armenian, hes born in Azerbaijan, but live in Russia. But now hes living in the US.
You've got to love the legend Kasparov. He is right. There is a player who lived more than a 100 years ago called Morphy. They didn't have chess engines, computers, studies, websites, and it was difficult to find a chess master, let alone play against one, yet his genius and creativity were unbelievable, so that world champions like Carlson and Kasparov all studied his games when they were learning chess. How do you get to say that he is less than any contemporary champion?
Only Morphy and Capablanca played chess for fun. The others have played chess dedicating their lives to the game. Morphy was damaged in the nervous system, like Pillsbury and Fischer. On the other hand, Capablanca went from "flower to flower" until his last days.
M
I like how they talk about greatest players in football as an analogy. Kasparov is always a treat to listen to.
I agree. I love his intensity and enthusiasm. He is a very engaging conversationalist.
@RaniaIsAwesomemaradona’s peak was 1985-1991
He wasn’t as consistent as Messi or Ronaldo
When great Kasparov speaks, everybody listens. He is damn right. Magnus is a lethal combination of both and above all, his swag is above par. He took chess to all new different level.
@@goji1928 You don't sound like it. Magnus has the highest FIDE rating of all-time so he did in fact take chess mastery to a new level. Nobody cares about engines. People don't care that Usain Bolt can't outrun a Prius going 28 mph. They only care about his ability to outrun other great human athletes.
We can hear what he says but he was still beaten by someone no one would consider in the group of the 10 greatest of all time.
kasparov is amazing at seeing things from a clear outside angle even when he's looking at himself!
that is a sign of a great mind.
Also the fact that he's written an extensive series of books about the history of chess and the playing styles of the masters of previous generations gives him the ability to take that perspective. Which is why he is so good at answering this very question.
Kasparov is a high genius. Its pretty fantastic to hear him talking about Pele and Maradona :)
Yep, but I think the World Cup argument is moot: Messi is so ahead of the rest of the field (except for Cristiano) in a far greater gap than Diego or Pelé were. This gap is not necesarily in terms of level (Neymar, Mbappe, Lewandosky, Dinho, Kaká, Gordonaldo, Laudrup, Bergkamp, Ribéry, Suárez, Neuer and Xavi come into mind as players who were very close to their level at least one season) but in terms of consistency neither Diego nor Pelé can't compete with Messi and Cristiano. I put ahead Messi due to his longevity tho (he is slowing down less quick than Cristiano).
@Rodrigo Odon Salcedo Cisneros Sorry, but Messi isn't even in the same realm as Pele. The World Cup argument is absolutely on point. Pele, like Jordan, was an inspiration and raised the level of his teammates and achieved ultimate victory. Messi has had the opportunities, but failed to deliver. Messi is so overrated. His skill and character and legacy and accomplishments are all a shadow under Pele's brilliance. There is no comparison.
@@rodrigoodonsalcedocisneros9266 ahhahahahahahahahahah what, CR7 better than Maradona or Pelé? People are crazy these days...
@@jnananinja7436 messi is far far superior to Pele
I like this Kasparov. When talking about who was the greatest between Fischer and him, its very objective and ego free.
I remember watching Kasparov vs Karpov on PBS as a kid. Always rooted for Kasparov. Good to see him healthy.
Me too, but as Karpov´s fan :-)
I wasn't rooting for Kasparov, but against Karpov. I didn't like how Karpov was helped against Korchnoi by Soviet government persecution, and helped by FIDE in the 1984 WCC match.
@@GrislyAtoms12 Ya Karpov had a big unofficial team helping him.
@@dannygjk Hi Dan. It's like you say, it was his unofficial team (because he was a hero of the Communists). If it were just other chess GMs helping, then no big deal. Karpov was a great player, but from the eyes of many Westerners (citizens of democracy) the "optics" were bad.
@@GrislyAtoms12 It pissed me off that Karpov had such support and Korchnoi barely had any help. I bet if it was fair Korchnoi would have won one of their matches.
Kasparov has become a true hero of mine. How well he talks about Chess, and many other things as well! When Kasparov was younger, he perhaps wasn't the nicest person. But he has matured into a very wise and brave man.
I love that Kasparov takes a historic look at the question. All of these "ranking" questions seem to be more descriptive of those being asked than those being ranked.
This guy was way ahead of anything in his area... I totally like listening to his voice of speaking chess when he grow up. This is so inspirational!
You need to lookup Kasparov'a birth name to know how close he is to Lex. Same clan of liars and cheats. Prearranged games. Prearranged interviews. Con artists.
This guy switched from messi to Maradona so quick 😂😂😂
In the blink of an eye , that rascal.
He got nervous when asked by greatest chess player of all time.
Genuine Pele move.
@@5eA5 Underrated comment
@@5eA5 lol
You've gotta admit that Gary gave a good thought-out answer.
But you know he's been asked that alot.
@@eddarby469 yeah but so have people like magnus and other top gms and even people like levy, he gave a super clean answer that really shows what u have to take into consideration unlike just about anyone else.
@@autosemimatic6071 his football take was pretty bad for anyone who knows the sport after all in chess you win or lose all on your own
Kasparov was far ahead of his time when he was rated 2851 Elo points 20 years ago, which would be certainly over 2900 in today's standards.
Possibly* definetly not certainly
I never watched any of garry's games or interviews, but after this I understand why he is considered one of the GOATs
Garry is such a wonderfully intelligent man. How he describes Fischer and Karpov, it invokes my passion for chess- I get that warm fuzzy feeling.
Precise. The way Gary answered the question reminds of him on the chess board. I really do not mind if he brings him into the analysis as he is one of the greatest of all time and very few individuals are qualified to judge him. He is a legend and listening from him is a learning experience.
Both Kasparov and Carlsen are the greatest but personally I love Tal who made chess entertaining....
Based on raw talent alone, it’s hard to argue against Morphy. I personally think that the dude had an IQ over 200.
If you like Tal you should watch games by Nezhmetdinov.
@@simpsonzack22 Yes. Morphy was playing like some supercomputer 150 years ago!
@tom donoughue Pretty sure that engine analysis shows that Morphy was still incredibly accurate though. The level of play he faced was low because everyone loved their unsound sacrifices and opening theory wasn't a thing. He refuted everything, and could never be refuted. They may as well have been playing a chess engine brought back from today.
@@DrakodanSRL steinitz was very strong also they played each other. morphy won but it was very tight. wouldn't say morphy is like computer.
No matter what Kasparov you will always be legend of chess. Bless you and your family!
GM Kasparov is not just chess player but intellectual. He deserves to be listened to! Maybe GM Magnus will share and teach as much as this man one day.
One of the greatest pleasures in life is listening to someone well considered talk about something in which they are well versed. Thank you for the video.
Well said yourself
Mr. Kasparov, wonderful and insightful commentary, I learned a lot from what you said. Not only in chess but also in any other profession, or even for life in general. Thank you.
For once a sane and rational answer to a "Who's the GOAT in *insert sport*?" question!
Gary was truly soo good for soo long. He has to be right at the top
Had Fischer kept on competing (and not been such a wackjob) he would have crossed 2800 by 1980 - a greater feat than Kasparov doing it in 1990. Fischer was 2785 in 1972, a rating good enough to be top 5 today. He was way ahead of the field and the most dominant player of all time. His back-to-back wins against top GM's in set matches (Candidates), without even conceding a draw, will never be equaled.
Very well said by the living legend..he answered the question with exquisite finnese! Long live Gary Kasparov!
I think he gave a brilliant answer, which applies to all sports, when he said the answer to the GOAT question is largely generational, not only in advanced technology, but also depending on who you ask, from what age group, and who was the greatest when they reached an age where they could comprehend and appreciate greatness. So if you ask younger chess players today, they will overwhelmingly choose the player who made the greatest impression on them NOW (or when they were at that impressionable age), therefore in Chess they will choose Magnus. Ask someone from the prior generation and they probably say Kasparov. Ask someone much older and they will probably say Bobby Fischer. It depends on who you ask and who DOMINATED when they reached that impressionable age. Young people today might say LeBron in Basketball. Ask Gen X and they say Jordan. Ask Boomers and they might say Wilt Chamberlain. Same goes for Boxing or most other sports. So IMO that was a very insightful response. I also like that he said it's hard to compare generations because each generation has access to greater training and information. The proper way to judge it, he said, is by how wide the gap was between #1 and all of their peers. You can also consider longevity, though I personally place a greater emphasis on the former, but all of his replies were quite astute.
if there was a way to quantify that “gap” the better quantitative approach to measuring someone’s greatness is the average of the gap of that players skill to his peers each year to also account for longevity (hope i made sense)
@@lamelo3998 Head-to-head records against the key opponents help. These identify Lasker, Capablanca, Fischer, Kasparov, Carlsen as the strongest players who played the game - with Kasparov arguably the strongest of the 5. Alekhine and Karpov also have very strong records, and champions like Anand, Kramnik or Botvinnik are not far off.
But also players who never became champions had strong head-to-head records, such as Samuel Reshevsky, who was the lone challenger to the combined Soviet force in the 1950s, or Akiba Rubinstein, who played a brilliant third fiddle to Lasker and Capablanca in the 1910s/20s.
One of the best head-to-head records of all time, if not the best, has Paul Morphy, but he played competitive chess for only a couple of years and played only a handful of strong players (Anderssen, Harrwitz, Loewenthal, Paulsen). Hence it is hard to compare him. Other players with brilliant but (too) short records are Harry Pillsbury and Reuben Fine.
In some sports, I find the question straight out hilarious. For example, motorsports, like say Formula 1. How are you supposed to say who's the goat when they were racing in completely different machinery, completely different track layouts, and completely different qualitity of opponents?
In the case of chess, not only is the resources available a factor, but I also think the access to high quality matchmaking is a huge one. You have a much bigger pool of talented players, all playing on the internet, being able to play an absurd number of games per month. Also having easy access to all the accumulated knowledge of the sport, all the support chess computers can give, all the educational advice of grand masters streaming hours of their gameplay almost daily for everyone to see. It increases the quality of the entire sport.
01:59 "Magnus Carlsen is a Lethal Combination of Fischer and Karpov"
That's quite an accolade!
I love that! Never heard that comparison!
GK is a former WCh but I'll go out on a limb and imo Carlsen is closer to a combination of Capa and Petrosian. I even call Carlsen Capa 2.0.
That's an incredible chess compliment!
@@dannygjk . hmm
I think Bobby was the best ever. Was happy to hear Gary hold him in high esteem as a chess player as well. Gary has real class.
Yeah, me too, but then again, he didn't even try to defend his title against Karpov, and we'll never know what would have happened if that match had been realized. It looks like that Bobby had a huge fear of losing, and that his fear of losing became greater then the joy of winning. And he new that Karpov was something else from anybody he played before. Russian chess federation selected a player with a playing style which would suit Fischer the least, and who would thus have the best chances to beat Fischer. It's worth knowing that Karpov was way better than Spassky, (who Bobby beat in Reykjavik 12 1/2 : 8 1/2), and that Karpov beat Spassky 13 to 1, with 23 draws, which is just extraordinary!!! So, Bobby's preparation for the match with Karpov should have been much tougher as he had never played him before.
Karpov met with Fischer to negotiate a possible match in 1975. The New York Times did an article about their meeting. Karpov said that he had no doubt that Fischer was not afraid of him or of losing to him. Although Karpov has spoken of the meeting he did not confirm that they played chess with each other during the visit but others who Karpov spoke with said they did.
@@theUroshman Spassky said that it didn’t matter if Karpov or anyone else challenged Bobby because they would all lose.
@@theUroshman
1. I don't think Karpov's style would have been particularly hard for Fischer. Karpov liked very logical, methodical, clean, grinding chess, which was to Fischer's taste as well.
2. Karpov was better than Spassky, but had no experience playing a WC match. Experience plays a big role in such match.
3. Karpov didn't have strongest nerves nor stamina (as evidenced by his match with Kasparov later on), and a war of nerves would be even harder for him than it was for Spassky.
if Fischer negotiated what would be essentially a long match, Karpov's chances would be decreasing the longer the match would go on, wearing him down.
4. Especially since Karpov would be under TREMENDOUS pressure from the Soviet authorities, because they'd categorically demand that he 'avenges' Spassky's defeat.
5. And note that Karpov, as brilliant as he was, had NEVER reached Fischer's peak rating.
For these reasons while I don't deny Karpov would be a very tough nut to crack, I still think Fischer would have won in 1975.
However it's not like Karpov would disappear. He'd keep on coming back, and might finally beat Fischer (who was almost a decade older after all) in the next cycle, or the one after that.
Interestingly this could cause a domino effect of sorts, creating an even stronger, hardened Karpov. In this timeline Kasparov crashes into a "turbo-Karpov on steroids" (beefed up on his rivalry with Fischer), which he takes emotionally, loses the first match, and even if Kasparov ultimately prevails, his reign is shorter and less dominant. They're both regarded as GOATs, but they sort of swap places - Kasparov ends up in Karpov's shadow.
@@vibovitold Very good analysis, my friend! I agree with all of it, except No1. Karpov was prepared especially for Fischer, as he wouldn't have given him much space for all that Fischer was famous for. Basically, no weakness in a position and no risky business = no chances for Fischer to do his magic. So, it would basically come up to who blinks first, with tons of draws. Everything else would have played probably as you described. Too bad for everyone that that match wasn't realised in the end. Paranoid Fischer, who was in hiding for the rest of his life (except for his rematch with Spassky in Yugoslvia) and the chess federation, which didn't accept his demands which weren't so unreasonable after all, denied us for so many chess masterpieces.
Interesting because it’s like hearing Michael Jordan ask who was the greatest of all time.
He'll never answer explicitly but he will always bring up the Bull's 6 championships as an indirect answer
@@mugiwara-no-luffy But then again Russell won more rings. I think Kareem is the best due to dominance and adaptability.
@@rodrigoodonsalcedocisneros9266 what about lebron?
@@Zilray LeBron is below Kareem I think. Kareem's eras got harder, LBJ's got softer. LBJ is like Westbrook, great at amassing stats, but not as good as Kareem and Russell at making your team win.
After hearing Magnus' Podcast and saying he's only good at short calculation (2-5 moves) and evaluating the position. Just how good is he? The fact that his moves relies mostly on intuition and still dominating is just pure talent.
Great Kasparov 👏🏻. Also, thank you for saying that Brazil could have still won 1970 without Pele. That team was simply monstrous even without Pele.
Yeah but could have Brazil won the 1958 World Cup without Pele? No. That's the major difference: he alone won atleast 2 world cups (and I'm not even counting 1962, just to be fair).
Kasparov is the best playes of all time imo. His games were just insane for his time
Fischer in my opinion. If he had only had some stability and not been too aflicted by his genius, and the political environment of the times.
It's him Fischer and Carlsen as the top three, the only thing up for debate is which order they should be in.
@@TheVanillatech Fischer is my #1 as well. "If he had only had some stability", well yes, but I think the instability was a core attribute of him as a human being. It is the reason he was able to be so creative & also the reason why he quit. Without this instability he would not reach such a massive peak. It's a double edged sword for sure, but you can't really take it away from him in a hypothetical scenario, because it would also destroy the upside.
@@kNowFixx Genius and madness are common bedfellows, for sure.
Kasparov was a beast!
I love this answer. It's a great answer for any "GOAT" discussion for any game/sport.
Similar to the sports GOAT arguments. You can only judge a player by how they performed against their competition. Give Gasparov enormous credit for his objective assessment.
I love how he explained how the newer generations are standing on the shoulders of the ones before them and the best way to make an assessment of who's better is to look at the gap between the person and the field. I say this all the time to my friends, and they never understand the point I'm making.
This Kasparov dude sounds like he knows a lot about chess.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha
🤣🤣😋
@therainman777 you’re a dumb, played out person.
“Therainman” lol you absolute muppet.
Never heard of him. Googled his name and got _No results found for_ *Gary Kasparov*
He’s a beginner
Messi Won The World Cup now so it would be interesting to know where Garry would put Messi in All Time Greatest List!!
Fischer and Morphy had the greatest dedication for chess,what can be called obsession.
I see Magnus doing Morphy things, Tal things, with today's computer training, Magnus could be anyone in any given game. He is a combination of all chess knowlege up to this point in time. The difference between Magnus and the field is not so great seemingly however, he wins consistently not only in match play, but blitz, bullet, game 30, classical time format, 960, all of it.He considers himself a positional player, but often plays like Tal (LOL). Who can figure him out?
I disagree. I don't think Magnus is nearly as naturally talented as Tal was. In my opinion Magnus isn't even the most tactically talented chess player today. Ding Liren is better at tactics. If we look at the last two blitz games in the Sinquefield cup, Ding Liren beat Magnus with brilliant tactical play. Magnus on the other hand was relying on his positional play (especially more so in the first of those last two games where Magnus had the black pieces).
@@dirty7444 Magnus is not somebody you want to give an initiative to anytime in a game and even more than that, Magnus Carlsen is a strong endgame player (we could say like Botvannik) because his record proves that he can and has forced many players into endgame mistakes and won many games this way. He saced a bishop in the world championship match against Karjakin. That's brave man! He convinced me right there that he will do Tal stuff too and invite players to come after him if they can. Yes Ding is very impressive in every aspect of chess, I'm a fan of Ding also. I'm also a huge Nakamura fan because here in the US Nalamura opened royal cans of spank in chess before he ever went to Europe :-) Also Caruana is an impressive player and I am a fan of his any many others as well. Magnus is the world champion for a reason, and has held it for quite a while now. He's also winning a lot of tournaments too.
@@dirty7444 Magnus will play correct move after correct move. What is more tactical than that? Knowing what your opponent is up to, and taking measures to stop it may not look all that tactical, but it is. It also may be boring chess, but it is winning chess. The thing is that he is often able to overcome the rare mistake he makes, but hardly ever misses the opportunity to punish a mistake his opponent makes.
Where does he rank all time? That is up for debate and purely subjective. I will say that the overall quality of chess and the amount of great players is better and more than at any time, but that doesn't automatically put him at the top...just the top of this generation. Each generation goes a little further having learned from the past, and most assuredly the next generation will be a little bit further along than Magnus, and the "who's the greatest" debate will add another name to discuss.
jamie t Sure, that’s the diamond level of tactics for sure, but it ain’t Tal. Just different times and different styles, overall I see Magnus as the slightly more talented but no one will ever play chess like Tal did.
@@NaderHGhanbari Tal was a 2700 player who was considered a risk taker style, kind of like Shirov, but could and did play every style of chess. Tal could not play against the top Grandmasters today in my opinion, because his unsound tactics would get punished by any of them. Could Fischer play today against our top GM's,? Yeah, no doubt because Fischer's creativity over the board, like Capablanca's, was something that can not be taught, but a gift comprised of raw talent and hard work. Fischer could see 20 moves deep and sometimes 30. Magnus Carlsen is more like Bobby Fischer mixed with Kramnik and a little Kasparov and Tal mixed in too. Magnus plays more novelties today than any other chess player, he is creative and works hard.
This man's humility and modesty in light of his amazing achievements makes him that much greater a person.
He's a petulant child But he's also a sneak and people don't pick up on his passive aggression.
He starts his answers with benevolence but is really framing his response to make himself the best/correct. "I stayed on top for the longest", "I saw them all that's why", "he learned from me btw". All true statements but it reveals his insecurity
Wow that level of respect right there from a Chess World Legend Garry Kasparov to this generation’s chess legend Magnus Carlsen.
I admire Kasparov because he came at that time between old and new, no computers to AI capable of beating the best human players and he did it with style, passion and grace. It had to be very difficult to be the greatest and succumb to the wave of computers AI. So he is uniquely positioned to offer insight into those differing times.
Kasparov was known to keep handwritten notebooks as part of his research and preparation prior to and during tournaments.
Magnus played him to a draw when he was 12. The look on his face looking the board over was awesome. Awesome dude and loved his games. Brilliant attacker
Thanks for this highlight, interesting part of the interview. And it's great way to compare different masters as gap between them and their opponents in their times.
Garry was one hell of a player. They way he was dominant in this game was unbelievable. He was probably the Paul Murphy of last century
Don't know how good Murphy was, but Morphy was pretty good too.
If you think about this information matter Morphy needs to be recognized as the greatest of all time, considering the era he played and the performance he had, he was super talented in all areas of the game.he was WAY ahead his time and all others players and with sooooo litlle information about chess in general
Will RevolutionArte Yes Avec i agree with your sentiment but you also have to factor in how much human potential was untapped in chess during Morphy’s time. That same gap in human potential just doesn’t exist today for the simple reason that chess is already played at such a high level by lots of people. Not many people played chess in Morphy’s time. In another example, think about Babe Ruth. He hit more hrs than entire teams in his day. That’s just not possible now because competition has evolved.
The crucial variable that needs to be accounted for across era's, which drastically reduces the case that can be made for Paul Morphy's being #1 of all time, is the competitiveness of the pool of players within that era. Paul Morphy's era was simply not that competitive yet. Although he is definitely great, I think Bobby Fischer's accomplishments put him at #1 over Paul Morphy simply because the era was very competitive already & he STILL managed to be extremely dominant. A dominance we have not seen since.
The fact that he describes Magnus as *"lethal combination"*
That's the coolest part for me. Magnus understands the game just like Fischer, if not more so, and he plays better positional chess than Karpov did. His endgame knowledge is head and shoulders above his peers and his drive to win is just enough to edge out wins in dry positions.
It proves that magnus learned a lot from his his predecessors (including kasparov), exact description should be "Magnus Carlsen is a Lethal Combination of Fischer, Karpov and Kasparov!
The last words of Kasporav was completely right. As of now we have engines and we have almost all the resources to learn but in 1990 there were books only and also he was the only 2800 rated player at that time
Which is to the detriment on what he's saying. It's much easier to have high rating against weaker players, if you're good. It's much harder when you have 50 2700+ players, any of which is very capable in their own right.
I could listen to Kasparov talk about anything. As fast and dynamic and sharp as his play.
Well said by Garry Kasparov. You can only compare champions against their contemporaries. Certainly, Magnus is a great champion, as compared to his contemporaries.
I heard several super grandmasters saying “ when we see Carlsen playing we just see another Karpov.
Right, never make mistakes as Karpov, but Carlsen is much more aggresive - as Fischer, for example :-)
It’s funny watching him play magnus as a child 😂
I like the way he put it: How far ahead is the player beyond his cohorts. Capablanca and Fischer (and Morphy) score high on that criterion, IMO.
Yeah but there's also the factor of there just not being as many players. Like in Morphy's time
@@santiagoarce5672 Exactly. The era needs to be competitive. This is why Fischer is my #1 (I don't care that much about the time that someone has been dominant for, I put greater value on the peak itself. Fischer's peak was simply incredible).
Carlsen is lethal combination of Fischer (genius, very fast), Karpov (gentleman, no mistakes, strategy), Kasparov (powerful, attacker) and Tal (attractive played games, nice combinations) :-) We would never believe someone could be better then them, but Carlsen come and give us clear answer.
Carlsen doesn't play neither too attackingly nor is his play anything like Tal's. Alireza Firouzja's play is most like Tal that i've seen in current chess.
3:43 as an example of the goats of a sport Kasparov mentions messi, pele and maradona for football. No more questions your honour.
If you're just looking at gaps with competitors, Morphy really stands out but that's so long ago and chess was no where near being as organized as the modern eras of Fisher, Kasparov and Carlsen.
Morphy was ducked by Staunton too
First of all Ronaldinho. Secondly this is going to be my argument to all of the GOAT conversations in Basketball
The real ranking of the greatest is to bring him to the future time period and evaluate the abilities. For example if you bring Fischer to our time period and he had access to computer analysis and new information about the game how would he play? I say his rating would be at 2950. Therefore the best player.
I will never tire of this game because I play every match with Tal's philosophy. Mikhail Tal > Quotes
“You must take your opponent into a deep dark forest where 2+2=5, and the path leading out is only wide enough for one.” ...
“There are two types of sacrifices: correct ones, and mine.” “To play for a draw, at any rate with white, is to some degree a crime against chess.” Forever grateful Mr Tal.
3:34 that's a very strong argument. We stand on the shoulder's of giants. And Gary is one of the shoulder's that we stand on, but if Gary stood on that shoulder alongside Magnus, where would he stand? Idk, but it's different.
Such praise from Kasparov show the the class of Magnus the magnificent.
A rare conversation between the first two generations of secretly developed Soviet AGI.
I love Garry for his chess prowess but also for who he is in the world. A great man.
Strange Kasparov didn’t mention Capablanca as an example of dominance, which lasted much longer than Fischer’s. Going back in time, one could even mention Philidor.
For me Capa was the most naturally gifted of chess players with his quick sight of the board.
Kasparov makes Fischer sound like a technical endgame player, which he certainly could be, but Fischer's style is very confrontational and he's mostly known for using tactics to achieve positional advantages (especially checkmate) not so much grinding technically like Kramnik.
3:05 why did they add this part? 😂
04:45 MESSI STILL HAS NO WC TITLE TO HAVING WC IN THE BEST FOOTBALL MATCH IN HISTORY....
Interesting - I just this minute watched an interview between Bobby Fischer and Johnny Carlson, and Fischer said exactly the same thing as Kasparov did about the important of physical health and fitness for chess players.
What a humble person, when he said generation nowadays more a lot than us, thay makes him a LEGEND🏆💯💪
Bobby Fischer said that being in good shape is important for playing during a Tonight Show interview in the 1970s.
Who else is here after watching Queens Gambit on Netflix?
Seems like chess is making a comeback
Ask a Chess Master a simple question, get an answer of infinite complexity.
Kasparov is still the GOAT, for now. Magnus' history is on running yet.
But Pelé's history by no means can be reduced to the 1970 world cup! He stayed long time at the top and produced the most incredible stats and beautiful moves, just like Kasparov in chess.
But he never faced the International clubs like Maradona did...Maradona played in Spain and Italy with had more competition than in Brazil.
Pele never played against the best European clubs
1:00 Morphy's Ghost be like "What am I a joke to you!?"
The way Garry talk about karpov like the boxer reminiscing a hit from their opponents... Legend always acknowledge legend...
I respect the great chess minds just so much. It's amazing what they can do. They can memorize thousands of classic games and remember every move IN ORDER. That just blows my mind. It would be tough for most people to memorize ONE game even if they had several days to do it. Not only that but they can play blindfolded against several opponents at once and have the board memorized exactly for each player. Just picturing the board against ONE player and never forgetting how it looks and be ab le to plan moves from it would be hard enough. But add doing this for 2, 3, 4 or 5 boards and never mixing up the order of the moves on any board is just behind my level of comprehension. OPf course they also have the3 ability to thing several moves ahead and weight the probabilities of success of all the moves and all the possible opponents moves which turns into thousands of potential board situations the more moves ahead you can think. Unreal.
Watching this in 2023 and Messi got his title.
I suck at Chess I am a total Noob but I do like Garry kasparov humility and being humble in this video.
Brilliant and humble. Never heard him speak before but he seems very interesting.
Then there’s just the sheer joy their styles inspire. I love studying Tal games, he was a modern day swashbuckler. So aesthetically pretty.