Full conversation with Magnus Carlsen: ruclips.net/video/0ZO28NtkwwQ/видео.html Quick note from Lex: The camera on Magnus died 20 minutes in. Most folks still just listen to audio-only version, but here on RUclips we did our best to still make it interesting to watch & listen by adding image overlays. I mess things up sometimes, like in this case, and it hits me hard when I do. I'm sorry for this. I'm always working hard to improve. I hope you understand. Thank you for your patience and support along the way. I love you all.
Oh OK. I was wondering what was going on with the video. Thank you for taking the extra time to edit in some infographics and the such. Do you have an interesting take on a lot of things. Much respect. I’m out hiking on the Appalachian Trail right now. Halfway done I started February 13 in Georgia and I am now in West Virginia headed to the finish point in Maine. Happy trails.
"The energy and dynamism in the play of the young Kasparov is something that appeals to me because I cannot do it" I love such a candid admission. Only a player of supreme caliber can have such candor.
@@blankplanet ?? lol. It's precisely because you don't have a caliber that being impressed is normal for you. Admitting that you can't do any better than someone while being regarded as possibly the greatest is a whole different topic, it's very tempting to just say no one is above you in any aspect when people put you in a pedestal.
How would he be anywhere near that discussion in a serious manner anyway lol? He's never even been the number one for a single moment nor the world champion
@@smwg4187 Yes, but he is competing against Magnus. If I lasted 15 moves against Magnus, I would consider myself the greatest chess mind of all times, even if I lose the game. 😃
@@artw3 yeah but the same is true of anyone who is like 2650 or higher. Even guys like Saric, Naiditsch can give Magnus a hard time. Of course every top player is very capable of competing against or even beating him on a good day. So that is not in any way specific to Naka
I really like the way Magnus speaks about himself. He's very humble and yet has a healthy amount of confidence about the acheivements of his career. Such a nice person.
@@cmc2110 well just becomes someone is honest doesnt mean hes not humble. ofc he knows that he is one of the greatest ever and maybe the greatest ever, hes making arguements for himself because he got asked for it but he didnt say he thinks hes the best. he immidiatly shuts off questions like that and hes right: i have not a lot of clue about chess but for example about football and in football i also hate "the best ever" debates. every player is different in their own thinking in their own style. you cant even compare a defender to a striker and lets not even talk about goalies. also the generationial differences. who can say if pele wouldnt have performed even better then messi if he had played in his generation? also, the older generations like in chess fisher, kasparov etc laid foundations for carlsen etc. you can compare those things so dont even try to debate "goat" questions because theyre pointless, just enjoy the show.
Must suck to be asked that kind of question unless your ego is utterly out of control. If you are too eager in your answer people will think: What a boasting prick. And if he doesn't acknowledge that he is among to very top of all time people will go: False humility, what a prick.
What I find interesting is how grounded Magnus sounds. Most players would probably come off as arrogant if they placed themselves in the GOAT conversation but Magnus just comes across as matter of fact. The honesty and clarity is refreshing
Magnus is one of the cockiest players in the chess world at his level by far, not even close to the most humble chess player. Dudes like Ding, Nepo, Fabi, Levon, are extremely humble. Top level players are often extremely respectful and humble. Magnus is not humble, but he is humorous, so that's why people still love him. He doesn't put down his opponents, he just speaks highly of himself via jokes. Is he great and awesome personality? For sure. Are super GMs often cocky when being interviewed? Not really.
But him downplaying that is going to be awkward… he is a very honest guy and for the goat it’s clear we only have Magnus, Garry, Capa and Morphy. Anyone of them can have a true claim to being a goat and maybe Fisher but his case doesn’t hold much because of how short his dominance was, his peak was great though. One year in chess is like 3 months in other sports
I mean its also because it is so obvious that he belongs there. But i still agree, he seems like a pretty cool dude. For a Chess world champion at least lol
Trash. When the Competition is trash then it says enough about the champion. Bobby Fischer updated the game and Solved Chess years ago. This guy is still playing catch up. Bobby Fischer is and will forever be the GOAT, Fischer become a Dev.
In 72 Fisher took out the whole Soviet chess machine with relative ease as a hermit with minimal assistance and without the assistance of chess engines when chess dominance was of the utmost importance to the Soviets for political reasons, being really well funded.
Soviet’s were always 30 years behind in development. Nothing was funded. Atrocious dark country. The fact that Soviets were number 1 in anything is short of miracle.
Fischer-Spassky Game 6 of the 1972 World Championship is rather mind-blowing when you go through it with an engine on. Fischer gets so far ahead in a way which is almost impossible for a human to recognize. Material is basically equal the whole game (Spassky is even a pawn up for the last handful of moves) and yet Spassky is in a resignable position during the entire second half of the game and doesn't seem to notice. It's the game that illustrates the gap between Fischer and everyone else in the world. That being said, Morphy should probably be in this conversation as well. It's hard though, because was playing "modern" chess in era when nobody else was. Undoubtedly a genius, but the lack of competition makes it hard to place him.
You are speaking a logical fallacy. There is no GOAT when you look at all the players objectively with engines. All chess players ever born made/make serious mistakes.
Kasporov, Karpov and Carlson, all of them had and have a team that works to improve them. Bobby Fischer....did it by himself against all odds which makes him the goat imo.
Not to mention he even created a variation Ches960 and learned Russian to further his knowledge in chess and his opponents, with limited resources in a limited time frame. Definitely the GOAT.
Worth adding that Russian players colluded to keep him from winning the championship, but they failed. For example, certain players would intentionally end games in a draw in a bid to have Russians in the #1 and #2 spots, but Fischer broke through and it was probably in that 1970-1972 peak of his brilliance. At the time, Fischer complained that the Russians were colluding, but everyone thought he was paranoid. Many years later, it turns out he was right. Look into it, it’s fascinating. Fischer is the GOAT, but it’s a shame how he became an outspoken anti-semite in addition to many other examples of deplorable conduct, all of which taints his legacy.
@@Fr49050 Oh wow I didn’t even know of this, going to look into now. Many people really don’t understand how powerful of a player Fischer was, and it’s a shame. He went through so much being a Chess champion and being a lonewolf it’s unfortunate people don’t respect him enough as the greatest to ever play. Real recognize real, when you speak the truth you will be punished in this society, and Fischer always spoke the truth, on how he felt, he had so much depth and character unlike these players now smh. He transformed his personality/character in the game of Chess. Stating he plays to win even with black pieces, studying as much as he can to become the best while people used political tactics to fuck with him. He’s without a doubt the best player to ever touch Chess.
@@sunset1394 i did... it's just bullshit like Fischer used to say bringing up Morphy when he was questioned similarly. Karposov isn't even in the equation... there's only two possibilities, Fischer or Magnus (Morphy gets his own seperate title since the game of chess is so outside comparison.) I personally go with Fischer cause he would be equally great regardless of either time period he would be slotted in... Magnus would be just as amazing in Fischer time but struggle in Morphy time (whereas Morphy would be okay in Fischer time & wouldn't have anything to do with chess in the modern era.)
@@nationalsocialism3504 I'm confused. Could you elaborate on why you think Magnus would struggle in Chess during that time period? Do you mean if he was born in that period? Because as far as I know you're always building on the ideas of old so not only would he not struggle, but he'd also dominate.
@@ghoulbby because what makes Magnus the best now is ill suited to then... just like why Morphy wouldn't even a Master level chess player today cause he wouldn't learn "theory." Magnus end game brilliances are predicated upon his deep "theory" basis... Fischer got to the absolute peak & saw what was coming, which drove him to quit cause he had no interest in what he unveiled. I'm saying that different types of thinking/brains shine in different conditions... by all accounts Morphy was essentially playing bullet games from his side in games without time limits
@@FalconJudah Part time for a few months when he was already the world number 1 rated player. They had two or three training camps in 2009, but Magnus didn't do the homework he was assigned between them. Garry and Magnus worked together for about six months. Calling him "his mentor" is a huge stretch. Carlsen's formative years were spent studying with Torbjørn Ringdal and Simen Agdestein.
@@kimaboe At the time Kasparov worked with Carlsen (2004/5) he was certainly not the number one player in the world, he was a few years away from that.
@@davidcopson5800 They played a few private games in 2004, but their professional partnership started in 2009 and lasted until early 2010. Magnus hit number one for the first time on the January 2010 rating list. When they had their first training camp in June 2009, Magnus was ranked 3rd behind Topalov and Anand. In 2004 Kasparov himself was an active player, and definitely not coaching Carlsen or anyone else. He only retired from competition in 2005.
I agree about those three. There were many other amazing players like Morphy and Capablanca and others as well, but they played such a long time ago that they really are impossible to compare.
Carlsen's argument about his era being more difficult because "engines levelled the field" (true) bolsters the argument for Fischer, who as at a disadvantage to the Soviet machine--but beat them anyway. Fischer would have LOVED to have been on an even playing field with them. Kasparov had an advantage, Carlsen was arguably neutral, and Fischer was at a disadvantage. As for childhood development, Carlsen and Kasparov were arguably even--both began receiving instruction from grandmasters at age 10 (Kasparov's teacher was at one time ranked 5th in the world and Carlsen's was ranked 12th), while Fischer is again at a huge disadvantage: his first teacher was Carmine Nigro, an amateur, and the he was mentored by John Collins, who was once the New York State champion. He also formed a relationship with William Lombardy, who was US junior champion and eventually rose to 19th in the world but that was in 1961 when Fischer himself (still 18) was already in the top 10. Fischer also was the only one with difficult--even disastrous--home life. So all in all, I will always be more impressed with what Fischer accomplished than the other two players in my top 3.
Its also important to take into account Fischer and Kasparov were at the top of their games before strong computer engines came along. In the world championship candidate matches during 1970-71, Fischer won 20 consecutive games; winning so many games with black is unheard of and has never been equaled. For the last 10 years chess engines have been a huge part of professional chess players training.
@@billj4525 Ok? The exact same logic applies to people in the past lol. They didn't have engines, so who knows how strong they would have been? This is like saying Newton
I think measuring the gap between yourself and your competition is the key marker to comparing errors and who's the greatest. That coefficient of the gap between you and your competition is key
It's a great way, but there are a lot of reasons why it doesn't work in some generations. It's harder to dominate because of engines today. Everyone has that advantage, and it makes it harder to dominate your opponents since computers and engines level the playing field for everyone. The top guys can't possibly achieve the same dominance because of that. When Morphy played chess it had no popularity, and was barely recognized as a serious game, so you can't compare his dominance to a time when chess was a much more popular game, a game that had many fans, and people paid attention to. That said, you can compare dominance in some generations, and it is one of the valid ways, but there are reasons it doesn't always work in many cases without more thought than just a direct comparison. It also doesn't take into account longevity either. You need to continue to dominate. Fischer had that extreme dominance for a year or two, but no longevity as the world champion, which you need to show if you're going to compare your dominance to someone elses across eras. This just goes to show you why you can't really compare players from different generations accurately. It's fun to do for sure, but it's impossible to with any degree of certainty and accuracy. I hate when people try to compare moves across eras. That's probably the worst possible way to compare players from different eras. Competition may be the best way to try to compare, but there are holes in every way possible.
@@donkbonktj5773 Yeah, you needs to compare all the factors. It's really impossible to compare players from different eras, but the best way would be to use all those different metrics. I don't think player skill or moves matters much at all, because the current generation has a big advantage over the past generation, and always plays better moves.
How about Morphy, Capablanca? Sad that these & other superstars ruled in different times & Nature has deemed impossible tournaments where Fischer, Morphy, Kasparov, Carlson et al take part.
Capablanca was way too lazy, he relied quite a lot on his massive talent and made no serious opening preparation against others, which in modern chess would definitely be a handicap. He would never win against someone as hardworking and talented as Kasparov or Ivanchuck. I don't really know about Morphy regarding how serious he was at studying chess, but he played a lot of dynamic chess, which is a style preferred by modern AI such as AlphaZero...
@@Consortiumed Chess was a totally different game when Morphy played though. Almost no one played and it wasn't a popular game. Dominating then just isn't the same thing when it has no popularity. It makes it impossible to compare someone like Morphy to today or anyone in the 20th century. Morphy is the hardest to compare. Capablanca was amazing and also way to far back to compare. They are unbelievable chess talents in history though.
Bobby Fisher was a prodigy, born to play Chess, watching the footage of him as a kid beating a room full of Master Chess players at the same time was mind blowing. Gary Kasparov springs to mind when i think of Master Chess players. I grew up watching Gary at his peak, and i remember when he played Deep Blue and Deeper Blue, the Super Computers built to play Chess, he became the first person to beat a Machine at a Human's game, and for that alone he will always be the greatest Chess player in my mind.
@@mindhunter8772 Bobby Fisher is way way better than Magnus. Bobby Fisher Changed Chess forever, and had was always looking for the truth in life and in chess. He was the one who bought up making Chess more complex thus Chess960. Bobby Fisher is the GOAT.
Isaac Newton is considered by many to be the greatest physicist of all time. Yet he knew much less than the average phd of physics today. As he himself put it "I only saw further standing on shoulders of giants." If we apply the same criteria to chess players, we might perhaps measure their influence, contributions and importance to development of the game. Not just metrics as number of titles, rating, etc. Perhaps Kasparov was the most successful chess competitor, but the giants of old invented most of modern theory and Fischer popularized the game more than anybody else. I personally think Demis Hassabis' contributions to the future of chess will be ranked higher than either Kasparov or Magnus's.
I don't even know who the hell is Demis Dahabis is. And your analogy is flawed since chess is a game, not a real world phenomena. U gonna call some unnamed randos who invented chess to be the GOAT then?
@@ahmadjauhar4562 Demis Hassabis is the guy who invented Alpha Zero, the AI that learned to play chess on super-human level in I think a couple of days, just playing with itself. maybe you don't know who he is, but your grand-granddaughter might learn that in school in a couple of decades.
Not to chess, but Demis contributions to AI in chess will be ranked higher than maybe anyones. You can't compare him to guys like Kasparov and Magnus. He's just working on different things. Demis also gets a lot of help from other AI scientists when working on these things. Kasparov and Magnus don't work on AI. In terms of actual chess Demis is no where near Magnus, Kasparov, or many top players. Demis played chess professionally as a kid and continued to play in mind games. He did his best and studied chess. Demis just was no where near as talented as top grandmasters. Demis likely couldn't make Grandmaster even if he completely dedicated his life to it, and he's a brilliant guy. That shows you how hard it is to become a Grandmaster.
I dont know, the specs for Alpha Zero were maxed out and the stockfish seemed like an average computer joe could put together. Impressive they made AI but there is a reason they didnt release Alpha Zero because the hardware they used is not comparable to what average PC's use which SF is made for. Also, AZ had openings wheras SF did not. IMO AZ was over powered against SF. Just business pr imo.
Carlsen is too humble. He stands in a moment of history where he has the human creative side plus the artificial intelligence studies. The players from the past didn't have much computer help, even just for studies, and the ones from the future will learn mostly from machines. I think Carlsen could remain in history as the strongest player ever.
He's certainly the strongest player so far, in that if you take Magnus at his peak he would have the odds on his side in a match against any human player ever. He almost certainly won't remain that way tho, time just keeps ticking on and more and more people drive up the chance that one of them will be even better.
@@colamity_5000 I think what the OP is saying, is that even tho the players will inevitably get better, it will mostly be through memorising and mimicking the way the computer plays, where as for raw creativity + memorization, magnus is in that sweet spot, that may never be surpassed again due to the nature of computers having solved chess already.
@@alexb4287 well thats just not true on any account. First computers haven't solved chess yet, we get better engines every year. Even if they do "solve chess" which I can't imagine ever being theoretically proved but maybe is functionally possible, then it won't make much difference because humans are already bumping up against HUMAN limits on memorization: we can't be engines. We can't mimick the way a computer plays after our prep because the way they play requires a looking at moves with a depth we can't replicate. If you don't know why the computers move is a good one, then it isn't a good one because the quality of a move is heavily dependant on whether you choose the right line after it. So regardless if thats what he meant hes still wrong.
@@colamity_5000 I'd say if a computers are at a point, where they can beat any human, in a game designed for humans, then from our point of view they may as well have solved it, if they're looking magnitudes further into a game than we are then they're basically playing a different game at that point. As far as memorisation limits are concerened, how else do you propose people are going to get better at chess ? Magnus can literally compete with a lot of strong chess engines, so how much more intuition can someone really have, bar just being able to remember more games that have already been played. Aswell, as engines get stronger they devise even more advanced openings etc, so I'm pretty sure mimicking they way they play, is a pretty fair way to put it, considering that is literally what is already being done.
@@alexb4287 Magnus cant compete with any top engine. He will lose 100/100 games 1000/1000 etc- I don't know what you mean saying he can compete. Yes mimicking openings will be/is a thing, but no one is in their prep the whole game, this will continue. As for how much more intution some one can have thats so open ended as to almost unanswerable: but it is almost a statistical inevitebility that the answer is more, someone with more will exist. It is foolish to think that anyone represents the pinnacle of possible human achievement in anything.
I think a lot of previous world number 1's were the best at all formats. Kasparov and Fischer were 100%, but rapid and blitz rating is not something that was always counted. It was just clear how much better Kasparov and Fischer were than everyone else regardless of time controls. I would venture to think many other world number 1's were as well, despite the ratings not being there.
With chess, like sport, you can only be the best of your era. Someone will come along in the next generation and improve on your performances - although that doesn't mean that they are better than you. ....Standing upon the shoulders of giants.
Indeed. The best player of all time in any discipline is almost always the current best player. Because as you say we are building on what people have figured out before us, but also just because the human population continues to increase. The best out of seven billion people will likely be stronger than the best out of five billion.
@@JulienRoigHerr Not the GOAT, but the current best player is almost always the strongest of all time. I wouldn't say in any discipline, but most, and definitely a discipline like chess.
Magnus is the best because he only cares about winning and doesn't care how he does it. Most people who play a game, any game, develop a certain approach to the game that they then identify with, and playing the game becomes about trying to prove that their approach is a good one and can succeed. Maybe it's aggression. Maybe it's psychology. Maybe it's accuracy. Maybe it's perfecting the meta. But Magnus doesn't waste time trying to prove that "his" way of playing is the best way to play. Instead, he just tries to figure out what the best way to play is for each particular game, and then plays that. His one quote he says that "some people think it's okay to lose if your opponent has a beautiful game. I don't think that" and that kinda sums it up. It reminds me of Alpha Go in a way. One of the big things Alpha Go did that humans never did was it took seriously the idea that it doesn't matter how much you win by, it only matters whether or not you win. So AlphaGo would often win by a very narrow margin. Magnus is like that also. Doesn't care whether it looks good doesn't care whether it's beautiful doesn't care if it's "his signature style" or not. Just wants to win. I think it's a great mentality for becoming the best. But I do think he's internalised it a bit too much which might be preventing him from appreciating games as much when he watches them? Because you only need that mindset when you play. Not when you observe. But of course it can be difficult to compartmentalise and switch between modes so... yea
Carlsen can DEFINITELY continue to be number 1 for many more years and overtake Gary's record..... the only question is whether he wants to stay MOTIVATED for soo long!
I think he wants to achieve that, and be the GOAT in his own mind. He believes he needs to do more to catch Garry, and I think he's right. Garry was really a giant, just unbelievable if you go through his career and accomplishments. Magnus may catch him, hard to say for sure. A lot can happen in 5 years, and Magnus gets older and just tired of playing at some level maybe.
Don’t forget that Kasparov tutelage immensely helped Carlsen ! And of course in their time 🕰️(Fischer and Kasparov’s) weren’t any better supercomputers to help them study
Hey Lex don't sweat it about the video. Audio only is ok for most of us because we have seen so much of Magnus and are very familiar with his mannerisms and so forth, I think many of us can visualize him speaking as we listen. Just keep doing pods like this. Very educational in many ways. Good job
Can't compare eras, can only compare how one does against their piers. No one dominated their piers the way Fischer did for a short period of time but Magnus is certainly in the conversation of best ever. He has clearly been #1 for the past decade, in five World Championships he's only had three losses total. He destroyed Nepo in the most recent one and Nepo once again won the Candidates so Nepo has displayed dominance against piers not named Magnus and Magnus has dominated Nepo.
It's like questioning who knew more about physics, Newton or Einstein? You cannot compare because Einstein had calculus and Newtonian mechanics at his disposal but Newton had to invent it from scratch! The big problem of comparing different era players is that chess is accumulated knowledge and Magnus is the heir of this knowledge. He is the greatest of all time for sure, but also will be the world champion 50 years from now.
Here's a easy way to look at it: Chess Skill: 1. Magnus 2. Garry 3. Fischer Dominance: 1. Fischer 2. Magnus/Garry (Garry was more dominant, but Magnus is dominant in an era where it is exceptionally hard to do so) Duration: 1. Garry 2. Magnus 3. Fischer As of 2024, I think Carlsen is the GOAT, but if he's #1 for 5-6 more years, it is unquestionable since his duration would match Garry's. Magnus == Garry > Fischer.
AI chess has changed the skill set needed to be a the top. So MC is the first in the establish era of AI chess. It is impossible to compare past generations which was without AI. We may still be in transition if we transition to less time limits as more reflective of "human chess" as classical becomes pure memory/prep then different skills will be more important for top players.
@@Wtahc . The point is that there is an argument to be made that the best GMs are the ones that know how to use today's engines, databases, and AI the best as opposed to players of the past that had to rely on their own analysis and magazine/newspaper clips. Even so, today in 2023, Fischer's elo peak is still the 21 highest elo rating ever. Let that sink in for a while.
@@MrSupernova111 no, thats not the point. yes: gms know how to use the resources better. thats why magnus' literal elo is higher than fischer's. but when you're talking about an actual _gap_, between the #1 and his contemporaries, you're comparing him to other people who also use the resources. ergo, no asymmetrical advantage.
@@Wtahc . You completely ignored my comment. AI is just a tool like shovel or a hammer. The one that uses it best gets best results. There is no reason to believe that chess players won't continue getting stronger at various rates which leads to rating gaps.
@@MrSupernova111 you're not being clear. what are you saying, that magnus is just that much better at using the engine than the other top players? well you're wrong, sorry. im assuming you dont know a lot about the game, magnus has never been the best prepared player and his main strengths are endurance, consistency and his nettlesome wizardry in the endgame, literally the three things least influenced by engines. the players of today are not just better than fischer: they are more impressive, even considering their circumstances. magnus would make short work of a fischer born in the modern era, as would nakamura if the time control were blitz or shorter. conversely, a magnus or hikaru born in fischers era would put up a real battle, if not totally steamroll him. this is a universal truth of all popular games: everything improves over time. more generally, humans improve over time. the people stuck masturbating on the past are just lost, or extremely disingenuous. the pre-supercomputer era of chess is not worth romanticizing - i was there for it, it had just as many problems as the current one, and the problems it didnt have stemmed from the fact that no one was interested or good enough to discover them. fischer is a god and one of the greatest players of all time, but he is a step down from kasparov, who is a step down from magnus and hikaru. a more appropriate comparison for fischer would be someone like caruana, and even then i dont know if he holds up. its easy to armchair criticize the top players of today but once youve seriously tried to play the game at a high level you will realize how amazing they really are.
Paul Morphy needs an acknowledgment! He was far and away ahead of everyone like Fischer. If all the great champions started today with the same knowledge, my money would be on Morphy and Fischer.
What is it with morphy that appels so much to people? The guy was extremely good for sure, but he faced no real competition. Players of that era were very weak and made the most blunders in the history of chess according to evaluations. We dont know what morphy would have dont if he played today, but he definitely wouldnt be so dominant
@@dimitrispap777 The era was weak because Morphy was a genius. He barely studied chess, or he even didn't. Adolf Anderssen was actually a very good player, but Morphy trashed him as well. Morphy could spot pieces and have a blindfold simul while finding engine moves in like his teenage years. Not even Carlsen, or the other greats could do something like that. Sure Carlsen could also have blindfold simuls, but he had to work for it (I think), But anyway, It's almost like saying Archimedes isn't the greatest mathematician of all time because people back then knew very little.
I think part of what makes the three together a very interesting triad is that it's one american, one russian and one european. Of course there have been many in between from a variety of nationalities but the countries of the three goats have greater cold war and modern neoliberal implications.
The "best" argument comes down to "Peak" vs. "Area under the curve". I credit this idea to Bill James in his discussion of baseball players. Magnus argues for Fischer as a Peak GOAT, and Kasparov as an AUC GOAT.
Magnus has said Garry is the GOAT, but from what I have heard he puts himself and Kasparov above Fischer. He doesn't think as highly of Fischer as others do.
There is a RUclips video by Nakamura where it shows the player with the highest percentage of accuracy to the engine. Here it shows GMs at 55, Kasparov at 69, Magnus at 70 and Fischer at 72. This clearly is very objective, why than is Fischer never considered to be the best ever? Everyone talks about longevity but why does that matter. If someone dominates 100 meter dash for 10 years with the fastest time of 10 seconds and another dominates for 1 year with the fastest time of 9 seconds, I'd say that the one with the 9 seconds is the fastest person ever.
Yeah but the difference is in a 100m dash your fastest time doesn't have anything to do with your opponents. whereas in chess results are highly dependant on who you are playing which is why the difficulty of the era is an important variable in the discussion. Usain Bolt would've been the best regardless of which era he raced in bc reults in track and field is independant to your competition.
@@royalty4958 What are you talking about? The accuracy is measured using today's engine so it has nothing to do with the opponents. It simply looks at the board and compares their moves against the CURRENT engine.
@@robertwhitten265 Yes but if you're a 2000 rated player playing a 500 rated player you'll have a much higher accuracy than if you were to play a grandmaster. Moves come much easier when you're playing weaker players which is my point. Accuracy is indicative not only of your strength but of the strength of your opponents too
@@royalty4958 Nope, even if you play someone int he park, the next best move is just as difficult as the pro. Might even be easier as you have seen it many times before. The next best move according to engine equally difficult in any situation. Finding the next move that is winning is easier with lower ranked player since there will be many but not finding THE best move.
@@robertwhitten265 I've had many 90% games in my own database, does that make me grandmaster level? no it just means my opponent blundered alot making my next moves easier to spot. This is a common known thing, that the weaker the opponent the, the more likely it is for your overall accuracy to be high. Its been said many times by grandmasters. Either you haven't played a lick of chess or you're misinformed
Both are true. Yeah he admits that sort of, he kind of went crazy after deep blue because of all the psychology in the match. Getting beat knowing he was better, but not getting a rematch. All that messed with him. Some moves he didn't expect, he got paranoid. He's the GOAT, but that did mess with him and he has admitted that recently.
I’ll say this for Hikaru. He’s in the discussion for most important chess players of all time. BF obviously probably tops him. But that was just one moment in time. Hikaru, if he keeps going the way he’s going, he should be the most important player of all time. The sheer influence he has. Teaching, inspiring, etc, it’s going to be hard for someone to overcome that.
You're confusing popularity vs skill. If you want to vote on popularity maybe Nimzo should be included since he wrote one of the most influential chess books ever. But then, I never heard Nimzo being included in any GOAT conversation.
I'm not gonna lie. For a sec I was like wtf is Perez Hilton doing in the Lex Fridman podcast!. Shout out to 1 of the best of all time chess player that ever walked this earth. Mr Carlsen.
*I believe Bobby Fisher is the greatest player of all time for any one specific period.* E.g. the best Fisher vs. the best Magnus, I believe Fisher would win. In terms of longevity, yes Magnus and then Kasparov. Fisher also had so much more pressure on him, regarding the US vs. Soviet Union, the media, the public figure, the fact he actively called out globalist elites and refused to be silent about such agendas - he was also called a conspiracy theorist, but he was always right. People in the chess world are very intelligent, and regardless of whether they liked the truth that Fisher was speaking, they respected him because he was correct and had a phenomenal mind.
@@J.c410 . You said it yourself. "Modern way of training with computer." Give Fischer the same tools and let's see what happens. You won't be standing so confidently anymore.
@@J.c410 Well he means Fischer was the most dominant for a short period of time. In terms of how good he was against his competition he was the best for a couple years.
If Fischer was the GOAT, he never proved it. People will confidently state that he would beat Magnus given the same advantages but he never showed that he could actually do it. In fact, when it came down to it, he gave every indication that he couldn't. Not because it was beyond his ability, but because he didn't want to learn opening theory deeply enough. He might have had the pure intellect for it, but he didn't have the determination and mindset for it. Sure, you could give Fischer the same tools as Magnus, but if you did, I don't think he would use them. He didn't even fully use the resources he had available in his own time because of his stupid objection to it, because the game wasn't played precisely how he thought it should be. Well, tough, the game is what it is and the world wants to know who's best at it, not who's best at Bobby Fischer's invented and idealised version of it. Mental strength, discipline and relentless self-application are a big a part of the equation at the top level of any game and all that was Fischer's biggest flaw, proven by the trajectory of his career and his life. In 20 years time, Magnus isn't going to be a wild-looking recluse from the game and the world, rambling on about how awful chess is, he's going to be a respected elder statesman.
@@flamboyant91 You didn’t get it. Carlson isn’t a champion in chess960, shows he’s bot truly that good. Having a good memory helps in regular chess but in chess960 that’s a different story.
@@kelvin303 not true, he may have lost to Wesley So 4-0, but he was still 2nd, and is more well rounded and dominant than Wesley by far in regular chess.
@@omegacroc2928 Chess960 requires more skill from pro players. Mangus rely on theory more that’s why he’s very good in regular chess. Regular chess has been dead in pro play so it really doesn’t matter at this point. Chess960 are for the big boys
style means nothing.... Messi had by far better team around him than anyone else.... and fact that during his best he hasn't won international trophy is a joke... to call him goat...
@@abbabb8369 who do you have as your goat? I agree messi hasnt won a world cup, but as someone who watched more than 15 years regualrly, he is by far the best player i have seen.
It must bug Lex to no end when he asks a question that a lot of viewers would like to know the answers to.. then the guest just shuts it down with "that doesn't interest me at all" Seriously?? This is a long form discussion dude, at least try to make it interesting by expanding on an idea that the host brings up! Jeez. smh
The question is what if Bobby Fischer and a young Kasparov had to use of today's chess engines back then. you could argue that today's chess players have an advantage because of that it's easy to put a position in an engine sit back and let it run all the possible lines and variations the older generation of chess players used to have to do that all by themselves that's why I'd say they were better just my opinion though
He's just not even in the top 10 of the last few decades, it's ridiculous to call him one of the best ever. I think they are just being playful since he is sort of a meme at this point.
@@Tetratronic It's just because he's a streamer and his personality is quite different compared to most GMs. There was also a time where he didn't play a single classic match for quite a long time which made people meme on how bad he is on longer time controls, but that doesn't really apply anymore. But, yeah I think in terms of classical chess of the past decades or so, he's nowhere near top 10 average.
I think the greatest chess genius is settled, and hands down it's Bobby Fischer..so stop comparing to him.. just say outside of Bobby Fischer, who is the greatest?? U could put magnus, Kasparov, Mikhail Tal, Morphy...but Fischer, due to his wrecking literally every player and his undefeated streak and his record during that time which will NEVER be broken, and the 140 point gap between he and the rest of the world, and the fact he defeated the soviet bloc on his own settles it forever ..so just stop with the comparison...there isn't any...there are 19 players within 140 of Carlsen
Some people simply don’t understand. Fischer hands down changed chess forever, and should always be known as the GOAT. Fischer already endeed classic chess.
@@FrenkieWest32 Fischer already ended the game of Chess long ago more than 20 years ago. Classic cheas in pro play been dead. Chess960 is the new chess. Mangus can’t even win in Chess960 cuz he rely too much on theory. Fischer is definitely the GOAT.
Bobby Fisher is way way better than Magnus. Bobby Fisher Changed Chess forever, and had was always looking for the truth in life and in chess. He was the one who bought up making Chess more complex thus Chess960. Bobby Fisher is the GOAT.
@@imperfectmammal2566 It was way more competitive back then, no computers to add to experience and knowledge players needed. Bobby contributed more to Chess than Mangus and made a variation to Chess game. Bobby was a dominant player both in US and Soviet Union, he even learn Russian to study and beat his opponents in a limited time fram, with less resources. Mangus wouldn’t even touch Bobby Fischer, even if Bobby had the resources we have now. Bobby is easily the GOAT, if you think otherwise you’re delusional.
@@suryanshshirbhate5954 competition was definitely more intense in Fischer era without a doubt. Fischer mastered the game so well he created a new variation to make it more difficult. Chess is easy for him, he made Chess960 to increase that difficulty. Not to mention he was a lonewolf in the game of Chess. That men needs the respect he never gain for being the GOAT. Foh
Indeed. As far as I know he's a professional chess player, it's his job. No one is asking him to climb the world's 20 highest mountains, they asking him to play chess.
Bobby is the Mozart, Murphy is Beethoven, while Gary is the Elvis and Finally Magnus is the Bieber in the chess history. See, the difference when you are already an adult is you are leaning more on your self honest evaluation rather than children hersay bedtime story.
It's true Lasker was wc for 27 years, but he could chose who and when he would play. I think the top 5 are Morphy, Fischer, Carlsen, Kasparov and Capablanca.
Factz People tend to forget their on the Fischer. He was an unstoppable monster. Learn a new language (Russian) for Chess and created Chess960, played to win even with Black pieces. He had style, game and character in his games. Bobby will forever be the GOAT, no question.
@@FrenkieWest32 Fischer learned a new language to gain more insight of the Russians information about chess. Chess960 is the new Chess my friend. Classic chess been dead. Fischer changed chess forever by himself, he’s the goat enough said.
He doesn't need to beat one player one game at 60 to prove anything lol, that's silly. Sample size matters in chess, not a few games. If he's still world number 1 in 6 years then he surpassed Kasparov. He doesn't need to play at 60 at all, it's his choice.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
Full conversation with Magnus Carlsen: ruclips.net/video/0ZO28NtkwwQ/видео.html
Quick note from Lex: The camera on Magnus died 20 minutes in. Most folks still just listen to audio-only version, but here on RUclips we did our best to still make it interesting to watch & listen by adding image overlays. I mess things up sometimes, like in this case, and it hits me hard when I do. I'm sorry for this. I'm always working hard to improve. I hope you understand. Thank you for your patience and support along the way. I love you all.
You would mess up with the Goat Magnus Carlsen 💔
I thought it was a joke on both being robotic 😂 this whole time.
Oh OK. I was wondering what was going on with the video. Thank you for taking the extra time to edit in some infographics and the such. Do you have an interesting take on a lot of things. Much respect. I’m out hiking on the Appalachian Trail right now. Halfway done I started February 13 in Georgia and I am now in West Virginia headed to the finish point in Maine. Happy trails.
"The energy and dynamism in the play of the young Kasparov is something that appeals to me because I cannot do it" I love such a candid admission. Only a player of supreme caliber can have such candor.
Supreme caliber and supreme confidence. The guy knows his position as a great is cemented. No insecurity
Im a player with no caliber at all and can say that generally things i cant do well impress me as well. This remark is kinda dumb👌
Yeah!! Even as mighty as his accomplishments are, the ability to be aware of his vulnerability is amazing
@@blankplanet ?? lol. It's precisely because you don't have a caliber that being impressed is normal for you. Admitting that you can't do any better than someone while being regarded as possibly the greatest is a whole different topic, it's very tempting to just say no one is above you in any aspect when people put you in a pedestal.
@@blankplanet lmfao low IQ comment
“For hikaru nakamura… just kidding” brutal 😂
I felt that, and I am not a Hikaru guy
I felt that too, and I am not a Hikaru guy too lol
How would he be anywhere near that discussion in a serious manner anyway lol? He's never even been the number one for a single moment nor the world champion
@@smwg4187 Yes, but he is competing against Magnus. If I lasted 15 moves against Magnus, I would consider myself the greatest chess mind of all times, even if I lose the game. 😃
@@artw3 yeah but the same is true of anyone who is like 2650 or higher. Even guys like Saric, Naiditsch can give Magnus a hard time. Of course every top player is very capable of competing against or even beating him on a good day. So that is not in any way specific to Naka
I really like the way Magnus speaks about himself. He's very humble and yet has a healthy amount of confidence about the acheivements of his career. Such a nice person.
I won’t say humble but honest
I wouldn't say he's humble but he's as humble as one can be at credibly describing him/herself as the best ever.
@@cmc2110 He was as humble as one can be when they are the best and have to explain why
@@cmc2110 well just becomes someone is honest doesnt mean hes not humble. ofc he knows that he is one of the greatest ever and maybe the greatest ever, hes making arguements for himself because he got asked for it but he didnt say he thinks hes the best. he immidiatly shuts off questions like that and hes right: i have not a lot of clue about chess but for example about football and in football i also hate "the best ever" debates. every player is different in their own thinking in their own style. you cant even compare a defender to a striker and lets not even talk about goalies. also the generationial differences. who can say if pele wouldnt have performed even better then messi if he had played in his generation? also, the older generations like in chess fisher, kasparov etc laid foundations for carlsen etc. you can compare those things so dont even try to debate "goat" questions because theyre pointless, just enjoy the show.
Must suck to be asked that kind of question unless your ego is utterly out of control. If you are too eager in your answer people will think: What a boasting prick. And if he doesn't acknowledge that he is among to very top of all time people will go: False humility, what a prick.
What I find interesting is how grounded Magnus sounds. Most players would probably come off as arrogant if they placed themselves in the GOAT conversation but Magnus just comes across as matter of fact. The honesty and clarity is refreshing
Magnus is one of the cockiest players in the chess world at his level by far, not even close to the most humble chess player.
Dudes like Ding, Nepo, Fabi, Levon, are extremely humble. Top level players are often extremely respectful and humble.
Magnus is not humble, but he is humorous, so that's why people still love him. He doesn't put down his opponents, he just speaks highly of himself via jokes. Is he great and awesome personality? For sure. Are super GMs often cocky when being interviewed? Not really.
But him downplaying that is going to be awkward… he is a very honest guy and for the goat it’s clear we only have Magnus, Garry, Capa and Morphy. Anyone of them can have a true claim to being a goat and maybe Fisher but his case doesn’t hold much because of how short his dominance was, his peak was great though. One year in chess is like 3 months in other sports
He's also Norwegian. Scandinavians or nordics are told growing up not to ever think they are special.
I mean its also because it is so obvious that he belongs there. But i still agree, he seems like a pretty cool dude. For a Chess world champion at least lol
@@dickidsrip5262 . Interesting. What are you saying ? Are you saying that they teach their kids to be humble ?
"I've been World No. 1 for 11 years..." - one of the hardest flexes of all time; delivered so calmly.
Trash. When the Competition is trash then it says enough about the champion. Bobby Fischer updated the game and Solved Chess years ago. This guy is still playing catch up. Bobby Fischer is and will forever be the GOAT, Fischer become a Dev.
@@teemobadger2037 with shortest prime ever😂😂😂 magnus>>>>>
He avoids talking about Fischer. And the RUclips-experts I've talked to say that Fischer would smack Kasparov if both of them were born the same year.
@@scottwarren4998 RUclips-experts aaaaaaahahahahahahahhahaha
@@copicmarker1021 : D
In 72 Fisher took out the whole Soviet chess machine with relative ease as a hermit with minimal assistance and without the assistance of chess engines when chess dominance was of the utmost importance to the Soviets for political reasons, being really well funded.
Exactly, this proves his degree of talent. He did have some help, but nothing remotely like the assistance the main Soviet players had
Soviet’s were always 30 years behind in development. Nothing was funded. Atrocious dark country. The fact that Soviets were number 1 in anything is short of miracle.
Yes but then we must consider Paul Morphy who truly came from obscurity to dominate all of Europe with ease.
You say the engine part as if the Soviets had access to them...
"relative ease" of doing nothing but play chess for 20 years and being a freak of nature
Fischer-Spassky Game 6 of the 1972 World Championship is rather mind-blowing when you go through it with an engine on. Fischer gets so far ahead in a way which is almost impossible for a human to recognize. Material is basically equal the whole game (Spassky is even a pawn up for the last handful of moves) and yet Spassky is in a resignable position during the entire second half of the game and doesn't seem to notice. It's the game that illustrates the gap between Fischer and everyone else in the world.
That being said, Morphy should probably be in this conversation as well. It's hard though, because was playing "modern" chess in era when nobody else was. Undoubtedly a genius, but the lack of competition makes it hard to place him.
yeah that's amazing it. just checked it. fischer played all of the stockfish moves and spassky kinda looked lost in the mid game
Morphy was the goat of his time, he quit and died young or else you never know
Mikhail Tael was something else too
@@hliang4 tal is not near the league of these 3 im sorry. He is a very romanticised player cuz of his style of play
I don't understand it's like saying a lion has no predators so he can't be claimed to be as equal to someone who has 'eye test'
"It probably appeals to me a lot, because these are the things I cannot do as well. = "we love in others what we cannot do ourselves"
It's true because Carlsen's style resembles more Karpov
Carlsen is too humble. What he’s done in this era is fucking unbelievable. We won’t ever see it again
Maybe true. Truly a great. But history has shown there will be another great, maybe already born.
@@htownali hope so!
He’s not better than me
You are speaking a logical fallacy. There is no GOAT when you look at all the players objectively with engines. All chess players ever born made/make serious mistakes.
@@htownaliI'm on my way.
Kasporov, Karpov and Carlson, all of them had and have a team that works to improve them. Bobby Fischer....did it by himself against all odds which makes him the goat imo.
Not to mention he even created a variation Ches960 and learned Russian to further his knowledge in chess and his opponents, with limited resources in a limited time frame. Definitely the GOAT.
not true, he had a team. It's just that the Russians had a better one...
@@dachoist Nope he didn't. Anyone who read about him and saw his documentaries will know that he was a lonewolf when he became the world champion
Worth adding that Russian players colluded to keep him from winning the championship, but they failed. For example, certain players would intentionally end games in a draw in a bid to have Russians in the #1 and #2 spots, but Fischer broke through and it was probably in that 1970-1972 peak of his brilliance.
At the time, Fischer complained that the Russians were colluding, but everyone thought he was paranoid. Many years later, it turns out he was right. Look into it, it’s fascinating. Fischer is the GOAT, but it’s a shame how he became an outspoken anti-semite in addition to many other examples of deplorable conduct, all of which taints his legacy.
@@Fr49050 Oh wow I didn’t even know of this, going to look into now. Many people really don’t understand how powerful of a player Fischer was, and it’s a shame. He went through so much being a Chess champion and being a lonewolf it’s unfortunate people don’t respect him enough as the greatest to ever play. Real recognize real, when you speak the truth you will be punished in this society, and Fischer always spoke the truth, on how he felt, he had so much depth and character unlike these players now smh. He transformed his personality/character in the game of Chess. Stating he plays to win even with black pieces, studying as much as he can to become the best while people used political tactics to fuck with him. He’s without a doubt the best player to ever touch Chess.
Gotta love how Magnus pulled a Bobby Fischer and turned off the cameras when Lex was busy!
We r witnessing the greatest chess genius of all time and he talks back. What a treat magnus is
You spelled Fischer wrong...
@@nationalsocialism3504 you heard his arguments right,they are true in all sense
@@sunset1394 i did... it's just bullshit like Fischer used to say bringing up Morphy when he was questioned similarly. Karposov isn't even in the equation... there's only two possibilities, Fischer or Magnus (Morphy gets his own seperate title since the game of chess is so outside comparison.) I personally go with Fischer cause he would be equally great regardless of either time period he would be slotted in... Magnus would be just as amazing in Fischer time but struggle in Morphy time (whereas Morphy would be okay in Fischer time & wouldn't have anything to do with chess in the modern era.)
@@nationalsocialism3504 I'm confused. Could you elaborate on why you think Magnus would struggle in Chess during that time period? Do you mean if he was born in that period? Because as far as I know you're always building on the ideas of old so not only would he not struggle, but he'd also dominate.
@@ghoulbby because what makes Magnus the best now is ill suited to then... just like why Morphy wouldn't even a Master level chess player today cause he wouldn't learn "theory." Magnus end game brilliances are predicated upon his deep "theory" basis... Fischer got to the absolute peak & saw what was coming, which drove him to quit cause he had no interest in what he unveiled. I'm saying that different types of thinking/brains shine in different conditions... by all accounts Morphy was essentially playing bullet games from his side in games without time limits
Love the respect he has to his mentor.
Kasparov his mentor??
@@nudelsuppe2090 yuppp, he trained under Gary.
@@FalconJudah Part time for a few months when he was already the world number 1 rated player. They had two or three training camps in 2009, but Magnus didn't do the homework he was assigned between them.
Garry and Magnus worked together for about six months. Calling him "his mentor" is a huge stretch.
Carlsen's formative years were spent studying with Torbjørn Ringdal and Simen Agdestein.
@@kimaboe At the time Kasparov worked with Carlsen (2004/5) he was certainly not the number one player in the world, he was a few years away from that.
@@davidcopson5800 They played a few private games in 2004, but their professional partnership started in 2009 and lasted until early 2010. Magnus hit number one for the first time on the January 2010 rating list. When they had their first training camp in June 2009, Magnus was ranked 3rd behind Topalov and Anand.
In 2004 Kasparov himself was an active player, and definitely not coaching Carlsen or anyone else. He only retired from competition in 2005.
His assessment is refreshingly objective and honest (and accurate imo).
He's right that for these three guys the argument can be made. Other than that maybe Morphy but that was earlier than official world champions.
Nope, he's Wrong. Bobby Fischer is the only GOAT of Chess. He solved it and Patch the game years ago with Fischer Random
I agree about those three. There were many other amazing players like Morphy and Capablanca and others as well, but they played such a long time ago that they really are impossible to compare.
Carlsen's argument about his era being more difficult because "engines levelled the field" (true) bolsters the argument for Fischer, who as at a disadvantage to the Soviet machine--but beat them anyway. Fischer would have LOVED to have been on an even playing field with them. Kasparov had an advantage, Carlsen was arguably neutral, and Fischer was at a disadvantage.
As for childhood development, Carlsen and Kasparov were arguably even--both began receiving instruction from grandmasters at age 10 (Kasparov's teacher was at one time ranked 5th in the world and Carlsen's was ranked 12th), while Fischer is again at a huge disadvantage: his first teacher was Carmine Nigro, an amateur, and the he was mentored by John Collins, who was once the New York State champion. He also formed a relationship with William Lombardy, who was US junior champion and eventually rose to 19th in the world but that was in 1961 when Fischer himself (still 18) was already in the top 10.
Fischer also was the only one with difficult--even disastrous--home life. So all in all, I will always be more impressed with what Fischer accomplished than the other two players in my top 3.
Its also important to take into account Fischer and Kasparov were at the top of their games before strong computer engines came along. In the world championship candidate matches during 1970-71, Fischer won 20 consecutive games; winning so many games with black is unheard of and has never been equaled. For the last 10 years chess engines have been a huge part of professional chess players training.
Yeah, but all players have the luxury of having engines, so it equals everything out. They don't have an extra advantage over their competition.
@@billj4525 Ok? The exact same logic applies to people in the past lol. They didn't have engines, so who knows how strong they would have been? This is like saying Newton
@@billj4525 the logic applies more for the past generation
Lexington fries knows the right questions to ask. Good interviewer for magnus
Lexington Fries? Lol
I think measuring the gap between yourself and your competition is the key marker to comparing errors and who's the greatest. That coefficient of the gap between you and your competition is key
yes but its hard to normalize that measurement, what do we do? elo gap? that fails because of the era/level changes, etc.
For me the most important factors are domination, influence and longevity in that order for players skill and greatness.
It's a great way, but there are a lot of reasons why it doesn't work in some generations. It's harder to dominate because of engines today. Everyone has that advantage, and it makes it harder to dominate your opponents since computers and engines level the playing field for everyone. The top guys can't possibly achieve the same dominance because of that. When Morphy played chess it had no popularity, and was barely recognized as a serious game, so you can't compare his dominance to a time when chess was a much more popular game, a game that had many fans, and people paid attention to. That said, you can compare dominance in some generations, and it is one of the valid ways, but there are reasons it doesn't always work in many cases without more thought than just a direct comparison. It also doesn't take into account longevity either. You need to continue to dominate. Fischer had that extreme dominance for a year or two, but no longevity as the world champion, which you need to show if you're going to compare your dominance to someone elses across eras. This just goes to show you why you can't really compare players from different generations accurately. It's fun to do for sure, but it's impossible to with any degree of certainty and accuracy. I hate when people try to compare moves across eras. That's probably the worst possible way to compare players from different eras. Competition may be the best way to try to compare, but there are holes in every way possible.
@@donkbonktj5773 Yeah, you needs to compare all the factors. It's really impossible to compare players from different eras, but the best way would be to use all those different metrics. I don't think player skill or moves matters much at all, because the current generation has a big advantage over the past generation, and always plays better moves.
I love how people always go "hurr durr engines bla bla bla",like its only magnus that has the engines and other top players dont
How about Morphy, Capablanca? Sad that these & other superstars ruled in different times & Nature has deemed impossible tournaments where Fischer, Morphy, Kasparov, Carlson et al take part.
Capablanca was way too lazy, he relied quite a lot on his massive talent and made no serious opening preparation against others, which in modern chess would definitely be a handicap. He would never win against someone as hardworking and talented as Kasparov or Ivanchuck.
I don't really know about Morphy regarding how serious he was at studying chess, but he played a lot of dynamic chess, which is a style preferred by modern AI such as AlphaZero...
Morphy was ahead of his time, should definitely be in the conversation.
I agree. Morphy and Capablanca reminds me of Ronaldinho.
@@Consortiumed Chess was a totally different game when Morphy played though. Almost no one played and it wasn't a popular game. Dominating then just isn't the same thing when it has no popularity. It makes it impossible to compare someone like Morphy to today or anyone in the 20th century. Morphy is the hardest to compare. Capablanca was amazing and also way to far back to compare. They are unbelievable chess talents in history though.
Bobby Fisher was a prodigy, born to play Chess, watching the footage of him as a kid beating a room full of Master Chess players at the same time was mind blowing.
Gary Kasparov springs to mind when i think of Master Chess players. I grew up watching Gary at his peak, and i remember when he played Deep Blue and Deeper Blue, the Super Computers built to play Chess, he became the first person to beat a Machine at a Human's game, and for that alone he will always be the greatest Chess player in my mind.
Magnus is better though
@@mindhunter8772 Bobby Fisher is way way better than Magnus. Bobby Fisher Changed Chess forever, and had was always looking for the truth in life and in chess. He was the one who bought up making Chess more complex thus Chess960. Bobby Fisher is the GOAT.
@@kelvin303 Copy paste
@@kelvin303 you can't compare bobby fisher to Magnus. He's an Alien in chess....
@@mindhunter8772 Fischer is way better, magnus benefited from studying both Fischer and kasparov, Fischer was a trend setter
Isaac Newton is considered by many to be the greatest physicist of all time. Yet he knew much less than the average phd of physics today. As he himself put it "I only saw further standing on shoulders of giants." If we apply the same criteria to chess players, we might perhaps measure their influence, contributions and importance to development of the game. Not just metrics as number of titles, rating, etc. Perhaps Kasparov was the most successful chess competitor, but the giants of old invented most of modern theory and Fischer popularized the game more than anybody else. I personally think Demis Hassabis' contributions to the future of chess will be ranked higher than either Kasparov or Magnus's.
You were going well until the Demis Hassabis part
I don't even know who the hell is Demis Dahabis is. And your analogy is flawed since chess is a game, not a real world phenomena. U gonna call some unnamed randos who invented chess to be the GOAT then?
@@ahmadjauhar4562 Demis Hassabis is the guy who invented Alpha Zero, the AI that learned to play chess on super-human level in I think a couple of days, just playing with itself. maybe you don't know who he is, but your grand-granddaughter might learn that in school in a couple of decades.
Not to chess, but Demis contributions to AI in chess will be ranked higher than maybe anyones. You can't compare him to guys like Kasparov and Magnus. He's just working on different things. Demis also gets a lot of help from other AI scientists when working on these things. Kasparov and Magnus don't work on AI. In terms of actual chess Demis is no where near Magnus, Kasparov, or many top players. Demis played chess professionally as a kid and continued to play in mind games. He did his best and studied chess. Demis just was no where near as talented as top grandmasters. Demis likely couldn't make Grandmaster even if he completely dedicated his life to it, and he's a brilliant guy. That shows you how hard it is to become a Grandmaster.
I dont know, the specs for Alpha Zero were maxed out and the stockfish seemed like an average computer joe could put together. Impressive they made AI but there is a reason they didnt release Alpha Zero because the hardware they used is not comparable to what average PC's use which SF is made for. Also, AZ had openings wheras SF did not. IMO AZ was over powered against SF. Just business pr imo.
Wow. Just started watching some chess videos and now it’s all over my feed, and then lex comes out with this.
It’s going through a major resurgence and many popular Grand Masters stream on twitch.
Carlsen is too humble. He stands in a moment of history where he has the human creative side plus the artificial intelligence studies. The players from the past didn't have much computer help, even just for studies, and the ones from the future will learn mostly from machines. I think Carlsen could remain in history as the strongest player ever.
He's certainly the strongest player so far, in that if you take Magnus at his peak he would have the odds on his side in a match against any human player ever. He almost certainly won't remain that way tho, time just keeps ticking on and more and more people drive up the chance that one of them will be even better.
@@colamity_5000 I think what the OP is saying, is that even tho the players will inevitably get better, it will mostly be through memorising and mimicking the way the computer plays, where as for raw creativity + memorization, magnus is in that sweet spot, that may never be surpassed again due to the nature of computers having solved chess already.
@@alexb4287 well thats just not true on any account. First computers haven't solved chess yet, we get better engines every year. Even if they do "solve chess" which I can't imagine ever being theoretically proved but maybe is functionally possible, then it won't make much difference because humans are already bumping up against HUMAN limits on memorization: we can't be engines. We can't mimick the way a computer plays after our prep because the way they play requires a looking at moves with a depth we can't replicate. If you don't know why the computers move is a good one, then it isn't a good one because the quality of a move is heavily dependant on whether you choose the right line after it.
So regardless if thats what he meant hes still wrong.
@@colamity_5000 I'd say if a computers are at a point, where they can beat any human, in a game designed for humans, then from our point of view they may as well have solved it, if they're looking magnitudes further into a game than we are then they're basically playing a different game at that point. As far as memorisation limits are concerened, how else do you propose people are going to get better at chess ? Magnus can literally compete with a lot of strong chess engines, so how much more intuition can someone really have, bar just being able to remember more games that have already been played. Aswell, as engines get stronger they devise even more advanced openings etc, so I'm pretty sure mimicking they way they play, is a pretty fair way to put it, considering that is literally what is already being done.
@@alexb4287 Magnus cant compete with any top engine. He will lose 100/100 games 1000/1000 etc- I don't know what you mean saying he can compete.
Yes mimicking openings will be/is a thing, but no one is in their prep the whole game, this will continue. As for how much more intution some one can have thats so open ended as to almost unanswerable: but it is almost a statistical inevitebility that the answer is more, someone with more will exist. It is foolish to think that anyone represents the pinnacle of possible human achievement in anything.
Like Messi when someone ask for the n#1.. very humble answer.. they don't care about it and always names others..
Lex what do you have against Nakamura?
Another argument for Magnus is he’s been the best at classical, rapid and bitz. Very few players perform equally well in all time formats
I think a lot of previous world number 1's were the best at all formats. Kasparov and Fischer were 100%, but rapid and blitz rating is not something that was always counted. It was just clear how much better Kasparov and Fischer were than everyone else regardless of time controls. I would venture to think many other world number 1's were as well, despite the ratings not being there.
With chess, like sport, you can only be the best of your era.
Someone will come along in the next generation and improve on your performances - although that doesn't mean that they are better than you.
....Standing upon the shoulders of giants.
Indeed. The best player of all time in any discipline is almost always the current best player. Because as you say we are building on what people have figured out before us, but also just because the human population continues to increase. The best out of seven billion people will likely be stronger than the best out of five billion.
@@JulienRoigHerr Not the GOAT, but the current best player is almost always the strongest of all time. I wouldn't say in any discipline, but most, and definitely a discipline like chess.
I couldn't beat the Gary Kasparov chess game on level 1. That made that game way too hard.
Is it that he isn't interested in talking about style or does he really think it doesn't have as much of effect as other things?
Magnus is the best because he only cares about winning and doesn't care how he does it. Most people who play a game, any game, develop a certain approach to the game that they then identify with, and playing the game becomes about trying to prove that their approach is a good one and can succeed. Maybe it's aggression. Maybe it's psychology. Maybe it's accuracy. Maybe it's perfecting the meta. But Magnus doesn't waste time trying to prove that "his" way of playing is the best way to play. Instead, he just tries to figure out what the best way to play is for each particular game, and then plays that. His one quote he says that "some people think it's okay to lose if your opponent has a beautiful game. I don't think that" and that kinda sums it up. It reminds me of Alpha Go in a way. One of the big things Alpha Go did that humans never did was it took seriously the idea that it doesn't matter how much you win by, it only matters whether or not you win. So AlphaGo would often win by a very narrow margin. Magnus is like that also. Doesn't care whether it looks good doesn't care whether it's beautiful doesn't care if it's "his signature style" or not. Just wants to win. I think it's a great mentality for becoming the best. But I do think he's internalised it a bit too much which might be preventing him from appreciating games as much when he watches them? Because you only need that mindset when you play. Not when you observe. But of course it can be difficult to compartmentalise and switch between modes so... yea
@@neildutoit5177 nice write up, ty
Carlsen can DEFINITELY continue to be number 1 for many more years and overtake Gary's record..... the only question is whether he wants to stay MOTIVATED for soo long!
I think he wants to achieve that, and be the GOAT in his own mind. He believes he needs to do more to catch Garry, and I think he's right. Garry was really a giant, just unbelievable if you go through his career and accomplishments. Magnus may catch him, hard to say for sure. A lot can happen in 5 years, and Magnus gets older and just tired of playing at some level maybe.
Paul Morphy
The more I listen to great people the more I realize that humility is a virtue
Bobby Fisher by far the goat
Always!. He even Patch the game. Fischer Random
Don’t forget that Kasparov tutelage immensely helped Carlsen ! And of course in their time 🕰️(Fischer and Kasparov’s) weren’t any better supercomputers to help them study
Hey Lex don't sweat it about the video. Audio only is ok for most of us because we have seen so much of Magnus and are very familiar with his mannerisms and so forth, I think many of us can visualize him speaking as we listen. Just keep doing pods like this. Very educational in many ways. Good job
Could Magnus at his peak defeat Deep Blue as Kasparov did in 1996? And will Magnus still be playing at top level tournaments in his 50s like Kasparov?
nope
Easily
Not even a question
Yes he could
No, kasparov is the goat.
We can make the case for Hikaru when it comes to Bullet
Great questions, incredibly interesting answers to me who can't play Chess
Wow, that infographic was very well-made.
I like his answers a lot, he cuts through a lot of the crap with his choices.
Can't compare eras, can only compare how one does against their piers. No one dominated their piers the way Fischer did for a short period of time but Magnus is certainly in the conversation of best ever. He has clearly been #1 for the past decade, in five World Championships he's only had three losses total. He destroyed Nepo in the most recent one and Nepo once again won the Candidates so Nepo has displayed dominance against piers not named Magnus and Magnus has dominated Nepo.
"Can't compare eras"...Garry can.
Who is he talkimng about "Junkers prauf"?
Fischer is absolutely the most stylistic and the most mythical figure.
That's why he will always be the GOAT of Chess
He certainly didn't give a boring answer that could come up as too humble.
Greatest chess player of all time
Peasants: Bobby Fischer
Men of culture: Botez sisters
PAWGs are my weakness.
you mean gynocentric simps
It's like questioning who knew more about physics, Newton or Einstein? You cannot compare because Einstein had calculus and Newtonian mechanics at his disposal but Newton had to invent it from scratch!
The big problem of comparing different era players is that chess is accumulated knowledge and Magnus is the heir of this knowledge. He is the greatest of all time for sure, but also will be the world champion 50 years from now.
When two geniuses meet, they forego the primal urge to move and cue non verbals, they just sit still and converse telepathically like in this video.
Here's a easy way to look at it:
Chess Skill:
1. Magnus
2. Garry
3. Fischer
Dominance:
1. Fischer
2. Magnus/Garry (Garry was more dominant, but Magnus is dominant in an era where it is exceptionally hard to do so)
Duration:
1. Garry
2. Magnus
3. Fischer
As of 2024, I think Carlsen is the GOAT, but if he's #1 for 5-6 more years, it is unquestionable since his duration would match Garry's. Magnus == Garry > Fischer.
Imagine if MAgnus was like "what do you mean of course I am the greatest player of all time is there any doubt?"
I doubt he would say it like that lol.
@@billj4525 All am saying is it would be funny if he did.
FIDE rating 1972: 1 Fischer 2785 2 Spassky 2660.
AI chess has changed the skill set needed to be a the top. So MC is the first in the establish era of AI chess. It is impossible to compare past generations which was without AI. We may still be in transition if we transition to less time limits as more reflective of "human chess" as classical becomes pure memory/prep then different skills will be more important for top players.
the thing is that ai should make the gap smaller but magnus' gap is huge
@@Wtahc . The point is that there is an argument to be made that the best GMs are the ones that know how to use today's engines, databases, and AI the best as opposed to players of the past that had to rely on their own analysis and magazine/newspaper clips. Even so, today in 2023, Fischer's elo peak is still the 21 highest elo rating ever. Let that sink in for a while.
@@MrSupernova111 no, thats not the point. yes: gms know how to use the resources better. thats why magnus' literal elo is higher than fischer's. but when you're talking about an actual _gap_, between the #1 and his contemporaries, you're comparing him to other people who also use the resources. ergo, no asymmetrical advantage.
@@Wtahc . You completely ignored my comment. AI is just a tool like shovel or a hammer. The one that uses it best gets best results. There is no reason to believe that chess players won't continue getting stronger at various rates which leads to rating gaps.
@@MrSupernova111 you're not being clear. what are you saying, that magnus is just that much better at using the engine than the other top players? well you're wrong, sorry. im assuming you dont know a lot about the game, magnus has never been the best prepared player and his main strengths are endurance, consistency and his nettlesome wizardry in the endgame, literally the three things least influenced by engines. the players of today are not just better than fischer: they are more impressive, even considering their circumstances. magnus would make short work of a fischer born in the modern era, as would nakamura if the time control were blitz or shorter. conversely, a magnus or hikaru born in fischers era would put up a real battle, if not totally steamroll him. this is a universal truth of all popular games: everything improves over time. more generally, humans improve over time. the people stuck masturbating on the past are just lost, or extremely disingenuous. the pre-supercomputer era of chess is not worth romanticizing - i was there for it, it had just as many problems as the current one, and the problems it didnt have stemmed from the fact that no one was interested or good enough to discover them. fischer is a god and one of the greatest players of all time, but he is a step down from kasparov, who is a step down from magnus and hikaru. a more appropriate comparison for fischer would be someone like caruana, and even then i dont know if he holds up. its easy to armchair criticize the top players of today but once youve seriously tried to play the game at a high level you will realize how amazing they really are.
Paul Morphy needs an acknowledgment! He was far and away ahead of everyone like Fischer. If all the great champions started today with the same knowledge, my money would be on Morphy and Fischer.
What is it with morphy that appels so much to people? The guy was extremely good for sure, but he faced no real competition. Players of that era were very weak and made the most blunders in the history of chess according to evaluations. We dont know what morphy would have dont if he played today, but he definitely wouldnt be so dominant
@@dimitrispap777 The era was weak because Morphy was a genius. He barely studied chess, or he even didn't. Adolf Anderssen was actually a very good player, but Morphy trashed him as well. Morphy could spot pieces and have a blindfold simul while finding engine moves in like his teenage years. Not even Carlsen, or the other greats could do something like that. Sure Carlsen could also have blindfold simuls, but he had to work for it (I think), But anyway, It's almost like saying Archimedes isn't the greatest mathematician of all time because people back then knew very little.
I think part of what makes the three together a very interesting triad is that it's one american, one russian and one european. Of course there have been many in between from a variety of nationalities but the countries of the three goats have greater cold war and modern neoliberal implications.
Russia is in Europe....
The "best" argument comes down to "Peak" vs. "Area under the curve". I credit this idea to Bill James in his discussion of baseball players. Magnus argues for Fischer as a Peak GOAT, and Kasparov as an AUC GOAT.
Magnus has said Garry is the GOAT, but from what I have heard he puts himself and Kasparov above Fischer. He doesn't think as highly of Fischer as others do.
Its like in football. Hard do compare eras.
Fischer = Pele
Maradona = Kasparov
Magnus = Messi
Imo the game evolves so the goats are the recent ones
And Ronaldo hikaru
@@prarjucarju957 xD
Ronaldo = Vishy or Kramnik
@@prarjucarju957 Nah he's more like Neymar. Ronaldo is like top 3-4, while Hikaru isn't top 50 or even 100.
Morphy = Ronaldinho
Lex don’t be shy. You can beat Magnus ;)
He couldn't play with that question about best games ever played... not even a little bit?!
He shut that down quick.
There is a RUclips video by Nakamura where it shows the player with the highest percentage of accuracy to the engine. Here it shows GMs at 55, Kasparov at 69, Magnus at 70 and Fischer at 72. This clearly is very objective, why than is Fischer never considered to be the best ever? Everyone talks about longevity but why does that matter. If someone dominates 100 meter dash for 10 years with the fastest time of 10 seconds and another dominates for 1 year with the fastest time of 9 seconds, I'd say that the one with the 9 seconds is the fastest person ever.
Yeah but the difference is in a 100m dash your fastest time doesn't have anything to do with your opponents. whereas in chess results are highly dependant on who you are playing which is why the difficulty of the era is an important variable in the discussion. Usain Bolt would've been the best regardless of which era he raced in bc reults in track and field is independant to your competition.
@@royalty4958 What are you talking about? The accuracy is measured using today's engine so it has nothing to do with the opponents. It simply looks at the board and compares their moves against the CURRENT engine.
@@robertwhitten265 Yes but if you're a 2000 rated player playing a 500 rated player you'll have a much higher accuracy than if you were to play a grandmaster. Moves come much easier when you're playing weaker players which is my point. Accuracy is indicative not only of your strength but of the strength of your opponents too
@@royalty4958 Nope, even if you play someone int he park, the next best move is just as difficult as the pro. Might even be easier as you have seen it many times before. The next best move according to engine equally difficult in any situation. Finding the next move that is winning is easier with lower ranked player since there will be many but not finding THE best move.
@@robertwhitten265 I've had many 90% games in my own database, does that make me grandmaster level? no it just means my opponent blundered alot making my next moves easier to spot. This is a common known thing, that the weaker the opponent the, the more likely it is for your overall accuracy to be high. Its been said many times by grandmasters. Either you haven't played a lick of chess or you're misinformed
Bobby fischer is the 🐐 of chess
U say that because he hates jews and women lol
Garry Kasparov is the GOAT. He got his brain broke by Deep Blue.
Both are true. Yeah he admits that sort of, he kind of went crazy after deep blue because of all the psychology in the match. Getting beat knowing he was better, but not getting a rematch. All that messed with him. Some moves he didn't expect, he got paranoid. He's the GOAT, but that did mess with him and he has admitted that recently.
I’ll say this for Hikaru. He’s in the discussion for most important chess players of all time. BF obviously probably tops him. But that was just one moment in time. Hikaru, if he keeps going the way he’s going, he should be the most important player of all time. The sheer influence he has. Teaching, inspiring, etc, it’s going to be hard for someone to overcome that.
You're confusing popularity vs skill. If you want to vote on popularity maybe Nimzo should be included since he wrote one of the most influential chess books ever. But then, I never heard Nimzo being included in any GOAT conversation.
For me the greatest chess player has to be lelouch V britannia
Magnus finna adopt him
@@sy_hoang_nguyenGeass says otherwise
@@SavantGardeEX if we talking pure skill, Magnus is better.
I'm not gonna lie. For a sec I was like wtf is Perez Hilton doing in the Lex Fridman podcast!. Shout out to 1 of the best of all time chess player that ever walked this earth. Mr Carlsen.
Damn lex really hates nakamura😂
*I believe Bobby Fisher is the greatest player of all time for any one specific period.* E.g. the best Fisher vs. the best Magnus, I believe Fisher would win. In terms of longevity, yes Magnus and then Kasparov.
Fisher also had so much more pressure on him, regarding the US vs. Soviet Union, the media, the public figure, the fact he actively called out globalist elites and refused to be silent about such agendas - he was also called a conspiracy theorist, but he was always right. People in the chess world are very intelligent, and regardless of whether they liked the truth that Fisher was speaking, they respected him because he was correct and had a phenomenal mind.
You need a reality check. Mgnus would absolutely destroy fisher. Modern way of training with computer etc makes the level 100times higher
@@J.c410 . You said it yourself. "Modern way of training with computer." Give Fischer the same tools and let's see what happens. You won't be standing so confidently anymore.
@@J.c410 Well he means Fischer was the most dominant for a short period of time. In terms of how good he was against his competition he was the best for a couple years.
If Fischer was the GOAT, he never proved it. People will confidently state that he would beat Magnus given the same advantages but he never showed that he could actually do it. In fact, when it came down to it, he gave every indication that he couldn't. Not because it was beyond his ability, but because he didn't want to learn opening theory deeply enough. He might have had the pure intellect for it, but he didn't have the determination and mindset for it. Sure, you could give Fischer the same tools as Magnus, but if you did, I don't think he would use them. He didn't even fully use the resources he had available in his own time because of his stupid objection to it, because the game wasn't played precisely how he thought it should be. Well, tough, the game is what it is and the world wants to know who's best at it, not who's best at Bobby Fischer's invented and idealised version of it.
Mental strength, discipline and relentless self-application are a big a part of the equation at the top level of any game and all that was Fischer's biggest flaw, proven by the trajectory of his career and his life. In 20 years time, Magnus isn't going to be a wild-looking recluse from the game and the world, rambling on about how awful chess is, he's going to be a respected elder statesman.
@@J.c410 This is nonsense lol. Have you actually checked fisher's games? He was accurate most of the time
You should have asked him how he ranks fisher random compared to ches
They did talk about it, just watch the full thing
@@flamboyant91 You didn’t get it. Carlson isn’t a champion in chess960, shows he’s bot truly that good. Having a good memory helps in regular chess but in chess960 that’s a different story.
@@kelvin303 not true, he may have lost to Wesley So 4-0, but he was still 2nd, and is more well rounded and dominant than Wesley by far in regular chess.
@@omegacroc2928 Chess960 requires more skill from pro players. Mangus rely on theory more that’s why he’s very good in regular chess. Regular chess has been dead in pro play so it really doesn’t matter at this point. Chess960 are for the big boys
Had to get one stab at Nakamura in there
It's funny bc he was supposed to get on the podcast but got over last second for an Elon Musk podcast.
With Messi, the fact that he has to execute with his body gives reasons for him to have points for style.
style means nothing.... Messi had by far better team around him than anyone else.... and fact that during his best he hasn't won international trophy is a joke... to call him goat...
@@abbabb8369 I don’t think Messi is the goat, however he did win the Copa America just last year
@@James-ub8hx I said in his prime... he is not in his prime anymore....
@@abbabb8369 who do you have as your goat? I agree messi hasnt won a world cup, but as someone who watched more than 15 years regualrly, he is by far the best player i have seen.
@@alexanderkononov1862
If I had to pick I go with defender like Maldini...
for me never changes
Carlsen in Fischers era would be interesting.... My bet is on Fischer.
The Nakamura dig.... 😞be nice.
Take a joke. They are just messing around
@@chungboislim2061 go home.
@@leviconnermusic I am at home, why are you so salty? Nobody is being mean except you.
@@chungboislim2061dude find a different hobby besides soft trolling online.
@@leviconnermusic Find a different hobby besides taking offense on behalf of people who wouldn't themselves be offended.
Hikaru Nakamura...Just kiding lol
Is it not true that Capablanca played better longer than any other GM.
He's pretty much spot on.
arguing on self for debate for GOAT is NOT humbleness ..
It must bug Lex to no end when he asks a question that a lot of viewers would like to know the answers to.. then the guest just shuts it down with "that doesn't interest me at all"
Seriously?? This is a long form discussion dude, at least try to make it interesting by expanding on an idea that the host brings up! Jeez. smh
Very honest!
magnus is human after all!
What style do you like?
"Not interesting."
....Sure sounds like a socially unaware robot to me
The question is what if Bobby Fischer and a young Kasparov had to use of today's chess engines back then. you could argue that today's chess players have an advantage because of that it's easy to put a position in an engine sit back and let it run all the possible lines and variations the older generation of chess players used to have to do that all by themselves that's why I'd say they were better just my opinion though
you are right
True
Can anyone explain to me why they're dunking on Hikaru here? Idk Chess lore, but he's 8th place, is that bad?
He's just not even in the top 10 of the last few decades, it's ridiculous to call him one of the best ever. I think they are just being playful since he is sort of a meme at this point.
@@chungboislim2061 But he's literally 6th place on the FIDE leaderboard. Why is he a meme?
@@Tetratronic It's just because he's a streamer and his personality is quite different compared to most GMs. There was also a time where he didn't play a single classic match for quite a long time which made people meme on how bad he is on longer time controls, but that doesn't really apply anymore. But, yeah I think in terms of classical chess of the past decades or so, he's nowhere near top 10 average.
Being a Real Madrid fan, and calling Messi as the greatest tells that he's an honest guy.
Notice how the older a player gets, the less good he becomes at Chess.
I think the greatest chess genius is settled, and hands down it's Bobby Fischer..so stop comparing to him.. just say outside of Bobby Fischer, who is the greatest?? U could put magnus, Kasparov, Mikhail Tal, Morphy...but Fischer, due to his wrecking literally every player and his undefeated streak and his record during that time which will NEVER be broken, and the 140 point gap between he and the rest of the world, and the fact he defeated the soviet bloc on his own settles it forever ..so just stop with the comparison...there isn't any...there are 19 players within 140 of Carlsen
Some people simply don’t understand. Fischer hands down changed chess forever, and should always be known as the GOAT. Fischer already endeed classic chess.
Mikhail Tal no doubt was the goat.
No it is not settled. Many of Fischers records HAVE been broken...
@@FrenkieWest32 Fischer already ended the game of Chess long ago more than 20 years ago. Classic cheas in pro play been dead. Chess960 is the new chess. Mangus can’t even win in Chess960 cuz he rely too much on theory. Fischer is definitely the GOAT.
@@kelvin303 nobody plays Fischer random chess. What a strange fanboy narattive.
He just wants to win,no style and things like that,
Not one mention of Paul morphy?😳
Fischer still bottled playing Karpov. I say Kasparov is the greatest ever
Morphy would beat them all if he is alive today..
If Capablanca was alive today he'd turn in his grave!
We’re watching the best player of all time. Right now. Enjoy it while you can!
Bobby Fisher is way way better than Magnus. Bobby Fisher Changed Chess forever, and had was always looking for the truth in life and in chess. He was the one who bought up making Chess more complex thus Chess960. Bobby Fisher is the GOAT.
@@kelvin303 current engines and level of competition makes magnus better than fisher
@@imperfectmammal2566 It was way more competitive back then, no computers to add to experience and knowledge players needed. Bobby contributed more to Chess than Mangus and made a variation to Chess game. Bobby was a dominant player both in US and Soviet Union, he even learn Russian to study and beat his opponents in a limited time fram, with less resources. Mangus wouldn’t even touch Bobby Fischer, even if Bobby had the resources we have now. Bobby is easily the GOAT, if you think otherwise you’re delusional.
@@kelvin303 even though I appreciate Fischer's talent to be more , saying the competition was stronger back then is just completely wrong
@@suryanshshirbhate5954 competition was definitely more intense in Fischer era without a doubt. Fischer mastered the game so well he created a new variation to make it more difficult. Chess is easy for him, he made Chess960 to increase that difficulty. Not to mention he was a lonewolf in the game of Chess. That men needs the respect he never gain for being the GOAT. Foh
DEFEND YOUR TITLE!!!!
He's scared. Little baby Magnus
Indeed. As far as I know he's a professional chess player, it's his job. No one is asking him to climb the world's 20 highest mountains, they asking him to play chess.
Kasparov & Magnus two greatest of all time
Fischer was the greatest his gap versus everybody else was insane 🏆🏆♟
He even try to make the game harder with Fischer Random
Bobby is the Mozart, Murphy is Beethoven, while Gary is the Elvis and Finally Magnus is the Bieber in the chess history. See, the difference when you are already an adult is you are leaning more on your self honest evaluation rather than children hersay bedtime story.
he not mention
What?
I will say Lasker, Morphy, Kasparov, or Carlsen.
It's true Lasker was wc for 27 years, but he could chose who and when he would play. I think the top 5 are Morphy, Fischer, Carlsen, Kasparov and Capablanca.
we all know the answer is drunk Magnus
Hmm...Fisher = Jordan , Karpov = Lebron , Magnus = Bill Russell..?
lol! Magnus = Goat. But i don't think Magnus wanted to admit that yet...
no one cares of your basketball analogy
Factz People tend to forget their on the Fischer. He was an unstoppable monster. Learn a new language (Russian) for Chess and created Chess960, played to win even with Black pieces. He had style, game and character in his games. Bobby will forever be the GOAT, no question.
@@kelvin303 learning a language is not that impressive and it has nothing to do with chess. Creating chess960 also has very little to do with chess.
@@FrenkieWest32 Fischer learned a new language to gain more insight of the Russians information about chess. Chess960 is the new Chess my friend. Classic chess been dead. Fischer changed chess forever by himself, he’s the goat enough said.
For now Kasparov. Then if Magnus will be able at 60 to beat the USA champion we can reconsider
He doesn't need to beat one player one game at 60 to prove anything lol, that's silly. Sample size matters in chess, not a few games. If he's still world number 1 in 6 years then he surpassed Kasparov. He doesn't need to play at 60 at all, it's his choice.
@@billj4525 your reply is silly