Do u think Magnus Carlsen the best player of all time? • page 4/5 • General Chess Discussion • lichess.org

Some of you folks believe Magnus Carlsen is the best of all time...

Do you understand that "best of all time" means that no one was or will EVER be better? Saying he is the best so far is more reasonable, but is still debatable. All it takes is for one person to be a better player than Carlsen and your GOAT statement will be false.

GOAT is accurate as anything in the future has not happened yet and thus it's TIME has not come. Hairs Split.

The hair-splitting semantics and acrobats chess players go through to one-up someone on a forum post is next level.

@DoomedBishop said [^](/forum/redirect/post/N94lTHGg) > Some of you folks believe Magnus Carlsen is the best of all time... > > Do you understand that "best of all time" means that no one was or will EVER be better? Saying he is the best so far is more reasonable, but is still debatable. All it takes is for one person to be a better player than Carlsen and your GOAT statement will be false. GOAT is accurate as anything in the future has not happened yet and thus it's TIME has not come. Hairs Split. The hair-splitting semantics and acrobats chess players go through to one-up someone on a forum post is next level.

DoomedBishop

It has been a while since I have eaten my words...but in this case, I must. I just looked up all-time and compared and contrasted it with "ever after." I apologize for my ignorance and my arrogance. I guess I thought the words all-time implied (not denoted) that Carlsen was the best who was and who will ever be. I am incorrect. I suppose it's possible that some people feel that way, but I don't think MOST people do. Anyway, I think Magnus Carlsen might be one of the best I will see in my lifetime. I still miss the days when Kasparov was World Champion, but those days are gone...

@ChessPriyome It might be too late, but I apologize for what I said in this forum and in any other places in which I was arrogant, incorrect, or both. I have some issues, but I won't drag anyone down with them, and I can't use them as excuses (no matter how tempting that might be). Thanks for keeping me reasonably honest. I have a lot of work to do--a lot of reflection...

It has been a while since I have eaten my words...but in this case, I must. I just looked up all-time and compared and contrasted it with "ever after." I apologize for my ignorance and my arrogance. I guess I thought the words all-time implied (not denoted) that Carlsen was the best who was and who will ever be. I am incorrect. I suppose it's possible that some people feel that way, but I don't think MOST people do. Anyway, I think Magnus Carlsen might be one of the best I will see in my lifetime. I still miss the days when Kasparov was World Champion, but those days are gone... @ChessPriyome It might be too late, but I apologize for what I said in this forum and in any other places in which I was arrogant, incorrect, or both. I have some issues, but I won't drag anyone down with them, and I can't use them as excuses (no matter how tempting that might be). Thanks for keeping me reasonably honest. I have a lot of work to do--a lot of reflection...

DoomedBishop

To be fair, I don't know enough about chess to say, with any certainty, whether Mr. Carlsen is the best this world has seen. I am just a beginner compared to him. I think he is a truly excellent player--if not THE best, then one of the best.

ChessPriyome

Apology not accepted nor necessary.

IMHO - Joe Montana was the GOAT before Brady arrived. Joe - GOAT no more.
Fischer was the GOAT before Kasparov arrived; Magnus - even with his deep personality flaws, became the GOAT, arguably. You can argue the point until Blue in the face; these are opinions. Nobody should lose sleep over this.

If enjoying a player's games over all else makes him the GOAT in your eyes, that is all you need. It's an argument that need not be made, regardless of the firmness of opinions of others. I cannot remember the last time someone elses opinions changed my mind about anything.

Apology not accepted nor necessary. IMHO - Joe Montana was the GOAT before Brady arrived. Joe - GOAT no more. Fischer was the GOAT before Kasparov arrived; Magnus - even with his deep personality flaws, became the GOAT, arguably. You can argue the point until Blue in the face; these are opinions. Nobody should lose sleep over this. If enjoying a player's games over all else makes him the GOAT in your eyes, that is all you need. It's an argument that need not be made, regardless of the firmness of opinions of others. I cannot remember the last time someone elses opinions changed my mind about anything.

Krenium

It's hard to say. I think it matters who would be able to make use of chess engines most effectively.

plmw edited

Carlsen is great but a bit overrated, in my opinion.
He was able to use ratings inflation to get over 2800.
His style was always kind of ugly to me (play for an equal middlegame then win endgames).
If he had played Anand at his peak (instead of a 43 year old Anand), I doubt he would become champion.
Then he acted like a coward and resigned the title because he recognized he was declining.
He also tries to popularize chess960 now because his skills in classical & rapid are slipping.
Blitz and bullet are not real chess - just ask Hikaru.

Carlsen is great but a bit overrated, in my opinion. He was able to use ratings inflation to get over 2800. His style was always kind of ugly to me (play for an equal middlegame then win endgames). If he had played Anand at his peak (instead of a 43 year old Anand), I doubt he would become champion. Then he acted like a coward and resigned the title because he recognized he was declining. He also tries to popularize chess960 now because his skills in classical & rapid are slipping. Blitz and bullet are not real chess - just ask Hikaru.

IamNOTamod

As far as I know, it is not established in a dictionary, or by an expert, that "all time" does not include future possibilities.

coledavis

@plmw said ^

His style was always kind of ugly to me (play for an equal middlegame then win endgames).

This Joe Montana - could he win with the black pieces?

Re winning in the endgame: this is part of Capablanca's teaching. Get your small advantage and nurse it to a win in the endgame. Needless to say, Capa was a great endgame player; even Joe Montana would recognise that.

@plmw said [^](/forum/redirect/post/AaBgYFh7) > His style was always kind of ugly to me (play for an equal middlegame then win endgames). This Joe Montana - could he win with the black pieces? Re winning in the endgame: this is part of Capablanca's teaching. Get your small advantage and nurse it to a win in the endgame. Needless to say, Capa was a great endgame player; even Joe Montana would recognise that.

ChessPriyome

@IamNOTamod said ^

As far as I know, it is not established in a dictionary, or by an expert, that "all time" does not include future possibilities.

Ultimately, calling someone the GOAT means they are the best who has ever lived so far, with the implicit understanding that records are made to be broken. By definition, "Greatest of All Time" measures actual, completed achievements from the past up to the present moment. A person cannot officially be the GOAT based on things they haven't done yet.

Common sense, really.

@IamNOTamod said [^](/forum/redirect/post/TlJWfRa9) > As far as I know, it is not established in a dictionary, or by an expert, that "all time" does not include future possibilities. Ultimately, calling someone the GOAT means they are the best who has ever lived so far, with the implicit understanding that records are made to be broken. By definition, "Greatest of All Time" measures actual, completed achievements from the past up to the present moment. A person cannot officially be the GOAT based on things they haven't done yet. Common sense, really.