Who do you consider the greatest chess player in history (GOAT): Kasparov, Carlsen, Fischer or Capab

@crusader5

That is a good point, but I think that it doesn't really matter that much; just going 31-7.5 against the world's best players is a feat that was unprecedented and will never happen again.

I'd like to see you say to Kasparov that his 20 year dominance 'doesn't really matter that much' as Fischer 'going 31-7.5 against the world's best players is a feat that was unprecedented and will never happen again.'

Personally I just think your a Fischer fan who doesn't want Fischer to not be the best.

But I'm a Fischer fan who also agrees that Karpov, Carlsen and Kasparov were greater.

This is because I know their respective playing histories.

@tpr

"as if they were common patzers"

• That is different. The World's #2, #3, #7, #8, #12, #13, #32, #33 play to designate the challenger to #10.

What the problem with that? What is the problem with no.2 no.3..... etc designating challenger to no.10. What is your specific reason. I can't read your mind.

Also I don't think you can justify the statement that 'The present system to designate candidates looks no better' than when Champions handpicked their opponents which was not fair at all.

"What the problem with that?"

• Keymer, Abdusattorov, Firouzja, So do not play Candidates and are all rated higher than Gukesh.

'The present system to designate candidates looks no better' than when Champions handpicked their opponents

• With a few exceptions like Alékhine hand picking Bogoljobov and Euwe it was more fair than now.
  I believe the situation with Interzonal Tournaments and Candidates' Matches was most fair.

"But I'm a Fischer fan who also agrees that Karpov, Carlsen and Kasparov were greater."

• Define greatness.
  Most Dominance over peers? Fischer
  Longest dominance over peers? Kasparov
  Longest time World Champion? Lasker
  Highest rating achieved? Carlsen
  Least games lost? Capablanca
  Greatest tournament record? Karpov / Kasparov / Carlsen

"What the problem with that?"

• Keymer, Abdusattorov, Firouzja, So do not play Candidates and are all rated higher than Gukesh.

They didn't qualify. Tough luck. If you make it based on rating then that excludes people who don't get frequent invites.

'The present system to designate candidates looks no better' than when Champions handpicked their opponents

• With a few exceptions like Alékhine hand picking Bogoljobov and Euwe it was more fair than now.

The Candidates is open to anyone who can win tournaments. In the olden times this was not the case.

I believe the situation with Interzonal Tournaments and Candidates' Matches was most fair.

Candidates Matches have the issue that a player with a lead can make draws and sit on their lead. Anand pointed this out in a recent interview. It is an interesting option tho.

@tpr said ^

"But I'm a Fischer fan who also agrees that Karpov, Carlsen and Kasparov were greater."

• Define greatness.
  Most Dominance over peers? Fischer
  Longest dominance over peers? Kasparov
  Longest time World Champion? Lasker
  Highest rating achieved? Carlsen
  Least games lost? Capablanca
  Greatest tournament record? Karpov / Kasparov / Carlsen

So we can all agree that there are lots of top players, but each have achieved being a top player in a different way.
So, by now it’s just opinion, but the way we find out who’s the top player is by voting which way these players achieved the title top player .
But, on the other hand, Kasparov has achieve the top player title in a different way twice.

@tpr

"But I'm a Fischer fan who also agrees that Karpov, Carlsen and Kasparov were greater."

• Define greatness.

Most Dominance over peers? Fischer (But Fischer was only dominant for 2 years, so not good metric)

Longest dominance over peers? Kasparov (A good metric)

Longest time World Champion? Lasker (He had a massive gap between 1910 and 1921). Longest time as no.1 covers this anyway usually (we can deduct GOAT status for avoid WCH tho).

Highest rating achieved? Carlsen (Irrelevant because greatness is based on their respective eras. People don't agree it shouldn't be solely based on rating because otherwise GOAT discussion wouldn't exist).

Least games lost? Capablanca (Definitely irrelevant as far weaker player could have less games lost. Less games lost is more about how drawish you are).

Greatest tournament record? Karpov / Kasparov / Carlsen (Dovetails with time as no.1, tournament records are naturally highly correlated with time as no. 1).

I think Longest dominance over peers is the most influential metric as it is a common factor.

"They didn't qualify. Tough luck." * The present qualification system with the Grand Swiss etc. is a lottery, i.e. luck indeed.

"In the olden times this was not the case."

• Can we agree that Lasker was a worthy challenger to Steinitz, that Steinitz (rematch), Tarrasch, Schlechter, Capablanca were worthy challengers to Lasker, Janovski maybe less so, that Alékhine was a worthy challenger to Capablanca, Bogolubov and Euwe may have been less worthy challengers to Alékhine. Can we agree that Tal, Smyslov, Petrosian were worthy challengers to Botvinnik, that Spassky was a worthy challenger to Petrosian, that Fischer was a worthy challenger to Spassky?
  Can we agree that Karpov was a worthy challenger to Fischer, that Korchnoi and then Kasparov were worthy challengers to Karpov?
  From then on it became less clear with even schisms.

"Candidates Matches have the issue that a player with a lead can make draws and sit on their lead."

• Candidates Tournaments have a risk of collusion and are decided by who beats the weaker players.

https://youtu.be/Y48s5vby2MY?si=_RoSNhTT7I6CaIIC

@tpr said ^

"Caruana, Nakamura, Giri, Praggnanandhaa, Yi, Sindarov, Esipenko, Bluebaum are fine players"

• No doubt about that.

"as if they were common patzers"

• That is different. The World's #2, #3, #7, #8, #12, #13, #32, #33 play to designate the challenger to #10.

lmao that's hilarious