Who is the real GOAT (Greatest of All Time)?

@IamNOTamod said ^

3 and 4. Wouldn't Kasparov have learnt from those mistakes?
Unless in your scenario, it is a Kasparov who has not played those games and analysed them afterwards.

I was referring to prime Kasparov in the vague late 90's. (I guess we have to specify an exact date for this imaginary match).

But no matter what version of Kasparov you take, Carlsen knows what he's gonna do and has studied his games, knows how Stockfish handles Kasparov's openings.

Kasparov couldn't really learn from mistakes he didn't know were mistakes. Kasparov didn't know that future Stockfish would find flaws in his repertoire that no one else at the time knew.

And Carlsen knows all about it.

This is why comparisons of classic players vs modern players in a match format doesn't work.

Cos the modern players know what the classic players will do. And they've studied their games and know the flaws in their openings and their style and every aspect of their chess.

@RuyLopez1000 said ^

@TheDifferenceOfTier5

Stockfish only helps with openings. Openings rarely win games.

Do you realize how much Stockfish has changed the game? Prime Kasparov would get beat by Carlsen as Kasparov's King's Indian Defence has been smacked down by engines. So has Kasparov's beloved Sicilian Scheveningen.

And I don't know on what basis you are saying that modern players have "more knowledge".

Are you claiming that Carlsen and co. don't have any more knowledge than Kasparov??

Engines exist and they have TOTALLY EXPANDED our knowledge.

And you keep saying "greatest not best" but you don't say how you are defining those things or how they are different.

Best = best objective moves aka Stockfish agreement.

Greatest = most impressive accomplishments in their era.

The Scheveningen was basically refuted by Keres in 1943. No Stockfish necessary. And once again you are talking about only openings.

And yes, I am saying that. Can you provide an example of an engine "expanding our knowledge" in a non-opening related way?

@RuyLopez1000
Also you keep saying that carlsen knows Kasparovs games but I find it unlikely that he's memorized a bunch of kasparov's games.

@TheDifferenceOfTier5 said ^

@RuyLopez1000
Also you keep saying that carlsen knows Kasparovs games but I find it unlikely that he's memorized a bunch of kasparov's games.

You don't think Carlsen has studied Kasparov's games??

Hard to imagine that Carlsen hasn't studied the games of a man who he considers the Greatest Of All Time.

He's also worked with Kasparov personally.

@RuyLopez1000 said ^

@RuyLopez1000
Also you keep saying that carlsen knows Kasparovs games but I find it unlikely that he's memorized a bunch of kasparov's games.

You don't think Carlsen has studied Kasparov's games??

Hard to imagine that Carlsen hasn't studied the games of a man who he considers the Greatest Of All Time.

He's also worked with Kasparov personally.

I didn't say he didn't study them I said he didn't memorize them two very different things

@TheDifferenceOfTier5 Magnus has memorised up to 10000 games; it is unlikely Kasparov's is not among them.

@RuyLopez1000 what about Prime Kasparov but with modern-day knowledge vs Prime Magnus? This would be a fairer match-up as it bypasses technological constraints.

@TheDifferenceOfTier5 said ^

I didn't say he didn't study them I said he didn't memorize them two very different things

He's memorized the openings as part of opening theory. Carlsen's knows Kasparov's openings. He doesn't need to memorize every move of every game cos that irrelevant. Carlsen knows Kasparov's openings and the game plans that follows from the openings.

See you need to realize that openings flow into the middle game. The opening determines the game plans. It's not a separate thing.

@RuyLopez1000 said ^

I didn't say he didn't study them I said he didn't memorize them two very different things

He's memorized the openings as part of opening theory. Carlsen's knows Kasparov's openings. He doesn't need to memorize every move of every game cos that irrelevant. Carlsen knows Kasparov's openings and the game plans that follows from the openings.

See you need to realize that openings flow into the middle game. The opening determines the game plans. It's not a separate thing.

Well i know that but you didn't actually say that

@IamNOTamod said ^

@RuyLopez1000 what about Prime Kasparov but with modern-day knowledge vs Prime Magnus? This would be a fairer match-up as it bypasses technological constraints.

It is fairer. I don't know who wins. But Kasparov would also be a different person. There is the question of when Kasparov would learn 'modern-day knowledge'. How does that happen?

Do we just give Prime 90's Kasparov a laptop and say 'learn'. Do we give it in his childhood instead as that is fairer because you can learn faster when younger?

Or do we have Kasparov grow up in the modern era? But then he would be a different person.

Not the Kasparov we all know. An imposter.