lichess.org
Donate

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

@EdwardChan6143Chess said ^

SHould'nt the answer be Magnus if he has the most ELO?

No, elo systems compare to peers, not actual skill

@EdwardChan6143Chess said [^](/forum/redirect/post/TAANufo5) > SHould'nt the answer be Magnus if he has the most ELO? No, elo systems compare to peers, not actual skill

Huh,I still don't get it. If it compares to peers,he still has the most elo. isn't he like the champion too? Also,who are those peers?

Huh,I still don't get it. If it compares to peers,he still has the most elo. isn't he like the champion too? Also,who are those peers?

@EdwardChan6143Chess said ^

Huh,I still don't get it. If it compares to peers,he still has the most elo. isn't he like the champion too? Also,who are those peers?

yes, but he is not compared to players before him, like Fischer, or Kasparov, because they are not playing right now

@EdwardChan6143Chess said [^](/forum/redirect/post/IL1Igkyj) > Huh,I still don't get it. If it compares to peers,he still has the most elo. isn't he like the champion too? Also,who are those peers? yes, but he is not compared to players before him, like Fischer, or Kasparov, because they are not playing right now

@crusader5

But if you ignore Spassky, Fischer was like 200-300 over his closest peers.

Well Spassky was close to his peers.

He defeated Taimanov 6-0, then Larsen 6-0, which is simply unthinkable, and then beat Petrosian 6.5-2.5, and he was sick during those games too.

True. Actually Fischer was only sick at the beginning of the Petrosian match. Also imagine being on top for 20 years but then people say the person who did great for 2 years is better. Like I don't think that it's fair. Like Fischer great but Kasparov has to be better.

@crusader5 > But if you ignore Spassky, Fischer was like 200-300 over his closest peers. Well Spassky was close to his peers. > He defeated Taimanov 6-0, then Larsen 6-0, which is simply unthinkable, and then beat Petrosian 6.5-2.5, and he was sick during those games too. True. Actually Fischer was only sick at the beginning of the Petrosian match. Also imagine being on top for 20 years but then people say the person who did great for 2 years is better. Like I don't think that it's fair. Like Fischer great but Kasparov has to be better.

@RuyLopez1000 said ^

@crusader5

But if you ignore Spassky, Fischer was like 200-300 over his closest peers.

Well Spassky was close to his peers.

Not really. He was significantly better than Taimanov and Larsen, and a good deal better than Petrosian.

He defeated Taimanov 6-0, then Larsen 6-0, which is simply unthinkable, and then beat Petrosian 6.5-2.5, and he was sick during those games too.

True. Actually Fischer was only sick at the beginning of the Petrosian match. Also imagine being on top for 20 years but then people say the person who did great for 2 years is better. Like I don't think that it's fair. Like Fischer great but Kasparov has to be better.

Because Fischer was just so much ahead of his competition. No one could ever stop him from winning, if he put his mind to it. He swept the US championship 11-0, which no one has even come close to yet, (maybe Carissa Yip on the women's side but she was 2.5 away still at least, and that is the closest anyone has come I believe) won the Interzonal of the world's strongest players with a round to spare, and destroyed the world's strongest players easily in the Candidates. Kasparov was better for longer, but Karpov was always close to him, and he was beatable. Fischer was just unstoppable.

@RuyLopez1000 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/EO73wIVg) > @crusader5 > > > But if you ignore Spassky, Fischer was like 200-300 over his closest peers. > > Well Spassky was close to his peers. Not really. He was significantly better than Taimanov and Larsen, and a good deal better than Petrosian. > > > He defeated Taimanov 6-0, then Larsen 6-0, which is simply unthinkable, and then beat Petrosian 6.5-2.5, and he was sick during those games too. > > True. Actually Fischer was only sick at the beginning of the Petrosian match. Also imagine being on top for 20 years but then people say the person who did great for 2 years is better. Like I don't think that it's fair. Like Fischer great but Kasparov has to be better. Because Fischer was just so much ahead of his competition. No one could ever stop him from winning, if he put his mind to it. He swept the US championship 11-0, which no one has even come close to yet, (maybe Carissa Yip on the women's side but she was 2.5 away still at least, and that is the closest anyone has come I believe) won the Interzonal of the world's strongest players with a round to spare, and destroyed the world's strongest players easily in the Candidates. Kasparov was better for longer, but Karpov was always close to him, and he was beatable. Fischer was just unstoppable.

The match Fischer-Spassky was even more exceptional: a 24-game match, start 0-2 down and finish 12.5 - 8.5.

The match Fischer-Spassky was even more exceptional: a 24-game match, start 0-2 down and finish 12.5 - 8.5.

@EdwardChan6143Chess said ^

Huh,I still don't get it. If it compares to peers,he still has the most elo. isn't he like the champion too? Also,who are those peers?

yes, but he is not compared to players before him, like Fischer, or Kasparov, because they are not playing right now@TheDifferenceOfTier5 said ^

Fischer, obviously. His play wasn't the most accurate, he wasn't the most brilliant, he didn't have great stamina, he just dominated in a way that noone ever came close to doing.

Carlsen held the world championship for 10 years and didn't even lose it in a match. Is that not dominance?

Not really, many players held for longer. He was also almost defeated by Karjakin and Caruana, who are good players, but they are not even close to GOAT level. Only against Nepo who is a weaker player did he actually dominate the match.

@EdwardChan6143Chess said [^](/forum/redirect/post/IL1Igkyj) > Huh,I still don't get it. If it compares to peers,he still has the most elo. isn't he like the champion too? Also,who are those peers? yes, but he is not compared to players before him, like Fischer, or Kasparov, because they are not playing right now@TheDifferenceOfTier5 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/apIdrvww) > > Fischer, obviously. His play wasn't the most accurate, he wasn't the most brilliant, he didn't have great stamina, he just dominated in a way that noone ever came close to doing. > > Carlsen held the world championship for 10 years and didn't even lose it in a match. Is that not dominance? Not really, many players held for longer. He was also almost defeated by Karjakin and Caruana, who are good players, but they are not even close to GOAT level. Only against Nepo who is a weaker player did he actually dominate the match.

@tpr said ^

The match Fischer-Spassky was even more exceptional: a 24-game match, start 0-2 down and finish 12.5 - 8.5.

Exactly; minus the first two games (one of which he forfeited i believe), he was +6

@tpr said [^](/forum/redirect/post/WNTsHMjm) > The match Fischer-Spassky was even more exceptional: a 24-game match, start 0-2 down and finish 12.5 - 8.5. Exactly; minus the first two games (one of which he forfeited i believe), he was +6

@crusader5
yes, but he is not compared to players before him

oh thanks! But that means he is the best in PRESENT TIME. RIght?

@crusader5 yes, but he is not compared to players before him oh thanks! But that means he is the best in PRESENT TIME. RIght?

@EdwardChan6143Chess said ^

@crusader5
yes, but he is not compared to players before him

oh thanks! But that means he is the best in PRESENT TIME. RIght?

Yes

@EdwardChan6143Chess said [^](/forum/redirect/post/zh7TiMOk) > @crusader5 > yes, but he is not compared to players before him > > oh thanks! But that means he is the best in PRESENT TIME. RIght? Yes