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

@crusader5

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,

But remember this was back when the U.S. players were not strong. Tal, Petrosian and Spassky would destroy them if they could play in the U.S. Championship.

Also Kasparov didn't get the chance to play in the U.S. Championship as he was born in Soviet Union.

U.S. Championship is just one tournament. Surely Fischer can't be the best cos of one tournament? Especially against relatively weak players compared to international players?

@RuyLopez1000 said ^

@crusader5

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,

But remember this was back when the U.S. players were not strong. Tal, Petrosian and Spassky would destroy them if they could play in the U.S. Championship.

Also Kasparov didn't get the chance to play in the U.S. Championship as he was born in Soviet Union.

U.S. Championship is just one tournament. Surely Fischer can't be the best cos of one tournament? Especially against relatively weak players compared to international players?

The U.S championship still had several GMs, such as Bisguier, Evans, and Reshevesky. Also that's not really what i'm saying, just look at his wins versus Taimanov, Larsen, and Petrosian; it's unlikely that anyone else would have done that

@crusader5

The U.S championship still had several GMs, such as Bisguier, Evans, and Reshevesky. Also that's not really what i'm saying, just look at his wins versus Taimanov, Larsen, and Petrosian; it's unlikely that anyone else would have done that

I hear you! I agree it's unlikely that anyone else would have done that. But 20 years! Kasparov on top. Think about Kasparov. Fischer is a shooting star but brief one. I agree that Fischer's Candidates is amazing.

But I have a question for you: does Fischer Candidates performance or 1970-72 performance outweigh Kasparov being on top for 20 years? and beating Karpov in grueling matches?

Wht about GUKESH?!

Maggie man

@norah_cnova said ^

Wht about GUKESH?!

Gukesh lost badly at Prague chess masters I wouldn’t consider him as the best player of all times....
Anyway, heading back to the topic, I think Magnus has held the title more dominantly, like winning consistently, but now it is modern times, bots will take over us soon — even the top players in history...

Wilhelm Steinitz was the best at strategy in history for me. I have a book that my grandad gave my dad which has his games in it and they are very impressive. He thinks very far ahead and masses the pieces for unpredictable finishes. It is very different from modern chess trends.

@crusader5 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.

The elephant in the room is the fact he never defended his title. Can we really say he was one of the greatest champions, who never defended his title and basically disappeared? Yes he was great, and burned bright but also burned out. Magnus is still competing in various formats, and comes out on top so often.

This is crazy! Mostly everyone is choosing a different top player, we have to vote now!
voting system:
Who’s making it? Idk how to

@kindaspongey said in #57:

... Perhaps, it should be mentioned that Capablanca objected to the Lasker proposed requirement that Lasker would retain his title unless Capablanca finished at least two points ahead of Lasker. ...

@tpr said in #58:

Capablanca insisted on playing in Havanna, as his money sponsors were there, and Lasker rejected that because of the climate.

I guess tpr would rather not mention it. However:
"... Capablanca had formally challenged Lasker as early as 1911, but disagreements over match terms -- especially Lasker's insistence that if either player led by one point after 30 games, the match should be declared drawn and the incumbent retain the title -- left the two no longer on speaking terms. ..." - Emanuel Lasker A Reader edited by Taylor Kingston

The iceberg collision was now ~11 hours ago. As I write this, there are now 16 discussions above this one in the topic list.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uffHb6JgoiQ
https[colon]//www[period]youtube[period]com/watch?v=uffHb6JgoiQ