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

@RuyLopez1000 said ^

@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.

Ngl i am a big fischer fan. Obviously Kasparov and Carlsen were better objectively, but I still think Fischer counts as the GOAT because of his dominance, but i suppose I am biased...

@tpr said in #54:

... There was a quarrel between Lasker and Capablanca starting 1911: Lasker was willing to play Capablanca, but not in Havanna because of the climate. A few months later Lasker drew up 17 terms, of which Capablanca found 6 satisfactory and he wrote so. ...

@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.

@kindaspongey said in #80:

... 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 ...

@tpr said in #83:

... That clause was irrelevant in retrospect: Capablanca did not lose a single game and won 4 games, so Capablanca could as well have agreed on a +3 margin for Lasker to retain his title. ...
There was also disagreement on ...
The most important was the venue: 'I do not think that I shall care to play in a semi-tropical climate more than a few games' - Lasker 1911. ...

@kindaspongey said in #87:

... Do 1921 events necessarily indicate what would have been relevant, a decade earlier? How many historians can be named as describing the ~1911 dispute as about the venue? Would tpr want this matter to be taken as representative of the quality to be expected from a tpr historical account? ...

@tpr said in #88:

... Lasker drew up 17 terms in 1911.
... Capablanca objected mostly to the 30 game limit: 'the unfairness of this condition is obvious'

"mostly"?

Capablanca did indeed write:
"I object to the clause limiting the contest to 30 games. Such an arrangement would increase unnecessarily the likelihood of the match ending in a draw, and since you would retain your title of the drawn match, the unfairness of this condition is obvious."

HOWEVER, Capablanca also wrote:
"I cannot agree to your provision that should the match be won by score of 1 to 0, 2 to 1, or 3 to 2, it would be declared drawn, and you retain the title. ... such a march ... would be more in the nature of a handicap contest, wherein I ... would be compelled to give you a handicap of one game. I do not presume to be able to do that, ..."
(I have left out about 160 words of what Capablanca wrote on this issue.)

@tpr said in #88:

In hindsight Capablanca had no reason to object: he won 4-0 after 14 games only. ...

Again, do 1921 events necessarily indicate what would have been relevant, a decade earlier?

"... Were I younger and more ambitious, I would certainly have postponed the match until January 1922, ... But at my age a whole year is too long to wait. One feels time drawing short, and one hurries to do what it is necessary to do. ..." - Lasker (~1921)

I guess tpr does not want to try to name any historians who would describe the ~1911 dispute as about the venue.

@tpr said in #88:

... In hindsight Lasker should not have accepted to play in Havanna.

Hypothetical advice for 1921-Lasker can be interesting, but it is a somewhat different question as to what Lasker did in 1911, and how it delayed a match.

@tpr said in #99:

... Can we agree ... that Steinitz (rematch), Tarrasch, Schlechter, Capablanca were worthy challengers to Lasker, Janovski maybe less so, ...

When Fischer tried to insist on a 2-point requirement, he lost the title. There was nobody with an authority to do that sort of thing in 1911 on behalf of Capablanca.

The iceberg collision was now ~38 hours ago. As I write this, there are now 30 discussions above this one in the topic list.

@tpr said ^

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

I agree Grand Swiss is problematic because of the extra white game advantage. We should get rid of Grand Swiss and replace it with another qualification method.

"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.

Rubinstein missed out against Capablanca. Capablanca missed out against Alekhine. Even if the selected challengers were top class, that is still unfair because others don't get a chance to contest that.

Being a 'worthy challenger' is not enough. If we handpicked Caruana to face Gukesh in championship then you could say Caruana is a 'worthy challenger'. But you can see the obvious problem here.

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?

I was referring to the Pre-1948 Era where there was no qualification structure put in place by FIDE. That was the context of our discussion previously:

'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.

Those 'few exceptions' lasted a timespan of eight years, 1929-1937.

Capablanca didn't have to play a match for six years, 1921-1927.

Clearly not a fair system.

From then on it became less clear with even schisms.

That was because of Kasparov.

• Candidates Tournaments have a risk of collusion

The risk of collusion is actually dealt with by FIDE. They take it into account by paring players in the same federation first:

"4. 5. 2. In sofar as possible, in each half of the tournament, players from the same Federation shall play each other before they play opponents from other Federations."

https://handbook.fide.com/files/handbook/Regulations_for_the_FIDE_Candidates_Tournament_2026.pdf#page=3

and are decided by who beats the weaker players.

Gukesh beat Alireza and Pragg in 2024 Candidates.

And it's not just about beating other players, it's also about not losing to other players as well which saves your points.

From 1951 to 1990, a challenger did not need to be concerned with raising money or a world war disrupting chess activities.

I have two possibly mistaken recollections about Reshevsky. (1) He was a part-time accountant because he could not make enough money from chess. (2) He was not allowed to compete in a candidates tournament in Budapest by the US State Department.

@tpr said in #83:

... That clause was irrelevant in retrospect: Capablanca did not lose a single game and won 4 games, so Capablanca could as well have agreed on a +3 margin for Lasker to retain his title. ...
There was also disagreement on ...
The most important was the venue: 'I do not think that I shall care to play in a semi-tropical climate more than a few games' - Lasker 1911. ...

@kindaspongey said in #87:

... Do 1921 events necessarily indicate what would have been relevant, a decade earlier? How many historians can be named as describing the ~1911 dispute as about the venue? Would tpr want this matter to be taken as representative of the quality to be expected from a tpr historical account? ...

@tpr Saying that unfair conditions is irrelevant because the opposing player won a later match with a large margin is absurd.

"unfair conditions"

• Capablanca did not object to the +1 requirement, but to the 30 games limit.
  Capablanca did not reach the required 6 wins, as Lasker resigned after 4 losses, pleading ill health.
  So the climate in Havanna was more relevant than the +1, or the 30.
  So the original refusal of Lasker to play in Havanna was right, just like the advice of his friends not to play in March or April.
  Lasker kind of proved this by winning New York 1924 ahead of Capablanca.

"it's not just about beating other players, it's also about not losing"

• That is the difference between a tournament and a match. If you win one game and draw all other games, then you win a match, but you end up in the middle of a tournament. The winner of the upcoming Candidates' will probably be the player who can beat Esipenko and Bluebaum twice.

@tpr said ^

"unfair conditions"

• Capablanca did not object to the +1 requirement, but to the 30 games limit.

But @kindaspongey said in #80:

... 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 ...

So their book Emanuel Lasker A Reader says otherwise.

Capablanca did not reach the required 6 wins, as Lasker resigned after 4 losses, pleading ill health.
So the climate in Havanna was more relevant than the +1, or the 30.

What was more relevant depends on the historical sources.

So the original refusal of Lasker to play in Havanna was right, just like the advice of his friends not to play in March or April.

Lasker kind of proved this by winning New York 1924 ahead of Capablanca.

But someone winning a tournament doesn't mean they're are better than someone. According to that logic Jorden Van Foreest is better than Carlsen because he won Wijk ann Zee 2021 ahead of Carlsen.

"it's not just about beating other players, it's also about not losing"

• That is the difference between a tournament and a match. If you win one game and draw all other games, then you win a match, but you end up in the middle of a tournament.

Correct.

The winner of the upcoming Candidates' will probably be the player who can beat Esipenko and Bluebaum twice.

I looked up the record:

2024: Gukesh 2-0 against Abasov.
2020: Nepo 2-0 against Wang Hao and 1.5-0.5 against Alekseenko.

So you are right.

@Swetha16 said ^

Wht about GUKESH?!

Gukesh lost badly at Prague chess masters I wouldn’t consider him as the best player of all times....
but gukesh beat magnus

@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....
but gukesh beat magnus

But other super gms beat Gukesh

@tpr said in #54:

... There was a quarrel between Lasker and Capablanca starting 1911: Lasker was willing to play Capablanca, but not in Havanna because of the climate. A few months later Lasker drew up 17 terms, of which Capablanca found 6 satisfactory and he wrote so. ...

@tpr said in #58:

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

@kindaspongey said in #80:

... "... 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 ...

@tpr said in #83:

... That clause was irrelevant in retrospect: Capablanca did not lose a single game and won 4 games, so Capablanca could as well have agreed on a +3 margin for Lasker to retain his title. ...
There was also disagreement on the time control ...
The most important was the venue: 'I do not think that I shall care to play in a semi-tropical climate more than a few games' - Lasker 1911. ...

@tpr said in #88:

... Lasker drew up 17 terms in 1911.
... Capablanca objected mostly to the 30 game limit: 'the unfairness of this condition is obvious' ...

@kindaspongey said in #102:

... "mostly"?

Capablanca did indeed write:
"I object to the clause limiting the contest to 30 games. Such an arrangement would increase unnecessarily the likelihood of the match ending in a draw, and since you would retain your title of the drawn match, the unfairness of this condition is obvious."

HOWEVER, Capablanca also wrote:
"I cannot agree to your provision that should the match be won by score of 1 to 0, 2 to 1, or 3 to 2, it would be declared drawn, and you retain the title. ... such a march ... would be more in the nature of a handicap contest, wherein I ... would be compelled to give you a handicap of one game. I do not presume to be able to do that, ..."
(I have left out about 160 words of what Capablanca wrote on this issue.) ...

@tpr said in #106:

... Capablanca did not object to the +1 requirement, but to the 30 games limit.

AGAIN, Capablanca wrote:
"... I cannot agree to your provision that should the match be won by score of 1 to 0, 2 to 1, or 3 to 2, it would be declared drawn, and you retain the title. ... such a march ... would be more in the nature of a handicap contest, wherein I ... would be compelled to give you a handicap of one game. I do not presume to be able to do that, ..."

Does tpr deny that that is a Capablanca objection to the so-called "+1 requirement"?
Does tpr have anything to say about what Taylor Kingston wrote for Emanuel Lasker A Reader ?
Does tpr want to tell us the first 9 words of what Capablanca wrote about the venue issue (in the same communication that made the "obvious" comment)?

@tpr said in #106:

Capablanca did not reach the required 6 wins, as Lasker resigned after 4 losses, pleading ill health.
So the climate in Havanna was more relevant than the +1, or the 30.

Again, do 1921 events necessarily indicate what would have been relevant, a decade earlier?

@tpr said in #106:

So the original refusal of Lasker to play in Havanna was right, ...

"... Lasker drew up 17 terms in 1911. ,,," - tpr in #88

Does tpr want to tell us the first 17 words of what Lasker's 1911 terms said about the venue issue?

The iceberg collision was now ~49 hours ago. As I write this, there are now 35 discussions above this one in the topic list. Perhaps, if this keeps up much longer, we will all turn into rusticles down here.