lichess.org
Donate

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

@Swetha16 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...

Gukesh isn't even top 30 players all time, he isn't very good at all for elite players. I would venture to say that Fabi, Hikaru, Sindarov, and Pragg would probably beat him in a match, not to mention Magnus.

@Swetha16 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/xl8q3whe) > > 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... Gukesh isn't even top 30 players all time, he isn't very good at all for elite players. I would venture to say that Fabi, Hikaru, Sindarov, and Pragg would probably beat him in a match, not to mention Magnus.

@crankydragon 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.

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.

@crankydragon said [^](/forum/redirect/post/bY7wwqB1) > > > @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. 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.

"tpr would rather not mention it"

  • 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: Lasker wanted a slower time control 12 moves per hour, Capablanca a faster 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. Lasker blamed his loss on the climate, and his later win in New York 1924 sustains that.
"tpr would rather not mention it" * 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: Lasker wanted a slower time control 12 moves per hour, Capablanca a faster 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. Lasker blamed his loss on the climate, and his later win in New York 1924 sustains that.

@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.

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.

Fisher was a great in his time period, no doubt. He also became a phenom in the West. Sadly he did not reign for long. He and Magnus have somethign else in common. Frustration with classical chess, ( long times, opening memorization and Fide)

@crusader5 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/As5bApKE) > > > > @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. > > 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. Fisher was a great in his time period, no doubt. He also became a phenom in the West. Sadly he did not reign for long. He and Magnus have somethign else in common. Frustration with classical chess, ( long times, opening memorization and Fide)

Personally I think it’s just opinion at this point.
All of us are having different arguments.
By now, it’s just opinion

Personally I think it’s just opinion at this point. All of us are having different arguments. By now, it’s just opinion

@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 time control: Lasker wanted a slower time control 12 moves per hour, Capablanca a faster 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. Lasker blamed his loss on the climate, and his later win in New York 1924 sustains that.

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?

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 ~25 hours ago. As I write this, there are now 24 discussions above this one in the topic list.

@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 time control: Lasker wanted a slower time control 12 moves per hour, Capablanca a faster 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. Lasker blamed his loss on the climate, and his later win in New York 1924 sustains that. 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? 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 ~25 hours ago. As I write this, there are now 24 discussions above this one in the topic list.

"describing the ~1911 dispute as about the venue? "

  • Lasker wrote on March 15, 1911 that Capablanca had proposed a match in Havanna of 10 wins, draws not counting.
    Lasker drew up 17 terms in 1911.
    six won games with a maximum of 30
    the match a draw if one player were to lead by one point only
    Lasker to determine place and time, stake, deposit, time limit 12 moves/hour, 2 sessions of 2.5 hours per day, 5 days per week, and owner of publishing rights.
    Capablanca objected mostly to the 30 game limit: 'the unfairness of this condition is obvious'
    In hindsight Capablanca had no reason to object: he won 4-0 after 14 games only.
    Friends in Europe warned Lasker in 1921 not to play in March or April, as it was too hot.
    In hindsight Lasker should not have accepted to play in Havanna.
"describing the ~1911 dispute as about the venue? " * Lasker wrote on March 15, 1911 that Capablanca had proposed a match in Havanna of 10 wins, draws not counting. Lasker drew up 17 terms in 1911. six won games with a maximum of 30 the match a draw if one player were to lead by one point only Lasker to determine place and time, stake, deposit, time limit 12 moves/hour, 2 sessions of 2.5 hours per day, 5 days per week, and owner of publishing rights. Capablanca objected mostly to the 30 game limit: 'the unfairness of this condition is obvious' In hindsight Capablanca had no reason to object: he won 4-0 after 14 games only. Friends in Europe warned Lasker in 1921 not to play in March or April, as it was too hot. In hindsight Lasker should not have accepted to play in Havanna.

@tpr said ^

"an established challenger system"

  • The present system to designate candidates looks no better: look who plays and who does not play.

I'm looking at who plays, Caruana, Nakamura, Giri, Praggnanandhaa, Yi, Sindarov, Esipenko, Bluebaum are fine players.

I don't know why you dismiss these gentlemen as if they were common patzers lol.

@tpr said [^](/forum/redirect/post/1mZy2vrw) > "an established challenger system" > * The present system to designate candidates looks no better: look who plays and who does not play. I'm looking at who plays, Caruana, Nakamura, Giri, Praggnanandhaa, Yi, Sindarov, Esipenko, Bluebaum are fine players. I don't know why you dismiss these gentlemen as if they were common patzers lol.

"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.
"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.