Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

Is Magnus Carlsen the GOAT? Of course he is

@Tuck_Fheory said in #50:

@Devil_fish Morphy might well be the most naturally talented player in history. Magnus has the benefit of an extra 150 years chess theory to study, so the questions is; Would Magnus thrash Morphy if he was born in 1837...
Magnus' fault he was born in 1990???
Chess is like example sprinters...in old days the world record was about 12 seconds in 100 meter run. Then 11 sec...later 10 seconds...later under 10 sec....then Usain Bolt.
You can blame on better equipments, but it is a fact that a human getting faster, stronger, smarter, and so on with the time.
Morphy was only talented in that timeperiod. If he or example Tal played today that wouldnt had so much opportunity to example saq to win matches on the highest level.
A young Anand crushed an old Tal...Tal have also lost to Anna Cramling's dad.
Modern chess are much better in everything compared in old days.
You can't blame that Magnus have acess to computers, that is bold argument.
Do you and other really think they are so good as they are just because of computers.?
A 1400 fide player today could match good "club players" back in the days.

If Magnus hypotetically played Morphy today i wondt belive Magnus would win 10 out of 10 matches. But maby Morphy would win one game, and Magnus 6 games and 3 games will ended in draw. Something like that.
That would be more realistic scenario.
Morphy can be so much talented as he could ut its a fact that he are not one of the strongest. That is a truly fact.

@Tuck_Fheory said in #50: > @Devil_fish Morphy might well be the most naturally talented player in history. Magnus has the benefit of an extra 150 years chess theory to study, so the questions is; Would Magnus thrash Morphy if he was born in 1837... Magnus' fault he was born in 1990??? Chess is like example sprinters...in old days the world record was about 12 seconds in 100 meter run. Then 11 sec...later 10 seconds...later under 10 sec....then Usain Bolt. You can blame on better equipments, but it is a fact that a human getting faster, stronger, smarter, and so on with the time. Morphy was only talented in that timeperiod. If he or example Tal played today that wouldnt had so much opportunity to example saq to win matches on the highest level. A young Anand crushed an old Tal...Tal have also lost to Anna Cramling's dad. Modern chess are much better in everything compared in old days. You can't blame that Magnus have acess to computers, that is bold argument. Do you and other really think they are so good as they are just because of computers.? A 1400 fide player today could match good "club players" back in the days. If Magnus hypotetically played Morphy today i wondt belive Magnus would win 10 out of 10 matches. But maby Morphy would win one game, and Magnus 6 games and 3 games will ended in draw. Something like that. That would be more realistic scenario. Morphy can be so much talented as he could ut its a fact that he are not one of the strongest. That is a truly fact.

@Devil_fish Each generation gets stronger because of the knowledge laid down by all those who came before, and benefit from a wider pool of stronger opponents, so it's unfair to dismiss the old guard.
To compare people from different era's, you must place them both in the same era!
Magnus is obsessed with chess & has worked extremely hard on top of his natural talents. Morphy didn't really care that much about chess & retired early, so maybe he never even got near his peak potential?

@Devil_fish Each generation gets stronger because of the knowledge laid down by all those who came before, and benefit from a wider pool of stronger opponents, so it's unfair to dismiss the old guard. To compare people from different era's, you must place them both in the same era! Magnus is obsessed with chess & has worked extremely hard on top of his natural talents. Morphy didn't really care that much about chess & retired early, so maybe he never even got near his peak potential?

@Tuck_Fheory said in #64:

@Devil_fish Each generation gets stronger because of the knowledge laid down by all those who came before, and benefit from a wider pool of stronger opponents, so it's unfair to dismiss the old guard.
To compare people from different era's, you must place them both in the same era!
Magnus is obsessed with chess & has worked extremely hard on top of his natural talents. Morphy didn't really care that much about chess & retired early, so maybe he never even got near his peak potential?
Exactly...each generations gets stronger and stronger, not only in chess but in everything!
You cant be world champion in chess! you know why? because you dondt have 190-200 of iq like Magnus.
That's why the norwegian are world champion. Impossible to be world champion in these days with an average iq level (100).
Magnus havent read tons of books to be there he are now. He are there because of amazing memory, vision, intuicion, and so on. I doubt Magnus have worked much harder than other topplayers. BUT when he was a kid he dropped out of schoold because his parents saw the talent in him. They drove trough europe example because of competing, while he doing school-stuff in the car. That's the only thing.

But as i said there are much more difficult for Carlsen to compete and getting good results than it were for example Morphy. Back in the days the chessplayers wasnt that good in general, like in any other type of sport or what so ever. Morphy was far away better than other chessplayers, more because of random chessplayers were bad than Morphy him self was pure genius.
As i mentioned earlier, "the opera game" wasnt that fantastic, exept that Morhy won in brilliant style...but why he won in brilliant style? because his opponent blundered in the opening and with that played like he was 1200 or something.
When Magnus compete today he dondt play against weak players like when Morphy were active...today the chessplayers are much better to find and play the best move(s). This kind of things makes Magnus Carlsen more impressive.
I doubt Morphy would ouplay and win overall against example Aronian; Caruana, Nakamura, Duda, Prag, Gukesh, and so on - easily. I highly doubt that.

@Tuck_Fheory said in #64: > @Devil_fish Each generation gets stronger because of the knowledge laid down by all those who came before, and benefit from a wider pool of stronger opponents, so it's unfair to dismiss the old guard. > To compare people from different era's, you must place them both in the same era! > Magnus is obsessed with chess & has worked extremely hard on top of his natural talents. Morphy didn't really care that much about chess & retired early, so maybe he never even got near his peak potential? Exactly...each generations gets stronger and stronger, not only in chess but in everything! You cant be world champion in chess! you know why? because you dondt have 190-200 of iq like Magnus. That's why the norwegian are world champion. Impossible to be world champion in these days with an average iq level (100). Magnus havent read tons of books to be there he are now. He are there because of amazing memory, vision, intuicion, and so on. I doubt Magnus have worked much harder than other topplayers. BUT when he was a kid he dropped out of schoold because his parents saw the talent in him. They drove trough europe example because of competing, while he doing school-stuff in the car. That's the only thing. But as i said there are much more difficult for Carlsen to compete and getting good results than it were for example Morphy. Back in the days the chessplayers wasnt that good in general, like in any other type of sport or what so ever. Morphy was far away better than other chessplayers, more because of random chessplayers were bad than Morphy him self was pure genius. As i mentioned earlier, "the opera game" wasnt that fantastic, exept that Morhy won in brilliant style...but why he won in brilliant style? because his opponent blundered in the opening and with that played like he was 1200 or something. When Magnus compete today he dondt play against weak players like when Morphy were active...today the chessplayers are much better to find and play the best move(s). This kind of things makes Magnus Carlsen more impressive. I doubt Morphy would ouplay and win overall against example Aronian; Caruana, Nakamura, Duda, Prag, Gukesh, and so on - easily. I highly doubt that.

Still Kasparov, in case anyone was wondering

Still Kasparov, in case anyone was wondering

@Devil_fish Magnus is the most precise player in history but Morphy played less chess than all of the Greats, against weaker opponents. Morphy's rating is evaluated by modern engines loaded with a hundred years of theory, so I don't think Magnus would be rated 2800 if he played in Morphy's era & Morphy would be rated a lot higher if he was given access to modern engines.
My GOAT list in no particular order:: Fischer, Kasparov, Magneto, Morphy

@Devil_fish Magnus is the most precise player in history but Morphy played less chess than all of the Greats, against weaker opponents. Morphy's rating is evaluated by modern engines loaded with a hundred years of theory, so I don't think Magnus would be rated 2800 if he played in Morphy's era & Morphy would be rated a lot higher if he was given access to modern engines. My GOAT list in no particular order:: Fischer, Kasparov, Magneto, Morphy

@ClayAndSilence said in #66:

Still Kasparov, in case anyone was wondering

If a peak Garry Chess was playing now, he'd be cracking skulls.

@ClayAndSilence said in #66: > Still Kasparov, in case anyone was wondering If a peak Garry Chess was playing now, he'd be cracking skulls.

@Tuck_Fheory said in #67:

@Devil_fish Magnus is the most precise player in history but Morphy played less chess than all of the Greats, against weaker opponents. Morphy's rating is evaluated by modern engines loaded with a hundred years of theory, so I don't think Magnus would be rated 2800 if he played in Morphy's era & Morphy would be rated a lot higher if he was given access to modern engines.
My GOAT list in no particular order:: Fischer, Kasparov, Magneto, Morphy
I mentioned acces to engines before you did now...here we go again! Lol!
I dondt care about the ratings...Morphy, Kasparov, Fischer are weaker players than Magnus, especially Morphy.
You can have your'e favorite, i dondt care about your'e favorite, but it is very wrong to claim that Kasparov, Fischer and Morphy were better players or goat. The previous goat were Kasparov. Long time number one, and highest rated ever. But when Magnus was 13 and IM he beated Karpov, and drew Kasparov - in winning position at point.
When he was 17 he become world number one, and little bit later the highest rated ever with 2882. At point over 100 unbeaten streaks...and so on, and so on. Magnus have never lost a world title match, but Kasparov lost to Kramnik...thats one of the things that makes Magnus more goat than Kasparov.
Case closed.

@Tuck_Fheory said in #67: > @Devil_fish Magnus is the most precise player in history but Morphy played less chess than all of the Greats, against weaker opponents. Morphy's rating is evaluated by modern engines loaded with a hundred years of theory, so I don't think Magnus would be rated 2800 if he played in Morphy's era & Morphy would be rated a lot higher if he was given access to modern engines. > My GOAT list in no particular order:: Fischer, Kasparov, Magneto, Morphy I mentioned acces to engines before you did now...here we go again! Lol! I dondt care about the ratings...Morphy, Kasparov, Fischer are weaker players than Magnus, especially Morphy. You can have your'e favorite, i dondt care about your'e favorite, but it is very wrong to claim that Kasparov, Fischer and Morphy were better players or goat. The previous goat were Kasparov. Long time number one, and highest rated ever. But when Magnus was 13 and IM he beated Karpov, and drew Kasparov - in winning position at point. When he was 17 he become world number one, and little bit later the highest rated ever with 2882. At point over 100 unbeaten streaks...and so on, and so on. Magnus have never lost a world title match, but Kasparov lost to Kramnik...thats one of the things that makes Magnus more goat than Kasparov. Case closed.

@Devil_fish Your opinion does not close the case! Magnus did not play a prime Kasparov, so it's too simplistic to say who would win purely based on rating, otherwise I could say that Kasparov was rated higher than Magnus is now, so would beat him.

@Devil_fish Your opinion does not close the case! Magnus did not play a prime Kasparov, so it's too simplistic to say who would win purely based on rating, otherwise I could say that Kasparov was rated higher than Magnus is now, so would beat him.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.