Who is the real GOAT (Greatest of All Time)?

Magnus once said Kasparov was the GOAT.

https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/18jz7e1/kasparov_is_the_greatest_of_all_time_goat/

@RuyLopez1000 said ^

@RuyLopez1000
Bro this is literally what I'm saying.
You can make arguments for either of them being the best, but neither of them is OBJECTIVELY best.

We are talking about greatest not best.

The thread title: Who is the real GOAT (Greatest of All Time)?

The GOAT isn't subjective in this case.

Kasparov beats Carlsen on longevity, world championships.

Elo is not comparable as later players have more knowledge and Stockfish.

Rapid and Blitz is not comparable as they didn't have much rapid and blitz in the past and GOAT is generally seen through the lens of Classical.

Stockfish only helps with openings. Openings rarely win games. And I don't know on what basis you are saying that modern players have "more knowledge".
And you keep saying "greatest not best" but you don't say how you are defining those things or how they are different.

@IamNOTamod said ^

Magnus once said Kasparov was the GOAT.

https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/18jz7e1/kasparov_is_the_greatest_of_all_time_goat/

Yeah, he was obviously not going to say he was the best.

Unless I am mistaken, Carlsen has never played a serious classical match against Kasparov. Therefore one cannot objectively say who is the best.

@TheDifferenceOfTier5

Stockfish only helps with openings. Openings rarely win games.

Do you realize how much Stockfish has changed the game? Prime Kasparov would get beat by Carlsen as Kasparov's King's Indian Defence has been smacked down by engines. So has Kasparov's beloved Sicilian Scheveningen.

And I don't know on what basis you are saying that modern players have "more knowledge".

Are you claiming that Carlsen and co. don't have any more knowledge than Kasparov??

Engines exist and they have TOTALLY EXPANDED our knowledge.

And you keep saying "greatest not best" but you don't say how you are defining those things or how they are different.

Best = best objective moves aka Stockfish agreement.

Greatest = most impressive accomplishments in their era.

@IamNOTamod said ^

Unless I am mistaken, Carlsen has never played a serious classical match against Kasparov. Therefore one cannot objectively say who is the best.

Well Carlsen has higher move agreement with Stockfish.

Best = best objective moves aka Stockfish agreement.

Even though two people never played, we can compare their move strength.

Carlsen would beat Kasparov in a match today as Kasparov is retired.

He would beat Prime Kasparov due to Stockfish knowledge of openings that Kasparov played.

Opening knowledge is not everything. You cannot say for certain, therefore, that "he would beat prime Kasparov".

"Higher move agreement with Stockfish" i.e. higher accuracy?

@IamNOTamod said ^

Opening knowledge is not everything. You cannot say for certain, therefore, that "he would beat prime Kasparov".

I can guarantee it with 100% certainty!

Here's how:

1. Carlsen knows all of Kasparov's games and the openings he plays.
2. Carlsen therefore basically has the equivalent of telepathy, he knows what prime Kasparov (late 90's) is going to play.
3. Let's take the King's Indian Defense, a favourite of Kasparov. Kramnik defeated Kasparov with the Bayonet attack which caused him to give up the opening. Carlsen would therefore simply play the Bayonet attack and repeat the game that Kramnik played, defeating Kasparov.
4. Same thing applies to other openings like the Sicilian variations that Kasparov played and Grunfeld etc.
5. Carlsen having studied these games knows the flaws that engines found and can simply play the engines plans which Carlsen has studied.

"Higher move agreement with Stockfish" i.e. higher accuracy?

Yes.

3 and 4. Wouldn't Kasparov have learnt from those mistakes? Unless in your scenario, it is a Kasparov who has not played those games and analysed them afterwards.

Capablanca