Which one is the real GOAT? Both in their prime who wins a match (assuming Kasparov gets to study recent theory beforehand)?
Which one is the real GOAT? Both in their prime who wins a match (assuming Kasparov gets to study recent theory beforehand)?
Which one is the real GOAT? Both in their prime who wins a match (assuming Kasparov gets to study recent theory beforehand)?
>Which one is the real GOAT?
Kasparov
>Both in their prime who wins a match (assuming Kasparov gets to study recent theory beforehand)?
Carlsen
I only r8 chess masters who name the israelite
Based.
Bobby Fischer and Paul Morphy better
>Morphy
No way to tell of course but yeah Morphy could've easily been a contender for GOAT had he kept playing. And maybe the simple fact that he didn't pursue chess is another sign of his intelligence.
somewhat related, If anyone hasn't seen this yet and has 7mins to spare this is a pretty good video. Keep in mind it was filmed before the effects of the computer takeover were in full swing.
Fischer chads rise up!
Its my boy Topalov
Topalov is vastly underrated.
and he would have beaten Kramnik if it weren't for Toiletgate.
Neither of those two guys. Its Fischer
Is this real quote? Was Bobby that based?
He was a israelite who has entire rants on naming the israelite. He was literally psychotic. Apparently he got much more tolerant later in life.
>He was literally psychotic
I'm not convinced of this. When you look at his life in an honest light It's quite hard to blame him for hating the israelite.
I don’t blame him for hating the heeb. I don’t know if psychotic is the right word. I’m not a doctor. He clearly had the mentally problems that come along with great genius though.
like the GOAT chessplayer he was, he had amazing pattern recognition
>much tolerant later in life
Simply looking at rating can be misleading which is why It's hard to compare Magnus to the older chess greats.
The advancements in machine learning from 00s to present have completely changed the game. However Fischer and Kasparov's respective peaks were both before this tech gap so I think we can compare them at least. It seems Fischer was far more dominant in his time. Magnus clearly has the cognitive ability to challenge someone like Fischer or Kasparov and I would've liked to see Magnus play them other prior to this shift (and I'm guessing Magnus would also like that)
he was a very quotable guy
He was a classic chud.
So this was the power of chauvinism... a lost art form
Would be interesting to see him vs prime Polgar. She would still lose a regular game but knight odds, who knows
Pretty sure he lost to both Polgars when he lived with them.
There's a recording of a radio interview where he says that israelites want to exterminate elephants because their trunks remind them of uncircumsized penises. He adds that he's being completely serious.
eternal based
Carlsen being so much far ahead against he's contemporaries in the age of chess engines is unbelievable
where is mamedyarov?
>alireza getting fricking destroyed in the candidates
kek 10/10
how are those ratings even decided?
doubt they are purely objective.
ELO
you don't know of elo systems?
you win, you get points
you lose, you lose points
the higher up you are the less you get for winning and the more you get for losing
Its ELO homie, literally the most fair way to rank something
>flag
>abhorrent post
Everytime.
wow didn't realise germans were this stupid.
>so much far ahead against he's contemporaries
>
You kinda proved his point though
At the time fabi was in peak form and almost overtook magnus in elo, as such they drew all 12 games because their abilities at the time were similar.
Fabi's consistency is nowhere near as good as magnus though and now just a few years later he is nearly a hundred points behind while maggy has retained the WC title and the #1 rank. THAT's dominance.
Fischer stans don't realise this either, it's not enough to be the best in the world for a year and then fall off the planet. You have to prove that dominance against more than one generation of players for decades, which is what Kasparov did and what Magnus is doing right now.
His point was that Caruana was far ahead of his contemporaries. How does a championship where he couldn’t beat one of his contemporaries and was almost equal and rating prove that? It’s the opposite. Kasparov’s streak of dominance was far better. I do have Carlsen above Fischer for longevity, though Fischer will always have had the greatest peak except maybe Morphy.
neither of these is Capablanca
>gets mogged by based Alekhine
reminder karpov beat kasparov 5-3
could you beat any of these pro chess players with a /nomind/ strategy? basically doing random moves, like that they wouldn't know what would your next moves be
I wrote a chess program once to try this (for an animation) it played complete shit
I see, it was just in case there was a possibility for it to work, I guess the only solution is simply to git gud
Random moves are random because everyone knows they're bad and why. You'll get destroyed
You can argue that if you are a really good player, then you have a chance against higher rated and titled players simply by bringing them out of their opening prep by refusing to play any of the engine-suggested moves
It likely wont work against most GMs and certainly not against Super GMs (and the likes of Carlsen or Kasparov at their prime were yet another step above)
High rated players know all of the engine-suggested openings because they work. I've played against people who open with random moves and you basically get a very comfy position where you can easily dominate the rest of the game. And I'm not even good.
>can you beat real madrid kicking ball randomly in different directions?
that's how moronic you sound
i don't see anyone beating carlsen in the next 10ish years
after that we'll see
Gary is a Ruy Lopez pushe and a spastic who got beaten by a guy that learned one opening. Magnus would have beaten him if both were in prime
>doubt they are purely objective.
this is why there are no german super gms
Isnt chess just like an equation where the person only wins if the other makes a mistake when calculating the outcome in their heads?
Like that IQ test thing they made on low IQ prisoners where they couldn’t think of something with more than 2 layers (like a road with a yellow arrow but not a road with a yellow arrow and a green cross), and the best chess players are the ones capable of having many layers of the outcome of the game in their heads and have high memory IQ enough to remember all the moves to do in every scenario, so they lose when a single neuron malfunctions inside their brains
And now with an infallible AI whats the point?
For the first move white has 20 options and black has 20 responses so there are already 400 possible moves.
This number increases to 9000 after the third, and 200,000 after the fouth.
Is there a rank for the 20 possible first moves? A tier list perhaps
In top play, the tier list is
>Always good
e4, d4, Nf3
>Dubious but playable
c4, g3
>Shit
Everything else
>what's the point of goalkeeper in football if you can just build brickwall in between posts
>whats the point of wightlifting if forklift does a better job?
>what's the point of marathon running if even the shittiest cars shits on humans?
whats the fun in watching football or running if they make super fast humanlike machines like in terminator?
30 years from now people will ask whats the point in driving a car if it drives by itself
Stop being a moron, people watch sports to see humans compete. No one gives a shit that a cheetah or dog can beat a person in a foot race, that's not the point.
>chess
>sports
>Which one is the real GOAT?
any answer but Tal is boring
two globohomosexual Black folk, hope they both get murdered
Already said it earlier but Fischer and Morphy were more dominant in their time. Of course Magnus is the best chess player but this is my opinion on who the most gifted players were.
1. Fisher
2. Murphy
3. Kasparov
4. Magnus
5. Capablanca
I’d put Capablanca no lower than third. Fischer and Morphy have quite a bit in common.
>American
>enormously dominant despite their country not caring about chess
>quit shortly after taking the throne
>neets
Does Magnus deserve to be below Kasparov? I don't think so.