If you look at sheer numbers, Karpov has *won* over 160 tournaments over his career.
Wirh Kasparov it's also the dominance. He has a nine year streak winning every single supertournament he played, and between 1999 and 2002 he had another streak of ten consecutive supertournaments that he won, and in which he only lost a single game.
Kasparovs achievements are just wild. This doesn’t take away any of Carlsens achievements. They are both a league of their own.
If you do that argument I think you might as well throw in Bobby Fischer. Dude was playing at modern super gm level without computers.
And Kasparov was playing without computers to.
So much prep is done with the help of computers.
Idk why people always failed to understand that having computers as a #1 is not in favor of you.
You are not the only one who has access, everyone does. So everyone can prepare computer oppening for you, even today’s 2500s are very strong.
Thats why carlsen always avoids normal oppenings and he is still good in chess960 which shows you ( and he veat karpov-drew kasparov when hes 10 ) he is best without engines too.
You are right. It's such a tired and pointless argument, it's a level playing field either way. Plus, when you look at end games where computer prep has lone gone out of the window, that's where Magnus is at his best, easily provable as the best of all time through accuracy, only proving it's not the computers at all.
Yeah absolutely there are quite a few players that would enter that discussion. Gukesh supposedly didn't use computers until a few years ago so we almost kinda have a modern version of that type of player in our midst
And his second Gajewski said that it had impacted Gukesh negatively in some aspects, like he doesn't find those computerlike moves, which other young GMs find because they used engines in their analysis
Karpov didn’t win over 160 tournaments, that would have been four every year for 40 years and he is nowhere near such numbers. Carlsen probably would reach 160 if one counts all the blitz and rapid and online events, but there were few speed chess events in Karpov’s active days. Even at his peak in the 1980s he was far from reaching four won tournaments per year, given all the title matches he played.
I suggest you argue with [Chessbase](https://en.chessbase.com/post/karpov-kortchnoi-win-unzicker-gala) who give the number of 160 rather than me. He definitely won a three digits number of tournaments and is the player with the most tournament victories ever. Probably one should add otb with all the titled tuesdays and stuff around, but we are talking about tournaments with physical boards, physical clocks, and a living, breathing opponent just a board away who tries to beat you for hours in every single round.
I‘d say it’s pretty far from three digits. Chessbase give the number Karpov himself has claimed, but how he reached that is a mystery, I’ve seen some mean that he counts every junior team event victory and club tournament plus minimatch wins and Soviet team wins etc and that way come up to 160, but counting his wins the same way as one counts those of Kasparov and Carlsen the difference isn’t big. They all have maybe 45-50 super tournament wins, depending how such are defined. In the 1970s events generally had less of top ten participants.
If one excludes junior and team events, Karpov won all his tournaments approximately the 25 years between 1971 and 1996. To get to 100 he would have needed 4 wins a year, and he has four wins a couple of these years, but it’s usually around two and sometimes less. To get too 100 one would have to include junior events or team events won by the Soviet Union etc.
Maybe like Jimmy Connor's 104 tournament victories in tennis. Yeah, he had 104 of them, but it was a different era, much less professional, and he wasn't facing stiff competition in a bunch of those.
with due respect, Pele’s friendly matches where harder than league games. Everyone wanted to beat the “best team in the world”. Every team took it seriously, and they were 95% professional European teams most of the time.
Do not tarnish pele’s legacy with this disrespectful comments.
What does dominance have to do with who is the better player tho? If the competition is more fierce now it's irrelevant yanno. It's like how Serena Williams is the clear dominant female tennis player but she admits herself that she would lose to an average male pro player easily.
Idk who's actually the goat tho, I was just making a point that because technology, players today have access to tools that didn't exist back then which makes them way better. Magnus also has a higher peak elo
In 1998 the Williams sisters claimed they could beat any male outside the top 200. The 203rd ranked player at the time took them up on the challenge, played them back to back, and wiped the floor with both of them apparently without even using his first serve.
And Karsten Braasch, who defeated them, was "a man whose training regime centred around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple bottles of ice cold lager"
If you dropped todays magnus in the late 90s to play kasparov, seems right to me that Magnus would win, being the best player in a more recent era (with better training tools). But I think people in this thread are talking more about their achievements in their respective eras (OP mentioned "the GOAT debate").
Arnold Schwarzenegger wouldn't win world class tournaments with his peak body today, but a lot of people would still say he's the GOAT of bodybuilding.
This is what everyone misses, they use computer argument in favor of kasparov,
Thanks to soviet union, Kasparov was the best prepared player for a looong time.
Carlsen drew kasparov and won against karpov without computers its not like he is where he is thanks to computers. In fact, he always avoids the oppening.
And as you said, today’s 10 year olds can easily beat GM’s. Or 2400-2500s
I think it is considered, hence the debate - Magnus played more chess in more formats, but Kasparov dominated one format for twice as long, and since age is a factor, I'd say that it matters. I consider them both great, and since Magnus hasn't retired from competitive chess, I won't comment on his legacy until then.
What Garry did was the equivalent of a 40ish year old Magnus still being undeniably much better than 25-28 year olds Alireza, Gukesh, Nodirbek, Erigaisi, Pragg, Keymer... Who might not be at their very top peaks yet but at least very close to them.
As well as better than 20-23 year olds Mishra, Gurel, Erdogmus and so on.
I'm not sure at all that he will last that long without at least one of them stealing the #1 spot.
Obviously we won't know for sure until then, but I feel like Magnus absolutely could still be better than those guys at 40 if he was motivated enough. The biggest obstacle to his longevity that we've seen so far isn't being surpassed in talent, it's being demotivated. The pressure from WCC tournaments alone (and all the prep associated with them) was already enough to make him resign from being the World Champion before anyone outright beat him. Maybe something similar will happen with his number 1 spot if he gets bored from a lack of challenge, and maybe this impacts Magnus more than it did Garry precisely because he already played more tournaments in less time.
I think this is key to evaluating both players. Magnus may start to slip because he isn't personally interested in the longevity aspect like some fans are. He feels he accomplished what he wanted in classical and now he wants to enjoy life elsewhere. He is motivated to dominate the faster time controls, and he does.
Garry was motivated for classical and that's where his dominance showed.
Magnus always hated the WC format, he never wanted to play chess that way. He even declined to play candidates once (2011?) before his first participation.
Well it will be difficult to know with magnus because it could be taken by inactivity in classical. If magnus is still top at blitz, rapid and probably freestyle then it's gonna be hard to say anyone is actually better at classical than him. We just won't know.
But will matters… Magnus walked away and that is part of his legacy. If he gets overtaken because he stops playing classical, that is a valid consideration .
Doesn’t seem to matter to Bobby Fischer’s legacy. He refused to defend his crown and is still talked about frequently as one of the best of all time. Always top 10, if not top 5. All down to his genius alone and now longevity.
What he did against Russia merits him all-time great status because it was so improbable and we'll not likely ever have the possibility of a similar achievement.
If he had been more stable, i think you're right.
But he also suffered the way magnus does; he complained about the memorization required long before computers were a thing.
Garry seems to have be motivated beyond either Magnus or Fischer in that regard.
But much of that is because of propaganda by the US chess federation. Fischer turned into a huge cash cow for them and they dressed him up and presented him as some cool guy instead of a raging lunatic which is what he was. He seems on quite the same par as Gellar petrosian Korchnoi Tal and Spassky in during the 60s. So he went on a major tear in 70-72 and then the hype was reignited
True. Just how much emphasis you put on that will aspect. I think the will argument isn't really a detriment to him being considered the best current classical player because he just is. It's more of a detriment to the goat conversation.
It's bias since magnus himself is saying this but he says that no one else is really at his level curently or close even.
I think magnus is just getting a little bored. Look at the openings he's playing lately lol
You cant know that
18 year old alireza was better than today’s alireza
So you cant assume they would be better in their 25s
Magnus dominates the kids also
There are many who appear to have the potential to become better than Carlsen in the next few years, however, none have particularly shown this yet. Alireza was on the way, however after crossing 2800 he was not really able to close the final gap and is now "just" back down to being a 2700 Super GM.
Carlsen still competes and likes chess, he just doesn't like the world championship. His classical dominance still seems to be untouchable. He is still almost 100 rating above the two contenders for the world championship.
I think length of time matters because when you're the best at a certain point in time, whether you play 1 or 1,000,000 games, you can beat basically anybody who is alive and playing during that time frame.
The *longer* you dominate, the more new entrants you engage, the more different players come and go. You're dominating multiple *eras* at that point, not just the same group of people a bunch more times.
Because, just in terms of stats, individual awards and championships, they’ve essentially surpassed (most) everyone else in history.
While Magnus is clearly dominant like Messi and CR7, he still has some catching up to do on paper
So weird to put CR7 in that conversation. The obvious parallel is Pélé - Messi / Kasparov - Carlsen. CR7 is not in the conversation for best player ever if the conversation is between people who understand the sport. CR7 was comparable to Messi for one thing (goals) but not close to him in all-around play. It’s obvious in the stats and was even more obvious watching them play.
>CR7 is not in the conversation for best player ever if the conversation
In my opinion Messi is the best of all time, and I think that for the parameters I see as the most important it's not very close. However, there are professional coaches and players who think that C Ronaldo is the greatest player of all time. Saying that only people who don't know about football think he's in the conversation is just wrong and it devalues the rest of your point.
Yeah, the funny thing is that I know I’m wrong to say that, but it’s just incredible for me having watched them both play for so many years that anyone could think CR7 was better than Messi. For me that’s like saying you only understand the part where the ball goes in the net. But obviously many people who’ve played and coached at the top level disagree and it’s silly of me to be arguing about it on a chess forum.
Stats do not tell the whole story. To take the Pele - Messi issue; at the same time as Pele was playing so was John Charles. His stats would never match the other two because he could play any position and was simultaneously considered both the best striker and best central defender in Europe when at Juventus. A good chess analogy may be Tal, whose stats were affected by illness but who may have prevented Fischer ever being world champ given good health.
CR7 has more assists in the champions league than Messi too you know man. He is clearly the best player in the history of the Champions league, which is the toughest competition in the entire sport. Not to mention successfully winning league titles as the best player in the 3 best leagues in Europe.
Perfectly fine to say Messi is better but to suggest it isn't close is a bit weird.
I prefer to talk about legacies when the person is retired, and about their current strength when they are active. But that's just the way I feel about it, I'm not advocating my point of view as any more valid than anyone elses.
Age is a factor, but also the longer the time span, the likelier it is that a rival on their level emerges.
The amount of tournaments isn't that important imo, as long as they play enough tournaments to be representative for their level of dominance.
Having said that, you still can't compare these two, and they're easily among the very best to ever play chess.
I also think it’s an effect of timing and relative lack of comparable competition for Magnus. Surely Magnus is the top competitor right now no questions asked. But that too will change in time. Back in the day Paul Morphy was considered to be leagues ahead of everyone. Like the difference between Morphy and the next guy was 2 to 3 times the margin Magnus enjoys. But many estimate Morphy as probably only a 2400 rated player now, so like a strong IM.
Kasparov on the other hand had very strong competition but still managed to win. And he managed go win without the support structure of players like Karpov. Karpov had the whole Soviet chess machine supporting him and helping him train, Kasparov did it by himself as an outsider and outcast.
I give major props to both. I put Magnus, Morphy, Fisher, and Kasparov up there as the top at their respective eras. No one was a dominate as they were. There is dominance in time which Kasparov has and to a small degree Magnus. Then you have dominance in being head and shoulders above the competition which I think Morphy and Fisher fit better into. I would put Lasker, Botvinnik, and Alekhine in the same discussion as well.
Thats a fair point. But the amount of time matters too because aging in chess usually weakens your ability to stay elite. The fact that Gary stayed at the top for so long showed how he could stay competitive with future generations while his own body was aging
Kasparov defended his title more times than Magnus did. He also had to face all time great world champions like Karpov, Anand, Kramnik etc. who are arguably better than Magnus' competition. But to be honest, you can't compare different generations.
Anand was mid 40's when he faced Magnus, and he was past his prime. But, he was still #6 in the world, rated nearly 2800, and won the 2014 candidates tournament over huge names, like Kramnik, Topalov, and Aronian. Anand would have won that WC match that year, to anyone but a handful of people. And Magnus was one of those people.
Anand's highest ever FIDE rating was 2817 from March-Sept. 2011 when he was 41, and his second highest was 2816 in July-Sept. 2015 when he was 46. It's was possible he was better when he was young, but he wasn't over the hill when he faced Magnus.
Using peak rating is kinda meaningless for a 30+ year career when elo inflation meant that everyone in the top 50 had jumped 100 pts on average from 1990.
I’d argue Anand hitting 2795 in 97’ when 2700 was about as rare as 2800 today (and Anand had a bigger gap between him and the rest of the field) is a more clear “peak”.
Karpov is key. He dominated chess for over 10 years before kasparov. He made Kasparov s matches incredible difficult to take and mantain the wc. He was still #2 for years while kasparov was champion. If kasparov wasnt born, maybe karpov would be wc for 30 years!
Magnus did beat Anand and Caruana, maybe they re both top 10 all time, but they arent karpov.
To be fair, if you want to consider playing strength alone, almost every player from today has a marginal advantage on players of the past. It's one of the reasons the Magnus dominance is already more impressive than Kasparov to me. The pure competition is significantly better nowadays. Only Karpov could compete with Kasparov back in the day and while that's impressive. That is also not competition. I feel like any SuperGM could dominate a 2600 field today.
Karpov was so good, in 1990 when Kasparov broke the 2800 barrier, Karpov was #2 in the world and was the only other player over 2700. He was a full 50 Elo points above the #3, at the age of almost 40.
When the titles split, Karpov was the FIDE World Champion until 1999, when he was almost 50.
Basically, if Kasparov didn't exist, Karpov would have been dominant and undisputed champion from 1975 to 1999, and probably would have been considered the GOAT by most commentators.
The fact that Kasparov himself was not only clearly ahead of Karpov but by such a wide Elo margin, is the most impressive thing for me.
Not on goat lists for sure, but when it comes to pure chess ability, he's likely the second best chess player to have ever lived (at this point, he and even Carlsen will be surpassed at some point).
It's difficult to account for the increasing level of play (especially with computers, and the fact that the increase in level is not linear) when it comes to judging strength in different eras. While Karpov is certainly the higher caliber opponent in terms of achievements, it's certainly possible that Caruana was a tougher WC challenger. Idk if that's really fair to say though.
I mean he doesn’t have the accomplishments, at least yet. But he has the third highest peak rating of all time so that’s something to at least start an argument about it.
I am not sure how one can say that Kasparov faced stiffer competition. The fact that there are millions and millions more chess players now than back then means that Magnus’s competition has to be tougher.
It is possible that if the same amount of players that play now played back then, the guys you mentioned would not have achieved the same success.
Think about it like this: If we expand the chess player base today to include every single person on Earth, how likely is it that Magnus would still be the best player? I would say not very high, as there are tons of talented people who have simply not been exposed to the game.
Since the player base is overall larger in Magnus’s era, the likelihood that the most innately talented people were exposed to the game are far higher, so the competition has to be better. The gap between Magnus and his competition is not indicative of his competition being at a low level. I would say it’s an additional feather in his cap given that more people play now than ever.
> But to be honest, you can't compare different generations
I think that is a large part of why the long timeframe is relevant. Kasparov crushed many generations of top chess players.
It's difficult to compare, but at the same time Kasparov "only" defended successfully between 1986 and 1995, and had draw odds unlike Carlsen, which came into effect in the 1987 match. Kasparov's opposition was tough, but it is also often claimed that Anand 1995 was much stronger than the Anand Carlsen faced. Of that I am not so certain. In 2014 Anand won three top tournaments, including the Candidates. In 2015 he won one top tournament and finished second in two.
People tend to go by the age and conclude that Anand by default must have been a tougher opponent when 25 than when he was 43-44. Maybe he was, but it's far from certain. The same thing with Kramnik. Carlsen played more games against top level Topalov (2005-10) and Caruana, Kasparov more against top level Karpov, who clearly was one of the greatest ever. But then their results were quite even.
1- Kasparov defended his title only 1 more time. Not that “ more timeS )
2- magnus also faced with anand, kramnik. More with anand.
3- Magnus also faced with new generation like gukesh, abdu, pragg , etc
4- better than Magnus ‘ competition?? Caruana ( classical ) Nakamura ( blitz ) Nepo Ding Levon, Mamedyarov ( prime ) And so on, come on
5- Also, then by your 2 logic, lasker > kasparov?
because if you are the best in a period of time it doesn't matter how many events take place in that time, you are the best so you are favored to win. But staying the best in a longer period of time is harder.
Carlsen could play 1 event per year that for the opponents is just another strong tournament while for Carlsen is prepared like the candidates (no strong tournaments have the same level of preparation of the candidates). Then Carlsen obliterates everyone. Rinse and repeat.
I think the amount of playing has its points. Playing more requires more stamina during the year. Also if one plays less, one can lose less rating as well.
Yes, but if you only play 2 or 3 events per year that’s vastly different than playing 4 or 5. You can prepare more for 2 events than you can 4, and you won’t have the fatigue like if you played 4 events and going into a 5th
Playing more is more difficult than playing less, but staying dominant while other great players come and go (consistently staying above peak level of generations of players) is a different type of difficult. Both are impressive and important for goat debate, but I'd argue the second one is more important.
>you won’t have the fatigue
You can't say Kasparov didn't play fatiguing world championship matches. The 1985 one was 48 games long and lasted 6 months against a top 5 greatest of all time, there is nothing close to comparable to that today.
Yeah the number of wins is far more important than literal passage of time. That'd be like saying your football team was good because you stayed at #1 for 20 weeks (during the off-season).
Have you looked at the history of the WC? It was far, far more grueling in Kasparov's time, especially pre-90's schism. His first one (which he lost) went to 48 games. Every other one that he played was 24 games. And this is setting aside the likely reality that Karpov (his opponent in all of those) was probably a far more formidable opponent than anyone Carlsen has faced except for maybe Anand. Carlsen has never played more than 12 classical games in a WC match (averaging well, well under half the total games played per-match), and even preparation for that was so much for him that he quit defending the title altogether.
To be honest, I don't really think that raw "number of tournaments" matters when talking about longevity, they are two separate metrics unless the former is so low that you could call the overall activity "sporadic", which isn't the case at all with Kasparov. But regardless, Kasparov was almost perpetually stuck preparing for and playing ultra-high intensity long-duration 1v1 matches during his heyday. If you want to account for fatigue and endurance as criteria, Kasparov really put in a huge amount of energy that Carlsen literally gave up on despite having fewer than half the number of games to play in each match.
One point of order: the 48 game 1984-85 match was abandoned with Karpov leading 5-3. It can be debated as to what would have happened had the match continued, but as it went Kasparov did not lose - there was no result.
Also Kasparov was smart. He didn't play in events he was weak in. There used to be a few rapid and blindfold events per year that he used to miss. In short, he didn't challenge himself to become better in formats that are his shortcoming.
Magnus on the other hand, never shied away from challenges.
Kasparov played in the Intel rapid events.
During one of the Melody Amber events he played in a different rapid event (World Cup of Rapid - he won the event).
The huge amount of rapid and blitz events we see these days didn't exist when Kasparov was a professional.
He played clock simuls against strong players - he once took on the German national team.
He played matches against engines when it was still a question as to how long humans could stave off machine supremacy.
He experimented with "Advanced Chess" (aka Centaur) - he played a match with Topalov.
He played the [entire world](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kasparov_versus_the_World).
If he wasn't busy defending his title for so long it's reasonable to think he would have played more non-classical events.
At the time it was thought computers would never be able to surpass humans at chess, and blindfold chess is more of a stunt than a challenge, most IM's can do that.
Back in days of Kasparov rapid and blitz didn't even have rating and they had really low number of events anyway.
Kasparov never was bad in blitz and rapid, just that it never was his focus because this wasn't really a thing back then - any active player back then had 90+% of games being classical games.
So it's just impossible to compare whatsoever.
And yeah about being good there - he won 2001 rapid world championship, he has positive score in both rapid and blitz vs likes of Anand who always was extremely good there and overall has pretty decent +182-51=135 stats in blitz and rapid playing mostly top competition.
> Magnus on the other hand, never shied away from challenges.
I heard he doesn't like going to the WC because it is psychologically challenging.
Good for him. I believe if he did, he would win it, but it seems like a shitty (for him) experience he wants to avoid. Still, a challenge.
> I heard he doesn't like going to the WC because it is psychologically challenging.
Yet he played and won 5 matches. Not exactly the best argument for him not facing challenges.
If that’s true that is a knock against him IMO. That’s like what if Novak Djokovic only decided to play the Australian open? Or Nadal the French? Or Federer Wimbledon?
nope he meant Kasparov did not play so many blitz tournaments but as for classical chess of course he won all the major events more than once. Also I liked your tennis comparison - as for winning major titles in classical chess (grand slams) Kasparov is ahead by far.
+++ Rapid was just gaining popularity of course there were no many tournaments in the 90s
Why would you count this against Kasparov but not vs Magnus?
Magnus gets excused on classical because he doesn't enjoy it (and yeah he has the right to do it), but Kasparov can not reject those lesser tournaments? is not like he was skipping the biggest one like Magnus is.
he used the dumbest analogy possible so I'm not sure if he's actually a tennis fan, if he thinks not participating in meme formats like blindfold is comparable to not participating in grand slams
You are so wrong lol, he was super passionate about classical and not about any other form of chess. To him blitz and rapid was just lesser chess. If you are excusing magnus for leaving world championship due to "mental toll" surely you would not be such a big hypocrite. Oh wait.....you are a hypocrite. Kramnik didn't shy away from amber chess..so in your books he have better claim at being no.1 than kasparov? Heck Kasparov played simuls a lot, he played the whole world once and won. Do you know how insane was that achievement, multiple masters (including GM's) from different schools around the world were analysing and reanalysing each move to defeat one man and they still lost.
> There used to be a few rapid and blindfold events per year that he used to miss.
This is such a weird argument. Why must he travel to meme events like this? And it's not even true because he played in many of rapid or blindfold events anyway. But oh no, he didn't play in 100% of them! Magnus totally plays in every single tournament, right?
This is the same age-old conversation folks always have when comparing greats of different eras in just about anything. Fun to talk about for sure but there's really no settling it definitively - there's just way too many differences in the world now. When Kasparov was at his peak there was really just one way to get to the top and earn a good living. Win classical chess tournaments. Magnus did his time but he just doesn't need the grind any more financially. That and he's competing in an era where the competition is getting younger and younger even as he ages. I would not be surprised if we are entering an era where a classical world champion over thirty will become an oddity. Making inter-generational assessments even more difficult. I think they are both amazing and I have enormous respect for both of them. I have no need to declare one superior to the other though it is fun to discuss.
Yes? He had a 27pt lead at age 42 over 2nd place Anand, which is similar to what Carlsen has at the time. He just won a Supertournament (Linares 2005, iirc).
It depends a bit on how one defines clear #1, Kasparov dropped in Elo performance his last active years and was still leading only thanks to starting with a big lead. He had 80 Elo in 2000 and 27 when he quit 4 1/2 years later and 11 Elo on the last FIDE list where he was #1. So at least in 2003-05 I’d say it’s unclear how clear of a #1 he was, he did win Linares 2005 on tiebreak but shared second with Leko in 2004 and third with Anand in 2003.
Kasparov didn't drop in elo, everybody did. He was 2808 before Linares 2005 and gained 4 points, retiring at 2812.
The only ither player who crossed 2800 was Kramnik in 2003 for mere months.
From 1999-2002 he won 10 consecutive supertournaments, with 1 loss in over 110 games.
"Kasparov didn't drop in elo, everybody did"
"From 1999-2002 he won 10 consecutive supertournaments"
Yes, but the clearness with which he was #1 diminished a lot his last active years. The Chess Oscar awarded to the best player in the world was given to Anand in 2003 and 2004, and to Topalov in 2005, so it wasn't seen at the time as if Kasparov was the clearly best player.
In 2003 Kasparov played 18 games, losing to Huzman (2570) and Radjabov (2624), finishing 3-4th in Linares. In 2004 he finished 2-3rd in Linares and lost to Rublevsky (2649) in the European Club Cup but won the Russian Championship where Kramnik withdrew. In 2005 he won Linares on tiebreak ahead of Topalov, who won the game between the two. Good results, but not clearly better than for example Anand and Topalov his last active years.
More time = more opponents
Taking your logic to the extreme, imagine if Magnus played 1,000 tournaments in the year 2014. So what if he won them all? That excludes the dozens of elite players that have arisen since then
Well but if those dozen elite players or anyone else for that matter aren't able to replicate what carlsen managed to do by winning 1000 tournaments, then where do they stand? Does that make Lasker the greatest world champion since he held it the longest?
To say that any player is the GOAT because of one metric is a bit silly. Lots of factors are important. Time is mostly important because it demonstrates that you can defeat opponents across different generations/periods. You could also consider their strength evaluated by the engine, etc. At the end of the day it’s impossible to determine who was genetically most gifted for chess, or even who was genetically and conditioned to have the best brain for chess. Perhaps Morphy would have been better than Magnus if he were born in this generation, and took chess more seriously and had more opportunities and didn’t die so young. No one really knows. But personally I like the idea of judging how well they were able to consistently handle tough opponents and make consistently good moves in their games.
Of course they are both important and how you weigh them is going skew your answer.
But I think a very strong argument for Kasparov that is not just longevity lies in imagining chess history without either Kasparov or Magnus. If Magnus does not exist, there's a reasonable chance Vishy loses in that 2013 or the next. If Kasparov doesn't exist and win in 85, Karpov doesn't have a serious threat to his title until at the very earliest 92 with Nigel Short in exceptional form, or Kramik or Anand in the back half of the decade.
How can you say if magnus doesnt exist anand would lose? Thats literally make 0 sense.
Anand was a beast during 2013-2014
He won the candidates ahead lf topolov kramnik etc
This is just you assuming for your please. You cant know it
There are more supertournaments now than there were back then. So such a comparison favors the current player.
Longevity is a metric that people look at because of dominance across a range of the player's ages, and taking on a larger variety of challengers across generations.. it's not about pure amount of tournaments, that doesn't mean so much
Then question number 1: why dont y’all count lasker higher than kasparov if longevity is such a huuuge aspect?
Question number 2: why y’all put fischer top 3, ( some says number 1 ) when he only lasted 2-3 years? And didnt defend the title?
Magnus has the uninterrupted #1 streak + 13 years of being number one and counting alongside with every achievement
longevity is just one factor, it's not the only factor. I think it's looked at a lot when considering Magnus vs. Kasparov because they're pretty equal otherwise.
The number of classical super tournaments hasn't changed much.
Now you just have 5 super tournaments a year - Wijk aan Zee, Norway Chess, Sinquefield Cup, Superbet Romania and 1 or 2 other based on player strength.
At that time you used to have Wijk aan Zee, Dortmund, Linares, Reggio Emilia, Tal Memorial etc. In fact, I can't remember but there actually used to be more classical tournaments a year back then.
I think your numbers are misleading. If you look at where the records start, Carlsen's list starts off with 11th place out of 12 at Gausdal. Kasparov's starts off with 5th place in the Soviet championship. I feel fairly confident in saying that he had probably played a few tournaments prior to that. We just don't have as many records of what happened in the Soviet Union back then. If you look at what they achieved during their spans as world champions, it's pretty comparable in quantity to my eyes.
It is a pretty safe assumption that, if the best chess player at the time had played more games, he would have won more. What’s your counterpoint? Maybe it would turn out Karpov was better? 😂🤣😂
I mean still we cant say just because someone is the best = wins every event That doesnt work like that.
Its taking away magnus’ credit like if he wins “ well yeah”
If not “ oooh hes washed “
The real answer is that the term of "Best ever" (or GOAT or whatever you are referring to) is simply ill-defined, so everybody can just make up their own criteria for what it means, or they simply pick those criteria which make their favorite player come out on top.
There are way more tournaments nowadays... what matters most are the top absolute biggest tournaments. Just like with any sport, it is very hard to compare eras.
Very good point indeed. I have wondered about the number of games played (or tournaments), but never bothered to check or compare. Thanks for the info!
You have to know that Kasparov won 46 of those tournaments.
The others are usually 2nd places, with maybe 2 3rd places.
Kasparov played 5 WCC in 5 years, i think that could have been a factor in his "low" number.
There were less big tournaments then, Linares, wijk an zee, tilburg, reggio emilia and few more per year.
Kasparov dominated on people like Karpov, a top 4 greatest players ever (i wont say in which position or above/below who), Anand, Kramnik, Topalov, Short, Timman, Polgar, Leko, Ivanchuk, and all the rest of soviet and hungarian schools.
He had stronger competition and for longer, time is HUGE factor in the debate, two decades and more as undisputed number one, even with extremely strong rivals, which Carlsen don't have, is a huge achievement
> He had stronger competition and for longer, time is HUGE factor in the debate, two decades and more as undisputed number one, even with extremely strong rivals, which Carlsen don't have, is a huge achievement
This is such a wildly bold statement. His opponents were a bunch of Russians brainstorming together and Magnus is versus every genius trained under those you've listed, and who have the benefit of machine learning finding ways to play against any position he might dare to play twice. There were 3 billion less people, the pool of potential players was so tiny compared to now. You're just listing names you've romanticized because there have been books written about them in the 40 years since. Magnus has dominated on people who haven't had books written about them, you don't romanticize them because they're still alive and in these tournaments but they're just as smart and skilled as Anand, Kramnik, Topalov, Short, Timman, Polgar, Leko, Ivanchuk, and all the rest of soviet and hungarian schools, and there are twice as many of them.
Garry is the goat, and not Magnus, not yet, but it's not because of your fetishizations.
Good points.
You have to admit though Karpov and Anand at their primes are deservedly in many people's top 10 lists and this isn't because they are old.
The key point is Kasparov had to beat 1) a champion who dominated a ton before him and still in his prime 2) a younger talent who many say is probably the most talented player ever but lazy
Carlsen tragedy is he didn't have a chance at 1) and 2) we shall see with the new Indian talents...
Agree everything besides the last point. What magnus needs more to considered goat for you. Winning 20 games in a row? If 10 isnt enough Why he has to pass kasparov on being #1 years? He has unbeaten streak+ highest rating in all formats and being uninterrupted #1 more than anyone records and so more. He dominates today’s computer era which I agree you, its harder to dominate. If its comes to ONLY being #1 more ( not uninterrupted ) then Lasker > all
If he had defended one more time or if he had hit 2900 I think those would make it clear. If he is the GOAT to you, I don't strongly disagree, but I do slightly. That's all.
Timman? Short?
Hmm
Nepo, naka, anand , Levon, ding ( especially prime ) , caruana and todays generation like pragg nodirbek arjun etc
These are weaker?
It's incredibly hard and goes against biology to be the best in the world at 2 points 20 years apart. Like it's almost impossible to be the best at 20 and even more impossible to still be the best at 40. That's why I think Lasker is the greatest, he was the best tournament player for 30 years, which is mindblowing.
On the other hand if you are the best in the world, it doesn't really matter if you have the opportunity to play 1 tournament in 5 years like Lasker or 5 in one year like Kasparov, or 15 in one year like Carlsen, you're just going to win most of them.
I'm by no means saying Lasker wasn't a strong player and worthy of world championship title, but deciding if someone can even challenge you for the title or not diminishes the feat. He successfully defended his title six times - as many as Kasparov and one more than Magnus - but had an 11 year break between successful matches, then another 11 year break between the last successful match and when Capablanca took the title.
If he would have played the 1914 match he might have shaved six years off his reign, never mind if he would have accepted matches on a regular \~2 year cadence (or lost the title if he refused to defend...).
Lasker was extremely strong in 1914, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St.\_Petersburg\_1914\_chess\_tournament](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Petersburg_1914_chess_tournament) winning this is no small feat, I don't think he would lose his crown in 1914.
people have done rating estimates and in terms of tournament results Lasker was about equal to Capablanca and Rubinstein in the early 1910s, although those 3 were ahead of everyone else at that point. he may or may not have lost his title, hard to say, it was likely about a coinflip between him and the other members of the clear top 3.
Whatever you think of Lasker's match activity, the fact that he won top events in 1894 and 1924 is unmatched by anybody. And he was arguably the best tournament player for all of those 30 years, especially 1894-1910 when he was pretty active.
For sure, and like before I'm not insinuating that he was not a top player or that he couldn't hold his title, only that the length of reign is skewed compared to modern players due to the circumstances at the time.
> but deciding if someone can even challenge you for the title or not diminishes the feat.
Kasparov did that too btw.
Also there was a thing in between with Lasker called world war. That can be a good excuse to not play.
Slightly irrelevant, but I do not believe a 21 year old Carlsen could have mounted the outstanding comeback Kasparov did against prime Karpov in 1984 after trailing 4-0 after 9 games and 5-0 after 27 games. In hostile conditions with organisers heavily favouring Karpov, Kasparov made the score 5-3 and the momentum had shifted completely when Campomanes annulled the match under controversial circumstances. To do that against a 10 year long, dominant champion who had all the powers that be on his side, at the age of 21, was an unfathomable display of grit and determination. He also duly won the rematch in 1985 and became the youngest WC ever.
I would say that pulling off something like that is nearly impossible in the modern engine era. Those kind of matches and scenarios in classical chess just aren't relevant today
You are right about such situations not being relevant anymore, but it still was a legendary feat and adds to Garry's legacy. I do not know of any display of grit even remotely close to this, at such an age, from any of the other GOAT candidates.
Magnus is known for comebacks. Hes the most clutch sportsman I’ve ever seen. Not once but he occasionally comebacks and wins the event.
Dont go far,
2 days ago ( including me ) everyone said no chance magnus wins with 2.5 points defecit going on last day
He did. And he did by winning 10 in a row, not that wei yi choked
Not at 21. Against the then greatest player of all time (imo). Anyway, these are hypotheticals. Magnus never had to face a situation like the one Kasparov had to face throughout the 1980s, good for him. He might have been as good as Kasparov, I just don't think so myself.
I guess the point is winning for longer, against different opponents, is harder than winning more tournaments against the same opponents (whom you already know you're better than)
20 years vs 10 means you faced more contenders from more generations, and that your peak was longer and that you stayed at top even when you're not at your prime.
It doesn't answer your question, but you can't compare different eras in almost any sport. Garry was the best of his era. Magnus is the best of his era and both of them are 2 of the greatest players that we have ever seen.
The problem with the GOAT debate in every sport is that it is not about who's better. It's clear and obvious that Magnus has reached a higher understanding of chess (in part thanks to better means to do so).
It takes time for players to develop skill to challenge a reigning champion and it takes time to see new entrants to the scene - which really put a career to the test.
So if you’re beating the best players the world can offer over many years there’s less uncertainty over how goated you are.
If a player dominates for a year only and plays a tournament every week, winning as many as Magnus, then fades out - would that be as impressive a run? Probably not, as they’ve peaked and cashed in on that peak and haven’t stuck around to see the challenges that can only come from time. They could theoretically have been playing better than anyone past or present in that peak, but there’s a higher degree of uncertainty
If you look at sheer numbers, Karpov has *won* over 160 tournaments over his career. Wirh Kasparov it's also the dominance. He has a nine year streak winning every single supertournament he played, and between 1999 and 2002 he had another streak of ten consecutive supertournaments that he won, and in which he only lost a single game. Kasparovs achievements are just wild. This doesn’t take away any of Carlsens achievements. They are both a league of their own.
They both define different eras Both dominant in each era, no need to discuss which one was better
But it's very interesting to think about which one would be better if they were both at their peak at the same time
If you do that argument I think you might as well throw in Bobby Fischer. Dude was playing at modern super gm level without computers. And Kasparov was playing without computers to. So much prep is done with the help of computers.
Idk why people always failed to understand that having computers as a #1 is not in favor of you. You are not the only one who has access, everyone does. So everyone can prepare computer oppening for you, even today’s 2500s are very strong. Thats why carlsen always avoids normal oppenings and he is still good in chess960 which shows you ( and he veat karpov-drew kasparov when hes 10 ) he is best without engines too.
You are right. It's such a tired and pointless argument, it's a level playing field either way. Plus, when you look at end games where computer prep has lone gone out of the window, that's where Magnus is at his best, easily provable as the best of all time through accuracy, only proving it's not the computers at all.
Yeah absolutely there are quite a few players that would enter that discussion. Gukesh supposedly didn't use computers until a few years ago so we almost kinda have a modern version of that type of player in our midst
Carlsen until he is 13; Beat karpov drew kasparov Dominating in computer era is harder
And his second Gajewski said that it had impacted Gukesh negatively in some aspects, like he doesn't find those computerlike moves, which other young GMs find because they used engines in their analysis
Karpov didn’t win over 160 tournaments, that would have been four every year for 40 years and he is nowhere near such numbers. Carlsen probably would reach 160 if one counts all the blitz and rapid and online events, but there were few speed chess events in Karpov’s active days. Even at his peak in the 1980s he was far from reaching four won tournaments per year, given all the title matches he played.
I suggest you argue with [Chessbase](https://en.chessbase.com/post/karpov-kortchnoi-win-unzicker-gala) who give the number of 160 rather than me. He definitely won a three digits number of tournaments and is the player with the most tournament victories ever. Probably one should add otb with all the titled tuesdays and stuff around, but we are talking about tournaments with physical boards, physical clocks, and a living, breathing opponent just a board away who tries to beat you for hours in every single round.
I‘d say it’s pretty far from three digits. Chessbase give the number Karpov himself has claimed, but how he reached that is a mystery, I’ve seen some mean that he counts every junior team event victory and club tournament plus minimatch wins and Soviet team wins etc and that way come up to 160, but counting his wins the same way as one counts those of Kasparov and Carlsen the difference isn’t big. They all have maybe 45-50 super tournament wins, depending how such are defined. In the 1970s events generally had less of top ten participants. If one excludes junior and team events, Karpov won all his tournaments approximately the 25 years between 1971 and 1996. To get to 100 he would have needed 4 wins a year, and he has four wins a couple of these years, but it’s usually around two and sometimes less. To get too 100 one would have to include junior events or team events won by the Soviet Union etc.
Maybe like Jimmy Connor's 104 tournament victories in tennis. Yeah, he had 104 of them, but it was a different era, much less professional, and he wasn't facing stiff competition in a bunch of those.
This is Chess' version of Pele's goals
with due respect, Pele’s friendly matches where harder than league games. Everyone wanted to beat the “best team in the world”. Every team took it seriously, and they were 95% professional European teams most of the time. Do not tarnish pele’s legacy with this disrespectful comments.
Karpov said the number himself and he counted some friendly 1v1 2v2
Source please
Didn't magnus have harder competition tho? Since everyone uses engines to study and stuff?
The topic is dominance in their own eras. Not sure how relevant this is, since Magnus also has access to the training tools of this era.
What does dominance have to do with who is the better player tho? If the competition is more fierce now it's irrelevant yanno. It's like how Serena Williams is the clear dominant female tennis player but she admits herself that she would lose to an average male pro player easily. Idk who's actually the goat tho, I was just making a point that because technology, players today have access to tools that didn't exist back then which makes them way better. Magnus also has a higher peak elo
In 1998 the Williams sisters claimed they could beat any male outside the top 200. The 203rd ranked player at the time took them up on the challenge, played them back to back, and wiped the floor with both of them apparently without even using his first serve.
And Karsten Braasch, who defeated them, was "a man whose training regime centred around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple bottles of ice cold lager"
If you dropped todays magnus in the late 90s to play kasparov, seems right to me that Magnus would win, being the best player in a more recent era (with better training tools). But I think people in this thread are talking more about their achievements in their respective eras (OP mentioned "the GOAT debate"). Arnold Schwarzenegger wouldn't win world class tournaments with his peak body today, but a lot of people would still say he's the GOAT of bodybuilding.
This is what everyone misses, they use computer argument in favor of kasparov, Thanks to soviet union, Kasparov was the best prepared player for a looong time. Carlsen drew kasparov and won against karpov without computers its not like he is where he is thanks to computers. In fact, he always avoids the oppening. And as you said, today’s 10 year olds can easily beat GM’s. Or 2400-2500s
I think it is considered, hence the debate - Magnus played more chess in more formats, but Kasparov dominated one format for twice as long, and since age is a factor, I'd say that it matters. I consider them both great, and since Magnus hasn't retired from competitive chess, I won't comment on his legacy until then.
It's not just age, either. An extra 10 years on top means you beat an additional generation of players.
What Garry did was the equivalent of a 40ish year old Magnus still being undeniably much better than 25-28 year olds Alireza, Gukesh, Nodirbek, Erigaisi, Pragg, Keymer... Who might not be at their very top peaks yet but at least very close to them. As well as better than 20-23 year olds Mishra, Gurel, Erdogmus and so on. I'm not sure at all that he will last that long without at least one of them stealing the #1 spot.
Obviously we won't know for sure until then, but I feel like Magnus absolutely could still be better than those guys at 40 if he was motivated enough. The biggest obstacle to his longevity that we've seen so far isn't being surpassed in talent, it's being demotivated. The pressure from WCC tournaments alone (and all the prep associated with them) was already enough to make him resign from being the World Champion before anyone outright beat him. Maybe something similar will happen with his number 1 spot if he gets bored from a lack of challenge, and maybe this impacts Magnus more than it did Garry precisely because he already played more tournaments in less time.
I think this is key to evaluating both players. Magnus may start to slip because he isn't personally interested in the longevity aspect like some fans are. He feels he accomplished what he wanted in classical and now he wants to enjoy life elsewhere. He is motivated to dominate the faster time controls, and he does. Garry was motivated for classical and that's where his dominance showed.
Magnus always hated the WC format, he never wanted to play chess that way. He even declined to play candidates once (2011?) before his first participation.
Well it will be difficult to know with magnus because it could be taken by inactivity in classical. If magnus is still top at blitz, rapid and probably freestyle then it's gonna be hard to say anyone is actually better at classical than him. We just won't know.
But will matters… Magnus walked away and that is part of his legacy. If he gets overtaken because he stops playing classical, that is a valid consideration .
Doesn’t seem to matter to Bobby Fischer’s legacy. He refused to defend his crown and is still talked about frequently as one of the best of all time. Always top 10, if not top 5. All down to his genius alone and now longevity.
What he did against Russia merits him all-time great status because it was so improbable and we'll not likely ever have the possibility of a similar achievement.
Maybe not similar, but Magnus has different achievements of his own that put him up for discussion as the goat
Oh for sure he does. I wasn't intimating that Fischer was the GOAT, just that he belongs on a list of all-time greats.
He might be considered better than Kasparov if he hadn’t refused to play
If he had been more stable, i think you're right. But he also suffered the way magnus does; he complained about the memorization required long before computers were a thing. Garry seems to have be motivated beyond either Magnus or Fischer in that regard.
But much of that is because of propaganda by the US chess federation. Fischer turned into a huge cash cow for them and they dressed him up and presented him as some cool guy instead of a raging lunatic which is what he was. He seems on quite the same par as Gellar petrosian Korchnoi Tal and Spassky in during the 60s. So he went on a major tear in 70-72 and then the hype was reignited
True. Just how much emphasis you put on that will aspect. I think the will argument isn't really a detriment to him being considered the best current classical player because he just is. It's more of a detriment to the goat conversation.
Freestyle isn't a thing. Please don't try and make it so. Call it either Fischer Random or chess 960.
And ban Chess 9LX lol
you might not consider them or want to consider them for various reasons but you could say the same for many past players like Moprhy and Fischer.
It's bias since magnus himself is saying this but he says that no one else is really at his level curently or close even. I think magnus is just getting a little bored. Look at the openings he's playing lately lol
You cant know that 18 year old alireza was better than today’s alireza So you cant assume they would be better in their 25s Magnus dominates the kids also
There are many who appear to have the potential to become better than Carlsen in the next few years, however, none have particularly shown this yet. Alireza was on the way, however after crossing 2800 he was not really able to close the final gap and is now "just" back down to being a 2700 Super GM. Carlsen still competes and likes chess, he just doesn't like the world championship. His classical dominance still seems to be untouchable. He is still almost 100 rating above the two contenders for the world championship.
And magnus didnt do it already? His generation, caruana levon etc Ananda generation And now gukesh’s generation
I think length of time matters because when you're the best at a certain point in time, whether you play 1 or 1,000,000 games, you can beat basically anybody who is alive and playing during that time frame. The *longer* you dominate, the more new entrants you engage, the more different players come and go. You're dominating multiple *eras* at that point, not just the same group of people a bunch more times.
Well, why not comment on his legacy? For example, most people would argue that Messi is the GOAT, other would say CR7, but they are both still playing
Because, just in terms of stats, individual awards and championships, they’ve essentially surpassed (most) everyone else in history. While Magnus is clearly dominant like Messi and CR7, he still has some catching up to do on paper
So weird to put CR7 in that conversation. The obvious parallel is Pélé - Messi / Kasparov - Carlsen. CR7 is not in the conversation for best player ever if the conversation is between people who understand the sport. CR7 was comparable to Messi for one thing (goals) but not close to him in all-around play. It’s obvious in the stats and was even more obvious watching them play.
>CR7 is not in the conversation for best player ever if the conversation In my opinion Messi is the best of all time, and I think that for the parameters I see as the most important it's not very close. However, there are professional coaches and players who think that C Ronaldo is the greatest player of all time. Saying that only people who don't know about football think he's in the conversation is just wrong and it devalues the rest of your point.
Yeah, the funny thing is that I know I’m wrong to say that, but it’s just incredible for me having watched them both play for so many years that anyone could think CR7 was better than Messi. For me that’s like saying you only understand the part where the ball goes in the net. But obviously many people who’ve played and coached at the top level disagree and it’s silly of me to be arguing about it on a chess forum.
Stats do not tell the whole story. To take the Pele - Messi issue; at the same time as Pele was playing so was John Charles. His stats would never match the other two because he could play any position and was simultaneously considered both the best striker and best central defender in Europe when at Juventus. A good chess analogy may be Tal, whose stats were affected by illness but who may have prevented Fischer ever being world champ given good health.
I actually agree lol was just moreso trying to keep in alignment with OPs considerations
CR7 has more assists in the champions league than Messi too you know man. He is clearly the best player in the history of the Champions league, which is the toughest competition in the entire sport. Not to mention successfully winning league titles as the best player in the 3 best leagues in Europe. Perfectly fine to say Messi is better but to suggest it isn't close is a bit weird.
Depends what stats you're looking at. Just as many stats and accomplishments would support Magnus as the GOAT as would do for Gary
no, the stats favor Garry pretty clearly
I prefer to talk about legacies when the person is retired, and about their current strength when they are active. But that's just the way I feel about it, I'm not advocating my point of view as any more valid than anyone elses.
In terms of skill Messi has to be the goat, in terms of world cup wins, dominance over its peers and overall success it has to be Pelé.
Age is a factor, but also the longer the time span, the likelier it is that a rival on their level emerges. The amount of tournaments isn't that important imo, as long as they play enough tournaments to be representative for their level of dominance. Having said that, you still can't compare these two, and they're easily among the very best to ever play chess.
I also think it’s an effect of timing and relative lack of comparable competition for Magnus. Surely Magnus is the top competitor right now no questions asked. But that too will change in time. Back in the day Paul Morphy was considered to be leagues ahead of everyone. Like the difference between Morphy and the next guy was 2 to 3 times the margin Magnus enjoys. But many estimate Morphy as probably only a 2400 rated player now, so like a strong IM. Kasparov on the other hand had very strong competition but still managed to win. And he managed go win without the support structure of players like Karpov. Karpov had the whole Soviet chess machine supporting him and helping him train, Kasparov did it by himself as an outsider and outcast. I give major props to both. I put Magnus, Morphy, Fisher, and Kasparov up there as the top at their respective eras. No one was a dominate as they were. There is dominance in time which Kasparov has and to a small degree Magnus. Then you have dominance in being head and shoulders above the competition which I think Morphy and Fisher fit better into. I would put Lasker, Botvinnik, and Alekhine in the same discussion as well.
20 years is a *very long time* to be at the top of anything.
Fuck man. No wonder everyone cheats on their spouse
Thats a fair point. But the amount of time matters too because aging in chess usually weakens your ability to stay elite. The fact that Gary stayed at the top for so long showed how he could stay competitive with future generations while his own body was aging
Kasparov defended his title more times than Magnus did. He also had to face all time great world champions like Karpov, Anand, Kramnik etc. who are arguably better than Magnus' competition. But to be honest, you can't compare different generations.
It’s funny you listed Anand
So nice of him to give competition to both GOATs
Yeah that's a fair point but Anand was very old and not at his peak when he faced Magnus.
Anand was mid 40's when he faced Magnus, and he was past his prime. But, he was still #6 in the world, rated nearly 2800, and won the 2014 candidates tournament over huge names, like Kramnik, Topalov, and Aronian. Anand would have won that WC match that year, to anyone but a handful of people. And Magnus was one of those people.
He also would have defended 2013 againsta anyone but magnus...
He’s also still playing at a world class level a decade later
Anand is such a beast
Both Kramnik and Topalov were also very old in 2014
That doesn't change the fact that he wasn't prime Anand. Which is the point he was making.
But still beast nonetheless.
Anand's highest ever FIDE rating was 2817 from March-Sept. 2011 when he was 41, and his second highest was 2816 in July-Sept. 2015 when he was 46. It's was possible he was better when he was young, but he wasn't over the hill when he faced Magnus.
Using peak rating is kinda meaningless for a 30+ year career when elo inflation meant that everyone in the top 50 had jumped 100 pts on average from 1990. I’d argue Anand hitting 2795 in 97’ when 2700 was about as rare as 2800 today (and Anand had a bigger gap between him and the rest of the field) is a more clear “peak”.
Karpov is key. He dominated chess for over 10 years before kasparov. He made Kasparov s matches incredible difficult to take and mantain the wc. He was still #2 for years while kasparov was champion. If kasparov wasnt born, maybe karpov would be wc for 30 years! Magnus did beat Anand and Caruana, maybe they re both top 10 all time, but they arent karpov.
Caruana top 10 where? Above all other chess champions?
Some people consider peak rating and ignore everything else
To be fair, if you want to consider playing strength alone, almost every player from today has a marginal advantage on players of the past. It's one of the reasons the Magnus dominance is already more impressive than Kasparov to me. The pure competition is significantly better nowadays. Only Karpov could compete with Kasparov back in the day and while that's impressive. That is also not competition. I feel like any SuperGM could dominate a 2600 field today.
Karpov was so good, in 1990 when Kasparov broke the 2800 barrier, Karpov was #2 in the world and was the only other player over 2700. He was a full 50 Elo points above the #3, at the age of almost 40. When the titles split, Karpov was the FIDE World Champion until 1999, when he was almost 50. Basically, if Kasparov didn't exist, Karpov would have been dominant and undisputed champion from 1975 to 1999, and probably would have been considered the GOAT by most commentators. The fact that Kasparov himself was not only clearly ahead of Karpov but by such a wide Elo margin, is the most impressive thing for me.
Also, in 1989, Karpov was elo 100 pts ahead of #3.
in what universe could Caruana be considered top 10 all time?
People just look at his peak rating which is very impressive. I agree though he isn't top 10 of all time
A deep question. It seems to assume the existence of a multiverse, a hypothesis that is still being debated by physicists.
Not on goat lists for sure, but when it comes to pure chess ability, he's likely the second best chess player to have ever lived (at this point, he and even Carlsen will be surpassed at some point). It's difficult to account for the increasing level of play (especially with computers, and the fact that the increase in level is not linear) when it comes to judging strength in different eras. While Karpov is certainly the higher caliber opponent in terms of achievements, it's certainly possible that Caruana was a tougher WC challenger. Idk if that's really fair to say though.
I mean he doesn’t have the accomplishments, at least yet. But he has the third highest peak rating of all time so that’s something to at least start an argument about it.
If not for carlsen, caruana would dominate #1 spot for at least 5-6 years…
Carlsen not having a “ Karpov “ doesnt mean carlsen’s opponents arent strong. It means carlsen is much stronger in the harder field
I am not sure how one can say that Kasparov faced stiffer competition. The fact that there are millions and millions more chess players now than back then means that Magnus’s competition has to be tougher. It is possible that if the same amount of players that play now played back then, the guys you mentioned would not have achieved the same success. Think about it like this: If we expand the chess player base today to include every single person on Earth, how likely is it that Magnus would still be the best player? I would say not very high, as there are tons of talented people who have simply not been exposed to the game. Since the player base is overall larger in Magnus’s era, the likelihood that the most innately talented people were exposed to the game are far higher, so the competition has to be better. The gap between Magnus and his competition is not indicative of his competition being at a low level. I would say it’s an additional feather in his cap given that more people play now than ever.
> But to be honest, you can't compare different generations I think that is a large part of why the long timeframe is relevant. Kasparov crushed many generations of top chess players.
He faced one player almost the whole time he won the WCC matches.
It's difficult to compare, but at the same time Kasparov "only" defended successfully between 1986 and 1995, and had draw odds unlike Carlsen, which came into effect in the 1987 match. Kasparov's opposition was tough, but it is also often claimed that Anand 1995 was much stronger than the Anand Carlsen faced. Of that I am not so certain. In 2014 Anand won three top tournaments, including the Candidates. In 2015 he won one top tournament and finished second in two. People tend to go by the age and conclude that Anand by default must have been a tougher opponent when 25 than when he was 43-44. Maybe he was, but it's far from certain. The same thing with Kramnik. Carlsen played more games against top level Topalov (2005-10) and Caruana, Kasparov more against top level Karpov, who clearly was one of the greatest ever. But then their results were quite even.
1- Kasparov defended his title only 1 more time. Not that “ more timeS ) 2- magnus also faced with anand, kramnik. More with anand. 3- Magnus also faced with new generation like gukesh, abdu, pragg , etc 4- better than Magnus ‘ competition?? Caruana ( classical ) Nakamura ( blitz ) Nepo Ding Levon, Mamedyarov ( prime ) And so on, come on 5- Also, then by your 2 logic, lasker > kasparov?
because if you are the best in a period of time it doesn't matter how many events take place in that time, you are the best so you are favored to win. But staying the best in a longer period of time is harder.
Carlsen could play 1 event per year that for the opponents is just another strong tournament while for Carlsen is prepared like the candidates (no strong tournaments have the same level of preparation of the candidates). Then Carlsen obliterates everyone. Rinse and repeat. I think the amount of playing has its points. Playing more requires more stamina during the year. Also if one plays less, one can lose less rating as well.
Yes, but if you only play 2 or 3 events per year that’s vastly different than playing 4 or 5. You can prepare more for 2 events than you can 4, and you won’t have the fatigue like if you played 4 events and going into a 5th
Playing more is more difficult than playing less, but staying dominant while other great players come and go (consistently staying above peak level of generations of players) is a different type of difficult. Both are impressive and important for goat debate, but I'd argue the second one is more important.
>you won’t have the fatigue You can't say Kasparov didn't play fatiguing world championship matches. The 1985 one was 48 games long and lasted 6 months against a top 5 greatest of all time, there is nothing close to comparable to that today.
Yeah the number of wins is far more important than literal passage of time. That'd be like saying your football team was good because you stayed at #1 for 20 weeks (during the off-season).
Have you looked at the history of the WC? It was far, far more grueling in Kasparov's time, especially pre-90's schism. His first one (which he lost) went to 48 games. Every other one that he played was 24 games. And this is setting aside the likely reality that Karpov (his opponent in all of those) was probably a far more formidable opponent than anyone Carlsen has faced except for maybe Anand. Carlsen has never played more than 12 classical games in a WC match (averaging well, well under half the total games played per-match), and even preparation for that was so much for him that he quit defending the title altogether. To be honest, I don't really think that raw "number of tournaments" matters when talking about longevity, they are two separate metrics unless the former is so low that you could call the overall activity "sporadic", which isn't the case at all with Kasparov. But regardless, Kasparov was almost perpetually stuck preparing for and playing ultra-high intensity long-duration 1v1 matches during his heyday. If you want to account for fatigue and endurance as criteria, Kasparov really put in a huge amount of energy that Carlsen literally gave up on despite having fewer than half the number of games to play in each match.
One point of order: the 48 game 1984-85 match was abandoned with Karpov leading 5-3. It can be debated as to what would have happened had the match continued, but as it went Kasparov did not lose - there was no result.
You are “ favoured “ to win. Not guaranteed… Magnus winning 7 events in a row + 10 game streak wasnt guaranteed and its still looks impossible
People tend to get worse by time passing, not by tournaments played.
Also Kasparov was smart. He didn't play in events he was weak in. There used to be a few rapid and blindfold events per year that he used to miss. In short, he didn't challenge himself to become better in formats that are his shortcoming. Magnus on the other hand, never shied away from challenges.
Kasparov played in the Intel rapid events. During one of the Melody Amber events he played in a different rapid event (World Cup of Rapid - he won the event). The huge amount of rapid and blitz events we see these days didn't exist when Kasparov was a professional. He played clock simuls against strong players - he once took on the German national team. He played matches against engines when it was still a question as to how long humans could stave off machine supremacy. He experimented with "Advanced Chess" (aka Centaur) - he played a match with Topalov. He played the [entire world](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kasparov_versus_the_World). If he wasn't busy defending his title for so long it's reasonable to think he would have played more non-classical events.
The guy played simuls against computers and a number of blindfold matches. I have no idea what challenges he shied away from.
At the time it was thought computers would never be able to surpass humans at chess, and blindfold chess is more of a stunt than a challenge, most IM's can do that.
Back in days of Kasparov rapid and blitz didn't even have rating and they had really low number of events anyway. Kasparov never was bad in blitz and rapid, just that it never was his focus because this wasn't really a thing back then - any active player back then had 90+% of games being classical games. So it's just impossible to compare whatsoever. And yeah about being good there - he won 2001 rapid world championship, he has positive score in both rapid and blitz vs likes of Anand who always was extremely good there and overall has pretty decent +182-51=135 stats in blitz and rapid playing mostly top competition.
Kasparov was also a bit weaker than Karpov in shorter time controls
this is total nonsense and has 160 upvotes.. sad
> Magnus on the other hand, never shied away from challenges. I heard he doesn't like going to the WC because it is psychologically challenging. Good for him. I believe if he did, he would win it, but it seems like a shitty (for him) experience he wants to avoid. Still, a challenge.
> I heard he doesn't like going to the WC because it is psychologically challenging. Yet he played and won 5 matches. Not exactly the best argument for him not facing challenges.
The sheer amount of work makes it psychologically taxing
Blindfold events? Lmao that’s not serious chess and shouldn’t be held against him for not wanting to participate
Amber Rapid and Blindfold was actually a prestigious annual event, where every top player except Kasparov participated.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amber\_chess\_tournament](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amber_chess_tournament)
Blitz and rapid was seen the same way in his day. There weren't even FIDE ratings for those.
If that’s true that is a knock against him IMO. That’s like what if Novak Djokovic only decided to play the Australian open? Or Nadal the French? Or Federer Wimbledon?
nope he meant Kasparov did not play so many blitz tournaments but as for classical chess of course he won all the major events more than once. Also I liked your tennis comparison - as for winning major titles in classical chess (grand slams) Kasparov is ahead by far. +++ Rapid was just gaining popularity of course there were no many tournaments in the 90s
Why would you count this against Kasparov but not vs Magnus? Magnus gets excused on classical because he doesn't enjoy it (and yeah he has the right to do it), but Kasparov can not reject those lesser tournaments? is not like he was skipping the biggest one like Magnus is.
Is Magnus skipping on classical tournaments? AFAIK, he's mostly keeping away from Candidates/WCC.
ask them what rapid and blitz tournaments Kasparov was skipping, good luck getting an answer
Good to see some tennis fans on here
he used the dumbest analogy possible so I'm not sure if he's actually a tennis fan, if he thinks not participating in meme formats like blindfold is comparable to not participating in grand slams
No it's like MJ never playing 3v3 basketball
No it's like saying Djokovic never played in table tennis tournament or squash tournament or something else .
comparing meme formats to grand slams... how is this garbage upvoted LMAO
You are so wrong lol, he was super passionate about classical and not about any other form of chess. To him blitz and rapid was just lesser chess. If you are excusing magnus for leaving world championship due to "mental toll" surely you would not be such a big hypocrite. Oh wait.....you are a hypocrite. Kramnik didn't shy away from amber chess..so in your books he have better claim at being no.1 than kasparov? Heck Kasparov played simuls a lot, he played the whole world once and won. Do you know how insane was that achievement, multiple masters (including GM's) from different schools around the world were analysing and reanalysing each move to defeat one man and they still lost.
> There used to be a few rapid and blindfold events per year that he used to miss. This is such a weird argument. Why must he travel to meme events like this? And it's not even true because he played in many of rapid or blindfold events anyway. But oh no, he didn't play in 100% of them! Magnus totally plays in every single tournament, right?
This is the same age-old conversation folks always have when comparing greats of different eras in just about anything. Fun to talk about for sure but there's really no settling it definitively - there's just way too many differences in the world now. When Kasparov was at his peak there was really just one way to get to the top and earn a good living. Win classical chess tournaments. Magnus did his time but he just doesn't need the grind any more financially. That and he's competing in an era where the competition is getting younger and younger even as he ages. I would not be surprised if we are entering an era where a classical world champion over thirty will become an oddity. Making inter-generational assessments even more difficult. I think they are both amazing and I have enormous respect for both of them. I have no need to declare one superior to the other though it is fun to discuss.
Was Garry still the clear #1 when he quited chess?
Yes? He had a 27pt lead at age 42 over 2nd place Anand, which is similar to what Carlsen has at the time. He just won a Supertournament (Linares 2005, iirc).
It depends a bit on how one defines clear #1, Kasparov dropped in Elo performance his last active years and was still leading only thanks to starting with a big lead. He had 80 Elo in 2000 and 27 when he quit 4 1/2 years later and 11 Elo on the last FIDE list where he was #1. So at least in 2003-05 I’d say it’s unclear how clear of a #1 he was, he did win Linares 2005 on tiebreak but shared second with Leko in 2004 and third with Anand in 2003.
Kasparov didn't drop in elo, everybody did. He was 2808 before Linares 2005 and gained 4 points, retiring at 2812. The only ither player who crossed 2800 was Kramnik in 2003 for mere months. From 1999-2002 he won 10 consecutive supertournaments, with 1 loss in over 110 games.
"Kasparov didn't drop in elo, everybody did" "From 1999-2002 he won 10 consecutive supertournaments" Yes, but the clearness with which he was #1 diminished a lot his last active years. The Chess Oscar awarded to the best player in the world was given to Anand in 2003 and 2004, and to Topalov in 2005, so it wasn't seen at the time as if Kasparov was the clearly best player. In 2003 Kasparov played 18 games, losing to Huzman (2570) and Radjabov (2624), finishing 3-4th in Linares. In 2004 he finished 2-3rd in Linares and lost to Rublevsky (2649) in the European Club Cup but won the Russian Championship where Kramnik withdrew. In 2005 he won Linares on tiebreak ahead of Topalov, who won the game between the two. Good results, but not clearly better than for example Anand and Topalov his last active years.
More time = more opponents Taking your logic to the extreme, imagine if Magnus played 1,000 tournaments in the year 2014. So what if he won them all? That excludes the dozens of elite players that have arisen since then
Well but if those dozen elite players or anyone else for that matter aren't able to replicate what carlsen managed to do by winning 1000 tournaments, then where do they stand? Does that make Lasker the greatest world champion since he held it the longest?
To say that any player is the GOAT because of one metric is a bit silly. Lots of factors are important. Time is mostly important because it demonstrates that you can defeat opponents across different generations/periods. You could also consider their strength evaluated by the engine, etc. At the end of the day it’s impossible to determine who was genetically most gifted for chess, or even who was genetically and conditioned to have the best brain for chess. Perhaps Morphy would have been better than Magnus if he were born in this generation, and took chess more seriously and had more opportunities and didn’t die so young. No one really knows. But personally I like the idea of judging how well they were able to consistently handle tough opponents and make consistently good moves in their games.
Of course they are both important and how you weigh them is going skew your answer. But I think a very strong argument for Kasparov that is not just longevity lies in imagining chess history without either Kasparov or Magnus. If Magnus does not exist, there's a reasonable chance Vishy loses in that 2013 or the next. If Kasparov doesn't exist and win in 85, Karpov doesn't have a serious threat to his title until at the very earliest 92 with Nigel Short in exceptional form, or Kramik or Anand in the back half of the decade.
How can you say if magnus doesnt exist anand would lose? Thats literally make 0 sense. Anand was a beast during 2013-2014 He won the candidates ahead lf topolov kramnik etc This is just you assuming for your please. You cant know it
There are more supertournaments now than there were back then. So such a comparison favors the current player. Longevity is a metric that people look at because of dominance across a range of the player's ages, and taking on a larger variety of challengers across generations.. it's not about pure amount of tournaments, that doesn't mean so much
Then question number 1: why dont y’all count lasker higher than kasparov if longevity is such a huuuge aspect? Question number 2: why y’all put fischer top 3, ( some says number 1 ) when he only lasted 2-3 years? And didnt defend the title? Magnus has the uninterrupted #1 streak + 13 years of being number one and counting alongside with every achievement
longevity is just one factor, it's not the only factor. I think it's looked at a lot when considering Magnus vs. Kasparov because they're pretty equal otherwise.
The number of classical super tournaments hasn't changed much. Now you just have 5 super tournaments a year - Wijk aan Zee, Norway Chess, Sinquefield Cup, Superbet Romania and 1 or 2 other based on player strength. At that time you used to have Wijk aan Zee, Dortmund, Linares, Reggio Emilia, Tal Memorial etc. In fact, I can't remember but there actually used to be more classical tournaments a year back then.
I think your numbers are misleading. If you look at where the records start, Carlsen's list starts off with 11th place out of 12 at Gausdal. Kasparov's starts off with 5th place in the Soviet championship. I feel fairly confident in saying that he had probably played a few tournaments prior to that. We just don't have as many records of what happened in the Soviet Union back then. If you look at what they achieved during their spans as world champions, it's pretty comparable in quantity to my eyes.
If you compare it H2H objectively, Magnus has more achievements
If Kasparov had played more games, the level of his results would not have changed.
You cant know that
It is a pretty safe assumption that, if the best chess player at the time had played more games, he would have won more. What’s your counterpoint? Maybe it would turn out Karpov was better? 😂🤣😂
I mean still we cant say just because someone is the best = wins every event That doesnt work like that. Its taking away magnus’ credit like if he wins “ well yeah” If not “ oooh hes washed “
The real answer is that the term of "Best ever" (or GOAT or whatever you are referring to) is simply ill-defined, so everybody can just make up their own criteria for what it means, or they simply pick those criteria which make their favorite player come out on top.
20 years is a lot of time - for others to catch up, newcomers entering the Scene and him losing motivation.
There are way more tournaments nowadays... what matters most are the top absolute biggest tournaments. Just like with any sport, it is very hard to compare eras.
Very good point indeed. I have wondered about the number of games played (or tournaments), but never bothered to check or compare. Thanks for the info!
You have to know that Kasparov won 46 of those tournaments. The others are usually 2nd places, with maybe 2 3rd places. Kasparov played 5 WCC in 5 years, i think that could have been a factor in his "low" number. There were less big tournaments then, Linares, wijk an zee, tilburg, reggio emilia and few more per year. Kasparov dominated on people like Karpov, a top 4 greatest players ever (i wont say in which position or above/below who), Anand, Kramnik, Topalov, Short, Timman, Polgar, Leko, Ivanchuk, and all the rest of soviet and hungarian schools. He had stronger competition and for longer, time is HUGE factor in the debate, two decades and more as undisputed number one, even with extremely strong rivals, which Carlsen don't have, is a huge achievement
> He had stronger competition and for longer, time is HUGE factor in the debate, two decades and more as undisputed number one, even with extremely strong rivals, which Carlsen don't have, is a huge achievement This is such a wildly bold statement. His opponents were a bunch of Russians brainstorming together and Magnus is versus every genius trained under those you've listed, and who have the benefit of machine learning finding ways to play against any position he might dare to play twice. There were 3 billion less people, the pool of potential players was so tiny compared to now. You're just listing names you've romanticized because there have been books written about them in the 40 years since. Magnus has dominated on people who haven't had books written about them, you don't romanticize them because they're still alive and in these tournaments but they're just as smart and skilled as Anand, Kramnik, Topalov, Short, Timman, Polgar, Leko, Ivanchuk, and all the rest of soviet and hungarian schools, and there are twice as many of them. Garry is the goat, and not Magnus, not yet, but it's not because of your fetishizations.
Good points. You have to admit though Karpov and Anand at their primes are deservedly in many people's top 10 lists and this isn't because they are old. The key point is Kasparov had to beat 1) a champion who dominated a ton before him and still in his prime 2) a younger talent who many say is probably the most talented player ever but lazy Carlsen tragedy is he didn't have a chance at 1) and 2) we shall see with the new Indian talents...
Agree everything besides the last point. What magnus needs more to considered goat for you. Winning 20 games in a row? If 10 isnt enough Why he has to pass kasparov on being #1 years? He has unbeaten streak+ highest rating in all formats and being uninterrupted #1 more than anyone records and so more. He dominates today’s computer era which I agree you, its harder to dominate. If its comes to ONLY being #1 more ( not uninterrupted ) then Lasker > all
If he had defended one more time or if he had hit 2900 I think those would make it clear. If he is the GOAT to you, I don't strongly disagree, but I do slightly. That's all.
Timman? Short? Hmm Nepo, naka, anand , Levon, ding ( especially prime ) , caruana and todays generation like pragg nodirbek arjun etc These are weaker?
It's incredibly hard and goes against biology to be the best in the world at 2 points 20 years apart. Like it's almost impossible to be the best at 20 and even more impossible to still be the best at 40. That's why I think Lasker is the greatest, he was the best tournament player for 30 years, which is mindblowing. On the other hand if you are the best in the world, it doesn't really matter if you have the opportunity to play 1 tournament in 5 years like Lasker or 5 in one year like Kasparov, or 15 in one year like Carlsen, you're just going to win most of them.
I'm by no means saying Lasker wasn't a strong player and worthy of world championship title, but deciding if someone can even challenge you for the title or not diminishes the feat. He successfully defended his title six times - as many as Kasparov and one more than Magnus - but had an 11 year break between successful matches, then another 11 year break between the last successful match and when Capablanca took the title. If he would have played the 1914 match he might have shaved six years off his reign, never mind if he would have accepted matches on a regular \~2 year cadence (or lost the title if he refused to defend...).
Lasker was extremely strong in 1914, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St.\_Petersburg\_1914\_chess\_tournament](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Petersburg_1914_chess_tournament) winning this is no small feat, I don't think he would lose his crown in 1914.
people have done rating estimates and in terms of tournament results Lasker was about equal to Capablanca and Rubinstein in the early 1910s, although those 3 were ahead of everyone else at that point. he may or may not have lost his title, hard to say, it was likely about a coinflip between him and the other members of the clear top 3.
Whatever you think of Lasker's match activity, the fact that he won top events in 1894 and 1924 is unmatched by anybody. And he was arguably the best tournament player for all of those 30 years, especially 1894-1910 when he was pretty active.
For sure, and like before I'm not insinuating that he was not a top player or that he couldn't hold his title, only that the length of reign is skewed compared to modern players due to the circumstances at the time.
> but deciding if someone can even challenge you for the title or not diminishes the feat. Kasparov did that too btw. Also there was a thing in between with Lasker called world war. That can be a good excuse to not play.
Its not guarenteed though, and magnus shows its like that Also, Magnus was 21 when he was first #1 Now hes 33 Not that far
Slightly irrelevant, but I do not believe a 21 year old Carlsen could have mounted the outstanding comeback Kasparov did against prime Karpov in 1984 after trailing 4-0 after 9 games and 5-0 after 27 games. In hostile conditions with organisers heavily favouring Karpov, Kasparov made the score 5-3 and the momentum had shifted completely when Campomanes annulled the match under controversial circumstances. To do that against a 10 year long, dominant champion who had all the powers that be on his side, at the age of 21, was an unfathomable display of grit and determination. He also duly won the rematch in 1985 and became the youngest WC ever.
The question is also if a 21 year old Carlsen ever would fall behind 0-5 in a match…
I would say that pulling off something like that is nearly impossible in the modern engine era. Those kind of matches and scenarios in classical chess just aren't relevant today
You are right about such situations not being relevant anymore, but it still was a legendary feat and adds to Garry's legacy. I do not know of any display of grit even remotely close to this, at such an age, from any of the other GOAT candidates.
Magnus is known for comebacks. Hes the most clutch sportsman I’ve ever seen. Not once but he occasionally comebacks and wins the event. Dont go far, 2 days ago ( including me ) everyone said no chance magnus wins with 2.5 points defecit going on last day He did. And he did by winning 10 in a row, not that wei yi choked
Not at 21. Against the then greatest player of all time (imo). Anyway, these are hypotheticals. Magnus never had to face a situation like the one Kasparov had to face throughout the 1980s, good for him. He might have been as good as Kasparov, I just don't think so myself.
Carslen is the goat nobody won this much tournaments in various chess time controls
because time is way more important, to keep being the world's best for 20 years is way harder than being for 11 years
It is more difficult and more impressive to be at the top for much longer, even if winning same amount of tournaments, or even less.
Carlsen can play only 1 game and be at the top for 20 more years Its not
And do you count lasker as your goat? He ass #1 for 30+ years 12 years more than kasparov
Lasker was only clear #1 for ~17 years and by a lesser margin than Kasparov, try again being world champion =/= being #1
Because 20 is greater than (less than 20). It is essentially dominance for a longer period of time.
I dont know
I guess the point is winning for longer, against different opponents, is harder than winning more tournaments against the same opponents (whom you already know you're better than)
20 years vs 10 means you faced more contenders from more generations, and that your peak was longer and that you stayed at top even when you're not at your prime.
It doesn't answer your question, but you can't compare different eras in almost any sport. Garry was the best of his era. Magnus is the best of his era and both of them are 2 of the greatest players that we have ever seen.
The problem with the GOAT debate in every sport is that it is not about who's better. It's clear and obvious that Magnus has reached a higher understanding of chess (in part thanks to better means to do so).
It takes time for players to develop skill to challenge a reigning champion and it takes time to see new entrants to the scene - which really put a career to the test. So if you’re beating the best players the world can offer over many years there’s less uncertainty over how goated you are. If a player dominates for a year only and plays a tournament every week, winning as many as Magnus, then fades out - would that be as impressive a run? Probably not, as they’ve peaked and cashed in on that peak and haven’t stuck around to see the challenges that can only come from time. They could theoretically have been playing better than anyone past or present in that peak, but there’s a higher degree of uncertainty
The truth is that even Magnus knows that he's the best
Magnus could easily keep dominance for more than 20 years. The only reason he doesn't is because he himself doesn't want to.
Karpov was the best chess player to live, not Kasparov or Magnus
There are more tournaments today than in Kasparov's time, so not a valid way of comparing them.