Dang it! Long Time for Fischer -> Kasparov. But Now Admit: Magnus Might Be "Best."

As an American I grew up as a Bobby Fischer fan boy.  He beat the Russians!!!  Game of the Century against Donald Byrne as a young boy.  GM at 14.  6-0 against Taimanov in a Candidates Match.  6-0 against the Great Dane, Bent Larsen in another Candidates Match.  6.5-2.5 Against the Great Prophylactic, Tigran Petrosian!

Plus he's credited with Fischer Random Chess or Chess960.  Then I heard that he was the one who came up with Time Increment or Time Delay.   Not to mention that his "My 60 Memorable Games" is considered a great classic.

And he scored like 19 out of 22 in an unofficial World Blitz Championship.  So in any discussions about who's the Greatest Chess Champion of all time, I would say Bobby.

But then Garry Kasparov came along.   He is/was brilliant!!  Tactical Genius.  Held the title for the second longest time after Lasker.  

So, so great for his off-chess board contributions.  He fought the corrupt Fide.  He didn't have to, but he did!  Took on Deep Blue in two matches.  In fact, he just wrote a great book about chess and computers.  He does TED talks to ovations.  He challenged Vladimir Putin because he loves Russia so much, even at the cost of death threats.  

Garry has written fantastic books, "My Great Predecessors" for example.  

So then I considered Bobby's crazy anti-Semitism and his rants against the United States after 9/11 and also how Bobby refused to play any more FIDE games after 1972, and compared it with Garry's Scintillating Play and his Longevity and his altruism, and I had to begrudgingly give up my Bobby Fischer vote for All-Time Greatest Player to the great Russian Garry Kasparov.

Garry's my boy!!

I was content.  It took a lot to move from Bobby to Garry.  But I did it.  Garry is like Basketball Legend Michael Jordan.  That's it.  Case closed.  

But now along comes the young Norwegian Viking, Magnus Carlsen.  I read about him.  Seemed like he was fortunate to have Vishy Anand overlook a simple move in his WC match against Vishy.  Plus Vishy was not even in his prime anymore.  Yes, Magnus attained the highest ELO rating ever.  But I subscribe to the belief that there's rating inflation.  Then Magnus had to go to tiebreaks in order to beat Karjakin in the 2016 WC Match.  That's not a very convincing victory.

But here's where I give King Magnus a lot of credit, far more than my boyhood idol, Bobby Fischer.  Magnus plays all the time!  He doesn't shy from anything.  He plays in all the major tournaments.  He plays in the World Cup.  He plays Pro Chess League.  He plays in the World Blitz Championships and the World Rapid Championships.  Heck, he even plays Fischer Random Championship and he won!!  He just beat Nakamura soundly.

I've watched him play Rapid and Blitz, and the commentators think he's the best Rapid/Blitz player ever.  Everybody says that Magnus sees more in a position than anyone else.   Magnus has got an absolutely phenomenal chess memory.  Magnus takes inferior chess positions against 2700 GM's and wins them anyways!  He blunders away a piece against GM Gawain Jones and wins anyways!  Who does that?

He's in incredible physical shape.  Jogs, does the treadmill, will go out and play soccer when he can.

It took me a long time to put Garry at the top.  But Magnus is pushing and crowding.  I don't really want to say that Magnus is even better than Bobby.  But Maggie is out there playing and promoting chess.  That counts for a lot.

I don't see King Magnus making the same social-political contributions as the Great Garry (Eg., Politics, Computers and AI, Fighting a Corrupt FIDE), plus Magnus has to hold the title for awhile longer, but when you add up the highest ELO rating ever PLUS World Champ at Classical + World Champ at Blitz + World Champ at Chess960, I can't help but be greatly impressed by the Victorious Viking Magnus.

I think this coming world championship cycle will go a long way toward validating (or not) your theory here. 

Well, if Magnus loses, then Garry Kasparov still holds my vote as Greatest World Champion of All Time.

Even if Magnus wins, I gotta be honest, Magnus hasn't held the title long enough.  Garry still retains my vote.  

As far as personal character traits that are common to Bobby, Garry, and Maggie, they all really HATE to Lose.  I wouldn't call any of them Sore Losers when they lost a game or a match (well, maybe Bobby), but all three of them look like they're really difficult to be around when they lose.

Kudos to you sir. Not so much, because I agree with you that Kasparov is greater than Bobby  but because you were able to change your mind in accordance with the evidence.

It was once asked what made Jimmy Connors such a determined tennis competitor and champion.  The answer straight away was that he hated to lose more than he loved to win.  That is the way of all great champions, and not just in tennis or chess.

I greatly value honesty and integrity.  If the solid evidence leads me to a sound and valid conclusion, I will go there regardless of feelings or emotions or social reputation consequences.

Eg., I believe there are substantial intellectual grounds to believe in Objective and Absolute Truth.  Or that T/truth is not subjective or relative.  Feelings, emotions, or social reputation does not factor into acknowledging that there are Objective and Absolute Truths.

Concur with previous post, though Truth is unspeakable; can be shown though not told.  Will not concur with thread, Carlsen loses more games in a tournament than Capablanca lost in a decade.  

Capablanca's last loss to Lasker was when Lasker waa an old man.  I always thought that was pretty cool of old Lasker. 

Only time will tell...

On pure playing strength I think Magnus Carlsen is objectively the best ever. But that doesn’t necessarily mean he’s the most talented ever. He has the benefit of modern theory and modern engines to draw from.

If all other players were given all of the same tools as they progressed from childhood on up, might he still be the best? I don’t know. Mags had better tools than Kasparov, and Kasparov better tools than Bobby Fischer. For all we know maybe Morphy would be the strongest ever.

for some reason, your writing reminds me of how Yasser Seirawan talks... i read it in his voice lol

Lol, high praise indeed.  Yaz is da Man!

they are obviously better than fischer, but only because they had engines. fischer actually made his own winning lines, and when played against him, he would find a new way to win, and when that was played against him, he found new lines!

amazing

hmm yeah, it would be a great excuse if it werent for the fact that magnus and kasparov arent actual engines. they are not perfect, and cannont consistently play a whole game thinking exatcly 15 moves ahead. it really comes down to who can calculate further, has the better position, has the better pieces, state of mind for both players, etc. honestly, if fischer cannot beat them just because 'hur dur engines this engines that', then he aint worth the hype. 

OP, i liked this post a lot tbh. it shows understanding. people are too bias towards the players they like. If i may, magnus being better than kasparov was already obvious to me when u look at his scores and how players grew. 1985 kasparov played against a karpov who was arguably already on Fishcer's lvl, and won, then grew for a decade or more (and people have more than emphasized how quickly he grew in playing strength year after year), then had his mantle passed on to kramnik, who was clearly on his lvl (nay sayers will say nay, but he did have a very good score on kasparov by that point, so it is what it is). Anand could in fact play with the same quality as Kramnik and Kasparov (albeit maybe not as often), so even if one were to say that he was out of his prime, everybody knows that post prime players can still off games on their old lvls from time to time. Even more convincing is when its taken into account that Vishy has insane preparation, and Magnus still somehow overcame him. Its not crazy to say that magnus during those matches was playing on Kramnik's or kasparov's lvl at all. 

I believe that Magnus has said that he could have beaten Fischer, and i believe, him, so there's also that.

"OP, i liked this post a lot tbh."

Thanks QuietHeathen.