Is Magnus Carlsen the best chess player in history?

No. But he is the best human chess player in history.

There is no method to compare players from different eras.

But even so, it's pretty difficult to explain why people think Carlsen is better than Kasparov. They are very close in time, they had a lot of common opponents, they are relatively easy to compare.

Kasparov was more dominant in his time, and his time lasted for longer. Carlsen had a chance to catch up with him in this regard, but he chose to quit instead.

Kasparov was always just inches before Karpov. There was no one close to Magnus in his prime. He also had the highest elo in history despite the rating deflation and the globalization of chess. There is no doubt that Magnus is stronger than Kasparov. It's not even close.

Karpov (one of the very best players himself) was competitive only in the first decade of Kaparov's reign. After that it wasn't close.

Magnus not getting any strong competition was probably the reason he got demotivated and decided to quit.

"Rating deflation"? What are you talking about? The exact opposite is true.

"There is no doubt that Magnus is stronger than Kasparov. " - There is every doubt. I don't agree with you, it's close, but Kasparov was clearly more impressive.

I have never seen player so easily dominate the top level of chess in quite the same way Magnus has done, and I find many of his games inspired. So in MY OPINION the answer is yes.

My guess is that you simply weren't following chess 30 years ago. Kasparov was more dominant than Carlsen.

When a strong grandmaster plays Carlsen, he can expect that Magnus outplays him in the endgame and wins is 60 moves.

When a strong grandmaster played Kasparov, he was afraid of getting checkmated in 25 moves and look like one of Morphy's amateur opponents from a simul.

Seeing as I'm 19 years old, no I wasn't following chess 30 years ago however I am very aware of how good Kasparov is and consider him equal to Magnus in most regards. I do think I have recency bias which may influence my decision. However it is my opinion of course and at the end of the day comparing them is only in good fun.

True, after that it was Kramnik who got him.

""Rating deflation"? What are you talking about?"

The one that caused FIDE to recently add rating points to the players.

"When a strong grandmaster plays Carlsen, he can expect that Magnus outplays him in the endgame and wins is 60 moves. When a strong grandmaster played Kasparov, he was afraid of getting checkmated in 25 moves and look like one of Morphy's amateur opponents from a simul."

There is no prize for winning fast or for a certain style. The ratings speak for themselves. Kasparov dominated the late 80s and 90s but a lot of the fear he instilled in his opponents stemed from his exaggerated display of ego and his weird behaviour on the board. In that regard Kasparov reminds me of MJ. But just because Magnus doesn't come across as the most arrogant person doesn't mean he is not the strongest player.

Besides, if we are just talking chess strength (and not accomplishments) one could argue that even Fabi is better than Kasparov.

But of course you are entitled to your opinion.

There is no clear way to compare players from different eras, but that doesn't mean that your statement is not ridiculous. I hope it's just a bad joke.

All Fabiano has is that he played for the World Champion title once (!). In the majority of his career, he wasn't even clear number two.

Yes, because he played in the Magnus era... That's why I said "strengh only". It's pretty obvious that the whole field gets better over time, isn't it? Nowadays, many world champions of the past wouldn't make it into the top 10. However, if we included other factors, such as longevity, dominance over peers, impact on the chess world etc. players like Morphy, Lasker or Fischer would enter the discussion. Morphy dominated his time like no other player did. Lasker held the title for 27 years, and Fischer's impact on the chess world is unsurpassed. But yeah, Kasparov would probably make the top 5. I give you that.

No, no, no no. This is exactly what's not true. Fabiano was only stopped by Magnus once, in 2016. But it wasn't Magnus who stopped him the other 6 times, he just didn't beat the other players to win the Candidates.

Right now he is only number 5 in the world. He is not old, he is barely past 30. He still can pull himself together and win the title, but I wouldn't bet on him.

Comparing him to a giant like Kasparov is a slap in the face of common sense.

Tal is the best

Shows how strong the field is these days. If you organized a tournament with the top 10 + prime Kasparov, I doubt that Kasparov would have a shot. Fabi in his prime was toe to toe with Magnus. Even Magnus said that. And yes, 30 is pretty old for a top chess player nowadays.

Of course Kasparov wouldn't have a chance, he is 62 years old now.

But Kasparov in his prime (at any point between 1989 and 2000) would wipe the floor with these guys.

Just look at Anand, who was completely destroyed by Kasparov when he was young, and he can compete with the current bunch even past 50.

There is no way any one of us could be proven right or wrong, so no point in continuing this.