That's why you don't post late night US time.
Why Magnus Carlsen Is the Greatest to Ever Play
Sort:
Ours-Is-The-Fury wrote:
Magnus Carlsen is probably the 7th best. In no particular order, I would place Kasparov, Karpov, Capablanca, Fischer, Tal and Botvinik above him. Your points are pretty stupid in that 6 years is nothing, Tal and Capablanca weren't defeated for over a decade. Karpov was a better positional player and his calculation is incredibly weak in comparison to: Kasparov, Capablanca and Fischer.
In addition he never wins. He may have never lost but it's draw after draw after draw. The world champion is supposed to stand out and Carlsen doesn't. All of the champions I mentioned barely drew and won games for streaks longer than 6 years until they were displaced.
Did you just call Magnus' calculation weak? Boy... 
He is not weak nor is any aspect of his playing weak in comparison to anyone ever. The fact that there are more draws in today's chess is due to the use of computer engines and the increased strength of the world's top 30 players. I'd love to see Fischer dominate vs a bunch of people rated FIDE 2780 as he was. His opponents at the time probably couldn't even pass FIDE 2680, which would make them average grandmasters today.
The Karpov comparison is laughable at best. He reached FIDE 2780 at his peak. Comparable to a top GM of today but not close to Magnus in terms of ... anything. I'd love to see him outmaneuver Carlsen in any position. He'd probably struggle to not lose.
The only one who is worth mentioning is Kasparov, who was the closest in terms of strength and who actually taught Magnus a great deal of things. He's been surpassed, though, and he knows that.
Вознаграждение за партии. Считаю что разница в вознаграждении за партии является дискриминацией и не несет никакой смысловой нагрузки. Если у игрока коэффициент 2000 , то ему не интересно играть с игроком у которого коэффициент 1200!!! Какой смысл? Каждая партия должна быть интересна! А игроку с коэффициентом 2000 предлагают играть с тем у кого 1200 еще и за 3 очка, в то время игроку с коэф. 1200 все равно и он играет как хочет. Необходимо установить для всех партий один коэффициент 8 и все. Это даст возможность играть всем и каждому и не будет уклонений от партий и наказаний. Так будет справедливо!!
Aug 4, 2019
0
#7
Ours-Is-The-Fury wrote:
rares495 wrote:
Ours-Is-The-Fury wrote:
Magnus Carlsen is probably the 7th best. In no particular order, I would place Kasparov, Karpov, Capablanca, Fischer, Tal and Botvinik above him. Your points are pretty stupid in that 6 years is nothing, Tal and Capablanca weren't defeated for over a decade. Karpov was a better positional player and his calculation is incredibly weak in comparison to: Kasparov, Capablanca and Fischer.
In addition he never wins. He may have never lost but it's draw after draw after draw. The world champion is supposed to stand out and Carlsen doesn't. All of the champions I mentioned barely drew and won games for streaks longer than 6 years until they were displaced.
Did you just call Magnus' calculation weak? Boy...
He is not weak nor is any aspect of his playing weak in comparison to anyone ever. The fact that there are more draws in today's chess is due to the use of computer engines and the increased strength of the world's top 30 players. I'd love to see Fischer dominate vs a bunch of people rated FIDE 2780 as he was. His opponents at the time probably couldn't even pass FIDE 2680, which would make them average grandmasters today.
The Karpov comparison is laughable at best. He reached FIDE 2780 at his peak. Comparable to a top GM of today but not close to Magnus in terms of ... anything. I'd love to see him outmaneuver Carlsen in any position. He'd probably struggle to not lose.
The only one who is worth mentioning is Kasparov, who was the closest in terms of strength and who actually taught Magnus a great deal of things. He's been surpassed, though, and he knows that.
Magnus' calculation is weak that is why he plays the way he does. He plays somewhat forced variations wherever he can. He likes more open positions. Kasparov liked extremely complex closed positions where he could out calculate his opponent and he still can't see as far ahead. Capablanca was even better than that if you watch the first ever game of the Marshall attack in his match against Frank Marshall.
If you think rating matters then you don't understand the rating system. You can say Carlsen is better than Ding Liren because he has a higher rating, fine. They're from the same era. Ratings inflate Kasparov managed to get to 2800, now you can say that he's been "surpassed" because every top player is 2800 now. That is like saying that since Henry Ford only had 1 billion dollars. He wouldn't even be in the top 30 richest people in the world. Kasparov got to 2800 decades before his time. Carlsen is nowhere near strong enough to accomplish something of that feat
"Magnus' calculation is weak that is why he plays the way he does." Now now, this is coming from a 1654 blitz rated player.
I think it's just the natural evolution of things. The next world champion will be a little better than Magnus ect ect.
Aug 4, 2019
0
#9
Ours-Is-The-Fury wrote:
Magnus Carlsen is probably the 7th best. In no particular order, I would place Kasparov, Karpov, Capablanca, Fischer, Tal and Botvinik above him. Your points are pretty stupid in that 6 years is nothing, Tal and Capablanca weren't defeated for over a decade. Karpov was a better positional player and his calculation is incredibly weak in comparison to: Kasparov, Capablanca and Fischer.
In addition he never wins. He may have never lost but it's draw after draw after draw. The world champion is supposed to stand out and Carlsen doesn't. All of the champions I mentioned barely drew and won games for streaks longer than 6 years until they were displaced.
I respect your opinion, but a problem arises when you call my points 'stupid' and call 6 years 'nothing', you being a 1700-rated Blitz player. As to the '6 years' point, I was stating the amount of time he has dominated. Even though you think 6 years is 'nothing', Carlsen has been way ahead of the field given that engine preparation has become popular.
When I speak of rating, I speak comparatively, so that nullifies your 'rating doesn't matter' idea. It does when there is a sizable difference between #1 and #2
And for another of your stupid points,(you aired it out on me first) you claim he never wins - which if you speak comparatively to the 'older GMs' , it was because their opposition weren't were farther away. Even though Bobby Fischer was FAR ahead of his time, If Magnus and Bobby sat down by a table for a game, my money would be on Magnus.
The problem with your argument is that you speak subjectively by talking about playing style, which means nothing. The accuracy of moves is a better objective term to use. Also, since engine technology makes it much easier to prepare for games, Carlsen has the edge.
”Tal and Capablanca weren't defeated for over a decade”
”his calculation is incredibly weak in comparison to: Kasparov, Capablanca and Fischer.
In addition he never wins”
”The world champion is supposed to stand out and Carlsen doesn't. All of the champions I mentioned barely drew and won games for streaks longer than 6 years”
I’m never sure if people here are trolling or if they believe their own ”facts” :-)
Let's just respect each other's opinions, okay?
But for me, Carlsen is NOT the best of all time. But I think he is the best for this era. You can't compare two players from different eras. But personally, the best player of all time award goes to... COMPUTERS!!!!
LOL.!!! 
Just kidding. I think Fischer is the best. No objections. Just opinion. And don't let me explain why.
it's funny to read all the opinions on here :o I assume most people just prefer the playing style of a certain player. like seriously, how can we claim someone is the best chess player? compared to the players we are talking about, we know nothing about chess
Going by the private message I received by Ours-Is-The-Fury I get the impression that this is not a question of trolling, so I will take the posted stats seriously :-)
To begin with, Tal is supposed to have been undefeated for ten years. This is less than 10% true, since Tal’s longest unbeaten streak lasted less than a year. Not bad of course, but not ten years, and none of his opponents were ranked in the top ten.
Capablanca was undefeated for eight years, but this only covered three tournaments, one of them being Hastings 1919 with opponents like Cole, Conde, Marchand, Holland, Scott, Michell, Wahltuch etc. Then also stronger events and quite impressive, even if Carlsen’s current undefeated streak is considerably longer and against much stronger opposition.
Then Carlsen supposedly never wins. This year he has 23 wins and 28 draws (and no losses). Rather high winning percentage considering that the tournament fields nowadays are filled with top ten ranked players in a way they rarely were in the days before the 1980s.
Then the argument that World Champions are supposed to stand out but that Carlsen doesn’t. Carlsen has been sole winner of all the five classical tournaments he played this year. His predecessors Anand didn’t win a tournament for five years as World Champion, the World Champion before that was Kramnik, who fell to 9th on the rating list as World Champion and rarely won any events.
The thing about Tal, Botvinnik and Karpov etc winning every game they played for many years is a bit more difficult to take seriously. But it’s just to take a quick look at their stats. Karpov was the greatest of the three and probably peaked in the 1980s. His stats 1981-90 are +134-42=259.
Carlsen 2018 was an average champion (yet very strong, as every champion is), but Carlsen 2019 performance puts him among the best of the best. Of course, can't be compared with Kasparov's 15 years winning every tournament he played, it is more like Fischer's 1970 rush. I hope he can keep the pace.
”Carlsen 2018 was an average champion”
I’d say a bit above average. He played five tournaments and even if he ”only” won two he finished second in the remaining three. This during a title match year with having to prepare for that, and he did win that one in the end too, as well as the World Blitz Championship. For example Anand or Kramnik or Tal or Smyslov or Spassky or Petrosian or Euwe or Botvinnik never had a better year as World Champion. Not easy to find a World Champion having a better year after World War II and being named something else than Karpov or Kasparov.
frankly i wish carlsen wasn't the best, but the statistics really point to that being true.
i think CAPS is relevant. it illustrates fischer being ahead of his time.
i wonder if fischer would've embraced computers analysis as much as others, and whether or not that would've been good or bad for his OTB results.
Aug 5, 2019
0
#19
If Magnus played at Fischer's time, Fischer would win. If Fischer played at Magnus's time, Magnus would win, IMO.
Magnus Carlsen has been very dominant in chess for the past 6 years after beating Anand to become world champion. His rating has risen to 2882 (again).
Even in the online world, he has shown his tremendous strength - while being drunk!
I believe this is due to his intuition along with his depth of analysis to back it up. This would also support his dominance in speed chess, as intuition plays a larger role.
What do you guys think?