Chess

[brokenshoelace]

Wouldn't chess be an ideal game in which GOAT should be determinable without much controversy.

In Bridge it is difficult to say who is GOAT as it is a partnership game.

I think it's the closest one to a consensus, yeah. Most people consider Garry Kasparov to be the GOAT, with others giving the nod to Bobby Fisher. Realistically, the latter quit chess way too early to have a real case (somewhat like a Borg situation) but was insanely dominant in his peak and in terms of talent, is up there. Said peak however, is very short, as he just stopped playing after winning the world championship.

 

[DarthFed]

Chess is a little more cut and dry. I'd base it on years as champ, number of title defenses, years as #1, level of relative dominance and tournament success. Overall the only one who can touch Kasparov resume-wise is Emanuel Lasker. He was champion for longer than Kasparov but a big part was World War I caused a huge delay in his title defense. Lasker and Kasparov are the only ones who defended the title 5 times which is more relevant IMO. Kasparov was also #1 for almost 20 years uninterrupted, incredibly impressive. If you want dominance at their best it's Capablanca and Fischer. The latter isn't a factor at all in GOAT discussions as he disappeared after winning the title and it also needs to be said that Spassky, Petrosian and co. were not in the same galaxy as Karpov which was a big factor in level of dominance at their peaks. Capablanca didn't have the longevity and suffered a shocking loss to Alekhine.

All things considered it's definitely Kasparov IMO.

 

[DarthFed]

Naka is -1 after 9 rounds of the weak US Open. Caruana only in second place with 2 rounds left, Sam Shankland leading. That'd be a big surprise

 

[Federberg]

Chess is a little more cut and dry. I'd base it on years as champ, number of title defenses, years as #1, level of relative dominance and tournament success. Overall the only one who can touch Kasparov resume-wise is Emmanuel Lasker. He was champion for longer than Kasparov but a big part was World War I caused a huge delay in his title defense. Lasker and Kasparov are the only ones who defended the title 5 times which is more relevant IMO. Kasparov was also #1 for almost 20 years uninterrupted, incredibly impressive. If you want dominance at their best it's Capablanca and Fischer. The latter isn't a factor at all in GOAT discussions as he disappeared after winning the title and it also needs to be said that Spassky, Petrosian and co. were not in the same galaxy as Karpov which was a big factor in level of dominance at their peaks. Capablanca didn't have the longevity and suffered a shocking loss to Alekhine.

All things considered it's definitely Kasparov IMO.

I pretty much agree with this. It's going to be interesting to see if Carlsen can match the number of Kasparov's defences. If he does there will be some that argue that he has surpassed Kasparov because he's playing in an era where computer assistance makes it harder to maintain consistency. I have a lot of sympathy for that as I rather suspect that Kasparov probably decided he'd had enough when he could no longer sustain his preparation edge. Interestingly the way Carlsen plays it's almost anti-preparation as he tries to get away from theoretical lines as soon as possible. When that happens the Kasparov/Carlsen wars will begin with gusto. For my part I can't get past watching Gary in his pomp, with full on aggression. It was something to behold. The one thing that Carlsen can already say I guess is that no player has been able to sustain as high a rating as he's been able to do for as long as he has

 

[Federberg]

Naka is -1 after 9 rounds of the weak US Open. Caruana only in second place with 2 rounds left, Sam Shankland leading. That'd be a big surprise

you can sort of excuse Fabi and Wesley but Naka? What on earth is going on with him right now?

 

[brokenshoelace]

you can sort of excuse Fabi and Wesley but Naka? What on earth is going on with him right now?

Naka has been playing pretty bad at classical chess for a while now. Fabi is actually having a great tournament, but had one terrible moment where he declined a draw then lost the match, which has cost him the lead. He's sizzled in his other games. It's good to see both he and Magnus playing so well lately and hope it continues up until their match.

 

[DarthFed]

Shankland is +5. US Open is strong enough that that is a very impressive score. Caruana at +4 doing as expected.

 

[DarthFed]

Naka has been playing pretty bad at classical chess for a while now. Fabi is actually having a great tournament, but had one terrible moment where he declined a draw then lost the match, which has cost him the lead. He's sizzled in his other games. It's good to see both he and Magnus playing so well lately and hope it continues up until their match.

I just can't stand Naka, his comments at times are ridiculous. I played him on ICC (he is/was Smallville on there) in a few 15 minute games 8-9 years ago which was weird since he almost always played bullet or 3 minute chess. I usually played 3 minutes but was trying to prep for a tournament. In one of the games the clown was trying hard to flag me with queen vs queen. Then I forced the queen trade and he asked for a takeback and bitched at me when I didn't give it to him. "Take the fucking draw" is all I said.

He is a speed demon and amazing at blitz but I've never seen him as one of the elites in classical, just not consistent enough.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Chess is a little more cut and dry. I'd base it on years as champ, number of title defenses, years as #1, level of relative dominance and tournament success. Overall the only one who can touch Kasparov resume-wise is Emmanuel Lasker. He was champion for longer than Kasparov but a big part was World War I caused a huge delay in his title defense. Lasker and Kasparov are the only ones who defended the title 5 times which is more relevant IMO. Kasparov was also #1 for almost 20 years uninterrupted, incredibly impressive. If you want dominance at their best it's Capablanca and Fischer. The latter isn't a factor at all in GOAT discussions as he disappeared after winning the title and it also needs to be said that Spassky, Petrosian and co. were not in the same galaxy as Karpov which was a big factor in level of dominance at their peaks. Capablanca didn't have the longevity and suffered a shocking loss to Alekhine.

All things considered it's definitely Kasparov IMO.

I am not talking about the actual personalities involved (although you can use them for examples). I was wondering as to whether the basic game of chess and the way the tourneys are conducted makes it easier for fans to conclude without controversy as to who is the GOAT.

Can you say that X is GOAT of end game while Y may be the overall GOAT?

Can you say that X is very good at extracting a draw even though he may not win as much as Y?

 

[Federberg]

I am not talking about the actual personalities involved (although you can use them for examples). I was wondering as to whether the basic game of chess and the way the tourneys are conducted makes it easier for fans to conclude without controversy as to who is the GOAT.

Can you say that X is GOAT of end game while Y may be the overall GOAT?

Can you say that X is very good at extracting a draw even though he may not win as much as Y?

No I don't think you can do that. There is still a lot of subjectivity in that. And I'm guessing your real question is whether chess can be completely objectively assessed? I'll give you an example, if you asked us for our list of most aggressive players I'll bet you broken, DF and I would come up with a different top 5. I would probably say Morozevich, Kasparov, Shirov, Tal would definitely be in my list, but I would be surprised if either of them had exactly the same players. That's the problem...

 

[brokenshoelace]

I just can't stand Naka, his comments at times are ridiculous. I played him on ICC (he is/was Smallville on there) in a few 15 minute games 8-9 years ago which was weird since he almost always played bullet or 3 minute chess. I usually played 3 minutes but was trying to prep for a tournament. In one of the games the clown was trying hard to flag me with queen vs queen. Then I forced the queen trade and he asked for a takeback and bitched at me when I didn't give it to him. "Take the fucking draw" is all I said.

He is a speed demon and amazing at blitz but I've never seen him as one of the elites in classical, just not consistent enough.

His comments are the worst. I absolutely can't stand his personality as he always comes off a bit bitter about underachieving and honestly, envious. His comments about Fabiano both before and after the candidates were ridiculous. Before the candidates he said "if Fabiano gets a good position out of the opening he has a chance, but otherwise he's weaker than the other players." Then, after Fabiano won, he said that if Magnus takes the match seriously he gives him an 80% chance. Now, while 80% seems a little high, that's perfectly fine. The notion that Carlsen wouldn't take Caruana seriously is what's laughable.

 

[DarthFed]

I am not talking about the actual personalities involved (although you can use them for examples). I was wondering as to whether the basic game of chess and the way the tourneys are conducted makes it easier for fans to conclude without controversy as to who is the GOAT.

Can you say that X is GOAT of end game while Y may be the overall GOAT?

Can you say that X is very good at extracting a draw even though he may not win as much as Y?

The main thing that's changed is the fact players train heavily with computers and I'd say that's become prevalent since probably the mid to late 90's when computers were becoming strong.

Aside from that there used to be adjourned games which I find absolutely ridiculous, thank frickin God those are done. I guess the main thing affecting greatness comparability is the unevenness of world championship defenses. Kasparov won the title in 1985 and then defended it in 1986, 1987, 1990, 1993, and 1995 before losing it in 2000. Now he had special circumstances since he broke away from chess' main governing board (FIDE) but still, you can see the seeming randomness of it all. And going back many years it was worse. Lasker was champion from 1894 - 1921 but only defended it 5 times as well. That's why I'd say number of title defenses in chess is pretty big.

 

[DarthFed]

I pretty much agree with this. It's going to be interesting to see if Carlsen can match the number of Kasparov's defences. If he does there will be some that argue that he has surpassed Kasparov because he's playing in an era where computer assistance makes it harder to maintain consistency. I have a lot of sympathy for that as I rather suspect that Kasparov probably decided he'd had enough when he could no longer sustain his preparation edge. Interestingly the way Carlsen plays it's almost anti-preparation as he tries to get away from theoretical lines as soon as possible. When that happens the Kasparov/Carlsen wars will begin with gusto. For my part I can't get past watching Gary in his pomp, with full on aggression. It was something to behold. The one thing that Carlsen can already say I guess is that no player has been able to sustain as high a rating as he's been able to do for as long as he has

I think Kasparov had enough due to the unlikeliness he could just get a WC match with Kramnik based on his name/rating. He was still clearly the best player in the world when he retired even if he was clearly past his prime a bit. And you can tell he was legitimately getting pulled in his efforts as a politician and humanitarian. I wish like hell he had kept playing and gone for WC again, the Kramnik of 2000 was like superhuman and he came down to Earth quickly after that. He'd have had a good chance IMO, at least 50-50

 

[Federberg]

I think Kasparov had enough due to the unlikeliness he could just get a WC match with Kramnik based on his name/rating. He was still clearly the best player in the world when he retired even if he was clearly past his prime a bit. And you can tell he was legitimately getting pulled in his efforts as a politician and humanitarian. I wish like hell he had kept playing and gone for WC again, the Kramnik of 2000 was like superhuman and he came down to Earth quickly after that. He'd have had a good chance IMO, at least 50-50

That's definitely true. I'm certainly glad the world championship cycle is more formalised now. Let's hope they keep it this way. Everyone knows where they stand

 

[DarthFed]

His comments are the worst. I absolutely can't stand his personality as he always comes off a bit bitter about underachieving and honestly, envious. His comments about Fabiano both before and after the candidates were ridiculous. Before the candidates he said "if Fabiano gets a good position out of the opening he has a chance, but otherwise he's weaker than the other players." Then, after Fabiano won, he said that if Magnus takes the match seriously he gives him an 80% chance. Now, while 80% seems a little high, that's perfectly fine. The notion that Carlsen wouldn't take Caruana seriously is what's laughable.

I'd say Carlsen is probably over an 80% favorite or right around there. But yeah, implying that Carlsen wouldn't take him seriously or that Caruana is all openings is silly. He said the same thing about Kasparov and the comment almost made me jump out of my chair. Kasparov, especially at his best, could calculate circles around pretty much any player in history. Combining that with opening prep is what makes him the GOAT. There are many players in history better than Kasparov positionally and in the end game.

Naka is bitter that he just isn't the best American player anymore, he at least had that going for him for a long time.

 

[Federberg]

I'd say Carlsen is probably over an 80% favorite or right around there. But yeah, implying that Carlsen wouldn't take him seriously or that Caruana is all openings is silly. He said the same thing about Kasparov and the comment almost made me jump out of my chair. Kasparov, especially at his best, could calculate circles around pretty much any player in history. Combining that with opening prep is what makes him the GOAT. There are many players in history better than Kasparov positionally and in the end game.

Naka is bitter that he just isn't the best American player anymore, he at least had that going for him for a long time.

Can't blame the guy. He's not even the 2nd best player now, and some of the youngsters are improving at speed

 

[Federberg]

any of you guys watching Norway? Looks like Magnus is dominating. taken out Fabi and Levon with the white pieces already

 

[DarthFed]

I saw the Carlsen game at move 25 and it was already awful for Aronian. I saw a little bit of the Caruana game too and it looked like a pretty easy win for Carlsen. Those are the only two decisive games through round 3 which is pretty sad.

 

[Federberg]

Yup. It's such a strong field though, so not that surprising

 

[Federberg]

I went through the Carlsen - Aronian game, and I must say I'm amazed about how weak Carlsen made Aronian look.