of best chess players of all time right now?

Is this really a question ?

ban op

Do you think this thread is in the top 50 of all time threads in this forum?

I could edit the thread title to read "top 5" instead... but I don't know that it would really make the debate any less clear cut.

I would like to see OP's list of the top 50 chess players of all time though!

He is clearly top4. The only other players that could be considered best of all times are Morphy, Fischer and Kasparov.

no Capablanca?
your insane...

yeah makes more sense.

Pretty sure the list is Fischer, Kasparov, Carlsen, in some order. There wasn't even, like, organized chess when Morphy played so I don't even think you can really begin to compare that era even sort of properly. It's like saying the best basketball player was some guy who played back when they literally played in cages and beat each other up, but was 2x better than everyone else at it.

Capablanca is on the next tier.

Really I kind of assume it's Kasparov or Carlsen since Fischer was not dominant for even as long as Carlsen has been due to quitting. Like if MJ quit after his first 3 titles, would anyone really say he's GOAT and not just could have been GOAT? That's how Fischer should be judged imo. Could have been GOAT but not GOAT.

So, that leaves Kasparov with the title and Carlsen on his heels.

Emory Tate too low

I see, so Capa not losing a game in 8 years was not much it seem...

"As an adult, Capablanca lost only 34 serious games.[85] He was undefeated from February 10, 1916, when he lost to Oscar Chajes in the New York 1916 tournament, to March 21, 1924, when he lost to Richard Réti in the New York International tournament. During this streak, which included his 1921 World Championship match against Lasker, Capablanca played 63 games, winning 40 and drawing 23.[46][90] In fact, only Marshall, Lasker, Alekhine and Rudolf Spielmann won two or more serious games from the mature Capablanca, though in each case, their overall lifetime scores were minus "


i mean seriously.

Guess people just forget how Capa was dominant and the only chess superstar from outside chess community before Fisher came after.

It's pretty clear my comment wasn't on Capablanca, it was on Fischer.

Seems to me Capa would be in the next tier. That's not a knock against him tbh.

Btw, if Carlsen played only 63 games over 8 years I'm pretty sure he could go lossless too.

well the war happened during that time but even still, he beat lasker during a champion match without losing a game so....
anyway

Didn't Tal have the longest lossless streak anyway, should he be GOAT b/c of that?

Imo I think Fischer's win streak is more impressive than any of the lossless streaks anyway.

Of course...

Just saying Capa did dominate anyone by a big margin vs the top competitors of his time for a very long time.

Yeah fisher feat what amazing but you seem discard him because of his short term dominance.

So i show you about Capa lengh but then you say not enough games...

I mean thinking even Capa did not play much in that time for different reasons, others could not catch up with him anyway for a very longtime and he destroy Lasker who could beat anyone still at that time.

Anyway imo fisher should be at the top because he did it all by himself agaisnt a huge russian machine followed by probably kaspy.

Followed probably imo by Karpov since his the only one who could beat Kaspy on a regular basis and only 7 win more on Kaspy side in over 170 games.
Followed of course by Capa.

Only the reign of Karpov (before Kaspy) lasted longer than what Carlsen did yet...and for some years he was dominating has much has Carlsen did.

Yeah, I still have Karpov ahead of Fischer. The thing with Fischer is that in no other sport or situation would he be considered goat. If MJ only won one title then quit no one would even discuss him as goat.

Why should one's peak in chess matter more than with other things? If the goat should be the one better than his peers it's probably Morphy or Steinitz anyway.

What about the argument that Magnus doesn't have a grandmaster level understanding of chess but is only good cause he is in great shape

Even if so, then he's been in great shape for way too long, which is itself worth admiration

Top 5 would be a decent debate...what would be the criteria..results or perceived talent?

Would you downgrade the Russains after World War II because of their manipulation of the World Championship cycle?

Do you downgrade Fischer for walking away and not giving us a complete perspective aka his ability to defend the world title...

Change the thread to top 5 and we have a barn burner


Kaspy is in it...Karpov as well...

does Korchnoi get mention despite not winning WC..how Tal's creativity....

bottom 50 imo

Actual content - White to Play and Mate in 1 ca. 1878

Does White play b8 and promote to a black knight?

Of course. Typical motif everyone should know.

Not very typical nowadays but funny enough...

I'm continuing the discussion of puzzles in the LC thread.

As for Magnus, now that Hikaru finally beat him in a classical game, judging by the quality of some Carlsen's moves, he's not always able to play at a top-5-of-all-time strength. Even worse blunder days happen to everyone, though. Recall how he blundered to Anand in their WC match (Vishy didn't see the opportunity, but still).

lol, autism + a drive to correct people is not a very good combo

Can white really can promote a black pieces in a game ?
Did not remember that rule lol ..