Who is the G.O.A.T. in chess?

@doom12384

But there's a problem with your argument i.e., there is absolutely no data from 1960 or 1970 about average centipawn gaps between players. If such data exists, your whole argument hinges on this data. If such data cannot be provided then your argument fails the evidence test. I find your continual lack of mention of hard arithmetic data a bit frustrating because it's only via such data that the argument can be resolved one way or the other.

One of your major points is that super-GMs of today are simply better chess players as a whole than in Fischer's era. If your centipawn argument held any water the elite would be kind of bunched together at a uniformly high level. However, the FIDE live rating list has enormous gaps just like in 1972. Carlsen is 72 points above Ding in 3rd. Caruana is 43 points above Ding. But the gap from Ding to Wei Yi in 20th place is only 63 points. So why doesn't Carlsen wipe people out like Fischer who had a similar gap in 1972? He's tied his last two championship matches. I think this speaks more about his competition than any failing of Carlsen's.

Here's Chessgames.com's take on Fischer:

"In his prime in 1970 to 1972, Fischer totally dominated the chessworld as no other player ever has, before or since. His incredible 19 straight victories in the Interzonals - Candidates matches of 1970 to 1971, including a wipe-out of two Candidates matches (Taimanov 6 - 0 and Larsen 6 - 0) was such a massive crush of the world's top players that it should have been impossible, save that it actually happened. I believe that this 1969 to 1972 version of Fischer (and the Capablanca of 1916 to 1924) was the strongest human player ever to exist in chess history."

I disagree with those who call the debate "pointless speculation". Look at the data in the quote above!! In Carlsen's entire reign as world champion I doubt he's ever won 5 in a row against elites much less 19. Finally, as an old guy who's been around for a lot of world champions, I find chess in 2020 to be a crashing bore. Too many technical wins and a lack of tactical flourish. Whatever might be said of the skill of super-GMs in 2020, their games are often arid. I'll take the era of Fischer, Tal, Nezhmetdinov, Spassky, and Keres any day over what we have in the chess world right now. Once Kasparov retired, a hell of a lot of "juice" went out of the game. Engines are sterilizing top level chess.

@Eleuthero
"there is absolutely no data from 1960 or 1970 about average centipawn gaps between players"
There is. It's in the article I cited.

@doom12384

I went back and read the article. However, I'm not sure the article made a correct interpretation of the data. The red line hits or comes close to 40 centipawns on no less than TEN occasions from 1910 to 2010. In that century, the blue line hits or comes close to 20 centipawns on like 15 occasions!! The lines are jagged and by no means monotonic. Strangely, Anand's world championships weren't any more precise than a couple of Lasker's championships. How could that be since Lasker had no computer and hardly even a printed word? Was Anand's reign during a down period for the game?

There's no doubt that Carlsen's championships were the most precise but the article owes much of that, as I did, to computer prep. It still leaves open to question what Botvinnik, Smyslov, Petrosian, Tal, Spassky, Fischer, and karpov would have done if they'd had an engine. We will never know.

Fischer was the G.O.A.T. probably.

"was"

Fischer was too afraid to play with Karpov. An afraid person is never a GOAT. G.O.A.T is fierce. Can play anyone anytime. Like Karpov. Like Kasparov. Like Anand. Like Magnus. But in all of them. Karpov is GOAT, then Kasparov, then other players. GOAT never fears. GOAT is not a psycho. Not like king Nero who played violin while Rome was falling. Real GOAT faces.

Morphy, Capablanca, Tarrasch, Botvinnik, Tal, Fischer, Kasparov, Carlsen..... Times are not same and the knowledge about chess was very different. Impossible to compare. There is no such GOAT at all. Just because Carlsen ist probably the most strongest player of all times, he is not at the same time also the "greatest" in terms of, what he achieved in his lifetime for the game of chess.

@angstg this is nonsense. Fischer was never afraid of Karpov, he refused to play the match based on his life-long principle that draws shouldn't count in chess. He strongly believed that it's not right to become World Champion by drawing 90% of the games. In fact, he asked for the same rules as in the historical matches with Capablanca, Lasker, Alekhine, etc.

He tried to bring some dignity to chess and discourage draw-chess, but alas he failed. In my eyes this makes him a hero, not a coward.

#75 Carlsen was afraid to play out the last classical game with Caruana and instead opted for a draw to go for the rapid tiebreakers. Carlsen also might have lost if Caruana had found the forced checkmate. Carlsen is more a 'primus inter pares' (first among equals). That is not like the G.O.A.T.

#77 Fischer also insisted that the world champion retains his title in case of 9 wins each. So Karpov would have needed to beat him 10:8 to become world champion. Karpov and the USSR were willing to accept his other demands. In fact Karpov and Korchnoi played draws not counting and Karpov and Kasparov also played an endless first match.
Fischer not only did not play Karpov, he did not play after becoming World Champion. He was willing to play the Olympiad, but again with unacceptable demands: a separate playing area for himself as reigning World Champion. Fischer almost did not play Spassky, and it took efforts from Max Euwe, Jim Slater, Anthony Saidy, Henry Kissinger to persuade him to play and to persuade him not to leave after game 1 he lost. Fischer withdrew from the Sousse interzonal while leading over some dispute.
He refused to play the zonal and only got to play the Palma the Mallorca interzonal because his countryman ceded his place. So it is a small miracle that Fischer became World Champion at all. If he would not have become World Champion, he would not even have been in contention as G.O.A.T.

For me Kasparov is the G.O.A.T.: immediate rise to World Champion, succesfully defended his title against several challengers, magnificent tournament record in very strong tournaments like Linares.

> It still leaves open to question what Botvinnik, Smyslov, Petrosian, Tal, Spassky, Fischer, and karpov would have done if they'd had an engine. We will never know.

Which is why it's ridiculous to argue other people's opinions are wrong in what was meant to be a fun thread. Unless their opinion is anyone other than Carlsen.

The Big Three: Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov.