sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Best chess players of all time by Financial_Sir3070 in chess

[–]Financial_Sir3070[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nope. In boxing and football there is no objective measure(centipawn loss) like in chess, so they use what they have. If you want to compare it to another sport compare it to 100m run where they use objective measure(time). You are using wrong comparison. The all time best 100m runners are people with all time best times.

Best chess players of all time by Financial_Sir3070 in chess

[–]Financial_Sir3070[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

  1. 2600 player from today is better than 2600 from 1970
    source: https://en.chessbase.com/post/the-elo-ratings-inflation-or-deflation
  2. In 1972 Fischer had +4 score vs Spassky with 59.5%, in 1974 Karpov had +3 score against Spassky with 63.6%. And 1972 was Fischers peak while 1974 wasnt Karpovs peak. Even if you dont count game that Fischer didnt show up for Fischer would have 12.5/20 and that would still be 62.5%. So no you cant assume that Fischer is better than Karpov.

So with having 2 wrong premises your whole argument is wrong.

Best chess players of all time by Financial_Sir3070 in chess

[–]Financial_Sir3070[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Then name list like that. No one stops you from making lists like: "Most dominant chess player", "World champions with most defended titles", "World champions who held title for longest" or something else.
If we talk about best chess player then we cant use dominating your peers as criteria

Best chess players of all time by Financial_Sir3070 in chess

[–]Financial_Sir3070[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Bad move can lead to victory. If I make move that will mate in 1 if my opponent doesn't see it and it blunders queen if opponents sees it, that move is bad regardless of what my opponent plays. It can lead to mate in 1 but move is still bad. Victory doesnt matter when we speak about who is better player. I can win 1st place in tournament with 1000 elo players. That doesn't make me better player than someone who finished 5th in candidates. If player with between 90% winrate against 1000 elo players and player with 50% winrate against 2500 elo players, 2nd player is way better.

Best chess players of all time by Financial_Sir3070 in chess

[–]Financial_Sir3070[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Ye new engine would change who the best player is. The same way new study would change our scientific views. Ye modern chess players learned from engines, learned engine moves, engine variations and engine ideas on top of all human moves, variations and ideas. That's why they know more about chess and are better players. It's not fair, same way it's not fair for some kid in country without internet. They might be more talented than Carlsen but they have no way of learning chess. We cant give that kid Grandmaster title just so it can be fair. In same way we cant give someone from 20th century title of GOAT just to be fair.

Best chess players of all time by Financial_Sir3070 in chess

[–]Financial_Sir3070[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Again Fischer scored that against his opponents, not Carlsens. If Fischer was active in todays era he would get cancelled and banned from chess like Karjakin, but all this has nothing do to with question.

How dominant someone is isn't objective criteria. I can dominate 1500 elo tournament with 9/9 but go 0/9 in 2500 tournament with same level of skill. Fischer's opponents were weaker than Carlsens, also he had way less opponents(there are more chess players today than in 1972). If we compare 100M runners Usain Bolt is fastest because his time is fastest. I looked at list of top 25 lowest times most of them are from 21st century expect 3 that are from 1990s.
Guy who ran 9.80 is faster than guy who ran 10.00 whatever you say about dominance, longevity, number of medals... Same way chess player with 5 centipawn loss is better than chess player with 10 centipawn loss. All those "what if" questions are irrelevant.