To make the case in the opposite direction, one could say that if all other things are equal, Kasparov had the additional greatness promoting quality of having overcome someone of the stature of Karpov. Just think how many players would have collapsed at 0-5. In that respect, Carlsen is untested (the WC tiebreaks don't really cut it).
While I typically am in the Kasparov camp for GOAT, your perspective is convincing. I think it’s ultimately too difficult to reliably make a concrete judgement on who might deserve that moniker more but the breadth and variety of Carlsen’s competitors is a key point.
You make a compelling argument, but David McCarthy's comment about the flipside resonated with me immediately. Who's to say Carlsen would have passed the test that Kasparov faced in Karpov? Karpov was one of the most dominant chess players of all time, particularly if you exclude his results against Kasparov. Carlsen's closest rivals—Fabiano, Nakamura, and Aronian—have never demonstrated that level of dominance. While I wouldn't bet against Carlsen, I also wouldn't have bet against Karpov if Kasparov had not come along.
Another question arises: how does this perspective apply to other champions who lacked great rivals? Should they be considered greater than those who did have strong competitors? Paul Morphy is a notable example. He is often criticized for not having sufficient competition, yet by this logic, that absence of a rival might make him all the greater.
It feels unfair to diminish Kasparov's claim to the GOAT title simply because he had a formidable rival to overcome. Carlsen could very well be the GOAT, especially if he continues his success, but I see it as a disadvantage, not an advantage, that he never had to face a "Karpov."
A strong rival might have made Carlsen greater, but it could also have negatively affected his confidence. While I wouldn't bet on that happening, we can't know for certain. Kasparov should be given the benefit of the doubt on this point, in my humble opinion.
Though I have zero qualifications for saying so, I am inclining these days towards Carlsen as being the 🐐. Kasparov’s playing style is/was electrifying; Carlsen’s is a little dry (and clearly way way waaaay above my head). That said, since abdicating his crown, Carlsen has been playing scintillating and wildly imaginative chess. Am absolutely loving this Gandalf the White phase of his career.
To make the case in the opposite direction, one could say that if all other things are equal, Kasparov had the additional greatness promoting quality of having overcome someone of the stature of Karpov. Just think how many players would have collapsed at 0-5. In that respect, Carlsen is untested (the WC tiebreaks don't really cut it).
While I typically am in the Kasparov camp for GOAT, your perspective is convincing. I think it’s ultimately too difficult to reliably make a concrete judgement on who might deserve that moniker more but the breadth and variety of Carlsen’s competitors is a key point.
Dennis,
You make a compelling argument, but David McCarthy's comment about the flipside resonated with me immediately. Who's to say Carlsen would have passed the test that Kasparov faced in Karpov? Karpov was one of the most dominant chess players of all time, particularly if you exclude his results against Kasparov. Carlsen's closest rivals—Fabiano, Nakamura, and Aronian—have never demonstrated that level of dominance. While I wouldn't bet against Carlsen, I also wouldn't have bet against Karpov if Kasparov had not come along.
Another question arises: how does this perspective apply to other champions who lacked great rivals? Should they be considered greater than those who did have strong competitors? Paul Morphy is a notable example. He is often criticized for not having sufficient competition, yet by this logic, that absence of a rival might make him all the greater.
It feels unfair to diminish Kasparov's claim to the GOAT title simply because he had a formidable rival to overcome. Carlsen could very well be the GOAT, especially if he continues his success, but I see it as a disadvantage, not an advantage, that he never had to face a "Karpov."
A strong rival might have made Carlsen greater, but it could also have negatively affected his confidence. While I wouldn't bet on that happening, we can't know for certain. Kasparov should be given the benefit of the doubt on this point, in my humble opinion.
Though I have zero qualifications for saying so, I am inclining these days towards Carlsen as being the 🐐. Kasparov’s playing style is/was electrifying; Carlsen’s is a little dry (and clearly way way waaaay above my head). That said, since abdicating his crown, Carlsen has been playing scintillating and wildly imaginative chess. Am absolutely loving this Gandalf the White phase of his career.
RJF = GOAT
ALL OF THEM WON THE CHAMPIONSHIP AGAINST CHALLENGERS AND FELLOW PLAYERS.
RJF PLAYED AGAINST A SYSTEM