Do you think that carlsen is better than kasparov?
Stockfish
Carlsen, according chesscom CAPS.
"Chess.com's Computer Aggregated Precision Score (or CAPS) is a tool that evaluates the strength of play for any chess player, or the quality of moves of any chess game.".
1 - Carlsen
2 - Kraminik
3 - Kasparov
4 - Anand
5 - Karpov
6 - Capablanca
7 - Tal
8 - Spassky
9 - Smyslov
10 - Botivnik
11- Euwe
12 - Alekhine
13- Petrosian
14 - Lasker
15 - Morphy
16 - Steinitz
Since Komodo who evaluate that, and since Stockfish is better than Komodo, Stockfish is better! lol
"Chess.com's Computer Aggregated Precision Score (or CAPS) is a tool that evaluates the strength of play for any chess player, or the quality of moves of any chess game.".
1 - Carlsen
2 - Kraminik
3 - Kasparov
4 - Anand
5 - Karpov
6 - Capablanca
7 - Tal
8 - Spassky
9 - Smyslov
10 - Botivnik
11- Euwe
12 - Alekhine
13- Petrosian
14 - Lasker
15 - Morphy
16 - Steinitz
Since Komodo who evaluate that, and since Stockfish is better than Komodo, Stockfish is better! lol
@will_is_myth
Two problems with using engine analysis to determine quality of play:
1. It favors a more defensive style. Hence Kramnik at 2 and Karpov at 5. The less risk in a position the less a mistake will cost you. That's like comparing two golfers on two different courses and concluding the one playing on the easier course is better because he has a lower score.
2. It favors modern players since modern players check their first 30 or so moves with an engine before the game. Hence the top 5 players were all active in the last 2-3 decades. Morphy had to do his own thinking on every move. There were no engines, few books (and most were bad) and no other players of his quality to ask. Every move Morphy made was his own. Meanwhile modern GMs bust out 30 memorized moves to start the game and trade into an endgame that's largely memorized. They may actually only think for around 10 moves a game.
That's like comparing two kids in school when one kid has 75% of the answer book.
Curious why Fischer isn't on there.
Two problems with using engine analysis to determine quality of play:
1. It favors a more defensive style. Hence Kramnik at 2 and Karpov at 5. The less risk in a position the less a mistake will cost you. That's like comparing two golfers on two different courses and concluding the one playing on the easier course is better because he has a lower score.
2. It favors modern players since modern players check their first 30 or so moves with an engine before the game. Hence the top 5 players were all active in the last 2-3 decades. Morphy had to do his own thinking on every move. There were no engines, few books (and most were bad) and no other players of his quality to ask. Every move Morphy made was his own. Meanwhile modern GMs bust out 30 memorized moves to start the game and trade into an endgame that's largely memorized. They may actually only think for around 10 moves a game.
That's like comparing two kids in school when one kid has 75% of the answer book.
Curious why Fischer isn't on there.
Another for the list mentioned by @Savage47
There is also the level of competition. When you play a 1400, you don't bring your best moves, because you know that even if you make many mistakes, you can still win. Another example is the many games where Capablanca just shifted pieces until his opponent made a mistake.
Kasparov is/was much better than Carlsen.
Just need a clarification: "best player" implies at least three. The first post shows only two. Do you want a comparison of only these two or of all players? Also interesting is by measure do you determine the best player?
There is also the level of competition. When you play a 1400, you don't bring your best moves, because you know that even if you make many mistakes, you can still win. Another example is the many games where Capablanca just shifted pieces until his opponent made a mistake.
Kasparov is/was much better than Carlsen.
Just need a clarification: "best player" implies at least three. The first post shows only two. Do you want a comparison of only these two or of all players? Also interesting is by measure do you determine the best player?
Usually I point Kasparov as better player than carlsen. But I use another context. This time I wanted to use another way of seeing.
Everyone knows that these questions have no absolute answers. Even when we use numbers, the quantities are still relative and subjective.
@Savage47 Sorry, I forgot Fischer lol.
1 - Carlsen, 2 - Kramnik, 3 - Kasparov, 4 - Fischer, 5 - Anand, etc.
Everyone knows that these questions have no absolute answers. Even when we use numbers, the quantities are still relative and subjective.
@Savage47 Sorry, I forgot Fischer lol.
1 - Carlsen, 2 - Kramnik, 3 - Kasparov, 4 - Fischer, 5 - Anand, etc.
@Savage47 guess stockfish would love petrosian
I think , engines love space advantage. So if the evaluations are based on space advantage, then you will get a list of players that like space advantage.
If the results are based on how fast they can end a game, the list will again be different.
For me, finishing a game in 40 moves is better than having it last 80 moves.
So is a heavy weight faster to win, then a feather weight?
Is it how much stuff in a game that makes it interesting?
Is it the forced moves in a game that makes it interesting?
To say a player is better than someone else is comparing what?
If the results are based on how fast they can end a game, the list will again be different.
For me, finishing a game in 40 moves is better than having it last 80 moves.
So is a heavy weight faster to win, then a feather weight?
Is it how much stuff in a game that makes it interesting?
Is it the forced moves in a game that makes it interesting?
To say a player is better than someone else is comparing what?
Capablanca impresses the hell out me. Not only is he the number one "old timer" on that list (who had no access to computers) but he didn't rely on opening repertoires or even study the game in his off time (according to more than one personal source). He simply competed and relied on his own natural intelligence.
@sfumatosauce
As an adult he may not have studied, but there is speculation (proof is too hard a word) that he studied hard when he was a child.
It seems strange to me that I often read: Player X uses a little known line in order to take advantage of Capablanca's lack of book knowledge. This contradictory statement implies that there is something amiss.
I don't wish to turn this thread into a debate about if Capablanca studied or not, so just take the information.
As an adult he may not have studied, but there is speculation (proof is too hard a word) that he studied hard when he was a child.
It seems strange to me that I often read: Player X uses a little known line in order to take advantage of Capablanca's lack of book knowledge. This contradictory statement implies that there is something amiss.
I don't wish to turn this thread into a debate about if Capablanca studied or not, so just take the information.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.