Can the Lichess community answer this please Fabi or Karpov

>> 99% from any position if we are being honest

thanks!!!!!!!

@CrushAndLaugh said in #9:
> Wesley's so's peak rating is higher than Bobby Fischer's does that also mean So is better than Fischer?

Sure. Chess has become much better these days.

@Sarg0n said in #12:
> Sure. Chess has become much better these days.

You're very very VERY delusional then if you genuinely believe that Wesley so is a better chess player than Bobby Fischer.

Very delusional

@Sarg0n said in #12:
> Sure. Chess has become much better these days.
Not really, higher levels it's mostly complex opening theory (ranging from 10-30 moves of theory).

@Sarg0n said in #12:
> Sure. Chess has become much better these days.
But yes weasly so is better than Fischer

I mean if you read the 60 memorable games today you will notice that Fischer sometimes had no clue.

@vqh said in #15:
> But yes weasly so is better than Fischer

You've taken your delusions from one post to another.

Hahaha

@Sarg0n said in #16:
> I mean if you read the 60 memorable games today you will notice that Fischer sometimes had no clue.

That does not mean that he is still not a far better player than wesley so I mean you think memorising positions means better player? So can't even qualify for the candidates of his era Fischer obliterated the competition in his time and is widely regarded as one of the 3 best ever

So get a clue. (Pun intended)

@Sarg0n
Peak rating doesn't matter. How can you compare intelligence strength with rating?
A player with high strength will have high rating but high rating doesn't necessarily imply high strength. That's basic knowledge.
Many people believe that rise in average rating over time is mostly due to an anomaly known as ratings inflation, making it impractical to compare players of different eras.
Even if compared, then Sonas method is quite good:
Fischer, Kasparov, Boitvinnik, Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Karpov, Anand, Kramnik, Steinitz
But Divinsky's method is more reliable (method accepted by most theorists) :
Kasparov, Karpov, Fischer, Boitvinnik, Capablanca, Lasker, Korchnoi, Spassky, Smyslov, Petrosian

According to combined voting of experts,
Fischer, Kasparov, Capablanca, Keres, Petrosian, Carlsen

See relative strength of players over time with different categories here:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_top_chess_players_throughout_history

So, actual debate is Fischer or Kasparov and I weigh in for former. Kasparov vs Carlsen debate is simply insult to Kasparov.

@CrushAndLaugh said in #17:
> You've taken your delusions from one post to another.
>
> Hahaha
Just shut up will ya? Your like a child.