Is Magnus Carlsen the GOAT? Of course he is

@Tuck_Fheory said in #70:
> @Devil_fish Your opinion does not close the case! Magnus did not play a prime Kasparov, so it's too simplistic to say who would win purely based on rating, otherwise I could say that Kasparov was rated higher than Magnus is now, so would beat him.
By computersimulations across generations tells that Magnus are the best. It doesnt matter how good Kasparov was. As i wrote earlier - "Magnus have hypotetically 54% chance to beat Fischer...and against first world champion - Steinitz - it is 82% chance..." and against Kasparov - also 54%.
Now its case closed.

@Devil_fish said in #69:

> Magnus have never lost a world title match, but Kasparov lost to Kramnik...thats one of the things that makes Magnus more goat than Kasparov.

That's a poor metric to measure this discussion by, because it leaves out the fact that Kasparov lost to Kramnick after he had been world champion for *FIFTEEN* years. To compare, Carlsen was world champ for ten years. Maybe he would have been champion for longer, but I guess we'll never know because he tarnished his legacy by refusing to defend his title.

Furthermore, for a full ten years (1981-1991) Kasparov won or tied for first place in every tournament he entered. Let that sink in. How is that even possible? He also held the highest rating in the world for 21 consecutive years (1985-2006). And unlike Carlsen who for example couldn't beat Fabi Caruana in classical play in their world championship match, Kasparov was grinding his opponents to dust, in an era with incredibly strong players.

@ClayAndSilence said in #72:
> That's a poor metric to measure this discussion by, because it leaves out the fact that Kasparov lost to Kramnick after he had been world champion for *FIFTEEN* years. To compare, Carlsen was world champ for ten years. Maybe he would have been champion for longer, but I guess we'll never know because he tarnished his legacy by refusing to defend his title.
>
> Furthermore, for a full ten years (1981-1991) Kasparov won or tied for first place in every tournament he entered. Let that sink in. How is that even possible? He also held the highest rating in the world for 21 consecutive years (1985-2006). And unlike Carlsen who for example couldn't beat Fabi Caruana in classical play in their world championship match, Kasparov was grinding his opponents to dust, in an era with incredibly strong players.
You coming up with bold arguments....chess can be example soccer...heard about Christiano Ronaldo?? That player have been EXTREMELY good, INSANE good!!! BUT in this generation Messi have been better overall. Thats pretty SICK!!!
Now!! Haaland didnt won the Ballo'n d'or...imagine that!! Messi won AGAIN!!(???)
When Kasparov were active how many great players were there?? Not many....ok Kramnik, Karpov, Polgar...WAIT!! Polgar beated Kasparov?? OMG!!
I cant say against that Kasparov been world number one for very long time, but it that means ALOT then we all can say that Lasker are the goat!!!!
Ok, we are agreed, Lasker are the goat, with his 27 yrs!!!

I have no idea what you are talking about. And it's Maradona anyway.

I'll finish on this note: on every significant metric except peak rating, Kasparov outshines Carlsen. You can dismiss this if you wish, but it's pretty significant evidence.

@ClayAndSilence said in #74:
> I have no idea what you are talking about. And it's Maradona anyway.
>
> I'll finish on this note: on every significant metric except peak rating, Kasparov outshines Carlsen. You can dismiss this if you wish, but it's pretty significant evidence.
First of all Maradona are the goat, but shared goat, he shared the spot with Pelé. You coming up with facts who aren't real facts. And i didnt talked about goat in soccer...I just illustrated even in soccer there were bold level in old days, thats why Pelé scored over 1000 goals, even Pelé was extremely good. But if Pelé played today he couldnt scored as many as over 1000 goals. My mainpoint is that by the time the game getting more intence, more and more higher level. Messi can remind of Maradona but he is twice as good. Maradona solo goal against Vest-Germany, well Messi also have when he was very young..Pele and Maradona were really brilliant but the contenderes were'nt...and thats my point also in chess...The longer back in the timeperiod the less brilliant players...Today the level of chess are extremely high. Aronian, So, pragg, Gukesh, MVL, Nakamura, and so on are on extremely high level. The level today are so high that in this worldchampionship nearly - a 8 yr old kid won against two grandmasters. You insunate that the 8 yr old kid are so good because of acess to engines?? No the truth is that by the time we humans getting smarter and smarter. Why aren't you good in chess? We all have acess to engines, right???
I dondt care what you guys saying...all i can say is that you and everybody are so naive and blind, and living on old history...case closed.

Video: When 13-Year-Old Magnus Carlsen Was Close To Beating Garry Kasparov In A Chess Game
Old video of 13-year-old Magnus Carlsen against Garry Kasparov has surfaced.

Five-time world champion Magnus Carlsen defeated R Praggnanandhaa to win his maiden FIDE World Cup. Praggnanandhaa had drawn the first two classical games, but in the tie-breaker, Carlsen was the more dominant player. Now, an old video has surfaced on the internet of 13-year-old Magnus Carlsen against the Russian legend Garry Kasparov.
The young Carlsen went up against the former world champion in a game at the Reykjavic Rapid 2004 tournament. The young prodigy had come close to beating Mr Kasparov in that game before the latter used his experience to escape with a draw.

The video was posted by Gabbarr Singh on X (formerly Twitter) with the caption, "How generations change. Yet the equation remains the same. A bored 13-year-old Magnus Carlsen against Gary Kasparov."