0:13 proof that Hikaru can hear the commentators

@7177YT

2 жыл бұрын

underrated comment lol

@livinglogically8180

2 жыл бұрын

Lolol

@aryandadhich1149

2 жыл бұрын

bete moj kardi😁😂😄

@_Solo_520

11 ай бұрын

Lmao

@A7MDONA

Ай бұрын

😂😂😂😂😂

The main difference I believe is Magnus' endgame is superior than Garry like Vishy said Magnus can do something from a dead drawn position

@siddhantjhaveri

2 жыл бұрын

Magnus's endgame is perhaps the only reason he is how good he is. There are many players who could outplay him in the middle game but it's his incredible ability to draw lost positions and win drawn positions in the endgame that keeps him at the top.

@luisitogonzales3169

2 жыл бұрын

they are equally strong on end games, magnus only has lot more endurance, kasparov prefers to end quickly

@jojoaja6106

2 жыл бұрын

I bet my life on kasparov, he way way more superior than magnus. He will crush magnus drawsen:)

@macdonaldnnadi

Жыл бұрын

@@jojoaja6106 you would be losing your life

@babluop9043

11 ай бұрын

​@@jojoaja6106magnus >

1:36 Vishy so nice not to tell srinath the shut up w/ lines okay, whilst talking

@LuminaryMonochrome

2 ай бұрын

yea he does that a bit, just spectrum stuff ig

If you haven't seen many of Kasparov's games it's easy to write him off. You hear what Vishy said and just think he was a weaker Magnus. But "dynamics" means something different when talking about these two players. Magnus' dynamic play comes from pricing activity highly, and playing very positionally aggressively (he'll allow some weaknesses in his positions in order to grab space, for instance). Kasparov, though, was like a more accurate Tal, in many ways. His games inspire awe. Theyre incredible. He's probably played 100+ games more beautiful than Magnus' absolute nicest game(s). His speculative sacs are mostly approved by modern engines, even if they werent all intuitive, concrete, or easy to understand. He blew World Champions off the board in Nezhmetdinov-style, except he had the consistency in results and utter dominance over his competition that peak Magnus and Fischer had - only Kasparov did it for ~15-20 years. When Magnus beats someone, he methodically dismantles them, slowly constricting their squirming bodies until they give out. When Kasparov beat someone, he'd brutally flay them alive with the blade accuracy of Marco Pierre White, or crush them like an anvil dropping on an ant. Kasparov was someone you'd almost be afraid to play. Because if Magnus beats you, you're merely upset that you lost. If Kasparov beats you, he's liable to posterize you, to embarrass you so badly as a human being that for a time you'll never want to play chess again.

@TickleMyPitz

2 жыл бұрын

I think it is ok to consider the eras. Magnus is the most skilled world champion ever because he has studied centuries of chess and stands on the shoulders of giants. Not to mention that as technology advances, we have peeked at the face of God when we discuss perfect chess manifested in 3500 rated chess engines. Magnus can't style on his opponents as hard as Kasparov did because his opponents on average are better because they also enjoy the advancements of technology. If they both played in the same era, then we could compare. It is unfortunate to say we just can't because it was too different back then. If Tal or Casablanca played now knowing what we know, they would have also been better than they existed in their own era.

@jaconova

2 жыл бұрын

@@TickleMyPitz Please leave GOD out of the techno babbling. We are gonna need that reminder al the time.

@connected_passed_pawns

2 жыл бұрын

@Joe Dorben That is a very well put together comment.

@albibushi3006

Жыл бұрын

I agree. G.K was an improved version of Tal. Mastered Ultra instinct

@user-xp2vx6it4m

Жыл бұрын

Meanwhile magnus after spending an entire 30 seconds unnecessarily shifting the peices to his liking

This is what I keep telling everyone. It's not really fair to compare sportsmen of different eras. The technological and tactical improvements in sports like football and almost all team sports make today's players different from previous generations. Motorsport is very different now, especially F1 compared to 1950s. Chess is very different due to computers. In high jump for example we cant compare the players before Fosbury to players after Fosbury. We need to compare only active players at the present, everything else falls into speculation

@frequensea9434

2 жыл бұрын

Unless of course we look at games that exist and see how accurate players were. One could simply input every single known recorded game from each player and check the accuracy average and answer that question themselves.

@majormononoke8958

2 жыл бұрын

@@frequensea9434 Not really, there different positions more dynamic ones and more slow ones. The fact that there are millions of different opening lines, which are computer supported makes lesser players play automaticly more accurate even when they have no idea what they are doing or have less calculation brain power,etc. This can be extended to main rules and principles that were proven to be right generally thanks to millions of games played and got figured out. Each generation builds on the last/ earlier ones and accuracy of any part of the games based on knowledge on principales will make modern players automaticly more accurate, but even when we accept this as players just being better because of their skill, practise methods and new knowledge. It is more than questionable to make a statistic analyze based on perfect openings towards 15 moves to more, supported by computers, which let you be perfect accurate for the first 15 moves or so every game ... Not even talking about figured out endgames...

@pianissimo7121

2 жыл бұрын

@@frequensea9434 but that's exactly my point, past players had less theory and no computers to help them, now we have load of theory and super computers. Of course the current top gm will have better accuracy than those of the past

@aegontargeryan1499

2 жыл бұрын

How come heavy weight boxing got worse

@conelord1984

2 жыл бұрын

@@aegontargeryan1499 Not at all. It may seem like so, but that statement is objectivelyh false. All athletes in any sport are stronger, faster and have way more techniques at their disposal today. Boxing is no exception. It may have become duller but sometimes that is the result of many players reaching optimal performance. That happens with chess and draws too.

The thumbnail is like Gary and Magnus wanted to murder Anand.

Anand entro en la puerta grande de la historia del ajedrez cuando aplasto a dreev en un match de candidatos en 1991. Sus partidas con Karpov, Kasparov, Ivanchuk y demas ya son legendarias. El match de 1995 contra kasparov estuvo a punto de vencerlo si no fuera por la famosa decima partida.

Anand put it very well. But the comment section reveals how much they misunderstood his comment.. and anyway, it's completely unfair to compare players of different eras.. you never know what would happen if a Capablanca or Fischer or Morphy who trained with engines and neural networks time travelled to play with Carlsen.. I can imagine that it would be nearly impossible to beat a Capablanca who trains with Leela and Stockfish.. . Yes, even for Carlsen.

@AshutoshMohalkar

2 жыл бұрын

U can't say it so easily.

@avg_user-dd2yb

2 жыл бұрын

Carlson games are super boring.

@epicterry6706

2 жыл бұрын

magnus carlsen is bigger brained

@sakethedpuganti5697

2 жыл бұрын

@disamen gurre I'd add Morphy and Kasparov to that list

@Nyxyz999

2 жыл бұрын

MAGNUS = GOAT

But kasparov dominated his era just as magnus does today. He was 2800 when everyone cant touch that rating. His cheat was he played high rated tournaments and took 1st place most of the time

@Askhat08

2 жыл бұрын

And he also scored some crazy +9 in tournaments with superGMs. Who can score this nowadays?

@strawmoon9963

2 жыл бұрын

That's why vichy so careful about it. He doesn't commit with the statement "Magnus is better". He just said "Magnus is more universal"

@arpanmukherjee961

2 жыл бұрын

@@Askhat08 No one can. During Garry there were no engines, so only chess instinct and developed skill mattered. But now everyone has an access to their silicon friends. Everyone nowadays makes 20-25 moves deep preps and has the access to same resources. Nowadays it's more about accuracy than brilliance. Magnus's games are great but they make me sleep tbh. Just a slow grind till the opponent blunders.

@dooflydetailguuy4349

2 жыл бұрын

@@arpanmukherjee961 nope, I used to say this same thing

@Snip_KratZ

2 жыл бұрын

@@Askhat08 Things evolve. The players today are better than 20 years ago because they have better preparation conditions. The same happens in athletics, swimming, soccer, basketball... today they are better than 20 years ago and in 20 years they will be better than today If you analyze the games of today compared to those of 20 years ago, most of the top 10 play better than previous world champions. It is impossible for someone to have such dominant performances with such equality

Very good analysis. But man, Kasparov was such a superstar, winning all the top tournaments, playing against supercomputer was a big story back in the day. Michael Jordan of chess for sure.

@Phixersor

Ай бұрын

Good comparison, Magnus is lebron, of a different age, less iconic but more complete.

@PrayogiCristian

29 күн бұрын

We can't compare them. This era, Magnus play against opponent with computer/AI combo even with computer + human combo. The only thing Magnus one step ahead of Gary is end game

London system was not harmed in this video😂😂😂

You have played against both Magnus and Garry at the peak of there powers 🔥🔥🔥🔥

Excellent insight from one of the greatest players of all time: Magnus is a more universal player than Garry but came along in the compter era, which might have an influence.

the difference between greatness and being the best.

Nice chat while Hikaru blunders.

@djajzkjljjfzzf7372

11 ай бұрын

not a blunder but more of an inaccuracy or just not the best (good) move

Computers learnt Chess playing Garry and Magnes uses computers, that's the difference between them two. Garry is GOAT

@Nyxyz999

2 жыл бұрын

People have different opinions. Magnus = GOAT.

@baltazarcarlos6829

Жыл бұрын

Computers as a main argument is just absurd... To be the best chess player you need a series of brain capabilities that Carlsen has over his rivals. Garry has them as well, but the Memory Carlsen has is just way over this world and along with his huge talent for the game it makes him a serious contender to be the GOAT... I think one more championship win and it's settle...

@guts3195

Жыл бұрын

Lol stupid comment.. Magnus is the absolute 🐐

@PrayogiCristian

29 күн бұрын

Magnus play against GM with computer combo even with Computer + human combo, that's why he put gambling in chess and try make different opening. So?

I strongly feel there will be an another complete player above the magnus..... BTW.. I love Tal games. He is someone who brings out that essence from the game and make you feel.. Wow... What? Wait...wait....

@anthonyschlott916

28 күн бұрын

I agree I like Tal games as much as the next guy, but I also like Petrosian games. I like Anish Giri games. I think there is something awesome about patiently, methodically taking your opponent down with precise moves like in Game 6 of Ian vs. Magnus. Chess isn't always flashy and exciting. Sometimes being archaic and defensive is a necessity. I'd make the game as boring and as lackluster as possible if it avoids a loss.

Garry will make you take the ferry home. Maggie has it all in the baggie.

Gary said it more than ones, every generation learns from the previous, but i think he would have adapted to Carlsen's style.

virat kohli ( magnus carlson) vs sachin tendulkar(gary kasparov)

I have seen people saying that Magnus is only good compared to old legends because he has computers. I would argue thta it makes him even better...the fact that today EVERYONE has access to computers analysis it makes even more incredible the fact that he still dominates despite this. Also just like Vishy said, MAgnus speriments a lot more, there are so many times where he goes off theory or computer preparation and just completely destroys his opponents. It's really safe to assume Magnus would still be at the top of chess even without computers

Kasparov with computer chess .. probably would probably play much better than the pre-computer chess era.

It's not fair to compare players from different eras. The question is how much of a gap was there between one player and their peers at that time.

@chefcarry2902

Жыл бұрын

But the limitations to that is there's limitation too. Magnus might be the best dynamic player you can get from a human being. Maybe Fischer worked hard more than his competitions that's why he was so good compared to them. Now, I think computers are in the nearest if not perfect, which means we have the best resources now to study chess and we can assume that it would be close competition for the best players in the world. My point is Fischer in his time was not as near to human's capacity. Now with broader resources, we can see the near peak of humans which we expect to have closer competition.

@LuminaryMonochrome

2 ай бұрын

thing is some players may be able to win against other players and lose against players who would be beaten by players that would lose to the original player so it's a bit of a tricky situation

Three Indian GM's wow here in South Africa I dont think we even have a IM

@kushjindal2939

Ай бұрын

Will cone one day don't worry pal

Seems fair 👍

What did black play?

Different times. There will be some players in the future that going to be better than Magnus, but don't forget Kasparov has been the World Champion way longer than Magnus as of this time.

hey when Anand speaks don’t speak

@roollavendano9633

2 жыл бұрын

De acuerdo contigo.

Yes my grand grand grand grand father in 1600 is the greatest chess player of the human history he can easily defeat garry, fisher, morphy, magnus if he born in this era and have engines to train with

kasparov's weakness : positional players like karpov magnus' weakness: none

@joedorben3504

2 жыл бұрын

Kasparov obliterated positional players many times, even with positional play, and has a positive score against guys like Karpov and Kramnik.

@luisitogonzales3169

2 жыл бұрын

@@joedorben3504 yes, i only stated they are his weakness doesnt mean he cannot beat them. He can crush anyone, but he has hard time outplaying positional players.

@ChessAndNotCheckers

2 жыл бұрын

@@luisitogonzales3169 He doesn't have a hard time beating positional players at all. It's just that Kasparov prefers crazily complex dynamic positions while Carlsen is happy to play a really long endgame and win from drawish positions. Kasparov has played a lot of incredibly dull yet complex and long games, especially against Karpov. Positional games were something he was very good at. But he always preferred fireworks, which is why he played the Najdorf so much

@fink7968

2 жыл бұрын

lookup magnus's tournament record and compare it to Kasparov. Find me an example of Kasparov coming in 7th at the peak of his career? Also, beating Karpov 28-21 wins is a weakness? This is the type of take that someone who discovered chess in the twitch era makes, respectfully, you are a fanboy and don't know what you're talking about

@fink7968

2 жыл бұрын

@@luisitogonzales3169 also, the same could be said for Magnus against sharp aggressive players. Did you watch him get crushed by Episenko?

Sounds like magnus is better than Gary

Anand is a great !

@derekfelton8287

Ай бұрын

My number 5 all time

Why is this even a debate? If you made a book of Kasparov's greatest games, there would be at least 50 games that are better than any games Magnus has ever played. Kasparov's feel for the initiative and ability to whip up an attack on slight positional errors is unmatched in the history of chess. It's not only Kasparov's ability to conjure attacking chances from positions where his opponent played natural moves that were barely positionally incorrect, but also Kasparov's incredible ability to transform advantages, especially his judgment in materially imbalanced positions. I can't even count the number of times Kasparov gave up rook and pawn for 2 knights or knight and bishop and won, and he would also give up minor pieces for rook and pawn and also win. It took me years of studying his games to realize that the trade of material was done together with slight weakening of the opponent's king position, and the pieces Kasparov had remaining were able to exploit those weaknesses, while the opponent's remaining pieces were not suited to defend the structure Kasparov created. It's a nightmare to play Kasparov as he pressured you in so many ways as he transformed his advantage to a different type of advantage that required a different kind of defense. Kasparov was also, along with Fischer and Botvinnik, the greatest student of chess. Kasparov was able to absorb the lessons taught by great opponents and fix his weaknesses. It's notable that Kasparov started out by losing to Karpov, but by the 90s Kasparov crushed Karpov in every tournament game, because he had learned to match Karpov's positional play, giving Karpov nothing to bite on. By the 90s, Kasparov routinely dismantled Karpov's Caro-Kann, Petroff and Ruy Lopez defenses leaving Karpov with no answer to Kasparov's 1. e4. If Kasparov played Magnus in his prime, he would have shored up his endgame play to nullify Magnus's greatest strength and cracked Magnus with 1. d4, where Magnus is vulnerable in his queen pawn defenses. Fabi, Karjakin and others beefed up their endgame play to draw Magnus. If those guys can do it, there's no doubt Kasparov can do it. Magnus, on the other hand, can't attack like Kasparov. The greatest matches of chess history is a battle between the great attacking players vs great defensive players. The matches between great defensive players are snoozefests. And it's clear that if the attacking player is on form, the attacking player wins. Kasparov in form is the greatest attacking player and the greatest student of the game. He'd outwork Magnus and beat him.

@LuminaryMonochrome

2 ай бұрын

great analysis, i loved reading this

@kevinmartincossiolozano8245

Ай бұрын

Current Carlsen lacks motivation because there is no real competition. Carlsen easily surpassed the previous generation and the current one, he has no reason to keep the rate he was improving. Kasparov determination and hard work is obviously unmatched, but could it defeat a talented and motivated Carlsen? It's very difficult to say. Magnus endgames are superb, but that is only his best quality in regards to others, mainly because other people lack Carlsen's memory, but he has no real weaknesses that Kasparov used to exploit others. This match, would have a better quality than Karpov vs Kasparov, but Carlsen is just a better Karpov in all areas. Magnus was at times bored when he was winning as a child vs Kasparov, even though the game ended on a draw. Unfortunately, I can't see Kasparov winning against Magnus. I see him closer than anyone in this generation, but the harder you are able to push Magnus, the better Magnus will become, he would just become a weaker version than Stockfish, because his memory is unmatched. The more you bring brilliant ideas he hadn't see the more he will utilize them against you later on. Magnus is not specially brilliant, and I agree Kasparov was very brilliant, but it doesn't matter, in a few years, Magnus will remember every brilliant idea you had feed him. He is that scary.

@PrayogiCristian

29 күн бұрын

Dude, this era Magnus play against GM with computer/AI combo even computer + human combo. That's why he put gambling in chess and make different opening. Even Hikaru once roast Magnus, that's why don't gambling in chess, and later in tourney during interview, Hikaru admit he did gambling and won the game. Don't forget the end game

For heaven's sake you cant compare eras...Kasparov dominated in the age without computers...all pure talent.....we live in an age dominated by computers ..and everyones relying on it !!!! 😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅

@melzz

5 ай бұрын

Exactly everyone is equal now, no longer imbalance in chess knowledge, Magnus has the hardest era to face all equal opponents but still dominating

@LuminaryMonochrome

2 ай бұрын

@@melzz if you were born in a different time, you would be saying something else. also kasparov didn't have computers back then so there's no way to tell whether he would have also dominated in the era of computers or not

@melzz

2 ай бұрын

@@LuminaryMonochrome that's right there no way to tell so why speculate? The Fact now is Magnus dominated in the computer era where everyone can have easy access, everyone is equal, but Magnus still dominated

@LuminaryMonochrome

2 ай бұрын

@@melzz you say why speculate but you speculate that kasparov wouldn't have survived in this era. someone in the comment section wrote a paragraph on the unique attributes that kasparov has over carlsen and one of them is his phenomenal ability to adapt showcased by how at the start, he used to lose heavily to karpov but then started dominating him after adapting. funilly kasparov has beaten hikaru and other top players in blitz tournaments in his old age and i know it isn't the same as classical but if that doesn't show that kasparov in his prime would've been able to adapt to the era of computers and been able to neutralise magnus's endgame efficacy idk what will

@melzz

2 ай бұрын

@@LuminaryMonochrome why twist my word? I didn't say that? Just like you said we would never know so why speculate? Now you are the one who determined that Kasparov will dominate even though before you said no one will know?

One more thing I wanna reiterate, every one here knows it's unfair to compare two chess masters of different era but in chess domination over their rivals Kasparov has no equal. For me Kasparov will be the player I would keep at the top. And anyone who tries to degrade a chess giant like Kasparov is being partial to say the least. Kasparov is the only player who had a universal style, Period

@amhimemer8769

2 жыл бұрын

Magnus has no competition either?

@Nyxyz999

2 жыл бұрын

Yes grandpa magnus is the GOAT

@hexagone5808

9 ай бұрын

​@@Nyxyz999sorry kiddo. Kasparov is the actual GOAT.

Who was the best player? Can't answer that easily. Magnus would beat Kasparov in his prime simply because chess has evolved. Just like the 100 meter dash or any other sport. Technology has made improvments in every sport. If Kasparov was the same generation as Carlson, it would be no contest. Kasparov would win hands down. Why? Because he is the shark. He hates to lose with a passion, and takes the game seriously like no one else. There are clips of him angrily arguing about unfair conditions in simuls and casual games. Every game is important to him. Look how furious he was when he lost to Deep Blue. He dominated all his WC matches easily. Carlson, on the other hands is the type to play bullet games on lichess, drunk, and make horrendous blunders and laugh about them. There's no way I cans see Kasparov do that. Yes, Carlson's rating is ahead of the rest, but there are many players not far behind him. Remember, there is rating infation. Carlson could barely beat Karjakin in the WC match, it went down to a blitz game at the very end. Same with the Fabiano. Carlson was on the verge of losing, but won at the very end, again with a blitz match. Even with Nepo, he struggled to dominate. It was only after Nepo collapsed that Carlson decisively won. Carlson openly mocks Nepo, and shows no respect for him. He said that he match with Ian was demotivating, and not a challenge. Yet, he only won after Nepo collapese in that record long game. Nepo is an insanely talented player, but is extremely undisciplined, and the reason he will never be WC. He constantly gets up and walks around during WC games, and blitzes his moves out when he has plenty of time. So talent is not the most important factor. Fischer and Capablanca were the most naturally talented players, but not the best because they had weaknesses. Capablanca didn't have the intense competivenes and drive. Fischer was deeply insecure and afraid of losing. If I had to choose, I would say Kasparov was the best player. He dominated the game for decades, with such competiveness. He takes pride in his work, and once said that he tries to make each game a work of art.

Khul ke bolo na guru ki magnus is the goat

Gary remained Chess no. 1 for 23 years, and while Magnus has been no. 1 for 10 years and counting. Magnus or players from today would win aganist strongest player from previous generation reason is not that they are smarter, reason is they had technology, computers to train them, and also the knowledge was increased. If Gary or bobby fisher was born in today age, then it would be fair but again that's a fantasy, it's not going to happen.

In short, according to Vishy, Magnus > Kaaparov.

@joedorben3504

2 жыл бұрын

No, that's not at all what he said.

Vishy is the best ever chess player of all times .

Magnus Drawsen and his infamous London Gay System is very2 intertaining to watch. So interesting that would put you to sleep

@derekfelton8287

Ай бұрын

Magnus is a drawer ??

I will eat shit if magnus stronger than kasparov

@baltazarcarlos6829

Жыл бұрын

Prepare the dish 😂

@hexagone5808

9 ай бұрын

​@@baltazarcarlos6829bc you will eat it.

@rockstaryap9189

Ай бұрын

Haha, this comment is more truer than life.

With all due respect Vishy Garry Kasparov’s direct rival for his title was Karpov who is arguably top 5-6 of all time and he managed to take him down. Magnus on the other hand hasn’t faced anyone that good at their best in their prime ever so Gary is definitely still stronger than Magnus although both are easily top 2 or 3 (along with Fischer) of all time

@roughtoughcocopuff9313

2 жыл бұрын

You're just stupid if you think Garry is stronger than Magnus.

@julianvalorant3440

2 жыл бұрын

Well did u not consider Kasparov's comment? Kasparov even ate his own ego and said Magnus is the lethal combination of Fischer and Karpov based on his understanding Gary might be the stronger one but Karpov wont stand a chance against prime Magnus

@byomkeshbabu

2 жыл бұрын

Magnus = Kasparov chess skills + the God like Endgame skills - the Kasparov tantrums

@khaledalkhaled7016

2 жыл бұрын

Fabi is far better player than Karpov my G Don't disrespects magnus's opponents like dis my G

@saiharshith8990

2 жыл бұрын

It's all perspective bro, you can also argue that Garry had a Karpov and Magnus doesn't have anyone who is close to a threat. This can also be seen as stronger dominance. These sort of analysis are very subjective and can be argued any way

Garry definetly better than magnus it's not only end game but garry,s speed of playing is much faster than magnus

@derekfelton8287

27 күн бұрын

oh rubbish. Magnus is playing in the land of pcs and Gary doesnt have the edge anymore ))

Garry was better.

@Snip_KratZ

2 жыл бұрын

Things evolve. The players today are better than 20 years ago because they have better preparation conditions. The same happens in athletics, swimming, soccer, basketball... today they are better than 20 years ago and in 20 years they will be better than today If you analyze the games of today compared to those of 20 years ago, most of the top 10 play better than previous world champions

@quirenciatala437

2 жыл бұрын

no

@MorphyBDubov12

2 жыл бұрын

@@Snip_KratZ Micheal Jordan is better then Lebron, and Pele is better then Messi. Advancements do not necessarily mean that the players will get better.

@andreribeiro521

2 жыл бұрын

@@MorphyBDubov12 Man. Pele is not even near Messi level. What the hell are you talking about??

@somethingsomething2825

2 жыл бұрын

@@MorphyBDubov12 wtf Messi is all time best

Its like comparing Isaac Newton to an average science student with an argument that the student is smarter because he knows how to navigate an iPhone. 😂

@derekfelton8287

Ай бұрын

Exactly , Isaaac is vulnerable

Anand won't praise Garry the way he praises Carlsen. Kasparov thrashed Anand in every encounter they played. The style of Garry and Carlsen is different,it's unfair to say Carlsen is more universal. Rather it's the opposite. Sorry Anand you are wrong here as usual regarding Kaspy.

@jainilpatel3046

2 жыл бұрын

Magnus has also defeated Anand several times, so it's not that Anand has made this statement because he lost against Garry. He was asked who do you think is tougher to paly right and it's of course magnus because his prime is after the computer era so playing against magnus is ofcourse difficult, the best example is the recent Norway classical chess where vishy had a great opening advantage against magnus but magnus still was able to draw the position. Yes Kasparov has done so much in chess world and his contibution is incomparable, and even magnus has said several times that Kasparov is GOAT for him, someone he looked up to. Anyways my point was that Anand just said what he felt from his playing experience and not because Kasparov has thrashed him so many times. Peace ✌️

@cryptowizard9578

2 жыл бұрын

@@jainilpatel3046 Bro Can you throw some light why Carlsen wasn't able to thrash Caruana in their classical encounter? If Anand wasn't able to win that encounter where he had the advantage against Carlsen because of flaws in his technique. If Anand had been impartial he would have said it was difficult to play against Kaspy in his prime but he wouldn't say that. He would never praise Kaspy 😃

@jainilpatel3046

2 жыл бұрын

@@cryptowizard9578Let me make this clear I am not a Magnus fanboy, so it doesn't matter to me if Carlsen was not able to defeat Caruana. My point is simple vishy doesn't have any ill feelings for Garry because he was defeated several times by Garry, it's just his opinion that who he found difficult to play against. And if I follow your logic Carlsen was the person who completely crushed vishy and snatched the world championship title from him, so according to your logic vishy should never say a word in the appreciation of Carlsen. But vishy said so because that's what he felt. You can go on and on about Garry and Carlsen fight. It doesn't matter to me, for me the point is Vishy has said this just because he felt so. And as time goes on there will be someone against whom Carlsen will be compared to and bla bla bla... And the fact is that new generation is going to be smarter than the old generation because they can look upto the mistakes of old generation and simply improve on it. Garry's epic games and all other legendary player's game are the study material for Carlsen, so obviously he can improve on that basis. You might still say the same thing about vishy but this is what I feel, Vishy is a gentleman and he would never say something just because he lost.

@baltazarcarlos6829

Жыл бұрын

Say's who? To diminish a World champ's opinion says it all... You don't know what your talking about

@vijayjan8608

Ай бұрын

In classical chess Kasparov vs Anand = 16:6 with 32 draws Magnus vs Anand = 12:8 with 51 draws

Can you imagine that an average Tuesday Magnus is constantly playing at Garry’s peak level.