Why Carlsen and Kasparov are the Greatest Players of All Time

There is obviously much debate about who the greatest players of all time are. Some say it is Bobby Fischer because he simply dominated an era of competitive chess. Others say it is Mikhail Botvinnik because of his ability to make a plan in any position. On some occasions people even claim that Jose Capablanca was the strongest player of all time because of his natural affinity to assess a position based off of raw talent alone. However, I strongly believe that the top spot should be shared between the greats Magnus Carlsen and Garry Kasparov. But why? How can I even evaluate such a thing?

Well in fact, I use three justifications to supplement this answer. Some are based on personal observations of their playing styles and games, while others are based on well-known characteristics that distinguish the two players. Both of these players strongly exemplify all three of these characteristics, and you can probably improve your game by emulating these characteristics also.

1. Both of these players are well-versed in their black openings.

With the white pieces, both of these players play a wide variety of opening choices, and rely on their intuition to wade through opening theory. Sometimes even with the black pieces, these players throw in some new ideas here and there. However, when the critical moments come, both of these players have a black opening to turn to against e4 and d4 (the primary opening choices) that has served them well in the past. For Kasparov, his King's Indian Defense and Sicilian Najdorf understanding are unparalleled in the chess world. For Carlsen, the Nimzo-Indian and Berlin Defense have helped him maintain a strong record with the black pieces.

2. Both of these players focused on their primary weakness at an amateur level and transformed that weakness into their primary strength at the elite level.

As an amateur, Kasparov's weakness was his opening and early middle game. Several losses in Ruy Lopez style systems fostered him to focus on this area much more seriously, and he eventually began to rely on this part of the game primarily to obtain an advantage. Carlsen, surprisingly, was very booked up as an amateur chess player. He used opening weapons, such as the King's Indian Defense and the Najdorf Sicilian, to complement his aggressive opening style. However, several losses to players who had a better technical understanding of the positions arising from the openings (especially to Vishwanathan Anand) caused him to reevaluate his approach to the game. He found that he was losing a lot in the resulting endgames, and thus tailored his style to strengthen that part of the game. And we all know where that got him!

3. Both of these players were unparalleled tournament players.

They both understood the psychology behind chess, and knew their opponents' playing styles and approaches to the game by the back of their hand. Kasparov and Carlsen understand the importance of well-rounded preparation and have consistently distinguished themselves at the top of very big tournaments.

These justifications may seem very generic, but I feel these two players truly define the best (as of now) on both ends of the spectrum. Kasparov is the model of dynamic chess while Carlsen is the paragon of the positional world. You may feel like you can insert names such as Bobby Fischer or Tigran Petrosian in place of these players, but I urge you to then do the following. Take Bobby Fischer, and place him next to Garry Kasparov. Who do you think played the King's Indian and the Najdorf Sicilian more effectively? Take Tigran Petrosian, and place him next to Magnus Carlsen. Who do you think played the Ruy Lopez and Nimzo-Indian more effectively? You will then understand why I chose the players I did.

Fischer is the greatest.

Have you ever consider how he broke the chess domination of the Russians? It was terrible at that time. You are up against the players like Tal, Botvinik, Smyslov, Petrosian, Spassky and other strong GM's there, passing thru interzonals and candidates matches. No internet, no Stockfish :-), mostly self-study.

Don't compare how the openings were played because the new generation of players have learned from the old games of the old generation, + computer evaluation.

Your last sentence says it all. The more modern players are better because they have been able to learn from the mistakes of the past.

Fischer is relatively the greatest in his era, but put him up against someone like Kasparov, and then tell me if he is still the greatest.

Best of luck in Your Chess Endeavors :)

Join the team Chess Learners if you want to improve your game. Here is the link to join: http://en.lichess.org/team/chess-learners

I know that you are just trolling, trying to drum up interest in your team, but I'll bite.
First off, little bit disparaging to Jose and his natural talent. After all, if you uploaded his games to Chess Insights you'll see he wins the lowest avg. centipawn loss comparasion!

By picking two(!) players you can pick and choose aspects of each to shoot down anyone else. No doubt if Garry and Mags were morphed in one human being it would be the greatest player ever. Work out who you think is greater out of the two and back that.
You seem to think Greatest means 'If both were brought forward to the current day who would win in a Match'. This bias obviously favours the modern player. Please think about the flip; if Carlsen was born in 1943 do you really think he would have been able to stop Fisher in '72? Others might define Greatest as who stood above thier peers the most during the time they played the game, advanced the standing of Chess the most.
Finally, why are you comparing Petrosian's (A World Champ who was called the First amoung equals, btw) Ruy Lopez? He was more famous for the Caro, French and certain lines of the Scilian, ie the Semi-open games.

It will forever be impoossible to compare the pre and post computer eras, please just stick to enjoying the games that are handed down.

The purpose (no not trolling) was to bring to light certain characteristics that the greatest players held. Even though certain players were relatively strong in their eras, the post computer era players are better because they have access to more resources. So yes, if Carlsen was born in 1943 and Fischer in 1972 things may have turned out very differently. But they didn't. I use two players rather than one because they both represent opposite sides of the spectrum of greatness (Carlsen as a positional master and Kasparov as an aggressive virtuoso). By bringing to light these characteristics, hopefully the common player who seeks to improve will look into these similarities, and some may even choose to apply them to their own game.

Best of Luck in Your Chess Endeavors :)

It's quite impossible to evaluate who is the best of all time, because each time period has had the advantage of the prior. These threads are usually fun to speculate about, but your insistence on having some objective solution (and your aggressive posting about your team which is nothing more than a forum to store all your diatribes in a single place) is quite arrogant to say the least.

For example, one might say Philidor was the best of all time because he was the first player we know of to really think about and write about the importance of pawn structures, and had a deep understanding of how they function in a game. One could say Nimzovich because he revolutionized chess theory to the point that people still use the various principles layed out in My System as the basis for all modern chess theory. One might say Capablanca because of his ingenuity and subsequent influence over the hypermodern school. One could say it was Alekhine because he dominated chess the longest against many of the greatest players and such a great deal of modern theory has been generated simply from a study of his games. One could say Tal because of his creative genius in generating attacking opportunities from seemingly nothing. One could say Fischer because of his psychological dominance over the greatest players, perhaps he was the greatest mind in chess. Some could say Kasparov due to his absolute mastery in finding precise tactics. Some could say Magnus for his ability to calculate long endgames to the point of machine-like precision.

There are no objective ways to evaluate who is the best. Each of the players I listed were the best at one point in time. It's impossible to compare most of them because they never played each other, or if they did they were using well-known innovations established by those prior bests they were playing and improving upon them. It's impossible to take Fischer and give him all the available starting knowledge that Carlsen had and see who is best. Likewise it's impossible to take Carlsen and disadvantage him from using all the theory that originated with Nimzo and which came after, as well as all the computer-assistance in analysis and prep available today and then pit the two together for a match. There are far too many variables involved to determine any objective criteria for who is best. You have listed 3 specific criteria. I could equally choose 3 others and come out with Philador or Tal or Fischer, etc.

Eventually someone will come along and dominate Magnus by finding a way to force him into openings that require highly tactical middle games where brute-force calculation won't be enough to win or find a draw. If that player likewise dominates all the competition, perhaps they will be considered the "best of all time" until the next comes along. Yet, despite Magnus' prodigy status and unmatched endgame calculation and memorization ability for opening theory, I often wonder if he is indeed capable of beating a modern day equivalent to Tal, Capablanca, or Kasparov.

I am glad you put a lot of effort to write your response. It shows you are really thinking about what is being discussed.

This post is an opinion that I back with certain criteria. It isn't aggressive because I am not saying this is the only possible view, however I lay out who two champions that I feel have mastered the necessary criteria. Now as for how I developed the criteria, that was based on three things I found in common between Carlsen and Kasparov. Some may support while others may dissent with this, and I strongly encourage people to scout out their own criteria, as that will help them in their own evaluation of the great players.

I do take slight offense with your comment stating my team is a forum to "store my diatribes". As of the moment, there hasn't been any events with the team so you are correct in that manner. However, the team is an excellent place to find effective ideas for improvement, to pose your own questions, and have them answered regarding your own chess journey. Here is an example of the benefit of being a part of the team:
http://en.lichess.org/forum/team-chess-learners/key-to-opening-success-part-3

That being said, you do make some well established points regarding players having an elevated expertise in certain areas of the game. It could be very possible that someone does come and "dethrone" Carlsen. However, for the moment, these are merely observations that justify why I feel a certain way as to who the greatest player is. I encourage you all to focus more on the characteristics that define why these particular players are at the top.

I appreciate your effort to write an elaborate post once again, and I wish you the best of luck in your chess endeavors :)

magnus best ever.

Tal is best ever.
Petrosian once said that there were only two geniuses in chess, Tal and Capablanca. I think everbody loves Tal for his creative and attacking play. Would anyone in your list of players sac pieces to the left and right in WC match as Tal did?
P.S I personally believe that if Tal had no problems with health he would dominate over players as much as Kasparov or Fischer did