4 ms·
I find these conversations amusing because it really is the nerd (I mean that as a nerd myself; not perjoratively) version of arguing about whether LeBron is be
by jmyeet 4y ago
I find these conversations amusing because it really is the nerd (I mean that as a nerd myself; not perjoratively) version of arguing about whether LeBron is better than Jordan (in their respective primes) or whether the GOAT is Brady, Woods or LeBron.
It's just funny that this same argument structure repeats in radically different fields with (often) very different people.
Personally I've never gotten too invested in any of these arguments because they're ultimately unknowable but, more importantly, they're kind of pointless. You can't separate someone from the time they existed in. I was only ever at best average at Chess but even I could recognize that the grats of 100-200 years ago would get wiped out by the modern greats but obviously we know more now, we have better tools now and so on. And you can never really say how a historic great would do in the modern times with modern ideas, knowledge and tools because they're a product of their time.
- rofo1 4y agoI think most chess players are comparing them in the same circumstances, e.g on pure skill. So for example Fischer said Capablanca and Morphy, under the same circumstances, could beat anyone (if they were born in the same era, using the same tools, etc.)
- bitshiftfaced 4y agoI think you can get pretty close, though. We can now objectively evaluate middle and endgame strength (where you wouldn't gain as much from modern techniques) by using superhuman chess engines.
- unholiness 4y agoBut that doesn't actually separate the players from their time. Opening theory and endgame knowledge is developed with computers now, and humans use and learn from them. Move accuracy for thousands and thousands of GMs and IMs will easily be higher than Kasparov in peak form back in his heyday. But Kasparov came up with those moves, learning only from lesser minds.