The Top 10 Greatest Chess Players Of All Time | Dojo Talks

[@thorsthunder2670]

I love the dynamic between the Senseis in these lists. Please keep finding things to rank.

[@NotAllWhoWanderAreLost641]

I absolutely loved the tension Jesse and David had this episode. Opposite colored bishops IRL, LOVE IT!

[@kfm1242]

are they friends?

[@chesscomdpruess]

@@kfm1242 Yes we are!

[@geonerd]

If I wanted 'edgy' or 'salty' needling I'd listen to Nakamura....

[@mitchellfabian7694]

Jesse’s face when David put Magnus at #5 needs to become an emote. He just switched from the beginning of the video saying that the dumbest thing David has ever said was Morphy is 1900 to it being this placement 😂😂😂

[@NotAllWhoWanderAreLost641]

Bro time stood still, I loved it

[@ChessJourneyman]

Einstein's quote about infinity applies to David both beautifully and disturbingly.

[@gus8696]

@@ChessJourneymanwhich quote?

[@bencash4967]

David made a very original list, super cool reasoning and content, keep it up man

[@felipearayaperez2610]

This was so much fun, thank you for the Dojo Talks, I love them

[@1popte277]

"it's hard to think about anything other than your face" - David Pruess to Jesse Kraai

[@NoOne-so7jt]

When debating the GOAT in any field, there is a tendency for recency bias, and that shows here with Jesse and Kostya ranking Carlsen higher than Kasparov, despite Carlsen only being about halfway through his career. The two salient facts are: - Years Ranked #1: Kasparov 21, Carlsen 13 - Years World Champion: Kasparov 15, Carlsen 10 Carlsen himself acknowledged in 2020: "Kasparov had 20 years uninterrupted as the world #1.... He must be considered as the best in history." It is also dubious for Jesse and Kostya to claim that the gap is greater between Carlsen and his peers versus Kasparov and his peers: I compared the ratings gaps between the #1 and #2 players on the January and July FIDE rating lists during the Kasparov and Carlsen eras (1984-2005 and 2010-2023, respectively), and Kasparov had a slightly *greater* average rating lead over the #2 player than Carlsen (38 vs. 35 Elo). Furthermore, Carlsen drew both Karjakin and Caruana in the classical games of their world championship matches, whereas Kasparov only drew one world championship match, against Karpov, whom Jesse and Kostya both rank as the #4 player of all-time. Kasparov also defeated Karpov for the world championship three times. Lastly, it's quite unfair for Kostya to boost Carlsen's ranking based on his potential future performance. You have to wait until he's actually proven it over the next decade, then maybe you can fairly rank him above Kasparov.

[@kaganchess]

completely true if carlsen wasnt ccurrent champion no one would rank him that high and i dont understand how they can rank kasparov no.4

[@bluefin.64]

A factual correction: Kasparov did not have 20 unbroken years as number 1, he was surpassed by Karpov in the second half of 1985 and for all of 1994. That said, IMO his reign is the most dramatic because of it's length and character. The reason Carlsen might be regarded as the GOAT, though, is the field he has dominated is much tougher. The only true competitor Kasparov had for most of his career was Karpov.

[@NoOne-so7jt]

@@bluefin.64 Karpov did not surpass Kasparov in 1994. FIDE removed Kasparov from the rating list in 1994 as retaliation for his formation of the rival PCA.

[@chesscomdpruess]

Dead on! The two salient stats you give leave little room for debate. Then you check the only other things that might matter, size of elo gap and performance in WC matches. Elo gap turns out to be almost the same (which I intuitively estimated but had not calculated-- thanks for that), and the WC matches slightly in Garry's favor, especially if they want to rank Karpov #4 (?).

[@chesscomdpruess]

@@bluefin.64 Kasparov had other competitors, ppl just may not remember them as well now. But Ivanchuk, Anand, Kramnik, Topalov, Shirov, Salov, Gelfand, Short, Kamsky... these guys were no joke!

[@TikariChess]

Number 2 of all time needs to be NN. He played numerous top players over a career a few hundred(!) years long and always came in second.

[@sakethm.8090]

Let me preface this by saying im from india and im from chennai - leaving my biases out there. I dont actually mind anand how you guys rated him. My only sticking point is how when it came to botvinnik : you talked about the legacy of his fanous school, but completely didnt mention anands legacy. First gm from india and thirty years later, entirely due to his influence, india has 80 gms behind only russia !! Fischer: you mentioned his challenges growing up playing prats in new york , anand was literally indias first gm and asias first top played and arguably had to face bigger chess culture challenges in reaching the top

[@papalegba6796]

Anand played beautiful chess. He was better than Carlsen imo.

[@Lemon-qs3uz]

​@@papalegba6796HAHAHA

[@peteclark7461]

I think you make great points about Anand. Fischer's story hits Western and Soviet culture with just about the maximum possible amount of drama and force. But Anand is like the Indian Fischer if Fischer were stable, sane and continued to play fantastic chess well into his middle age. My top five is: Carlsen, Kasparov, Fischer, Karpov, Anand, and if you want to switch the last two...no problem with me.

[@dergotzvonberlichingen4880]

I think this will change in the future. We will have many more top GMs from India and see India as one of the big chess nations. Today, we see the first results. I think we can see a dynasty and we will trace it back to Anand in the future

[@highgroundchess]

I literally had the same reaction as Jesse to David's #4 throwing my hands up. hahaha. Nice video. It is always good to see the discussion like this when it comes to ranking players. I do agree there needs to be more Lasker in the Dojo curriculum. For some reason he is underrated. What bothers me is the same argument people use to say he dodged matches but somehow is not applied to Fischer in the same vein.... Just Sayin'!

[@ChessGainz]

Kostya's prediction of David's #1 as Greco at 1:05:25 had me dying

[@kylen6430]

I mean…they were saying that gap amongst players of their time was a consideration…the gap between Greco and NN was astronomical

[@citizen6458]

​@@kylen6430 lol XD

[@survivaloftheidiots6239]

gotta respect Davids choices for sure

[@davidcopson5800]

I don't think so!

[@andreeuricomorais]

This debate was really fun.

[@ButOneThingIsNeedful]

Really enjoyed the video, fellas. Here's my own list: 1) Magnus Carlsen 2) Garry Kasparov 3) Bobby Fischer 4) Anatoly Karpov 5) Paul Morphy 6) José Raúl Capablanca 7) Emanuel Lasker 8) Viswanathan Anand 9) Mikhail Botvinnik 10) Vladimir Kramnik The biggest reservation I have about my list is the absence of Alexander Alekhine, and I am open to being persuaded to include him instead of a current placeholder.

[@yuvrajdahiya3206]

I would remove morphy chess was not that big of a sport back then.

[@davidcopson5800]

That's a pretty good list, and way more realistic than David's list. (was he smoking something?)

[@jakecherry5770]

This is the content I live for no actual chess I want the meta give me the juice

[@kdub1242]

Kostya, please put a timestamp for the segment where you guys are discussing me.

[@AnnoShark]

this was awesome to watch, thanks guys!

[@bluefin.64]

Jesse's reaction to David's ranking of Carlsen is priceless.

[@thechesslobster2768]

I want a chess version of "undisputed" with Jesse vs David. Great stuff.

[@paulgottlieb]

Lasker was over 60 before Alekhine ever finished ahead of Lasker in a tournament

[@odysseas573]

Lasker will always be a mystery

[@ryanberg2037]

If Tal wasn't near death his whole career he would have been the goat. Its the magician from Riga for me boss

[@ChromaticTempest]

This dude just ranked Philidor at #1 on an all time greatest chess player list. #1!! LMAO. Don't ever change, David.

[@nigelthorpe6398]

This was a great episode! I had to laugh at Philidor sticking out like a sore thumb! Hahaha!

[@EPE444]

Mine: 1. Kasparov 2. Carlsen 3. Fischer 4. Karpov 5. Morphy 6. Botvinnik 7. Alekhine 8. Capablanca 9. Lasker 10. Steinitz

[@davidcopson5800]

Now that's a list. You should do the next video.

[@lastsonofkrypton3918]

Great show, guys! Let's have other types of lists like this such as greatest natural talent, greatest attacker, greatest defender, greatest end-game player, most innovative theoretician, etc.

[@sethlichtenstein4442]

As someone with much less chess expertise than all of these guys, by results it sure seems like Capablanca is easily better than Alekhine. Yes, Alekhine beat him in a match, but it was a major upset and the rest of their head to head series is dominated by Capa, who never got a shot at a rematch

[@sethlichtenstein4442]

Also, I like David's ranking of Morphy the best. He's like the Babe Ruth of chess

[@Opferschach]

14:00 For the record, Schlechter vs. Lasker match ended in a 5:5 tie, so he didn't actually beat Schlechter.

[@ChessDojo]

Oh that's right!

[@davidfranklin5426]

Hilarious that Kostya put Philidor in the “Jesse” column on the chart at the end. Subtle trolling.

[@ChessDojo]

Honest error but glad you liked it 😄

[@travistucker4067]

I am sold guys you got my sub! 🔥🔥🔥

[@lakinther7183]

In my opinion its unfair to use the argument that " Magnus>Kasparov because the gap between Magnus and nr 2 is greater than Kasparov and nr2 " When during the Kasparov era, the second best player was Karpov who is literally the fourth greatest player of all time

[@lastsonofkrypton3918]

Exactly, and it leaves out the record of the greatest gap was Fischer's rating of 2785 in 1971, a record that stood for almost 20 years (!) until Kasparov broke the barrier of 2800 in 1990. And Fischer still had his prime years to come...

[@muleyamwiinga3988]

This is a double edged sword argument... You could argue Magnus' competition is just poor compared to the others...

[@trenbologna2207]

It would be a bad argument for them to make anyway because the gap is smaller for Magnus than it was for Kasparov. Magnus’s biggest rating gap with second was in 2013 when he was 73 points ahead. His smallest gap was when Fabi was just 3 points behind during their wcc match, and this is further reflected in the fact that they drew every game. Kasparov’s biggest gap between him and 2nd was back in 2000 when he was 82 points ahead. He would have even larger gaps had Karpov not existed, as everyone else was in the 2600s when he first broke 2800.

[@misterkefir]

Kasparov still clearly the GOAT.

[@chrisatkeson4638]

When Jesse starts calling you boss you know you’re in for it 😂

[@slamar8712]

My list: 1. Kasparov 2. Karpov 3. Carlsen 4. Fischer 5. Botvinnik 6. Lasker 7. Alekhine 8. Capablanca 9. Anand 10. Kramnik . 5 through 10 can be moved around no idea.

[@willfranklyn2]

I'm so confused why Jesse is upset about David's Morphy spot when THIS RANKING IS NOT ABOUT RATING.

[@joeb4142]

Emanuel Lasker was arguably the best chess player for 27 years. He always seems to be overlooked.

[@chesscomdpruess]

I've been playing through his games all week, and wondering if I should not have put him 6th or 7th instead of 9th. It's a tough call! (every single person on this list is a legend).

[@mustaphad1319]

He has an asterisk because he chose who he played for the title.

[@oconnorcjo]

I like Philidore on the list because he did dominate way above his pears. I just don' know if I would put him in first place. The lack of a good tournament record would drop him to around Lasker for me.

[@Secretarian]

Love this episode. David went nuclear ranking Morphy high and then the bait and switch with Smyslov/Philidor. Then he brought the receipts by showing a Philidor game. Jesse sure got stuck on the number 1900.

[@synesthetically]

I love David's list. I would have ranked some players differently, but his reasoning totally makes sense. Love the other lists, too. Great video!

[@martinpaddle]

as of this writing, the rating difference between Magnus and the number 2 is as much as between nr 2 and nr 16... it's true that he doesn't have a Karpov behind him

[@juhonieminen4219]

I always play the Magnus opening for white and black, and prepare by reading one of his many books. Talk about great contributions!

[@chesscomdpruess]

lol, took me a second!

[@kelly980]

Pruess convinced me!

[@ENoob]

I'm on team Pruess here.

[@famousAmos90210]

Love the heat! 😂

[@jamesdrebenstedt5532]

Great fun. I think the high point was Kostya rating Philidor's ...e4 as baller.

[@liorlapid1735]

My list is identical to Jesse's except that I'd seitch Fischer and Lasker, putting Lasker at #3 and Fischer at #5. David ranking Carlsen at #5, Lasker at #9, and not including Botvinnik in the top 10 are three terrible crimes against chess history. But I have to hand it to him for providing the most entertainment in this discussion. Keeping a straight face for so long about Philidor at #1 was very impressive 👏🏻

[@lastsonofkrypton3918]

Karpov still has the record for most tournament wins iirc EDITL Here are Karpov’s results in classical time-limit games only against five (5!) other World Champions: Karpov’s Score Won Drawn Lost Smyslov 3 10 1 Tal 1 19 0 Petrosian 1 12 1 Spassky 14 22 1 Kasparov 21 121 28 Kramnik 2 10 2 Anand 5 28 11 Total 47 222 44

[@davidfranklin5426]

1) Kasparov 2) Carlsen 3) Fischer 4) Capablanca 5) Alekhine 6) Karpov 7) Lasker 8) Botvinnik 9) Anand 10) Tal I’ll admit that Tal is a bit of a passion pick, since illness prevented him from having consistent results over a long period, but man, what a player. Morphy was unbelievably dominant but chess in the 19th century was just too different; it’s impossible to put him and modern players on the same scale.

[@timwheeler8523]

Now THIS is a list ..... I'd like to see Bronstein sneak in too though .....

[@chesscomdpruess]

Fair enough. If we are saying it's too hard to compare pre-1900 players, then that explains the absence of Philidor, Morphy, and Steinitz, and your list is totally reasonable.

[@timwheeler8523]

@David Pruess I liked your list and your logic very much indeed. Tal and Bronstein are always unlucky on these lists though. Both creative geniuses who could have been so much more had circumstances been different.

[@johnballard6725]

For me the greatest chess players are 1-2 equal Kasparov and Karpov. 3-6 equal Alekhine, Botvinnik, Capablanca, Carlsen. 7- Tal 8-9 equal Morphy, Fisher Karpov and Kasparov had almost identical scores against each other and Karpov in addition won over 160 chess tournaments. Alekhine's famous attacks came out of nowhere. Botvinnik was the best among equals with his USSR colleagues and was only a part time GM as he spent 6 months per year as an electrical engineer. Capablanca was probably the greatest chess prodigy and had a very quick sight of the board- in an equal endgame I'd back him against any player in history. Carlsen like all world champions was a genius in the endgame. Tal's slashing attacks against all including the best players were amazing especially considering his extremely poor health and the toll that must have taken on his creative genius. Morphy was uber dominant but had a short career and Fischer was dominant in his era but played no serious matches after becoming world champion.

[@dastankuspaev9217]

Fisher Is goat. By sheer talent the greatest . Candidate at 15, record for the most consecutive wins still his. Defeated candidates 6-0. All of this without coach.

[@briankaren604]

Not to be pedantic but lasker drew schlechter in his match, karpov korchnoi 81 was not close, and lasker wasn’t world champion at 60. Look at the accuracy and complexity of morpny’s blindfold simul games. Show me fide 2100s who can play that well. Ive been over 2200 fide and could never come close to morphys level. His games as as hikaru said like composed studies.

[@jamesl6839]

best video !

[@astoryelangueuzian9149]

1) Fischer 2) Kasparov 3) Magnus

[@mitchellfabian7694]

To defend David’s Morphy placement, I think if you ever want to claim the single greatest of all time, only 4 people can ever be said. The usual 3 of Fischer, Kasparov, and Carlsen. The 4th would be Morphy. He may be a 2100 today, but he was a 2100 when the next best was 1600. It is inconceivable how you get as good as he got without anyone else having a base understanding of the game basically. It would be like if a 3100 came about today when the next best was Carlsen. But that wouldn’t be as impressive as Morphy because computers could help someone improve today

[@mitchellfabian7694]

The part of claiming you can only claim 4 people didn’t age well with David choosing a different greatest of all time, but I think the point about Morphy being a huge gap still holds.

[@yzfool6639]

Morphy was at least 2500 strength, and because he saw all two movers, he would beat the pants off of David in a match.

[@NotAllWhoWanderAreLost641]

Honestly I agree. Morphy deserves to be on this list. If the list is calculated by the players strength RELATIVE to their competition at that TIME, whether it be many areas of the world or few, then he earns a spot on the top 10 no question. Now if you were to make a top ten list based on who would be most likely to win a match vs ANY chess player of all time, it'd be chock full of todays players with better preparation and deeper understanding.

[@chrisiver8506]

Morphy would crush David lol. At least 2300 fide, give him a computer and all the books he wants and he's 2800+

[@mitchellfabian7694]

@@chrisiver8506 a reminder that David is an IM over 2400 FIDE with all of his GM norms already. Even if Morphy is 2500 strength, it wouldn’t be a blow out and would very interesting to watch!

[@davidblue819]

I didn't like the repeated denigration of Anatoly Karpov as a bad human being because his politics are unfashionable with your social set. You were also loudly hinting that Karpov's record against Soviet grandmasters was fake. This is not a complaint against your well-informed, expert opinions as to who was a good chess player, but against the much-repeated denigration of one man as a bad human being. Anatoly Karpov was and is by many accounts a pleasant human being. He deserved better, especially considering his record of acts of forgiveness and compassion.

[@chesscomdpruess]

Interesting point. I would love to hear some tales of forgiveness and compassion if you'd be willing to share any. Thanks :)

[@fundhund62]

I was very surprised at the negative views on Karpov as a person, too.

[@davidblue819]

@@chesscomdpruess The best way is to watch Closing Gambit: 1978 Korchnoi versus Karpov and the Kremlin. This is a good film with a lot of good players contributing to give their views on the match and the players. It's worth your money to get it on DVD. I have read a lot about Karpov, including his autobiography and books of other players such as Kasparov, who does not paint a flattering picture of Karpov. (I did not say that absolutely everyone considers Karpov a pleasant human being.) What it says in the film is consistent with everything I have read about Karpov in interviews and in books,

[@chesscomdpruess]

@@davidblue819 Many thanks for the recommendation.

[@rafaelrios3282]

Especially considering Fischer… Man was a misogynist, racist, extremely arrogant, disrespectful, etc. Karpov was (is) actually considered to be a very respectful and pleasant person.

[@Tuuubesh0w]

One thing I always find lacking in discussing the goats is that domination and innovation is much much easier the earlier in the game's life cycle you are. Being dominant 200 years ago is not nearly as convincing as being dominant nowadays, not only because the pool of players (and therefor the competition) is a lot bigger now, but also because so much has already been explored. If you found a new paradigm of thinking or playing back then, it would take the world so much longer to figure it out, because you weren't online, there were no computers, and the pool was so small. I don't think David took this into consideration for his list, but then again, none of the other two mentioned it either, which is surprising to me (except for the pool size, which Jesse did mention).

[@briankaren604]

Anyway, thanks for a enjoyable episode. .

[@DaydreamVacations]

The hardest part of creating this list for me is how to quantify or qualify the criteria for comparison. Every generation benefits from the work and knowledge of the prior generation. For example… give Morphy a computer and all the knowledge of Steinitz, Lasker, Botvinnik, Fischer, Tal, and other major contributors…. With that knowledge and understanding could/would he be #1? For example… has anyone contributed more to chess than Steinitz/Lasker 16 Elements of Chess? Or Morphy’s Rapid Development, Initiative, and Center attack? Magnus is incredible. But he is applying someone else’s past work. Has Magnus created or contributed to how we play the game as much as past champions? Or is he simply benefiting from computer training and the masters of the past? It’s not a fair comparison for Carlsen v Morphy. But…. Magnus versus the whole world with the same benefits… he is destroying the world!!! So I would make three lists: • Romantic era as chess is truly being discovered. Morphy, Stenitz, Andersen, Philidor era. • Modern era Kasparov, Fischer, Karpov, Tal, Botvinnik, Alekhine, etc • Digital Age. Computer analysis. Names in no particular order.

[@lastsonofkrypton3918]

Agree except to note Garry was in the digital age too though. In fact you could say the Digital Age began with his match loss to Deep Blue though he remained WC for a long time after that.

[@broken1394]

Excellent comment!

[@muleyamwiinga3988]

​@@lastsonofkrypton3918He did end up washing Deep Blue... I would argue, give all of those guys the same amount of knowledge as Carlsen, Carlsen doesn't get to 1 or remain number that 1 long. All these players were special... The question is who is more special among the special players...

[@jiranchhetri8863]

@@lastsonofkrypton3918 yea but it was more of a pre-digital era, the chess bots were literal ass.

[@tonyfortune346]

I dont know these guys too well but Jesse came across as a real douche in this video. People are allowed to have their own opinions. If you dont agree with it, well you have your own list so its fine. I think Davids reasoning behind his picks was perfectly logical. He even laid out his criteria at the beginning of the video.

[@gmpillo604]

“First, then, Paul Morphy was never so passionately fond, so inordinately devoted to chess as is generally believed. An intimate acquaintance and long observation enable us to state this positively. His only devotion to the game, if it may be so termed, lay in his ambition to meet and to defeat the best players and great masters of this country and of Europe. He felt his enormous strength, and never, for a moment, doubted the outcome. Indeed, before his first departure for Europe he privately and modestly, yet with perfect confidence, predicted to us his certain success, and when he returned he expressed the conviction that he had played poorly, rashly; that none of his opponents should have done so well as they did against him. But, this one ambition satisfied, he appeared to have lost nearly all interest in the game.” - Charles de Maurian

[@odysseas573]

This paints of picture of Morphy having something close to a superiority complex. Not loving chess at all but simply wanting to crash everybody at it to show how much better he is

[@64chess]

I’m not saying I agree with David’s picks/order fully, but the idea of “X” can’t be “greatest/top 10” because they were objectively weaker than today is a fallacious argument if we agree there is any point in making such a list. What do I mean? Well you could make a case there’s no point even ranking people because of the advances in theory, computers, and in some cases the very games of past masters. A strong master 200 years from now with two centuries more of theory advances, 12 piece tablebases, and 6000 elo computers and the ability to study all of our games today if somehow helpful, would of course wipe the floor with even Magnus. That’s not the point. The point is what David was saying. What did they contribute and how dominate were they *in their era.* Not saying Philidor should be #1, but these very old masters should be ranked more highly if we’re even making these lists otherwise it’s a logical fallacy. David’s list is closer to correct.

[@ChessDojo]

Yep! That's how we defined things at the top of the episode. Still ended up with different interpretations though!

[@justsomeboyprobablydressed9579]

David convinced me his list is the most accurate of the three.

[@ChessQuizToday]

David had the most accurate list IMO. As the measure was not the best most accurate players. But ranked on who was the best in their time. And then judged the rankings. Jesse had a bias for the modern player, and for Carlsen. As Carlsen should not be ranked number 1 own Jesse's list, using Jesse's own standards. This is also shown with the ranking of Morphy on Jesse's list. With the strength gap as the measure, David's list nailed the rankings.

[@paulgottlieb]

Ratings only have meaning in a specific rating pool. If they had a rating system in those days, He would have been a clear 2700--in his day

[@SolarWindDark-di9nd]

Ahahahaha, such a great moment at 37:57 ....BAUUUUSSSS

[@Evan-gl3vp]

David's list seems all over the place.

[@artpak2761]

My top 15 goats of chess 1) Gukesh ( goat 🐐) (young and strong) 2) Vladimir kramnik (pioneer) 3) Capablanca( endgamevirtuoso) 4) Wei Yi (one of youngest 2700) 5) Bobby Fisher 6) Karpov 7) Magnus 8) Wesley So 9) Boris Spakssy (underrated ) 10) Garry Kasparov 11) Tigran Petrosian 12) Richard Rapport 13) Yu Yang Yi 14) Veselin Topalov 15) Fabi or Levon

[@seal3081]

I'm confused by Richard rapport being that high on your list

[@artpak2761]

@@seal3081Richard rapport one of the best chess players that has ever existed!

[@florianzellmer8735]

Thank you guys for a much needed history lesson. Obviously i have heard the names before, but i could never say anything about their strengths or records vs peers. Going in I was like: Fischer Kasparov and Carlsen make the top 3 for sure, but i did not know the influence that for example Botvinnik or Karpov had

[@chrisatkeson4638]

1:16:32 I don't think getting Carlsen to think about "matches to the death when you're 50 years old" will bring him back to classical chess 😂😂😂

[@cmc2110]

Why are people saying no1 is close to Magnus? Fabi and Ding are very close to him. Fisher, Capa and Morphy had a high gap

[@gmpillo604]

Paul Morphy is the greatest natural talent the chess world has ever seen… Capablanca is a close 2nd

[@lastsonofkrypton3918]

Morphy was Fischer's choice of GOAT with the caveat that he disqualified himself for conflict of interest, haha.

[@fluff975]

in terms of natural talent I think Fischer was pretty much unparalleled

[@antipro4483]

​@@fluff975fischer was known for working harder than anyone else. Both Capablanca and Morphy didn't really study and still dominated. Capablanca never learned opening theory and Morphy didnt even want to be a chess player.

[@johnballard6725]

I think I agree with you !

[@NotAllWhoWanderAreLost641]

Honestly if Philidor is getting a bunch of added weight to his score for his "theory" contribution to the understanding of chess, I think Tarrasch should be considered as well. He got his butt beat by Lasker super hard, but his theory contribution has to be up there with the big dogs and he actually won tournaments unlike Philidor beating a lot of N.N's at his grandma's house.

[@alsatusmd1A13]

Philidor is also the only player from before “Catalan” chess was all one pool for the world (this would even be after he died, but just barely). But honestly if he is getting a bunch of added weight to his score for his "theory" contribution to the understanding of chess, I think the chess variant is why Capablanca is getting a bunch of subtracted weight from his score. Though the top players roundly disagree with FIDE adopting 960 as a legitimate variant, it is totally separate from the reason that Capablanca‘s chess is subtracting weight from his score. His design is originally Fr. Pietro Carrera’s idea, and Carrera even appears to have invented it because he was a master of theory of his time.

[@odysseas573]

Philidor, Steinitz, Tarrasch and Nimzowitsch are at the top when it comes to early contributions to chess. Botvinnik and Fischer contributed a professional approach to the game and Kasparov took prep on another level. Then came the traditional engines that changed the way we look at chess for ever and in 2017 we got Neural Networks again broadening our understanding. The list of the top players is vwry different than the list of the top contributors. Case in point, out of all those mentioned above Kasparov would probably rank dead last in contributions.

[@sortehuse]

Bobby Fischers favourite player was Paul Morphy, but that was of course before Carlsen, Kasparov and Karpov. He also held Boris Spassky in high regard.

[@lukacalov1988]

I know this is all subjective but based on what is Capablanca over Alekhine???

[@TheJarlekin]

Kasparov wins over Carlsen in almost every regard. Much bigger influence, a library of great books written, longevity etc. Carlsen really only beats Kasparov in pure, objective playing strength by now and that is 100% due to the time he grew up in. Given the criteria you guys mentioned being used in the selection process, Carlsen should barely hit top 10. I agree that Carlsen might make it there eventually as he is still playing, still number 1 and could write a bunch of books or do something special with chess in general, but it truly is ridiculous to put him in top 3 at this point. I even say that as a great Carlsen fan. Just no match at all with these criteria. Philidor as number one makes much better sense in this kind of list indeed.

[@chriscoski3233]

Love David's choices. Gets us out of the box and thinking about things a bit differently. I like that!

[@ChessJourneyman]

Stockton Rush was also thinking outside the box. Reminiscent of people coming up with their own build orders in RTS to be special, nah, there's a reason certain things are not done by anyone smart.

[@cup_of_teaa]

I realy think smyslov should be in the list If you analyse his games with engine you will find that he was stockfishingly strong

[@sungod9797]

44:16 Yeah David, literally everyone in the chess world could predict the last 3 of Jesse’s picks lol

[@MRobinPI]

I like some of David's choices, thinks outside the box; not a hostage to recency bias. David & Jesse(props to Kostya though) don't understand how much Anand was a complete outlier, self-taught genius from a place with no chess culture or sophisticated support system(eg every Soviet player). He just happened to be playing(& thriving) during the time of the all-time best players(Karpov, Kasparov, Carlsen); when Anand won the world junior @16yrs Kasparov had become world champion the year before. Who else has become the first GM from a country and gone on to be world champion? Carlsen IMHO has been unconvincing in his title defenses; definitely top-5, not #1. Enjoyed the discussion though; thanks 🙂

[@alanmay6172]

If Chess Dojo was like the 3 stooges David would make the perfect Curly

[@belue2429]

David! Bro! You like to play dumb. You had me over half this whole time and then I’m like, he’s playing everyone!! Love it bro!

[@chesscomdpruess]

I do sometimes find it fun to play dumb. It’s a refreshing change, plus it helps me gauge others’ intelligence based on their reactions :-D

[@RichardBrent90111]

Jesse and David dynamics are so funny with Jesse's reactions to his controversial takes. "Philidor might make the dojo list so are embarrassment becomes eternal."

[@briankaren604]

Larsen picked philidor as the most dominant player too.

[@leadbyyou]

Alekhine.Capablanca,Kasparov,Carlsen,Fischer,Tal,Karpov,Anand,Judith Polgar, David Bronstein

[@briankaren604]

I understand the point that carlsen never had a rival who was as close as karpov was to kasparov. But isnt this a argument in kasparovs favor? Take carlsen away and none of his peers would be a dominant champion like karpov. Kasparovs benefits from having proven himself against such a champion.

[@mikecantreed]

David’s Carlsen take was pretty shocking. “He needs to win the World championship by 3 or 4 points to rank him higher” shows a serious lack of understanding about both the level of competition in modern chess and just overall match strategy. Edit: Phildor #1 lol. Come on my guy!

[@matzleeach]

David has Karpov at 10 and Carlsen at 5. April fools day already passed.

[@peepshow1035]

My top 5: 1. Paul Morphy (He was even more of a natural than Magnus Carlsen and barely played and yet he was stronger than Anderssen and Steinitz and Arguably stronger than Lasker) 2. Magnus Carlsen (He seems to have a massive understanding of chess that is hard to imagine another human being coming along that could defeat Magnus in a match) 3. Anatoly Karpov (Karpov was better than Garry for a long time and has won the Linares 1994 where Kasparov said the winner is the king of tournaments and that was Karpov) 4. Garry Kasparov (Obvious reasons) 5. Bobby Fischer (For defeating the Soviet Machine)

[@todesque]

Solid list. Agree with you about Morphy topping the list. Next four are all worthy of the top 5.)

[@illowrenollow423]

My top 3: Ivanchuk, Morosevich, Grischnuk 😁

[@ocean3749]

I'm hoping that there is the Top 10 Strongest players of all time and Top 10 most instructive players of all time, for example in the latter I'd have mikhail botvinnik as top 4

[@anthonydomoracki4850]

I disagree with Pruess' requirement that you must be a world champion to make the list. In theory you could be the 2nd best player of all time but if you play in the same era as the num1 player you have no chance of making the list. Loved the stream. Great back and forths and really enjoyed the thought processes that went into the picks.

[@chesscomdpruess]

Good point. That is possible, but very unlikely. You'd have to be #2 for quite a long time behind a #1 who was #1 for quite a long time. There is no actual example of such a player.

[@jackm4457]

I feel "Punk'd" by David's pseudo-selection of Smyslov as #1. Maybe #1 would have been too high, but he is easily in MY top ten. He won 2 consecutive candidates tournaments in the 50's, back when the tournament was a grueling 2-month marathon. In his 3 W Ch Matches vs Botvinnik, he had a plus score. And he was a top 10 player in 6 decades.... he makes Garri look like a short-timer. AND... his chess was superb. Amazing piece placement and coordination. One of the best endgame maestros.

[@jackm4457]

@wretched excess Carlsen is increbible, but I think we need at least a few years to fully assess his level of greatness. In his games and in many of his W Ch matches, he only seems to "eke by" compared to the prime years of other greats from the past. But this is due to the engine assistance that preps his opponents close to his level. I suspect, that in time, we will not see another stay at the top for as long as he has. A revolving-door of World Champions will make us realize the greatness of Magnus.... but we must wait and see for a decade or so.

[@chesscomdpruess]

Sorry, occupational hazard, I only meant to mess with Jesse with that, but I hit you too by accident. I'll maybe try a little to be more responsible in the future, though I have a bad memory. Smyslov was a superb player if it's any consolation! And none of the good things I said about him were wrong. But I think he was in the 12-14th range for all of us.

[@jackm4457]

@wretched excess Kasparov is my #1 as well. GM Soltis wrote a column in Chess Life about how any great player, in their time, might have fared in another era. Fischer would still have been great in Capablanca's time, but Capa might not have been able to dominate the players of the newer dynamic school that followed. Then again, Fischer's great ability to study and assimilate thousands of games might have been neutrailized by today's chess mega databases, where even a 12 year old IM can access more than what Fischer could study. Kasparov is #1 because he was dominant in TWO eras... the end of the Soviet School and, then, pioneering the use of chess engines. A feat that stands alone.

[@jackm4457]

@@chesscomdpruess Ranking Smyslov 12-14 is acceptable, but I would have included him in the top 10 at the expense of Botvinnik. Botvinnik had just a +5 score vs Smyslov, but they were dead-even after WW II, and Smyslov made the candidates' finals over a dozen years after Botvinnik left the scene. Yes, Botvinnik was W Ch 12 years out of 15, but he was just 3 wins, 3 losses and 1 tie in his 7 matches. Botvinnik may have been a key part of "The Soviet School," but he was more of a benefactor than a contributor. He was clearly the "fair-haired boy" of the Soviet system, meaning better seconds, better opportunites and probably had his Federation's "finger on the scale" in his matches. (And yes, I'm biased. My introduction to serious chess study was from my great-uncle, who showed me every game of the MB-VS W Ch games... all 70+ of them! Spoiler alert -- my uncle Jimmy hated "that commie bastard Botvinnik!" lol. He thought Smyslov was a White Russian, I guess.)

[@heathGREsham]

Morphy at 2100 fide is a wild take isn’t it?

[@jeretavius]

Please for the love of God tell me David was trolling this episode.

[@Yornek1]

Love these videos guys, David you missed the plot here buddy (Jesse's word) lol

[@imankhandaker6103]

I peaked at Elo 2010 & I barely pick up most of Morphy's tactics. i would guess he was at least 300 Elo stronger than I ever was. I have played & lost to 6 FMs & Morphy outclassed ALL of them.

[@fluff975]

1) Fischer 2) Carlsen 3) Kasparov 4) Karpov 5) Capablanca 6) Lasker 7) Anand 8) Morphy 9) Tal 10) Botvinnik Honorable mention: Judit Polgar

[@gokhan73642]

What would be the elo of Averbach in current standards ?

[@gus8696]

Like 2700? Top 10 for a bit

[@siIverspawn]

This list would have been infinitely less interesting without David. Kudos for having genuinely original thought.

[@yuvrajdahiya3206]

I am really surprised that none of you had kramnik in your list. Imagine if caruana defeated magnus one sided where would you put caruana then so kramnik should be there on the list somewhere.

[@ChessDojo]

Kramnik is an amazing player!! Personally he would be top-12 for me. I think not higher because he wasn't #1 for very long. Of course it's all subjective and these guys are all brilliant geniuses! - Kostya

[@yuvrajdahiya3206]

@@ChessDojo thanks for replying even though it was a pretty old video and yeah I agree these lists are pretty subjective.

[@pierQRzt180]

Carlsen, Kasparov, Karpov, Fischer feels about right. Of course Lasker is much better as you missed one important point - I need to make a video on this but lazyness.

[@cwjalexx]

I don't have strong feelings on this discussion mainly because of how poorly defined and subjective "greatest" is, but I'm really interested in the top players in the next hundred years or so even though I won't be around to see it. Because the era of god-like computers only began recently, we have an extremely small sample size of chess players who have had the aid of such engines their entire lives. I think it's possible we never see a big gap at the top, or maybe someone is able to use the engines and figure out a way to create the kind of skill gaps we have seen in the past.

[@lakinther7183]

Im surprised Petrosian did not even get a honorable mention anywhere

[@wreynolds1995]

This is one problem with the metric of "how dominant were they?". It could be argued that it overvalues wins in a game which is probably a draw with best play. Petrosian had a very high draw percentage. That made him nigh-unbeatable, but by this metric he isn't one of the greatest; and Capablanca basically only makes people's lists because his origin story is cooler.

[@DarthtigerBcn]

I think the same as most of the players in the USSR between 1940 and 1975. None was dominant to any great extent, and there was a lot of equality between them. For me Petrosian, Tal, Spassky, Smyslov, Botvinnik, Kortsnoj, Keres, Bronstein or Geller are at a very similar level. And the difference was in the peaks of form that allowed them for example to become world champions. The problem is that many people don't take players who have not been world champions seriously. What difference would Bronstein winning the last game in 1950 make to what actually happened? He would still be the same player, with the same strength and the same career.

[@NotQuiteFirst]

It would be great to do an episode with this same format/presentation, but for top 10 players in terms of influence/legacy/contribution to the game. It's something you guys mention frequently as a factor in your choices, but this list is of course about "greatest" which pretty much rules out non-champions. I think a list of "legacy" would be very interesting, so perhaps Magnus might not even show up but that guy Paulsen who you mentioned might feature as he came up with a lot of stuff.