The Best Chess Players Over Time (Estimated By Accuracy)

Take a journey through the history of chess and see the best chess players over time. The X-axis represents the year and Y-axis represents Elo estimated by accuracy as calculated by Chess.com/analysis.
This visual representation allows you to see when players like Bobby Fisher, Garry Kasparov, Magnus Carlsen, and Jose Capablanca performed across history.
Data and Methodology: www.chess.com/article/view/th...
Follow us here 😀 :
✅ Sign up for FREE online play: www.Chess.com
💜 Check us out on Twitch: / chess
📸 Follow us on Instagram: / wwwchesscom
📱 Like us on Facebook: / chess
💙 Follow us on Twitter: / chesscom
#chess #bestchessplayers #bobbyfischer

[@chess]

This visualization does NOT use FIDE Elo ratings which only came into use in 1970. This visualization is created from calculating accuracy (computed in chess.com/analysis) for each player's classical games and converting each player's accuracy to an estimated Elo rating. Our method is described in full here: www.chess.com/article/view/the-best-chess-players-over-time Abacaba has a beautiful video (kzbin.info/www/bejne/sGOneaONbJ6qZrs) which shows Elo, CMR, and Edo, three different systems which are not comparable across time. By comparing all players to the same standard (computer accuracy), our method provides more comparable estimates of performance for players who played in different eras.

[@andreaanarcora602]

Great job!!

[@user-up3dd1vw6b]

How about Paul morphy or players from 1800s who played before time controls

[@alvarop4637]

Strange Fabiano Caruana

[@dannygjk]

Hold on thar podnah. I thought Capa died in the 40's but on the graph he died in 1939.

[@maxboob]

@@dannygjk probably he just don't play in 40'

[@mahelbad1721]

its so depressing and sad when u see one of them stop moving indicating his death or retirement or both.

[@veorze970]

Why do u say or both as if u can not be retired after death

[@nicoboero15]

"both"

[@rin2jio367]

Yes it's really heart breaking. We've got lots of genius chess players and also at a point of the life they sacrificed (or will sacrifice) their own life. Everyone will be always immortal through their games

[@davesvens8697]

Paul Morphy just went to law school and precised it. Like, the guy played for fun, you know? Stop being a bummer.

[@ivanblanco0764]

SUPEH?

[@randomshadow4620]

Imagine reaching 2900 worth of accuracy without computer aid. Fischer and Kasparov are on a different level.

[@forzatech9482]

But Were the opponents back then weaker or stronger compared to today?

[@joshqaszq4773]

@@forzatech9482 is that relevant to their accuracy? I'm not being a smart ass with that response, it's a legitimate question. Accuracy seems independent of opponent.

[@forzatech9482]

@@joshqaszq4773 I have no idea I’m new to chess. Was just an idea that came to me.

[@spyhy4019]

@@joshqaszq4773 I feel like making the best move is easier against weaker opponents, still though bobby was great

[@sebasstein7014]

@@spyhy4019 Most likely is easier because they don`t hide many difficult traps that could force you into a seemingly good gain that in the end actually punishes you more. So against a weaker enemy, accuracy can be easier to be achieved.

[@RunOfTheTrill]

Teleport Morphy, Capablanca, and Fischer to 2000 as babies and let them grow up using engines to check their ideas. SCARY.

[@regardzz]

sorry but i really dont want an antisemitic asshole fischer to be reborn, even freaking judit polgar was avoiding talking about him

[@mickeyrube6623]

@@regardzz uh...you know antisemitism is not in someone's genes, right? It is a learned behavior and has to do with the way someone is brought up during their development.

[@Punkledunk]

regardzz It would be worth it. No question in my mind. The greatness of his chess far outweighs the negative parts of his personality/opinions. His chess is special, his views are not. Accept the chess, reject the rest. Besides, he wouldn’t play if he was brought back anyway. Morphy probably wouldn’t either. It’s a shame.

[@mickeyrube6623]

@@Punkledunk yeah, but the original idea is that we bring them back as babies in the year 2000. They would be 20 now. Who knows what there views would be now.

[@karabighosh2135]

@@Punkledunk why won't they play?

[@caspera3193]

This just proves how much Fischer, Kasparov, Morphy and Capablanca were ahead of their times.

[@davesvens8697]

They are the fathers of modern chess, so yeah... We all build on them because they were the best of their times, and we all learn that they were so good next to their contemporaries.

[@atheoristspointofview7059]

Then came magnus

[@edwardrust3197]

Kasparov and Karpov were pretty evenly matched tbh

[@siraf1234]

@@edwardrust3197 not according to the graph :p

[@sergiodiaz2886]

Edward Rust which makes it beautiful because magnus is great against Garry, shows you even tho ages apart the highest level can remain the same makes you wonder if someone from 1800s and someone from now would play who’d win

[@ahzamarain6863]

Bobby fisher was so many levels above his competition he broke the graph 😂

[@totecol8300]

If he only continued and tried harder, he will be the Goat without any debate needed

[@adarshshrivastava410]

@@totecol8300 true

[@shilpaprajapati4801]

@@totecol8300 yes, even magnus said that!

[@achyuththouta6957]

@@totecol8300 Capablanca> Fischer

[@achyuththouta6957]

@@shilpaprajapati4801 Capablanca had more IQ than Fischer. Fischer had to spend hours and hours studying chess daily but Capablanca hardly studied chess. He was naturally genius

[@medexamtoolsdotcom]

I like how Bobby Fischer left the screen by zooming off UPWARDS. He just ascended to a higher level of existence.

[@IshKhan-bo2lx]

He is so good he disappeared and went to play with the chess gods

[@Jamy68]

Ohhhh...........a better way to say it

[@-_deploy_-]

Fr

[@fingerjoel]

Plot twist: He ended hating chess (maybe not lit, but kind of) 🥴

[@renaldoawes2210]

@@fingerjoel He got bored of it and worried about the implications of determined chess outcomes from memorization. As a result he began to despise it because everything was just memory rather than "figuring it out." The magic was gone for him.

[@guyfawkes469]

These people really stands out against the rest just basing on this graph: 1. Morphy 2. Fischer 3. Kasparov 4. Carlsen Morphy’s 2500+ elo in year 1800s. WTF.

[@oblinky]

I would add: 5. Capablanca on this list, this man had such extraordinary precision

[@garyf2636]

@@oblinky and for over 50years at the top

[@TRUNKER76]

And Lasker has the record for holding the world title (27 years)

[@srikausthubhah1729]

capa? He was above his peers for a long time.

[@vladpetre5674]

Also Big Vlad and Vishy

[@DjulianoJacquesdeMello]

That curve of Fischer, oh my God! Brilliant

[@theUroshman]

Yeah, it Fisher achievements were indeed amazingly impressive, but the difference in Elo points between the best and the second best player in the world was never as great as when Paul Morphy played at his best.

[@clemy2030]

@@theUroshman competition was nowhere near as difficult as Fischers era

[@kabeerchawla4776]

@@clemy2030 u could say that about any era technically so that's not really fair is It? Relative to his time he was better than magnus is in his. Who knows if anderson would have been as good as caurana today or if caurana would be as good now in 1860.

[@benswolo6008]

It's really hard to compare players from different eras, not only in chess, but most in of the sports. For example, the top 20+ players of today would be able to beat Fischer or Morphy, that's why most times we compare them to the competition they had. Now, in my opinion, the best players are Kasparov, Fischer and Magnus (in this order), but we have to wait and see how far can carlsen go.

[@sebastianjosefsson3620]

@@theUroshman morphy played in a weak era with not many players in it. Fischer has an official chess record in highest rating gap between n1 and n2 with 120 points, and this was in the era with tal, petrosian, keres, geller, larsen, spassky, korchnoi, smyslov etc

[@siraf1234]

Notice how high morphys level of chess was. The man didnt even take chess seriously and his accuracy was so high even when you consider all the faulty openings they used. Truly one of a kind.

[@LukeEganLyrics]

And he hardly took any time to make his moves.

[@siraf1234]

@@LukeEganLyrics There were even articles written that when Morphy played Paulsen that paulsen took many hours just to make 1 move.

[@davesvens8697]

He was a fucking genius, that's what he was.

[@user-up3dd1vw6b]

He literally played quickly equivalent to blitz time control. I think if he played seriously and played standard classical time control like modern player, hed be 2600 even back then Also if you arm him with modern opening theory which would improve accuracy of his first 10 moves, he'd be a 2800 player or even higher

[@lashabezhanishvili9034]

Morphy had the best book knowledge of his time. All his openings are based on Staunton's book, which is why he was accurate and was virtually winning right out of the opening against every opponent. Anderssen liked to experiment and got punished by Morphy. And later, Steinitz played much more imaginative chess.

[@szymczak34]

Took almost 50 years for someone to show up and beat Capablanca (2786 in 1919). Fischer finally did it in 1968. It's insane how strong he was in 1970-1972

[@matthewdowling6549]

Top 3 all time

[@billj4525]

Where are you getting that from? That's just an estimate because they didn't even start elo chess ratings until 1950 or 1960. That's not a direct comparison at all. You must have looked at an estimate for capablanca. Fischer was legitimately rated 2785 though.

[@christianszymczak4109]

@@billj4525 You see how the title of the video says "Estimated by Accuracy"? Those are the ratings I'm looking at. You know, the ones that pop up during the entire video and otherwise the point of the whole video??

[@MrSupernova111]

@@billj4525 . Fischer was widely consider the #1 player in the world during his last ten years of his careers. These estimations are just further proof of what we already know and change nothing.

[@kaleidoscope3234]

Actually it was Alekhine who beaten Capablanca and became chest grandmaster way before Fischer did. He might not be entirely on Capablanca nor Fischer level, but when it comes down to it that man won all the matches he needed to win.

[@ritamdeb2232]

Fischer's estimated performance rating reached over 2930 decades before anyone else got even close to that level of play. Without much chess literature, and without engines. Interesting to think about what he might have done with today's analysis database. Maybe have gone crazy even sooner? :D

[@funnyman4744]

There was lots of chess literature back then

[@natividadcua8258]

@@funnyman4744 But results didn't come easy and instantaneous. Today with engines, it's a matter of fraction of a second. Nothing to compare here. You don't need that many books sitting next to you.

[@funnyman4744]

@@natividadcua8258 Op said there was no chess literature back then?

[@Aakashchamolivlogs]

People like you are reason people doesn't play much chess in these times. Has he gone crazy because of chess or are there some unrevealed truths about his life only he would jave known. Think before making a statement

[@irkanirkan7630]

Lol Fischer had all the russian chess library

[@vincensiuschristopher9929]

Ah yes 5fps. Some people truly just want to watch the world burn.

[@matteopriotto5131]

Blighttown vibes

[@ryanflanagan9624]

@@matteopriotto5131 God will never fail us Jesus will never fail us The Holy Spirit will never fail us Jesus is King of kings and Lord of lords amen nothing is impossible with God Jesus The Holy Spirit, The Holy Trinity alone amen blessed by God Jesus The Holy Spirit never lucky amen only God Jesus The Holy Spirit are perfect, holy and awesome amen The Holy Trinity alone amen come to Jesus turn from sins and wickedness and come into The Kingdom of Light today amen by accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior today amen :) come to Jesus instead He alone saves amen, accept Him as your Lord and Savior today amen do not use The Lord's Name in vain amen Jesus never fails us come to know Jesus as your Lord and Savior today amen For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son john 3:16-18 Jesus Christ is The same yesterday, today and forever hebrews 13:8 amen come to know Jesus today He died on the cross for our sins and rose again, so we can live with Him forever because He loves us, by His blood He has victory over sin, death and hell amen. God Jesus The Holy Spirit love you amen God bless amen :) repent of your sins and come to Jesus for The Kingdom of heaven is at hand and Jesus alone saves all who come to Jesus are saved all who believe in Jesus are saved forevermore in Jesus Name amen

[@lundeq6944]

Lol

[@matteopriotto5131]

@@ryanflanagan9624...yes?

[@aethex8821]

@@ryanflanagan9624 God is dead

[@wellno7377]

Morphy : I think i'm gonna end my career also morphy : *_*FLIES_*

[@user-up3dd1vw6b]

Few comments here The rating calculation is based on players games played on standard time controls. It should be noted that back in 1800s they didn't have classical time controls. As for Morphy, it was known that he usually didn't spend much time against opponents, so almost like only him playing blitz vs all other players. Quite amazing he was 2500 estimated accuracy while playing blitz without any knowledge of modern theory and opening Also engine accuracy calculation makes it more favorable to players whose playstyle preferred simple positions without many variation (players are more likely to have better best moves/move ratio in those situation), which happens to be playstyle of capablanca. That's how he broke 2700 in early 1900s when theory or openings weren't as developed Average rating of top players have been increasing throughout history as chess theory developed. Also note that after widespread use of engine for training and analysis, more players begin to break into 2800s where before it was very rare. Modern players are becoming more accurate than ever.

[@SyenPie]

Fantastic comment, ty for ur analysis!

[@c.j2138]

Morphy was about 150 years ahead of his time

[@Jalapablo]

True. Even Botvinnik remarked that since Morphy, nothing new has been discovered the open game lol

[@yotoober1]

don't tell Tal that!! 😂

[@achyuththouta6957]

He wasn't really. Probably reached the strength of modern day GM at best. Capablanca was a lot more talented. He hardly studied chess and knew the best intuitively. Also Morphy relied a lot on his opponents making opening mistakes

[@themanwithnoname3145]

@@achyuththouta6957 do you understand what that means to have modern day GM strength 150 years ago? Without engine? Without lines upon lines of preparation? Without having a team working with you? Morphy is one of the most talented players in chess history.

[@ntf5211]

@@themanwithnoname3145 He was talented sure but the competition back then was kinda ass. Capablanca in my opinion is the most talented because he didn't really study chess that much and still crushed his opponents through intuition and logic.

[@murillojosemachado6496]

LOL I LOVED WHEN MIKHAIL TAL PASSES BOBBY FOR 1 SEC 3:26

[@Joshuaposada]

Especially with how wild Tal games are. The guy had no fear of complicating games. What a legend

[@abraarmasud9194]

It's so sad to see your favorite player’s graph suddenly stopping while others go ahead : (

[@Sindoku]

The fact that Fischer broke 2900 in the 70s is amazing. The only other just as impressive of a feat of strength, IMO is Paul Morphy’s 2500 back in the 1800s and then him remaining the most accurate player for nearly 100 years. He was likely the most accurate player in chess up until this point in time too. Can you imagine how much the world would love Paul Morphy is he was crushing people like that today? He’d be the equivalent of a super computer!

[@user-lh5hl4sv8z]

IMO international math olympiad

[@chemik44]

yes, and it is worth paying attention to who were the opponents of Fischer, Petrosyan, Spasky... great Soviet masters, achieving such accuracy with such opponents is even more impressive than Morphi's feat

[@AltumNovo]

For Fischer to have that accuracy back then is insane

[@ghostlemonade6831]

when fischer flew i felt that man

[@pnutbutrncrackers]

3:19 -- Fischer appears like a kite in the sky and finally exits 'screen-frame north' at 3:40. One of a kind.

[@anonygent]

I like how Amos Burn hung in there from 1888-1913, 25 years, without ever being top dog. Respect.

[@Rafikichu]

I don't think this is very useful info. Accuracy is partly a playstyle. Any king's gambit is going to have an inaccuracy on move 2. Playing the most engine-preferred move is not the same as playing the move that will defeat your human opponent.

[@AhmedSaad-vc7zq]

Preach

[@sebaba001]

Yep especially since in the last 20 years chess knowledge and books has improved so much, everyone's first 10 moves are all 100% accurate and preparation, so that will bring the average up.

[@Lunai5444]

Yeah but the graph looks cool and it gives a nice rough sum up. Which is the point. Description even says : This visual representation allows you to see when players like Bobby Fisher, Garry Kasparov, Magnus Carlsen, and Jose Capablanca performed across history.

[@manfredasz3901]

Agreed. They should eliminate that factor of "playing style" by removing opening moves entirely of the formula. Count only the (late?) midlegame and endgame moves and the graph will be MUCH more accurate !

[@Lagadep]

What's more we now know that a good move for Stockfish can not be the best according to AlphaZero. Alphazero had wonderful games sacrificing a piece for activity, maybe it would like better some Tal's moves

[@tianledeng6179]

Perhaps the most surprising fact is Polugaevsky's dominance in the late 1970s. It is really impressive to have such insanely high accuracy while playing crazy Sicilian lines!

[@davidcopson5800]

Yes, I noticed that.

[@Kaouix]

The accuracy comes for the long variations he used to analyze and play until the end. He was known for this.

[@hallebas7025]

Yea same i was pleasantly surprised to see that

[@shouldersofgiants4649]

Such an underrated comment. I observed that as well to my great surprise

[@Practicality01]

If you had asked me who the 2nd most accurate player ever was, I wouldn't immediately think of Kramnik, but it makes a lot of sense. He doesn't make many mistakes.

[@PlAzMaRiPain]

Dont forget the blunder of the century my friend

[@arkos1179]

@@PlAzMaRiPain so?

[@helmutalexanderrubiowilson6835]

Fisher's curve is insane with no ai no enginees he was so far ahead of everyone .. today we have higher elo players like magnus ding firouzja but all of them train using engines. Im glad an surprised that Tal the magician can surpass him for a short time in his prime.

[@userjk7]

3:38 Bobby just went infinite 💀

[@Earwaxfire909]

There was a time when Morphy was more than 400 points more accurate than the second best player in the world.

[@mandyrarsh7137]

3:25 Tall is clearly drunk all the time😂👍

[@murillojosemachado6496]

Lamo

[@pablobruise1388]

Mikhail Tal had serious health issues by the early '60s. I believe they were kidney related. Brilliant player when so young, but that took a toll in him. He beat Fischer 4 times in the 1962 Curacao (sabotaged by Soviet collusion vs Fischer) playoff. Fischer vowed to never lose to him again & he never did.

[@seanobrien2306]

* Mikhail Tal was physically sick... most of his life, especially his adult years... * Just think..., if Mikhail Tal was ( NOT ) physically sick in his adult years and truly ( concentrated on playing chess ) and ( not ) constantly worried about his physical health and worried about his medical bills and died mentally and physically and financially broke... * *You could say... "All chess players should care about their mental and physical health comes FIRST." * "Without very good to excellent mental and physical health..., you have NOTHING." Mikhail Tal and Bobby Fischer proved that..., as several other highly ranked chess players proved, too... " Semper Fi " Mike in Montana :)

[@pj_18]

The gap between Fischer and players tells it all

[@andrewptob]

He was so strong by 1961, too.

[@vladavasiljev]

Fisher and Kasparov, the GOAT.

[@m.fheagle3286]

And the meteoric rises. Ride like lighting, crash like thunder.

[@magicmurloc]

Actually that he didn't go much higher than the peak of recent players would indicate he is a fair bit weaker than the current top players. When playing against weaker opponents it is easier to get a high accuracy, Fischer being so far above the competition should have had an accuracy rating into the 3k's if he was on par in skill with the chess players that in the last 10 years rate in the 2800+ area against opponents making much stronger moves where being accurate becomes significantly harder.

[@brozors]

I think above all were the creativity in his games.

[@sais8681]

Vishy Anand: On the Charts since 1987 😳🙏😍

[@flippert0]

Amazing chess-longevity on the highest level !

[@secretservice1816]

Must say he deserves recognition

[@_Stargazer_.]

Bobby Fischer surfed the chart way above everyone else for the long time . He was still at the throne when he stopped playing. What a legend. .. imo he has played some of the best unexpected moves ever.

[@Spryxl]

I like how fischer’s genius was so out of time he flew out of the chart lmaoo

[@arcreehysteria9805]

Everytime I watch these kinds of video, I think about how all of these guys dedicated their life to this game and most of them probably had stories that you could make movies out of

[@masakbarvp7833]

Just like other sports its normal

[@zemm9003]

Jesus Christ Morphy achieved almost 2600 in his era. WTF. This is the most impressive thing in chess I have ever seen if these results are accurate.

[@petercohen3966]

It's true. No one has ever dominated like Morphy did.

[@tharagleb]

Constantly changing the scale made this unwatchable.

[@davidcopson5800]

Nothing stays the same. Viewing at .5 speed helps in following the changes.

[@trevorrogers95]

Keeping the same perspective would had made this unwatchable. Did you consider that?

[@interstellarbeatteller9306]

Let me guess, Chess also makes your brain hurt...

[@priyanshukumawat4142]

champions will come and champions will go but the man who knew chess was the one and only RESPECTED SIR ROBERT JAMES BOBBY FISCHER.........

[@omarbassam821]

Bare in mind that Robert Fischer was playing before the engines era, and he got all this rating

[@MrGreenBeanBeenBeanin]

He played against engines for testing purposes.

[@dannygjk]

@@MrGreenBeanBeenBeanin The engines back then were weak.

[@antoniobergara7878]

So was his competition, making it even.

[@dannygjk]

@@antoniobergara7878 The main point of the video was comparing accuracy.

[@ample982]

Indeed. I wonder if he was born today and still has same passion for chess

[@BalHatase]

Kasparov and above all assisted by computers, Fischer was pure talent

[@Justpassingby204]

And Morphy

[@Rspknlikeab0ssxd]

I went through and recorded the top ratings of each player to have the record high rating of anyone and what year they achieved that rating in. Paul Morphy- 2563 rating in 1855. Harry Nelson Pillsbury- 2596 rating in 1900. (+33) Jose Raul Capablanca- 2786 rating in 1919. (+190) Robert James "Bobby" Fischer- 2916 rating in 1969. (+130) Vladimir Kramnik- 2931 rating in 1999. (+15) Garry Kasparov- 2973 rating in 2003. (+42) Vladimir Kramnik- 2982 rating in 2009. (+9) Magnus Carlsen- 2988 rating in 2015. (+6)

[@TheFedJo]

Kramnik had a higher record high in 2008 and 2017

[@Rspknlikeab0ssxd]

@@TheFedJo in 2008/2009 Kramnik peaked at 2982. He never passed that point again, nor did he beat Carlsen'a record high. There are plenty of players who *at a certain moment of time* had the highest rating ONLY at that specific moment, but whose rating wasn't high enough to beat the previous best record. So, Kramnik passed Carlsen's rating for ONLY specific moments, but not Carlsen'a high of 2988 in 2015.

[@chessmasters9012]

Harry Nelson Pillsbury was way ahead of his time, he destroyed Lasker and was playing 20 board blindfold simuls with a game of draughts on the side. If he didn't die early he would've been world champion easily.

[@dannygjk]

@@chessmasters9012 I agree. Anyone who looks at his games can see him finding his way thru complications almost like an engine.

[@ctesvideos7678]

Uh 2596-2563 = 33, not 43

[@shreyasjs1650]

1. Garry Kasparov 2. Magnus Carlsen 3. Robert James Fischer 4. Jose Raul Capablanca 5. Anatoly Karpov 6. Mikhail Botvinnik 7. Vladmir Kramnik 8. Emanuel Lasker 9. Mikhail Tal 10. Alexander Alekhine 11. Viswanathan Anand 12. Tigran Petrosian 13. Paul Morphy 14. Boris Spassky

[@kevinribeiro7545]

Morphy, Capablanca, Fischer and Kasparov; they were way ahead of their time and their rivals. The highlights of the story!

[@interstellarbeatteller9306]

3:10 Ladies & Gentlemen, Mr Bobby Fischer

[@jdghgh]

In my opinion, especially in the pre engine era, chess greatness is best measured by how one compares to their rivals. In this sense, it is also easier to evaluate how remarkable players were, like Morphy, La Bourdonnais, and especially Philidor, who was probably further ahead of his contemporaries than even Morphy.

[@billj4525]

Yeah, it's good you said pre engine era, because with engines you can't use comparing top players to their rivals as a reliable metric anymore. It was not fool proof even in the past though. I mean morphy and guys before him had no competition and very few people even played chess at all back then. So their are so many different reasons why that's not fool proof, although I do think its one of the best ways to compare players of different eras, because the truth is is that their is no fool proof way at all to compare players of different eras. Accuracy means very little in trying to compare player of different eras, because whoever the world number 1 is currently is going to be more accurate than the world number 1 20 or 30 years ago just based on engines and technology alone, and the more technology increases the more likely it will be that the current number 1 will be more accurate than previous ones, and It honestly just makes it harder in my opinion to judge real talent, and how good they would have been in previous eras. Makes for super interesting discussions in my opinion though.

[@leonardocontreras9690]

People tend to forget good Old Philly, yet more than 200 years later we still study his rook endgames

[@bills131]

Question: Are you considering opening moves as well? I assume the answer is yes which makes the metric biased. Accuracy say from move 15 or 20 to avoid the enormous advantage from 2000 on. Most masters play the opening better than the legends . It’d be very interesting to restrict the metric to endings alone too.

[@shamslife9182]

No doubt . Bobby Fischer ‼️ He had no top -notch engines to analyse gis and other games , no online chess, no team with high payed expert to improve him . He had only a old worn out chess book and his BRILLIANT mind ‼️❤️

[@rickyrick6901]

Thank you very much ! I loved this synthetic and visual information.

[@tomh8344]

Lasker's run is impressive. If his accuracy was that high for that long plus add his psychological skills, it is no wonder he would reign for so long. Tal is another one whose practical effectiveness results in an accuracy ranking much lower than his strength versus his peers in real life. Even late in life. Think of a healthy Tal in a speed tournament or match - i like his odds against any of the past!

[@ferdousyfiru8767]

That background music when fischer flew... felt that in heart..

[@dorian7661]

Wow is this hard to watch. Barely can read some of the names and some just get yeeted out of the ladder.

[@aesir1ases64]

you can pause the video to look better in case you dont know

[@monarch9276]

Respect to Fischer. Dude literally got too good at chess. RIP Bobby

[@meeeong7482]

Tal will always be the one of a kind 😁

[@heywardhollis1160]

Nezhmetdinov has a similar style. Very creative attackers.

[@filmvids5596]

@@heywardhollis1160 Rashid right?

[@itsshowtime6412]

Because so many seem to wonder who was the greatest chess player of all time, I took the liberty of comparing the accuracy of the greatest chess player of each era at his peak with his greatest rival. This is by no means a bullet proof comparison. 1. Morphy with a staggering 67.5% accuracy gap. We need to consider that Morphy was the greatest chess player in an era when chess was in its infancy. This means he had much less competition compared to others down the list. Still, the gap in accuracy is mind blowing, he was well ahead compared to the others. 2. Fischer 10.1% accuracy gap. Whether you like him or not, putting Morphy aside, Fischer was by far the best player of all time based on this measuring system. 3. Capablanca 6.8% accuracy gap. He missed many opportunities to play for a championship, but putting politics aside, he has clearly proven to be the best player of his era. 4. Kasparov 6.7% accuracy gap. Despite being one of the best chess players of all time, he managed to win the championship title at the age of 37 if I am not mistaken, which is phenomenal for his time. 5. Carlsen 2.1% accuracy gap. The 5th place is debatable, but there is no question that Carlsen is the greatest chess player in the current era. Reigning the FIDE ranking since 2011, he more than deserves this spot on the list.

[@MrSupernova111]

Brilliant! Thank you!

[@huzaifa5926]

The higher the competition the lower the accuracy gap. This means Carlsen is the best player till date.

[@dominusdone5023]

accuracy gap isnt a good way to determine this tbh

[@Guythatsometimescomments]

IMO Morphy is the most impressive. It's always tough to judge players (in any game/sport) from different eras, but for Morphy to separate himself so much from his peers is really impressive.

[@WhizzerdSupreme]

This is cold hard physical evidence that Paul Morphy would be a superGM today; a direct refutation to his critics who call his play unsound.

[@funnyman4744]

If he took chess like a job with all the resources of today he would probably beat stockfish and alpha zero lmao

[@steven631764]

I think a lot of people don't realize, too, that he retired from chess at the age of 22.

[@lucabortolan8284]

Morphy was so strong that had to pass the century for other players to catch up his play. And those people were studying his games. Fisher the same, people cached up on his strength only after engines were a thing. I think those were the only real geniuses, ironically (and it's actually pretty fitting) they went both crazy lol

[@billj4525]

Not to take anything away from morphy, but very few people even played chess at that time at all. It wasn't even played professionally at all and their were no ratings. Very very few people took chess seriously at all even when accounting for the time period. You really can't compare his dominance at that time to other times. Thats why it's so hard to compare players of different eras. Their are so many different reason for why it doesnt make sense logically to compare them. Having said that Morphy was amazing and definitely one of the most talented players ever as are many many players, but their is FAR TO LITTLE information out there to compare him to players of different eras in any accurate way. Fischer was incredible and definitely one of the top players ever. Fischer, kasparov, and magnus are the top players in my opinion in terms of information available, and anyone before that is too hard to predict where they fit in. Potentially their were players before them that were better at chess in terms of talent and just in general, but their is no way to determine that because their is not enough information.

[@MrSupernova111]

@@billj4525 . Have you ever reviewed any of Morphy's games and thought: "I could have beat that patzer." GTFOH!

[@Rings-of-Saturn2]

How did Morphy go crazy? getting bored with chess and retiring from the game does not equal crazy.

[@trevorrogers95]

And they were both Americans. Figures. We are crazy lol

[@superman5742]

Imagine a Tal blessed with good health .. basically minus all the bad habits...he would've been unstoppable!

[@dertyp6833]

But then he wouldn't be Tal :/

[@dannygjk]

I think he would have destroyed almost everyone for decades.

[@lucaspaiva8659]

But also he could be a very different Tal. One that wouldn't dedicate part of his life to chess

[@isla8844]

@@DanLyndon Its because of his risk taking style that we love him.

[@drlucifer8989]

@@DanLyndon Tal was sick in the return championship of next year. And the funny so called "Botvinnik rule" of giving 2nd chance to the last ex-champion makes no sense.

[@boztos6025]

Watching Fischer’s line blast off into the stratosphere gave me the shivers.

[@copyrighttests5987]

song of mirrors - unicorn heads is the song

[@grandchampion7275]

I once heard that Magnus found a move that the engine changed its opinion about only after depth 40+. Try to let lichess Stockfish run till depth 40, it takes so long. That's absolutely mind-blowing to me. He is the GOAT.

[@chrischardon6621]

Try entering Morphy's game against Paulsen, the one with the famous queen sac. The engine will say that the sac was wrong until depth 50+, then all of a sudden start to go "Whoa, hold on a minute!" Mind-blowing indeed.

[@itlos3704]

If u havent wathc the video of invisible to engines form agadmator watch it. I dont want to spoil it but Peter Leko played an incredible move.

[@LeventK]

Computer and human sacrifice skills are different. There is two sacrifices that they have proven they are the best. One of them is Marshall's queen sacrifice and it's extremely easy for engines to see. Other one is Nechmetinoff's (wrongly spelled) positional queen sacrifice and computers have trouble at positional exchange sacrifices, as all of us know. Lastly, sorry for bad Englisch. ^^

[@AugustSchroif]

​@@chrischardon6621 this is just because of the way engines designed, they just tend to rule out all lines that lead to big material losses if there's no immediate payback in the close followup. They just don't calculate these lines. This is intended behavior devs put into them.

[@oskarsverdrup9906]

What is depth? Measurement of how many games the engine played?

[@RealestKraken56]

0:23 paul murphy literally went off the chart

[@carlsidgwick5854]

Brilliant. Thanks for posting.

[@afifkhaja]

This is so cool! You guy should keep a website page with this graph which continuously updates itself over time

[@tuddgrimley8532]

Anybody else mentally rooting for these guys as their lines compete?

[@simonthomas2521]

That was excellent. YOU CHAMPION. So much more of the good stuff to come from agad!

[@justsomeboyprobablydressed9579]

The gaps over peers that stood out most to me with one quick watch were Morphy, Capablanca, Fischer, Kasparov, and maybe Kramnik, especially Capablanca and Fischer.

[@mistico_90]

Absolutely loved the video !!! My absolute favourites are Mikhail tal, bobby fischer( only the chess part), magnus carlsen!!

[@user-vh2eb2tn6u]

these three would have disabled the engine

[@TheBenevolentDictatorship]

This was a great visual of how clearly Fischer was in a league of his own. No one else was that far beyond their competition. Amazing

[@dailydissent6076]

Fischer swoops on to the scene, breaks the graph and dips

[@innosanto]

Paul Morphy was so ahead of his time is astonishing.

[@RobertJohnson-nz3xm]

Using accuracy as the measure gives so much advantage to the current players since they have access to engines.

[@arturocalderon1043]

And the pther could analize a game for days i think is fair

[@ThePipojp]

But makes them looks worse in terms of dominance, as other current players won't be far from them

[@adithyadanaj9768]

And then we have Morphy.

[@karljohanhaarberg6706]

What a ridiculous assertion. Accuracy encompasses all other methods like ELO comparisons, distance to their competitors, number of wins against their competitors, etc. Magnus was unbeaten in 125 games, which is world record. He has had the highest ELO in history, he plays the best chess players the world has seen, he is the most accurate chess player that has ever existed. So, even though it is tough to hear for Americans, Magnus is clearly the GOAT.

[@donkbonktj5773]

@@karljohanhaarberg6706 I don't think he's the GOAT and I'm norwegian lol. My top 5 are Morphy, Fischer, Capablanca, Kasparov and Carlsen.

[@JohnLounsbery]

The most impressive to me is Capablanca. Dominance over such a long period of time, coming back in 1939 is unbelievable.

[@keysersoze9592]

Capablanca playing at a 2780 in the early 1900’s is what stood out to me.

[@512Sonny]

Ladies and Gentleman, I couldn't get a second of sleep before knowing the song name, because like some of you I recognized the sound from somewhere. But I couldn't wrap my head around, so I went through my playlist consisting of almost 3000 songs and started clicking random song with titles I would remember directly. Aaaand... at some point... Puff! → *Unicorn Heads - Song of Mirrors*

[@Cubci]

life saver, Thank you

[@crazymulgogi]

This is pretty cool stuff. I was a bit surprised not to see a real period of domination by Anatoly Karpov, even though I thought that for at least five years he was beating everybody. And equally surprised to see the strength of Kramnik.

[@gm2407]

Methodology includes move accuracy. If you play really long accurate games and blunder once then it weighs better than someome who plays shorter games and sometimes plays the second best move. Karpov did top Elo ratings for a long time until Kasparov showed up.

[@jaylenlenear3944]

Interesting how Lev Poulgavsky was #1 for a fair amount of time. Had he played for the title at that time he might have won. Alexander Khalifman, Ruslan Ponomariov, Veslin Topalov should have been added just out of curiosity to see where they would fall.

[@cutekitten9856]

Very useful perspective.

[@thisisakoolname9927]

I just imagine this vid with nyancat music

[@a.k.7840]

Capablanca estimated to be 7th overall... considering how very little he studied games and theory compared even to his own contemporaries, let alone the likes of Fischer and other modern GMs, says a lot about his potential GOAT status. He achieved through mostly natural talent what many GMs achieved through a mix of talent and study!

[@orlandoplh]

Exactly- Capablanca could walk up to a game played by grandmasters and figure out in seconds what needed to be done. He was truly like a machine.

[@mojojoji5493]

I love how fishers curve grew infinitely at his end of his era

[@the_potmo]

Any chance of seeing the dataset used to make this graph? This is really cool IMO. Great way to show the relative dominance of certain players and (IMO) reflects how far ahead of their time certain players like Morphy, Capablanca, and Fischer were (not to mention Pilsbury!)

[@thefrikinchikin546]

Hit me with those feels when my boi Anderssen was left in the dust

[@rahulbhatta]

I really wish you didn't change the scale so much, it's okay to change it a few times but this constant shifting made this quite confusing and hard to interpret.

[@poisondartfrogplayz251]

Morphy, Capablanca, Alekhine, Fischer, Kasparov, and Carlsen. Amazing.

[@EternityUnknown]

When I saw Bobby appear at the bottom I was prepared.

[@TarraLabs]

Lasker is active from 1889 to 1936, great Emanuel Lasker

[@akashdahane9136]

Garry Kasparov was like king from nowhere. Just came to rule and left

[@davidcopson5800]

He landed from outer space.

[@japooskas]

Music ?

[@bevs9995]

Bobby Fischer was at the highest height of Chess -- and he utterly dominated. Which is insane.

[@J2TheB27]

Awesome, What background music did you use?

[@LambClone]

Fischer's dominance is clear to see, but I honestly feel that people just cannot comprehend how reality defyingly good Paul Morphy was. He was 100+ years ahead of his time!

[@karljohanhaarberg6706]

Is it difficult to see an American company not even listing Fischer among the top 3 chess players in the history of chess? Based on the most appropriate measure of player quality.

[@alexanderlattreuter5196]

I took almost 50 years for someone to match Morphys accuracy + openings were a lot better devolopt at the time were someone else got over 2500

[@turborios5458]

For judit pulgor bieng around them is insane, props

[@herbertmische8660]

Great, fantastic and immortal Bobby Fischer!!! Respect forever!!!

[@guyslifehacks5179]

Fischer, capablanca, and morphy. Incredible

[@fartgaming_53768]

1962: Hi newbie 1963: FISCHER STARTS CLIMBING THE GRAPH

[@Patralgan]

A mistake in the final diagram: Paul Morphy never was a world champion

[@Livestreamlurker]

He is usually considered the first unofficial world champion.

[@Patralgan]

@@Livestreamlurker sure, but if we go to that route, it should include some other players as well like Topalov, Khalifman, Ponomariov and Kasimzhanov

[@alizster3186]

Say sike right now

[@dannygjk]

@@Patralgan The difference is Morphy lived *before* there were official world champions.

[@kenmendoza6932]

@@Patralgan sure

[@CorneliuZeleaCodreanu9]

I like how Fischer just went to heaven all of the sudden😢

[@nwngenisys8969]

Thank you, that was a great timeline.

[@HD-zt8ct]

Vishy ❤. Player's Peak obviously matters, but for how much time can you be at peak or around the peak matters too, and i don't know anyone better than vishy at that.. (Okay carlsen is number 1 since a decade now, but I'd be curious to see how well he fares in his 40s and 50s)