Who is the greatest chess player of all time? | Hikaru Nakamura and Lex Fridman

Lex Fridman Podcast full episode: • Hikaru Nakamura: Chess...
Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors:
Mizzen+Main: mizzenandmain.com and use code LEX to get $35 off
InsideTracker: insidetracker.... to get 20% off
NetSuite: netsuite.com/lex to get free product tour
SimpliSafe: simplisafe.com...
GUEST BIO:
Hikaru Nakamura is a chess super grandmaster and is currently the #1 ranked blitz chess player in the world. He is also one of the top chess streamers on Twitch and KZbin.
PODCAST INFO:
Podcast website: lexfridman.com...
Apple Podcasts: apple.co/2lwqZIr
Spotify: spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
RSS: lexfridman.com...
Full episodes playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast
Clips playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast Clips
SOCIAL:
Twitter: / lexfridman
LinkedIn: / lexfridman
Facebook: / lexfridman
Instagram: / lexfridman
Medium: / lexfridman
Reddit: / lexfridman
Support on Patreon: / lexfridman

[@LexClips]

Full podcast episode: kzbin.info/www/bejne/pXuxp6uPesiJd7s Lex Fridman podcast channel: kzbin.info Guest bio: Hikaru Nakamura is a chess super grandmaster and is currently the #1 ranked blitz chess player in the world. He is also one of the top chess streamers on Twitch and KZbin.

[@freespeech515]

Hikaru speaks truth about everyone except himself. Because he dont know. :)

[@craigwheeler4760]

Magnus is #1 at endgame ALL TIME. Nobody can beat him in endgame historically.

[@not_glad]

It's amazing how Hikaru answered all the questions so fast without blundering.

[@utilityassistance]

Yes, great clarity!

[@igor4305]

He premoved this answer 100%

[@abdelerahmanekhaldi6228]

well he made a clear blunder about boby , yes boby did quite early but he was too good for his age, boby is the biggest margin between a player and all other players in the history , relatively he reached the peake elo in history for a long time and some research labs declared that his elo at his time 2785 is almost near 2900 for this time

[@edgewizz862]

@@abdelerahmanekhaldi6228that’s not a blunder.

[@4581103992010]

such pun

[@dubsont1de]

Hikaru said he just makes sure the move is not a blunder and then plays it. That's the same strategy I employ before immediately blundering.

[@Guerry78]

Same.

[@nickbh15]

😂😂😂 that’s my signature move

[@TheMrBennito]

nailed it 😂

[@djodyssey99]

“They won’t expect this!” *Checkmates me next move*

[@jimbobskullduggery1749]

😂

[@permanentlybored195]

The respect hikaru has for magnus is truly immense.

[@kalleklovvn9262]

Have you seen magnus play?

[@Shipdacheese]

It's not really just respect he's spitting facts. From a pure strength point of view Magnus is the best. Kasparov/Tal the most brilliant.

[@FlameableMusic]

@@Shipdacheese What's the difference between strength and brilliance in terms of chess?

[@Shipdacheese]

@@FlameableMusic Good question. To me it means neither Tal, Kasparov, Fischer or Morphy in their prime can take on the current version of Magnus Carlsen, let alone in his prime. It has to do mostly with computing power, Magnus and others, benefitted a lot from chess engines. Brilliance is a number of superb games called 'Immortal', by Morphy, Fischer and Kasparov. Unfortunately, due to the chess engines, brilliant has been losing its meaning in chess, due to the fact nobody quite knows now if a 'brilliant' move or line is brilliant because of one's brilliancy or it was brilliant because it was studied with a powerful engine.

[@Shipdacheese]

@@FlameableMusic I will give an example...Kasparov has a game where he has a move that's not seen even by the engine today, let alone back then when engines were way weaker. That's brilliant! Tal had a reputation of sacrificing everything, every piece, for a powerful attack, as a result he has a number of absolutely stunning 'Immortal' games. Etc...

[@francisjtuk]

Love that Lex is giving the great game of chess plenty of attention. Kasparov, Botez sisters, Magnus, Levy, Hikaru - brilliant !

[@judbaker5752]

Has to get finegold on next

[@bartholomewlyons]

Botez? Wtf

[@judbaker5752]

@@bartholomewlyons I mean he’s not wrong. They certainly play chess.

[@Torres-tw3ic]

I'm waiting for Agadmator

[@bn3121]

@@bartholomewlyons Well, the game is more than just the game, so to speak. They are chess creators and they are a notable voice in the space. If you wanted to only hear from top players, and only hear about top level chess theory, then you would probably get the same comments over and over. There's a whole universe of human experience that comes from the game. If you don't care about that then you can just interview the developers of Stockfish and be done with it!

[@Y0UTUBE123-f5p]

Hikaru’s greatest chess strength is that he literally doesn’t even care

[@petuphiri4002]

He only pretends not to care.

[@DespicableBunny]

Doesnt care about what?

[@georgepoly4842]

@@petuphiri4002 of course he cares, but I think he has very good perspective on life and doesn’t let losses ruin his life

[@MrJaymac87]

@@DespicableBunny it’s a meme that people started in his stream cuz he says that saying a lot of “I literally don’t even care”

[@xbenci]

would be a really funny comment, problem is I literally do not care

[@jasonwalter5873]

Lex and all his chess clips legit has got me back into playing chess and watching chess content.

[@seanvassar1117]

Hikaru has to be one of the best blitz player ever, even if he's not in the conversation for classic.

[@figsaregood]

I literally don't even care.

[@voose03]

@@figsaregood mkay

[@n1te]

@@figsaregood who cares that you don't care?

[@MoistyHydration]

His up there with Magnus for sure. Even though Magnus has more trophies (1st places) in blitz than Hikaru I still think Hikaru can match him. It's like he over things against Magnus starts doubting himself. Anyways at least for me in blitz Hikaru and Magnus are 50-50.

[@cragjones1799]

for bullet, 1-0, hes the absolute goat.. but for say 3-2 magnus is better

[@danicajohnson2664]

if you don't play chess, it's hard to comprehend just how high the skill ceiling is for this game and how good these top grandmasters are.

[@Mj-kl3rb]

Interesting that you say ceiling

[@thatdude3977]

Id call it situational awareness more than anything.

[@jbisaldy2027]

Hikaru was so genuine and honest with his sight.. well he is one of the best player now adays can see who is the best by calculating players moves and strenght.. he surely can see who is the best ‘Magnus has no weakness he said’ totally agree

[@scarystamps1278]

When Hikaru talked so highly of himself I genuinely don’t take it as him having an ego I think that’s his honest objective look at it which is so fascinating. It’s also hard to argue against the borderline indisputable blitz goat

[@Aruesx]

Yeah the people who think he's boosting his ego are just haters. I think it could be interesting if Lex Friedman started asking grandmasters about the gameplay, playstyle, strengths, and weaknesses of other gms.

[@Kidoss11]

The thing is.. He might be pushing his own ego but he isn't exaggerating and keeps it short. He is convinced of himself about his chess skills and there is nothing wrong with that in his case. If you're between the best, you have to think like that. CR7 does it, Michadl Jordan has done it. Even Michael Jackson.

[@combatsportlover6919]

@@Kidoss11 The thing is he also states that he is nowhere near the being in the conversation of being one of the greatest and he doesn't even think he is one of the greatest to never play for the World Championship. It isn't who driven because of how honest he is about his weaknesses as a chess player.

[@thebenevolentsun6575]

I think a level of ego is justified when you are literally the number 1 in a particular field.

[@xyzer586]

Yeah destroyed strong GM with a3 🔥

[@HorstDeBepp]

I'd love a game between a 19th centruy player vs a blitz player. It'd be so funny to see the 19th century player investing hours for a move and Nakamura just moving instantly after that, perplexing the opponent

[@gamma9141]

It will be more like a classical game between Magnus and Stockfish (with blitz control)

[@Joe-og6br]

😂

[@rickrick5041]

Cabablanca might beat him with equal blitz time

[@MorphysinceC.E]

​@@gamma9141If Magnus gets hours per move and stockfish only allowed 2-3 min to think for the whole game as the comment suggests, would be interesting.

[@gamma9141]

@@MorphysinceC.E Stockfish stomps dude, Stockfish is so strong if you let it process for 2mins, maybe 2 nano seconds or something, it would be hard even then if it has a pre built knowledge base.

[@NoorsUnpopularOpinions]

I don’t even know chess but if I was even remotely close to the level of Hikaru, I don’t know how I could prevent that from getting into my mind even if subconsciously. I like his ability to be comfortable with the fact that it doesn’t have to be about him in that conversation. This is why I believe in competition sportsmanship also contributes to greatness.

[@leinardesteves3987]

I think it's probably because he has played against magnus and he's seen what magnus is capable of in action. Imagine training your entire life, become a grand master, then lose multiple times to this guy. Magnus 86 - Nakamura 37 and 105 draws (Currently total all games including exhibition matches)

[@kriaz9916]

@@leinardesteves3987 tbf my ego would be massive if i beat who i consider the goat 37 time and drawed 107 times

[@leinardesteves3987]

@@kriaz9916 exactly. And besides you gotta be extremely great to even come close to beating magnus and he did it multiple times

[@manifestyourlife6]

Another great chess guest! We need Danya Naroditsky next!

[@cwjalexx]

Agreed, Naroditsky can articulate his thoughts very clearly which would translate well in a podcast. The one thing is that a lot of non chess players aren’t going to know him and perhaps won’t appreciate just how good he is.

[@noorsamen6698]

Danya is amazing and i think Eric Hansen would be great too.

[@LuisLamadridT]

+1

[@arnavrawat9864]

Seconded!!!!!

[@joeldick6871]

Absolutely! Love Danya!

[@Fishmorph]

I love how he doesn’t give vague answers like “the chess speaks for itself.”

[@StarContract]

Please have some respect for the player who invented the Anal Beads Gambit.

[@yugimotobutjacked3231]

tbf in that instance the chess did speak for itself *wink* *wink*

[@JohnGodwin]

Man, him talking about blitz games really brought it home - players of today are playing thousands of online games against thousands of other high-ranking players. I wonder what the ELO of someone like Hikaru would be with his current knowledge base if he was playing 50 years ago when very few people got the chance to play each other.

[@FiryaFYI]

You can make the oppesite argument. Where would the greats of old would be with thousnds of games played?

[@TribalWarsRDA]

This comment makes no sense at all

[@DiscoverPhilippines_]

@@TribalWarsRDA Only to you 🤣

[@vercot7000]

@@TribalWarsRDA It makes perfect sense. Your reading comprehension is just shit lol

[@JohnGodwin]

@@FiryaFYI if I wanted to make that argument, I would have.

[@LordHugo1982]

That intuition that Nakamura talks has been proposed as a neuronal mechanism. I would suggest to check the "Somatic Marker Hypothesis" by Antonio Damasio (Great neuroscientist). Bassically, experience and knowledge play a critical role in later on becoming "fast computations" that are felt bodily as "something is good, or something is wrong" facilitating fast decision making without in depth evaluation.

[@arnavrawat9864]

Thank you for typing this out.

[@waynzignordics]

It's great that he's able to give the audience a peak into how he sees the game. Not everyone has the ability to do that.

[@cuthbertallgood7781]

For Fischer, I think you have to make a distinction between "greatest chess career" and "greatest chess mind". Fischer obviously can't win the career, because it was too short and he wasn't tested over a long period. But in terms of sheer brilliance at his peak, he has to be in the conversation against other chess minds at their peak. Bring all the greats into a tournament, at the height of their powers. Who wins? We'll never know, but you have to think Fischer has a good chance.

[@obiwanyutuben]

Well it wouldn't be fair. Today's guys study yesterday's guy's matches. It's just not a thing that can be calculated.

[@voose03]

A Mike Tyson of chess of sorts

[@kineahora8736]

Agree. Bobby was a ridiculous freak, making basically engine moves before there were decent engines.

[@Achilles94627]

Agreed. You could argue that he was the most naturally gifted player of all time, without the help of computers and extensive opening theory.

[@guillaumelagueyte1019]

Chad Summerchild Morphy was way ahead of his time, but it was a really long time ago. I don't think saying he would lose against random 2400 players nowadays is too much of an exaggeration, people nowadays have so much more knowledge about openings that I think it would be almost insurmountable. Or maybe let's say 2500 (GM territory) if it seems more fair to you

[@programmer1840]

Very interesting to hear these chess players talk about feel. I think the unconscious mind is much more powerful than the conscious. We aim to tap into this by building up experience, training the unconscious.

[@venezzrok871]

I feel the unconsious mind is the part of your brain that already tells you the answer before you have time to format it into words. A feeling is far faster than a thought consisting out of words. I also have a feeling that you notice these two functions of the brain cooperating more closely when the answer you seek consists out of 1 word. That 1 word almost pops out like a feeling, an intuition. Anyway, I'm in no way an expert, these are just my own thoughts on the matter lol. Nice and interesting subject to brainstorm about though!

[@wesleyb1458]

They are also at such a high level that when he is asked “what do you see” and Hikaru just says it’s the feel, but it’s more than that to us normal humans. He has 10 arrows going in his head of why he’s not blundering anything else in that split second but it’s just natural to them. We normal humans would call still that calculating lol

[@kevinle5460]

feeling is faster than thinking

[@polishhamnr1469]

there is more differend board state in chess than stars in universe. In GO there is even more.

[@voose03]

It can be formalized I’m sure

[@syourke3]

Fischer was probably the greatest talent of all time because he was so much better than his contemporaries and he did it entirely on his own. He probably was the best in the world long before he actually won the world championship in 1971. He won 20 games in a row against the best players in the world leading up to the championship match against Spassky and then he beat Spassky 7-2-11. He probably could have remained world champion for many years if he hadn’t quit chess after gaining the championship but he had some serious psychological issues. It’s a real shame because he was a supreme chess super-genius, far and away the best player of his era.

[@void7366]

That's what im trying to say, i think the sentence "greatest player in history" is vague and obscure, leaving no room for pure chess intuition and genius, you can easily become a master or even a grandmaster nowadays compared to earlier eras of chess by simply following the lines suggested by modern chess engines, i admire people like Tal, capablanca and alekhine regardless of their achievements or the period of their prevailance.

[@syourke3]

@@void7366 Right. Chess theory has developed at lot since Fischer’s day and computers have made human grandmasters look like babies.

[@syourke3]

@@void7366 You can only fairly compare players to their contemporaries. By that standard, Fischer was way ahead of anyone else in his time.

[@jersonjimenez9538]

Only Fischer

[@innosanto]

Also Fischer may be the best play level of all time relatively speaking as similarly Morphy.

[@TheMg49]

Good one. Thanks. Must watch the whole thing. Nakamura is interesting to listen to. More so than some other chess grandmasters that I have heard speak about stuff. He's also great for game analyses and recaps. He's also one of my favorite chess KZbinrs.

[@ricardzubimendi7152]

Playing relaxed is key on those final seconds without increment. If you know you are better than your opponent in serious time pressure you'll just be more calmed and confident when it really matters. I would say Magnus and Firouzja are up there with Hikaru when it comes to making these split second decisions.

[@danielmartinmonge4054]

I totally agree with the statement : you build upon the giants from the past. I am not sure, but I have a strong feeling that Magnus Carlsen on his peak (probably didn't reach it yet) would beat any prior champion on its peak, because he actually STUDIED them, and they could not possibly study him (not to mention the engines). I don't know if that's fair, but taking that into account, I don't care how many world championships someone prior to Magnus could have defended. For me, the best player would be the one that would win more times against each other, and we can have a strong case it would be Magnus.

[@aimboat709]

Magnus is almost certainly the best of all time but I still think Kasparov take the title of greatest of all time

[@danielmartinmonge4054]

@@aimboat709 ... I don't get the difference between "best of all time" and "greatest of all time". Could you elaborate?

[@aimboat709]

@@danielmartinmonge4054 best of all time is if you are to play any player from any time period you should win, simply put it means you are the strongest player. greatest of all time is you are the most accomplished and dominant player. Actual strength is irrelevant when talking about the greatest of all time what matters is relative strength. a good example of this would be Paul morphy, he has an argument for greatest of all time but would likely lose to every current gm without taking a single game.

[@danielmartinmonge4054]

@@aimboat709 interesting distinction. I had never heard it before, and it actually makes sense. Thx for elaborating!

[@harifederer]

@@aimboat709 Fischer probably had the largest gulf from his contemporaries when he left the game in the early 70’s. Probably the highest peak but his lack of longevity perhaps excludes him from the GOAT title. But if he grew up in the engine era and benefited from the extensive chess theories of today, he would challenge Carlsen.

[@spidaman0112]

The feel he describes at the end is the result of mastering your craft.

[@codydabest]

Magnus' only weaknesses are those of the vibrating type

[@PeterGriffin-vb5tq]

😂😂😂

[@aucklanderful]

Good one.

[@OberDesiah]

Always cool to listen to Hikaru. Great player and individual in the chess scene.

[@goofballbiscuits3647]

Hikaru is a stud. I love the candid honesty and humility. He is awesome at chess but still keeps it real.

[@steelsteez6118]

WooOOoOoOoOo.... Someone has a crush on Hikaru!

[@goofballbiscuits3647]

@@steelsteez6118 Aaaand someone has an extra chromosome. Nice pumpkin emoji, queef.

[@CharlieFleed]

Hikaru: "I just don't blunder" Also Hikaru: "OMG, I just blundered, chat, did I blunder? is that a blunder? am I insane? I just blundered, chat..."

[@NotTheSharpestKnife-mh]

His evaluation of his own blitz capability is too modest. He can often coach the opponent after the match (and sometimes during the match), so he is NOT just operating on instinct. He is also superior in theory and analysis.

[@paulodoherty1712]

Hikaru is refreshingly articulate & especially ego-free… ruling himself out of the GOAT conversation

[@Frank7489]

I love how Hikaru isn’t afraid to call it exactly how he sees it

[@brendan3143]

I feel like any time I say Hikaru’s name from now on, I’m going to say it like Lex says it at 5:30

[@karthikp6473]

😂

[@OmarDelReal45]

Hikaru is becoming the ambassador of chess. I know Carlsen is the best but his people skill bring more people to chess

[@Joe-og6br]

Hikaru and Levy are definitely bringing people in. Hikaru has 2 million subs and Levy 4 million. Which for chess is ridiculous.

[@Xoaplive]

Hikaru may not be the highest elo, or even have the best W/L ratio, but i will say he has a top 5 mind in the game of chess and i say that simply based off his mindset of being a permanent student of the game. Love the way he constantly studies every player and the game in general.

[@joeldick6871]

Hikaru's greatest strength is that he's an extremely accurate intuitive player with lightning fast calculation ability.

[@patrickfitzgerald927]

His humility is an example to all. Amazing man

[@IZn0g0uDatAll]

Did you call Hikaru Nakamura humble? I don’t know what you smoke but that must be amazing

[@patrickfitzgerald927]

@@IZn0g0uDatAll thanks nice internet person! x

[@Stopitgetsomehelp3012]

I am hoping that you're serious and not sarcastic. I advise you to read up a bit more on Nakamura. He's definitely very good at chess, very popular in streaming, but definitely not humble.

[@patrickfitzgerald927]

Yep I meant it seriously, he comes across very well in this video.

[@Stopitgetsomehelp3012]

@@patrickfitzgerald927 Good for him, he has been able to craft a humble image for the newer chess fans.

[@joeknapp9162]

Hikaru is the Jimmy Hendrix of chess. No superiority complex. Not the most technically sound (tho close to). Amazing ability to innovate and be spontaneous.

[@SuhasSreehariOnline]

Lex is simply fantastic. He asks insightful questions and lets the guests answer. And of course, love Hikaru.

[@Jaime_Protein_Cannister]

I can draw a Pararel to Starcraft 2 , computer game. Much like chess it is rather well defined Strategically , people play various "openings" , "mid games" and "end games"... that rarely change. AT highest level we call it "game sense". You can predict Damage , Track Enemy army Trough fog of war , you feel when Enemy wepons get upgraded through experience and internalizing this "feeling". In perticular End Game is more about the "Sense" , because everyone is running out of resources , You can't make the same moves as you would in mid game , you have to be more concious of your movements and Efficiency becomes king as you slowly run out of Resources and Units. A lot of players get LOST in the end game, because they get to end game much less , than Pro players. They don't have the same sense , they feel limited and confused.

[@xheyitsbyron]

Brood war.

[@Foundinthoughts]

Hikaru is a humble guy. He makes great comments about Fisher and other OG 🐐’s . Magnus is my pick but I may be in the league of those that observe the current 🐐 and ignore the post 🐐’s.

[@exhainca]

You gotta put Fischer up there because the dude was embroiled in the biggest chess warfare in history - on a level involving differing regimes that created the deepest rift in geopolitics. He basically fought singlehandedly against the most impenetrable monolith in the world of chess. Garry was a product of the very system Fischer disassembled - and that's the exact reason Kasparov played the role of renegade, because Fischer defined what it is to be a renegade.

[@annaclarafenyo8185]

Fischer didn't disassemble anything, he read the Russian chess journals and was so immersed in Russian that he was basically an expat Soviet. He was touted as "the best" by the capitalist propaganda machine. Karpov would have defeated Fischer resoundingly, which is why Fischer didn't play.

[@exhainca]

@@annaclarafenyo8185 Ok - a valid perspective I suppose.

[@harifederer]

@@annaclarafenyo8185 Well he did disassemble Russian dominance up until that point. And yes, to beat the enemy he needed to learn the enemy. It’s a common myth that he was scared to play Karpov hence why he left the game. Fisher had many other demons. It’s complete conjecture to say he would have lost resoundingly.

[@annaclarafenyo8185]

@@seanking1775 Carlson > Anand > Kasparov > Karpov > Fischer. Kasparov was already two steps above Fischer. Fischer was truly great, but he didn't have the same ideas as later players. Kasparov was a far better player in the same style.

[@rotagbhd]

@@annaclarafenyo8185 He had no other players ranked as high as him, making it much more difficult to raise his ELO, and it was TWENTY YEARS before someone had a higher ELO, You are an ass-clown.

[@jannisarie]

I really like Hikaru. I started randomly listening to his youtube channel and really enjoy it.

[@sankhawkulathantille]

Watch his games against street hustlers

[@sanekabc]

Fischer hands down. One fact which is not mentioned often enough. It took twenty years before anyone reached Fischer's rating of 2785. TWENTY YEARS! And Fischer quit at age 29!

[@lyingcat9022]

Paul Morphy had a similar problem. He was just ahead of his time. Poor guy had no one on his level, no one to learn from or train against. No super GMs or chess engines to find his weaknesses and make him better. Dude gave even the strongest players piece odds and still they struggled against him.

[@santos.l.halper1999]

here's another fact, you gotta beat the best to be the best

[@therainman7777]

The fact that people DID beat his Elo puts your “Fischer hands down” statement into immediate question. This would be true whether it took 20 years or 100 years. You also severely handicap yourself in terms of the greatest ever conversation if you retire very early, because there’s simply too much uncertainty around you. If Michael Jordan had retired from basketball after winning one NBA championship, you would have a lot fewer people calling him the greatest ever. But no, he stuck around and won six of them, removing all doubt.

[@sanekabc]

@@therainman7777 Your argument is flawed. None of your three points addresses my assertion. First we need to agree on how we define the greatest. That is largely the point of contention. To me it is a claim as to the most talented player in history. You may not agree with that definition. The most talented player would rise above his peers in any time period. In Fischer's time it would not be possible to for him rise much more above his rating level due to his opponent's being so far below him. Carlsen is experiencing somewhat of the same problem. A draw for Carlsen is a loss of rating points. My point is that if Fischer were alive today his rating would rise above his contemporaries. And my initial fact that it took 20 years, underscores that he was the most talented. He was in effect better than his peers for 20 years without playing a game. That is saying something extraordinary and will not likely be repeated.

[@rian534]

⁠@@sanekabc There’s a pretty distinct difference between ‘greatest’ and ‘most talented’ and ‘most potential’. At this point the argument turns to semantics. Most people would define the ‘greatest’ player as the one who, at their prime, could beat everyone else in theirs. It’s about who’s the best - not who *would be the best if they had x, y, and z.* Truths, not hypotheticals.

[@eldheimm]

Hikaru is a very good blitz player. One of the all-time greats -but he crumbles under pressure. When he is playing for fun, or in titled Tuesdays, and he isn't nervous, you can see how good he is. But Magnus is just another beast. Complete player -and like he says himself: He is the best in the world at evaluating games, knowing when he needs to find critical moves. And that is often what sets him apart. That, and of course how insanely good he is at endgames, making traps.

[@MoistyHydration]

Not that he tries to find critical moves he starts doubting himself and that is the main problem. Magnus has been his problem like forever. Every Carlsens move in some tight spots semms difficult for him to find (he starts overthinking) even though he could find the best move 99 out 100 times. It's unfortunate that he crumbles like that for me at least he is right there with Magnus in blitz games.

[@DonBarracuda117]

I've noticed a lot clips about chess in recent weeks, is chess to Lex what bow hunting is to Joe Rogan? 😁

[@nkxseal8398]

There was a bit of a cheating scandal recently, I think that's why.

[@programmer1840]

@@nkxseal8398 jumping on that hype 😄

[@ChauncyCharm]

DMT to Joe Rogan

[@DonBarracuda117]

@@ChauncyCharm Have you ever tried Elk meat?

[@parrampampam]

Magnus' interview was before the cheating scandal started, though after the candidates and his decision to not defend the title. But Lex also interviewed Kasparov a few years ago.

[@roodborstkalf9664]

It's strange that Karpov is never mentioned in this discussions any more. It's clear that he is number three after Carlsen and Kasparov.

[@ahmadrezamoradpour9194]

Above Bobby?

[@gerttopmuller]

Probably bc people undervalue the defensive masters.

[@jlushefski]

It's not clear that he is number 3, but he is often given less attention/consideration than he probably deserves.

[@vincelopez756]

@@ahmadrezamoradpour9194 Definitely above Bobby. Karpov was World Champion for 10 years, on top of spending the 3rd longest time as highest rated player only behind Carlsen and Kasparov. Karpov also holds the record for most tournament wins; he finished first in around 160 events.

[@MoodyWatters]

Agree.

[@ToxicSkullFear]

It seemed for many years Hikaru no matter how good he was had a Magnus complex and always lost to Magnus but since he got over that hurdle and started to win against him he has become another player full of comfidence and are now clearly one of the best.

[@kordeyrow]

Hikaru really did become more humble after they removed half of his both arms.

[@JamesMc2051]

Another way of looking at it - considering that the level in different sports tend to increase over time and those that come later have advantages that the earlier ones don't - is which player was furthest ahead of their nearest challengers during their time. There's that, there's ELO rating, there's longevity, there's influence on those who come after. It's a question which requires a criteria.

[@kineahora8736]

Bobby played some ridiculously accurate games in the pre-engine era… he’s in the conversation to be sure. But I like Magnus-he just is the best.

[@AlhunAydin]

Why it was so hard to understand? That is basically the definition of talent. You don't calculate, you don't memorize. You just do and it works. The same in football, the same in music, the same in any other talent. You can't tell the reason why and how you are able to do it. And it is exactly that thing makes it a talent.

[@dave.8]

Hikaru regardles sof what anybody says is my GOAT. He brought so much attention to chess and his impact is huge. Hikaru is humble and is a student of the game through and through. Even over the years playing against other powerhouses hes still down to earth.

[@chewskewsme]

So often when I see an extended end game with MC seemingly backed into a corner, it’s like watching the best arm wrestler an inch from defeat but his opponent just can’t finish and uses his last bit of energy trying, only to get smashed to defeat.

[@Torres-tw3ic]

i am like a gm that can see instantly what is the best move, and then i see that it was a blunder. My brain works the same way, just don't have the accuracy.

[@andrew_owens7680]

Kasparov has a very special place in chess history that can never be repeated. He got to the level that he got to without computers! I know, being from his generation just how hard it was to learn chess from books and magazines. Even a coach can't be Stockfish.

[@Age_of_Apocalypse]

Hikaru Nakamura, some level of humility, I already like him! I'm gonna watch the whole podcast later today. ☀😎

[@joonpak]

It’s a recent development in Hikaru!

[@micahclawrence]

Lol he has none

[@sammysoseOFFICIAL]

Definitely recent development. I used to watch his streaks but his ego was too big for me. He says a lot of things that are kind of dickish. But he has been changing as of late.

[@JustinHall1468]

​@@micahclawrence He literally started this by saying he doesn't belong in the conversation of the "greatest", even the "greatest who never won the big show" despite being the highest elo Blitz player in the world and even then mentioned Magnus may be as good or better than him at the single reason why he's the highest elo Blitz player the world. There's humility and there's false humility, and it seems you want him to pretend to be worse than he is.

[@VantaDark]

@@sammysoseOFFICIAL I've only been playing a year, was Hikaru not chill before? He always seemed pretty cool whenever I saw his videos, a bit blunt sometimes but I've liked watching him

[@warthus7125]

In terms of pure dominance and having literally no competition - Fischcer, in terms of longevity and consistence - Kasparov, in terms of pure skill and genious - Magnus. The most simple answer that the people would want to hear is: If all players were currently at their peak who would be strongest and I think that would be determined if all 3 of them played 100 games between each other each, so Magnus plays Kasparov 100 times, Kasparov plays Fischer 100 Times, Fischer plays Magnus 100 times and then based on the results of that taking the higher winrate to rank them, then I guess my answer would be: 1. Magnus, 2. Kasparov, 3. Fischer.

[@Riri-oj1zs]

Pure dominance is Magnus. No one dominated 2700+ ranked players like him. He makes them look like amateurs. Magnus is the best and the strongest player of all-time.

[@golden_smaug]

Yessssss Hikaru on the podcast OMGGGGGG

[@richyboy1234567]

So humble, not the best obviously but he's definatly in the conversation for one of the best ever.

[@pablofonseca13411]

You have to look back at the history and the shows that he’s been on regarding Bobby Fisher. He explained it very clearly. He was the best and there was nobody better. Anybody that was better he would challenge them and win

[@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

[@chewi8560]

Even Karpov is ahead of Fisher, people forget how good he was and how long he was world champion, also his games against Kasparov were always very very close, and most of the ones he lost were due to Kasparov's much better team. For me, Magnus is definitely the GOAT.

[@crushedscouter9522]

Lol not even close. Karpov never accomplished anything near as difficult as what Fischer did

[@chewi8560]

@@crushedscouter9522 So what did Fisher accomplish that Karpov didn't?

[@fred7408]

@@chewi8560 facing the Soviets solo, according to the engines Bobby made the most accurate moves of all time. People like to think he chickened out, but he most certainly did not. He was just as difficult when he faced Spassky, he was no different against Karpov

[@fred7408]

Bobby also exerted to most influence in chess compared to any other player. He literally won the US championship with an 11-0 score, unheard of even today, he beat some of the best international GM's with scores 6-0 (also hasn't been accomplished to this day).

[@chewi8560]

@@fred7408 I'm not undermining Fisher's achievements, he was definitely one of the greatest players ever but only proved it shortly, and having an 11-0 win at the US championships was not so difficult at that time since the US hardly had any good players then, also Fisher did not have the most accurate moves (he might have had it if you take a certain period of games but that doesn't count) and regarding your influence argument, the most influential player ever was by far Kasparov.

[@afarro]

@5:25 what’s your greatest weakness ? HN: Honesty LF: I don’t think honesty counts as a weakness HN: I don’t give a damn what you think …

[@estoyboy]

I can't listen to a full ep of either guy in one go, but this is a great clip

[@blakemccoy2442]

I’d say Hikaru is the bullet GOAT tho. I’m always in awe of how good he is in that time control. If he enters a bullet tournament, he’s coming in first or second.

[@tripninick8597]

Hikaru so humble. He's defnitely in the top 10 for me.

[@1kontrabida]

Imho Fisher will always be in the conversation just for the mere fact of the magnitude and pressure he had on his shoulder during the cold war yet alone it was Fisher vs Russia. For him to go up against the Russians and single handedly took them on and gave russia their loss in a game they dominate that they live and breath and take very seriously.

[@dannygibson2597]

I'm a very casual chess observer but one thing I can tell you for certain is that I value creativity over anything else, and Bobby Fischer had that in spades.

[@cloud1stclass372]

Lex’s face lights up any time someone mentions something about Magnus. When he had Magnus on his podcast he giggled like a kid whenever Magnus said something funny or insightful. It’s clear Lex has a massive amount of respect for him and places Magnus on an extremely high pedestal.

[@Gardyy_1]

Hikaru is so humble

[@mislavivkovic9996]

I will newer understand why Naka take the draw against Nepo in candidates tournament really he still have a chance to get to finals

[@samuraijack1371]

Intuition is flow state. When the mind and the intellect are integrated and together when they become single pointed with no otherness except the task hand that’s when intuition flows. Intuition can’t be learnt but can be developed. People think intuition is developed through repeated practice. But that in accurate. Repeated practice only makes it easier to integrate the mind and intellect and reach flow state but repeated practice doesn’t lead to intuition

[@Greatermaxim]

There is no way to know who is better period. New players like Arjun and Pragg have real chances. The problem is if you become unbeatable there is no point to play. Our boy Maggie is guilty.

[@kineahora8736]

I think Gukesh will be better than these two.

[@Greatermaxim]

@@kineahora8736 Cool. I am more of a Maggie fan.

[@kineahora8736]

@@Greatermaxim Carlsen is obviously a candidate for GOAT, so no argument there…

[@Greatermaxim]

@@kineahora8736 I can break any ties with boxing lol.

[@kineahora8736]

@@Greatermaxim Im a big boxing fan. Marvin Hagler was my fave…

[@noa7124]

Hikaru is a great story teller! wished he could also talk about his weaknesses

[@TrippyTheShroom]

Now you need to get Ben Finegold lol

[@PlacesAndFoods]

Hikaru very humble. Respectable guy.

[@venezzrok871]

Hikaru is so down to earth, people tend to forget he is actually the number 1 blitz chess player out of millions in the entire world! If you watch his stream you notice how quick and far ahead he thinks over the bord in literally a second.

[@reddd-77]

Down to earth... Yea...

[@crushedscouter9522]

Lmao down to earth🤣🤣

[@howardhill3395]

the "feel" is not to be underestimated...huge intelligence at play, much faster than calculation...feel includes calculation & more

[@scottgust9709]

Apparently the greatest chess player of all time was that B from Netflix The Queens Gambit

[@alirezamarandi1673]

That feeling that hikaru can't explain is what we call a well trained neural network in computer science. Our neural network has ability to be trained by try and error. As you do it more and more your neural network will be making better decisions. And normally it will be projected as a feeling. Its exactly how alpha zero plays chess, alpha zero can't explain why he has made the moves, theres no chess wise calculations like humans do or stockfish does!

[@fangiscool1]

There's severe misinformation here. Stockfish does use a neural net. A neural net does not separate chess engines. The methodology to learn to play is what separates them, not just some random machine learning model. The interesting part about AlphaZero is that it learned to play using (deep) reinforcement learning; the first engine of its kind. The neural net is just a flexible model to model the environmental dynamics because other models aren't feasible to learn such a complex target. You also mean that there similarity in that we don't know exactly what goes on under the hood in a blackbox model. A decision-maker can model environmental dynamics using a neural net without knowing exactly the shape of the model, then use the same neural net to inform decisions. A neural network itself is not anything like a feeling. The feeling would still be from a decision-maker, not a model. That doesn't make any sense. AlphaZero does actually do chess calculations very similar to a human. Humans have internal models of the environmental dynamics in a game of chess from years of training and AlphaZero uses a neural net and years of chess data to learn environmental dynamics. AlphaZero uses deep Q-learning with a k-step lookahead (i.e., it leverages the network model the value of each state for k-steps ahead), which is basically identical to how a human does calculations. Just different models; replace human brain with neural net. The feedback (from Kasparov, I think) was that AlphaZero played remarkably similar to human compared to previous chess engines (stockfish). Lastly, saying a neural net trains by trial and error is a stretch. The neural net was initially trained using years of professional chess games from a database. After that, it mostly trained using ficticious play (playing against itself) and used massive computing power to play many, many games. The neural net was retrained using the data generated. It's not what you'd call trial and error, unless your target audience is composed of toddlers.

[@delanmorstik7619]

@@fangiscool1 There is ton of misinformation about your comment. 1. You said that stockfish has neural network too, but it DID NOT had by the time alphaZero took the world. Its nn was introduced later on. So it is totally fine to say that stockfish and alphaZero used different approach. The second mistake you did is saying that alphaZero thinks like humans because humans have neural networks. When a regular human sits in front a chess board he goes like this: "what would my opponent move be if my move is this and so on". This is very similar to what stockfish does, just like the op said. It is if-else-if. Yes, we are able to do if-else-if thanks to our neural network but we are not using our neural network DIRECTLY when thinking. You said another thing, that the nn was trained uaing professional data, that maybe is true for newer version of stockfish, but alphaZero trained from zero - it literally started by olaying random moves against itself until it was teached what a better move is. AlphaZero ia not doing calculations, at least that is not how alphaZero chooses its moves. Perhaps AlphaZero has some sort of calculations immediately before playing a move just so that it does not blunder, but idoubt it. The way alphaZero works is... Hard to explain, scientists are not always able to axplain the logic behind every single neural network in the world. A neural network in the end is just simply billions of if-else-if that gives you an answer, but you are not going through all of this if-else, you just input the position in ches, who is about to play and alphaZero gives back an answer by calculating weights, unlike stockfish that xhecks a lot of possible moves one by one, then what would be the next move for each of these moves and so on until it uses its time limit. Now, that is what I know, bu I could be the one misinformed since I have just pieced together random lieces of infornation

[@fangiscool1]

@@delanmorstik7619 I did not make your first two claims. Read my comment again. Thirdly, alphazero was trained initially on real games. It did not start playing randomly. And most of your comment is incorrect regardless. I don't mean to make an appeal to authority, but I actually work in reinforcement learning and have worked with people from DeepMind. You don't know what you're talking about. Even the fact that you are obsessed with the neural net and didn't mention RL in your comment all shows that you don't even work in this field. The neural net is not the novelty of alphazero. It's the implementation of RL with a k-step lookahead. The neural net is just to model environmental dynamics.

[@delanmorstik7619]

@@fangiscool1 You did claim 2 things that are mistake. Why lie? 1. You claimed that stockfish has nn, but it did not have one by the time alphaZero beated it. 2. You claimed that alphaZero uses very similar to a human calculations witch is simply wrong. Humans thinks more like stockfish trying out moves one by one. So yeah, you did claim those things. What you probably missunderstand is that alphazero is considered to be playing moves that looks like humans moves. This does not mean that alphazero thinks like human. Perhaps AlphaZero"s style looks like humans' style becase it considers moves on random using monte carlo, but not sure about that. I did not mention reinforcement becose my description of alpha zero includes that by itself - alpha zero played million of games against itself only knowling the rules of chess. This is basically the definition of reinforcement learning. So you have made yet another miatake. You said you worked with deepMind, but you definitely did not work at a positios that brings you understanding about alphaZero. "First, let’s reflect on what happened. AlphaZero was developed by DeepMind (a Google-owned company) to specialize in learning how to play two-player, alternate-move games. It was primed with the rules of chess, and nothing else. It then started learning chess by playing games against itself. Game one would have involved totally random moves. At the end of this game, AlphaZero had learned that the losing side had done stuff that wasn’t all that smart, and that the winning side had played better. AlphaZero had taught itself its first chess lesson. The quality of chess in game two was a just a tiny bit better than the first. "

[@fangiscool1]

@@delanmorstik7619 two things. First, almost everything in your comment is wrong and I'd love to correct your fundamental misunderstandings of this topic in person, but that is impossible. Second, I concede that alphazero was initially trained completely randomly. Though this seems pretty pointless imo

[@MyToxicMasculinity]

I would agree with him about Fischer if Fischer had just fell off, but that isn’t what happened. Fischer had mental health issues and ended up quitting chess because of it. It isn’t like he became champion and then got crushed by better players, which is how Hikaru makes it seem. He also played during arguably the strongest era of chess with strongest competition and he dominated that generation in a way that hasn’t been done before or since. He also did all this back when it was all skill. Nowadays it’s all about memorizing the best computer lines. Hikaru has always seemed to have an issue with Fischer. Every time Fischer is brought up you can see Hikaru getting into his feelings.

[@marcfitzhenry7581]

I love listening to Hikaru speak chess. So straight forward with so little ego.

[@donsanders3703]

A modest man and a true champion, Hikaru.

[@Sandsteine]

Can you pls interview Hans Niemann the Hero in chess :?

[@volty3454]

No need the cheating speaks for itself

[@davidblack2970]

Hello??? Emanuel Lasker was champion for 27 years, and Alexander Alekhine for almost 20.

[@RaunakChitlangia95]

Why doesn't Vishy ever enter the conversation about GOATs in Chess?

[@nissum5179]

Vishy is definitely in top 5 of all time 🙏but not top 3

[@sunset1394]

I think the main reason is,he never dominated classical chess,(he's actually arguably no 2 in Rapid and Blitz all time, considering the insane amount of tournaments he won,also rapid and blitz championship multiple times),but he never dominated like Magnus or Garry or Fischer

[@kineahora8736]

Cuz he just isn’t the best ever…

[@yasheenjadidi9015]

I disagree with Hikaru's opinion of Fischer here. Fischer wins in terms of talent (just looking at his win/draw/loss record and nobody comes close to his records in the US chess championship) and contributed to chess theory as much if not more than Kasparov did. Indians were never played at the top level prior to Fischer. Hikaru did also explain that he gives it to Kasparov because of longevity, which is fine. But I wouldn't follow that statement immediately with how Kasparov made more contributions to chess theory. You can give Magnus the title of the best player ever but it's a completely different game now than it was back then with chess engines. The real question which nobody has the answer to is: correcting for time and the vastly greater amount of information carlsen has access to, could he have resisted the mental games of Fischer? Fischer will refuse even to play if the game is not played according to his conditions and he makes sure he has the psychological edge. Heck, he walks in at over 6 feet tall and worked on his grip so even when you shook his hand he'd beat you at that, too.

[@bong8654]

Fischer beat the USSR alone and that 20 game win streak was incredible. His career at the top was brilliant but short.

[@innosanto]

He may have the best play level, and prime, but some people care for number of years and number of opponent generations etc

[@Riri-oj1zs]

​@@innosanto Magnus is the best and the strongest. No one could beat him if their lives depended on it.

[@krotio]

Alone )))) u don’t know anything bout the chess by stating that - and yet oversimplification always leads to failure

[@Ciauskhaleesi]

@@innosantohow about Bobby taking 20 years off coming back and beating the champ .. lolololol the best was always Bobby

[@henrykaspar3634]

Magnus plays the best chess, but this is because he knows more about chess than his predecessors. Carlsen’s successors will know about chess than him. The other question is who is or was the most significant chess player in history. This probably comes down to a mix of peak dominance relative to his peers and longevity - being able yo progress with the general advancement of the game. Several players stood out along one or both of these dimensions, including Carlsen, Kasparov, Fischer, Capablanca, Lasker, Morphy. Also Karpov, Botvinnik, Alekhine, Steinitz are part of the conversation but probably not for the #1 spot.

[@vmartme]

Gari Kasparov is best ever and still today motivating people not just in chess game.

[@Ciauskhaleesi]

Bobby Fischer handled Kasparov with ease

[@Ebergerud]

I don't know that any player has ever matched Fischer's march to the championship in 1972 - he wasn't beating people in the challenger round, he demolished them.

[@ethanandrews3076]

Danya’s next up!

[@utredutredson1686]

I remember Naka (smallville)when he was a youngster on the ICC seemed like a good kid

[@MrBraveSoldier]

In this topic not mentioning Morphy, Lasker, Capablanca or Alekhine is just disrespectful. It means 100 years from now people won't have a high regard for Kasparov and Carlsen. Criticizing old time players for not giving enough importance to chess and not staying at the top for a long time is as pointless as criticizing Pele about why he didn't win the champions league. Chess has recently become a profession. It is necessary to evaluate each player according to the circumstances of their own period.

[@apexpredator36]

We rather need to worry about whether humans would be alive 100 years from now💀

[@jacks-back]

They did says it indirectly. They players today learned from the past players and are therefore much stronger. All the players you mentioned who were great in their time would have no chance vs. any top 10 today. Really! I know it may sound crazy, but they would be outplayed, especially in the openings.

[@supersillylily2474]

Die from what?

[@kaneramunno4764]

Look at the consistent rating gap between Carlen and the rest... that probably seals it.

[@donkbonktj5773]

Yeah it's unbelievable. Morphy and Capablanca are definitely the greatest chess talents of all time.

[@Royalbob123]

Technology, computers and interest helped the new generation. Old greats like Kasparov, Karpov , Bobby and Anand played in a different era. 1) Garry Kasparov Magnus Carlsen Bobby Fischer Jose Raul Capablanca Anatoly Karpov Viswanathan Anand Emanuel Lasker Mikhail Botvinnik Vladimir Kramnik 10) Alexander Alekhine

[@jesterlead]

Hikaru is the best at 'speed' chess because he always takes the juicer....

[@joeldick6871]

I'd love to see Lex do an episode with Anish Giri.

[@margaretbooth384]

I would love to see Lex grow his hair and a beard, go incognito and be interviewed by himself as a chess player just starting out. A great meme maybe?

[@arax4]

,wWw9----w----WWWWWP9w9w9w9,wWwcwwww9w9wwxww9wwwwww99ww

[@arax4]

,9

[@marcopolo2874]

I have watched him play on stream and I have figured out his exact thinking for making a move. It goes like this: "I guess I'll go... here?" and that's a brilliant move. That's it, no more thinking than that. And the funny thing is that's literally true. Of course it relies on an acquired ability to pick and asses a move without any branching, any calculation. It's a static assessment from intelligent experience. And they don't seem to be able to tell you why the moves are good. All the top level players, for shorter time controls, they often don't even calculate one move ahead. I realized this when Polgar got a win against Magnus. Both magnus and world rank 3 Anish Giri realized at the exact same time the second she moved but not before.

[@Mas-ij3ti]

Well if you have played tens of thousands of hours you have probably been in that exact scenario before and know the calculations ahead of time. If someone asks you what is 3531*43 you wont know it at the top of your head, but if someone asked you that every other day you would eventually have memorized it. A large portion of chess today is memorizing and muscle memory.

[@fahim.foysal]

That's very generous of Hikaru.