Garry Kasparov: Magnus Carlsen is a Lethal Combination of Fischer and Karpov | Lex Fridman Podcast

Duration: 6:40 1112 transcript words EN summary

Video summary

Garry Kasparov addresses the challenge of ranking Magnus Carlsen among all-time chess greats, arguing that direct comparisons across generations are inherently flawed due to the exponential growth in knowledge about the game. He notes that modern players possess a vast repository of information unavailable to predecessors like Anatoly Karpov or Bobby Fischer, making it unfair to judge them solely on current standards without accounting for this informational gap. Kasparov suggests that while Carlsen is currently unbeatable and represents the pinnacle of consistency, evaluating his legacy requires considering the time factor; he points out that Fischer dominated a shorter period compared to himself, who remained competitive against younger challengers like Viswanathan Anand well into his forties before retiring at age 41. Kasparov describes Carlsen's playing style as a unique and lethal synthesis of two distinct historical approaches: the dynamic, fighting spirit of Bobby Fischer and the meticulous, resource-maximizing precision of Anatoly Karpov. He explains that while Fischer was known for his passion and energy in utilizing every available resource to fight until the last point, Karpov possessed an unparalleled ability to exert maximum effect with minimal resources over long games. Carlsen combines these traits by maintaining Fischer's intensity and creativity while executing Karpov-like efficiency, squeezing advantages out of positions that could drag on for 50 to 80 moves without losing momentum or energy. The discussion also touches upon the physical demands of high-level chess, with Kasparov citing recent studies showing that elite players burn thousands of calories during a game, highlighting fitness as a crucial component of modern success. This leads into a hypothetical debate regarding whether an older Kasparov from 1989 could defeat Carlsen today; Kasparov dismisses the comparison by noting it is irrelevant because he would be playing with outdated ideas compared to Carlsen's mastery of accumulated knowledge over thirty years. He emphasizes that placing a player like himself in the modern era would not result in "Gary Kasparov" but rather an evolved version equipped with contemporary concepts, making direct head-to-head assessments across decades logically unsound. To illustrate the importance of context and action when evaluating greatness, Kasparov draws parallels to soccer legends Diego Maradona and Lionel Messi. He admits that while he might instinctively choose a younger player like Messi due to familiarity with their active play rather than historical footage, his reasoned preference leans toward Maradona because of Argentina's absolute dependence on him in the 1986 World Cup final, whereas Brazil could have won without Pelé in 1970. He applies this logic to chess, suggesting that just as one cannot simply project a past champion into the future with modern tools, Carlsen represents a new era defined by confidence and action rather than mere historical comparison. Finally, Kasparov contextualizes his own achievements within the inflation of chess ratings over time to further complicate direct comparisons between eras. He recalls crossing the 2800 rating threshold in 1990 when it was an elite benchmark with only one other player above 2700 globally, whereas today there are dozens of players at that level due to increased participation and computer assistance. Consequently, his peak rating then might hold more relative value than Carlsen's current record high of 2882 in the modern inflated landscape. Ultimately, Kasparov concludes that while he respects Carlsen as a phenomenal player who has learned from him, judging historical figures requires acknowledging how much knowledge and technology have shifted the playing field over decades.

Read the full video transcript

where do you put magnus carlsen the current world champion in the list of all-time greats in terms of style moments of brilliance consistency it's a tricky question you know the moment you start ranking yeah well do something it's the I think it's it's it's not fair because it's any new generation knows much more about the game than their previous one so when people say oh Gary was the greatest Fisher was the greatest Magnus was the greatest it disregard the fact that the great players of the past whether last year come a plank looking I mean they knew so little about chess why do they standards today just any kid you know that spent a few years you know and uh with his or her chess computer when knows much more about the game simply just because you actually have access to this information and it has been discovered generation after generation we added more and more knowledge to the game of chess it's about the gap between the world champion and the rest of the field so it's the now if you look at the gap then proud of Fisher you know could be on top but very short period of time then you should also add a time factor yeah I was on top not as big as but but much longer so that's so and also unlike Fisher I was succeeding next generation yeah here's the question yeah let's see if you still got the fire speaking of the next generation because you did succeed beating the next generation it's close okay well Anand short Anand the shear of chromic is already 12 years younger so that's a nice that's but still yet I I competed with them and I just had beat most of them and and I was still dominant when I left at age of the 41 so back to Magnus Magnus right consistency is phenomenal the reason Magnus is on top and it seems unbeatable today Magnus is is a lethal combination of Fisher on corpus which is very it's very unusual because Fisher style was very dynamic just fighting to the last point just using every resource available Karpov was very different just yet an unparallel ability to use the every piece with a maximum effect just it's minimal resources always produce maximum effect just so now imagine that you merge these two styles say oh it is it's it's like you know it's a squeezing every stone for drop of water but but doing it you know just you know for 50 60 70 80 moves I mean mangos could go on as long as Fisher who is always passion and energy and at the same time being as meticulous and and and and and deadly as corporal by just you know using every little advantage so and yes good you know very good else it's important I mean physical conditions are by the way very important so a lot of people don't recognize it their latest study shows that chess players burn thousands of calories during the game so that puts him on the top of this field of of the world campus but again it's it's the discussion that is I so recently an internet whether garry kasparov always peek let's say late eighties could beat Magnus Carlsen today I mean it's totally irrelevant because garriga's probably 1999 okay it's played great chess but so I give her a little about chess compared to macros crossing 2019 who by the way learn from me as well so that's why yeah I'm extremely cautious in making any judgment that involves you know time gaps you ask you know soccer fans so who's your favorite tell em Maradona or Messi yeah yeah who's your favorite Messi miss because maybe because younger but that's simple your instinct answers correct because you saw you didn't say Maradona in action I saw all of them in action so that's why but it's since you know when I was you know just following it in there just its pillion and Maradona they were just you know there were big stars and it's nice he's already just get I I was gradually losing interest I'm just other things so I remember Pele 1970 the final match Brazil Italy so there's a first world war World Cup software I watched so that's the and and actually my answer when it just where they're just you know I because I I was asked this question as well so I say that is just while it's impossible to choice I would sue probably go with Maradona for simple reason the Brazilian team in 1970 could have won without Colette it was absolutely great still could have won maybe but it is the Argentinian team in 1986 without Maradona would not be in the 5s so this is and Messi he could argue for that for an hour but yes you could say if you ask Maradona if you look in his eyes especially let's say Garry Kasparov 99 he would have said I was sure as hell would be Magnus Carlsen just simply the confidence fire simply because simply because again is just a so mean action so this again it's it's the age factor is important therefore with a passion and energy and and being equipped with all modern ideas but again then you make in a very just important assumption that you could empower Garry Kasparov 89 with all ideas that have been accumulated over 30 years that would not be Gary the sport that would be someone else because again I belong to 1989 I was way ahead of the field and I you know a bit Karpov several times in a World Championship matches and I crossed 2800 which by the way if you look at the just in rating which is this it's even today so this is this is the rating that I retire so that says it's still you know it's just it's a it's a top two to three so that says this is kerwin and eagle is about the same rating now and I crossed 2,100 in 1990 we just look at the inflation when I cross 2800 in in 1990 there was only one player in 2700 category and I told the carpet now he had more than 50 such as you see this so if you add inflation so I think my 28:51 it could probably could be more valuable as Magnus 2882 which was haha highest rating but anyway yeah in our very hypotheticals you