- 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, you lose something? - It's the, I think it's not fair because it's the, any new generation knows much more about the game than the 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 Lasky or Capaplanca, Lokian, I mean, they knew so little about chess by today's standards. I mean, do they, just any kid, you know, that spent few years, you know, with his or her chess computer and knows much more about the game, simply just because you 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 probably Fisher, you know, could be on top, but very short period of time.

Then you should also add a time factor. I was on top, not as big as Fisher, but much longer. So, and also, unlike Fisher, I succeeded in beating next generation. - 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.

- Next, it's close. Okay, Anand, short Anand, the sheer of, Kramnik is already 12 years younger. So that's a neck, that's, but still yet, I competed with them and I just, I beat most of them. And I was still dominant when I left at age 41. So back to Magnus.

Magnus, I mean, consistency is phenomenal. The reason Magnus is on top and it's, seems unbeatable today, Magnus is a lethal combination of Fisher and Karpov, which is very, it's very unusual because Fisher's style was very dynamic, just fighting to the last point, I mean, just using every resource available.

Karpov was very different. It's just, he had an unparalleled ability to use the, every piece with a maximum effect, just its minimal resources always produce maximum effect. So now imagine that you merge these two styles. So it's like, it's squeezing every stone for a drop of water, but doing it just for 50, 60, 70, 80 moves.

I mean, Magnus could go on as long as Fisher with all his passion and energy, and at the same time being as meticulous and deadly as Karpov by just using every little advantage. So, and he has good, you know, very good health. It's important. I mean, physical conditions are, by the way, very important.

So a lot of people don't recognize it. There are latest studies shows that chess players burn thousands of calories during the game. So that puts him on the top of this field of the world champions. But again, it's the discussion that is, I saw recently in internet, whether Garry Kasparov of his peak, let's say late eighties could beat Magnus Carlsen today.

I mean, it's totally irrelevant because Garry Kasparov in 1989, okay, has played great chess, but still I knew very little about chess compared to Magnus Carlsen in 2019, who by the way, learned 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 is your favorite, Pele, Maradona or Messi? Yeah. Yeah. Who's your favorite? Messi. Messi. Why? Because- Maybe Maradona, maybe. No, because you're younger, but that's simple. Your instinctive answer is correct because you didn't see Maradona in action. I saw all of them in action, so that's why.

But since, you know, when I was, you know, just following it, you know, just it's Pele and Maradona, they were just, you know, they were big stars. And it's Messi's already just, I was gradually losing interest in just other things. So I remember Pele in 1970, the final match Brazil-Italy.

So that's the first World Cup soccer I watched. So that's the, and actually my answer when I just, when I just, you know, because I was asked this question as well. So I say that it's just, while it's impossible to make a choice, I would still probably go with Maradona for a simple reason.

The Brazilian team in 1970 could have won without Pele. It was absolutely great. Still could have won, maybe, but it is, the Argentinian team in 1986 without Maradona would not be in the final. That's right. And Messi, he still hasn't won a title. That's, that's- - Could argue for that for an hour, but you could say, if you ask Maradona, if you look in his eyes, especially let's say Garry Kasparov in 1989, he would have said, "I was sure as hell would beat Magnus Carlsen." - Yeah, just simply because- - The confidence, the fire.

- Simply because, simply because, again, it's just they saw me in action. So this, again, it's the age factor that's important. Therefore, with the passion and energy and being equipped with all modern ideas. But again, then you make a very just important assumption that you could empower Garry Kasparov in '89 with all ideas that have been accumulated over 30 years.

That would not be Garry Kasparov. That would be someone else. Because again, I belong to 1989. I was way ahead of the field. And I beat Karpov several times in the world championship matches. And I crossed 2,800, which, by the way, if you look at the, in rating, which is just, even today, so this is the rating that I retired.

So it's still, it's just, it's a top two, two, three. So that's, it's Karwana and Deag. It's about the same rating now. And I crossed 2,800 in 1990. Well, just you look at the inflation. When I crossed 2,800 in 1990, there was only one player in 2,700 category, Anatoly Karpov.

Now we had more than 50. So just, when you see this, so if you add inflation, so I think my 2,851, it could probably, could be more valuable as Magnus 2882, which was his highest rating. But anyway, again, too many hypotheticals. (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music)