Well, this just ruined my life.

1. Bxc5 (to prevent ...Qe1+) ... Qxc5 2. e7

While correlation does not equal causation, I think the overwhelming desire to be #1 definitely contributes to their greatness in chess. On a sidenote, Magnus quitting at #1 seems to be a foregone conclusion, if only due to his dwinding interest in classical 2/2

While quitting bc you are unable not to be #1 is indicative of traits that might make you someone that is not particularly nice in RL, I don’t think it’s a coincidence that those 3 are the consensus top-3 of all time. 1/2

Don’t think Kasparov and Fischer are the same. Kasparov quit bc he realized he could not become WC again and had nothing more to accomplish. Fischer quit god knows why (perhaps he was terrified of losing?) but he could still have dominated (he quit at 28, Kasparov quit at 40)

They broke the rules

E qui vediamo il lato negativo della nuova formula Champions: due partite in più. La cippa etrusca dobbiamo giocarla coi pulcini.

Cat from afar is 10, close-up cat is 5, cat paw is 1.

5+1*10=15

I was talking about the (unintentional) double entendre of “master debater”.

“Master debater” is not the wording I would have used.