Are Magnus games boring?

its very strange how it seems that Magnus never do something amazing or exciting, he just improve his position very slowly with each move to win every game... he's like a computer...

what i mean is that i can't remember his games, they are not exciting, he usually arrives to the endgame with a slight advantage and then scores the win... i dont see exciting and risky combinations... on the other hand i can tell u that i do remember a lot of exciting Kasparov games, Fisher games, Morphy games, etc.

He's so good and yet a little boring, maybe its the nature of today's chess where there is little room to play anything but the most accurate move...

Im not an expert and i have not seen all of his games, not even close, but it seems that he always arrive to the endgame, never destroy his oponents in the middlegame... so, do you find Magnu's very conservative perfection boring??? Do u think, as i do, that kasparov or fisher games where more entertaining???

i think the only reason you can consider it boring is because it is so hard to fathom why the moves he plays are good. it's easy to see why a flashy combination is good, but the subtleties of positional chess are much harder to understand.

maybe u are rigth, im just a patzer after all... but if hes so good why not destroy his oponents? he seems content with just winning

I don't find him boring, but then, I'm a more of a fan of players such as Capablanca, Petrosian, and Karpov than I am of Kasparov, Fischer, and Morphy(in spite of my moniker).

"Yes, of course I could make my games more exciting, but then I could also lose"

 - Tigran Petrosian

Probably applies here also.

You can't destroy your opponents reliably when they are so strong. A lot of times the attacking idea won't turn out well against good defense, so if you try for beauty against a very strong player, more often than not it will cost you the game. If that strong player happens to make a mistake, then a pretty game may result, but this is not necessarily the most likely outcome.

So when you are playing aggressively, make sure it's not reckless aggression. Kasparov was willing to take more risks than Carlsen, but those were more calculated risks. It has its advantages and disadvantages. Carlsen has found a playing style that's effective for him, and I can't blame him for sticking to it.

The above is my case for why it doesn't matter whether his style is exciting or not. Even the question of whether his style actually is boring is debatable. I love to see how prudently he can squeeze his opponents without giving them a chance, and like that he never makes moves whose soundness depends on bad moves from the opponent. In fact I prefer seeing this kind of play over attacking games.

hahaha i love chess quotes :)

I dont blame him either for sticking to his style, just find it a little boring, its like see an engine play, do u find that exciting?

You are fron the US so i dont know if u are going to understand this soccer  comparison... he plays like italy, he does just what it takes to win, no more, its efective but not amazing... in the other hand Brasil plays beautiful and destroys his oponents whenever posible... i think Kasparov was like Brasil, just relentless

i mean no disrespect for Carlsen, its just that i feel that he could do more but he wont... 

Dont u feel that maybe he could destroy his oponents instead of just win? he needs to start doing it if he wants to be remembered in the same category as Kasparov or Fisher

If he did what you consider "doing more," he would probably lose more games, already said decades ago by Petrosian.

I think Magnus should only make his knight sacs when they actually make sense. Any patzer can sacrifice pieces. Should we all just give away our pieces and call ourselves Tal? After all, "soundness doesn't matter," right?

Post #9: No, I don't actually. It would probably hurt his results if he tried that.

What if he prefers to be remembered in the same category as Capablanca or Karpov?

I don't think "interesting" play gets you in the top 10 to be honest.

I don't know. I think Naka, Moroz, Hao, and Caruana are all cut-throat players.

But I do agree with the OP. Carlsen's play is not that flashy.

But his results are......

@wtf_BobbyF

If you want to see boring, you should have learned chess in the Karpov years the way I did. OMG!!!! Grandmaster games were the chess equivalent of dry toast.

Thankfully, the new kids coming up on the scene are more influenced by Kasparov. Making things much more interesting today.

But yes, Carlsen is probably not one of them.

Carlsen wins no matter what ending is reached (who needs a slight edge??). For example, today vs McShane he had a definate disadvantage and went on to win. He just destroys people.

Well, okay. He is doing great at this tournament.

But usually he draws a lot more than the average grandmaster.

He just never loses.......

his games are incredible. look at the game he won against anand from bilbao earlier this year. yes there is no flashy sacrifice, but thats not half of what makes chess exciting or beautiful. he left his opponent, the world champion, with no play. material even, anand resigned because he was so strangled on his own side of the board. and check the databases! of course there are games carlsen has played and won that were tactically sharp, and of course he's made sacrifices to mate. He plays however the game in front of him calls for -- thats why he is the best in the world right now

I totally agree with you estragon about Carlsen!

Just not about Karpov. But that's another thread.....

Carlsen is not a boring player. He plays so good that most amateurs and some grandmaster cannot understand his plays. When he was younger, he played aggresive and exciting chess because his opponents are weaker. Against top competitors, playing aggressive, exciting chess is like a toss coin. He might lose. Amateurs and many grandmasters cannot play like Carlsen or Karpov, not because they don't like their style. They simply don't know how to play like them. I wish I could play like Carlsen.