Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Are Magnus games boring?


  • 16 months ago · Quote · #61

    wtf_BobbyF

    pellik wrote:

    I'm watching Nakamura Carlsen right now, and there is nothing boring about it. It's like watching an instructional video. Carlsen played a beautifully correct piece sacrifice for two pawns on b4. What more do you want from GM level chess?

    Maybe im asking too much of the kid, i want the number 1 to destroy his oponents, especially if he is already considered by some the "greatest of all time"

    He is the greatest rigth now, i give him that

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #62

    wtf_BobbyF

    Razdomillie wrote:
    wtf_BobbyF wrote:

     just dont make him the god of chess just yet...

    Funny you should say that considering what Kramnik said an hour or so ago. Something along the lines of, 'Magnus isn't a chess god, but he almost is.'

    the key word is "almost" haha he is a chess demigod right now :)

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #63

    Debistro

    Looks like the only worthy opponent for Magnus is Houdini....the chess program.

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #64

    chesswitness

    It will be so interesting if I crash my queen in the third or fourth move into the pawn file of the opponent :) and then dance my knights and bishops all over the board but at the end of it you will find it interesting but I would have lost.. if you watch some novices you will find that their game is very interesting .. coz they make some real funny moves .. of course the same applies to me .. coz I too ain't more than a novice right now ... :) .. I cannot even spell the names of these GMs as of 2day .. analyzing their games as of now is a far cry .. but I feel you got my point :D..  right?

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #65

    rjb

    This was one of the exciting games that put Magnus on the map: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1272702

    This topic just goes down to positional vs. tactical. There is no right answer, and, really, no player is purely positional or purely tactical. In fact, Magnus himself describes his style as "all-around," per wiki.

    As many people have pointed out already, a very aggressive style can easily backfire at the top levels of play. Magnus hit this roadblock and was having trouble getting out of the opening until he moved away from the attacking style.

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #66

    FirebrandX

    pellik wrote:

    I'm watching Nakamura Carlsen right now, and there is nothing boring about it. It's like watching an instructional video. Carlsen played a beautifully correct piece sacrifice for two pawns on b4.

    To which Carlsen then had to ball up in a corner and hold a draw. Nakamura did a great job fighting back.

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #67

    Estragon

    FirebrandX wrote:
    pellik wrote:

    I'm watching Nakamura Carlsen right now, and there is nothing boring about it. It's like watching an instructional video. Carlsen played a beautifully correct piece sacrifice for two pawns on b4.

    To which Carlsen then had to ball up in a corner and hold a draw. Nakamura did a great job fighting back.

     

    The topic is whether his chess is boring or not, right?

    Wink

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #69

    Elubas

    BruceJuice wrote:
    Elubas wrote:

    No, I'm fine with probably. It's true that it's basically subjective, but I think if one did understand what it's really like in the heads of top level chess players, even the "dull" ones like Kramnik, it would fall within most people's definitions of creative.

    It's like music. It is subjective what you like and dislike, but at the same time, those who know more about music will appreciate subtleties better, things that music novices would probably ignore, or perhaps not even notice.

    But if it is all subjective then how could it be ignorant to agree with either idea? This is why I didn't like that response.

    Your passage about noticing subltlties seems a bit loaded as well. If you really think that is not subjective I don't have a problem with it. Everyone has opinions. But your use of the word "probably" and your second paragraph seem to try and sneak a point in without just comming out with it.

    Well, I would stand by my paragraph about subtleties, because that would answer the question in your first paragraph. If you disagree with that bit then I'm happy to discuss it if you want.

    I say probably because there is a chance my reasoning is unsound, even though I don't think it is.

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #70

    Elubas

    Bobby, you can't know how creative or not Magnus is. For example, you don't know what crazy sacrifices he may be thinking of; perhaps he thinks up of a lot of them, but concludes they're not sound or practical. Moreover, endgames require plenty of creativity too, as well as other things about chess. What you fail to understand is that these subtle, "boring" features of chess also have creativity laid in them.

    Indeed, I think it is ignorant to claim that you think you know how much creativity it takes to be a Magnus Carlsen.

    Perhaps creativity is the wrong word here. If you said Kasparov is more flashy, for example, I would agree with you (although flashiness isn't that important to me).

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #71

    waffllemaster

    Elubas wrote:

    Bobby, you can't know how creative or not Magnus is. For example, you don't know what crazy sacrifices he may be thinking of; perhaps he thinks up of a lot of them, but concludes they're not sound or practical. Moreover, endgames require plenty of creativity too, as well as other things about chess. What you fail to understand is that these subtle, "boring" features of chess also have creativity laid in them.

    Indeed, I think it is ignorant to claim that you think you know how much creativity it takes to be a Magnus Carlsen.

    Perhaps creativity is the wrong word here. If you said Kasparov is more flashy, for example, I would agree with you (although flashiness isn't that important to me).

    Yeah pretty much this.

    Also if I took 5 world class players and put together a random list of 50 games without names, you woudln't be able to seperate Carlsen from Kasparov from Lasker.  Amateurs rely on what people say GMs styles are.

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #72

    chapablanca2000

    I agree with Estragon. He used to play more sharply when he was younger (I remember him going into an ultra-aggressive variation of the Gruenfeld exchange as White years back, and remember when it seemed like he always played the Dragon against 1.e4 ?), but now I think he is confident that he just understands all types of positions better than his peers. He doesn't need to go into ultrasharp lines. 

    Besides, the choice of variation isn't always his. He plays 1.e4 about 50% of the time, if not more. He is clearly willing to face a sicilian or a Marshall. But with most GMs these days steering 1.e4 into the Berlin, there is almost so much he can control. OTOH, his recent game against Jones was extremely unbalanced, but he worked his way through the complications. Also, look closely at his game against Polgar. He used a lot of little tactical points to maintain a positional edge. It was pretty remarkable the way he maintained his advantage all the way until the end of game. 

    As for comparisons to former world champs, times have changed. Morphy was just head and shoulders above everyone else in his day. Fischer was never one to go willingly into wild complications even when he was younger, and his play became more practical as he got older. Kasparov had a remarkable memory and a lot of his fantastic wins were a result of superior preparation. In these days of chess engines and databases, it's a lot harder to catch a GM by surprise in a sharp opening. 

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #73

    shepi13

    wtf_BobbyF wrote:
    pellik wrote:

    I'm watching Nakamura Carlsen right now, and there is nothing boring about it. It's like watching an instructional video. Carlsen played a beautifully correct piece sacrifice for two pawns on b4. What more do you want from GM level chess?

    Maybe im asking to much of the kid, i want the number 1 to destroy his oponents, especially if he is already considered by some the "greatest of all time"

    He is the greatest rigth now, i give him that

    Well, he is beating the second place on the live rating list, Kramnik, by about 55 rating points, which is rather impressive. He also hasn't lost yet in the london classic, a tournament with some of the strongest masters around (Aronian, Kramink, Anand, etc), and he is leading the competition by a good margin. He also has beaten Kasparov's record by more than 10 points (on the live list) and is still gaining points. While he might not have been the greatest by far in past events I believe that he has proved how strong he is in this event.

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #74

    Elubas

    Chapablanca, you can't read your opponent's mind when they choose not to resign. You fail to consider the possibility that when your opponent plays on, he thinks you are going to beat him. The point is, even if that is the case, there is no net loss for the person who plays on. In fact, it's quite possible to think there is over a 99% chance your opponent will win the position, and yet still play on because, again, there is no net loss if the 99 in 100 chance occurs as expected. And anyone that sure they are going to lose certainly doesn't think that miracles are common, although they will take the free lottery ticket and won't be any worse off using it.

    And of course, some people really do play on because they think you can't win it. The point is, you can't read your opponent's mind to distinguish between these two possible motives (among others).

    I must say, chess players tend to be smart, but they also tend to be presumptuous, assuming intentions based on certain actions, despite how enormously ambiguous these actions often are.

    [Sorry for being off topic, but chapablanca doesn't allow posts from most people on his notes or messages so I am replying to the philosophy on his profile page here.]

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #75

    mattyf9

    I think they are hardly boring.  I happen to have a great appreciation and respect for games where your opponent is slowly squeezed to death, and has no counterplay or good moves left to make, blundering as a result of frustration.  We all love a game that shows a brilliant sacrifice, or a winning 8 move tactic that wins the queen or checkmate.  But frankly I love carlsen's style, and I am trying to study more of his games.  Every chess game is pretty much won and lost on a mistake, and while magnus doesn't always go for tactical shots, he simply just hardly ever makes a mistake.   

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #76

    robotjazz

    The article about him today that talks about him achieving the highest live ELO rating ever features a game where he never really attacked, instead he just waited and defended against everything perfectly. That wasn't boring to me at all.

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #77

    sisu

    Let's make it happen!


Back to Top

Post your reply: