12083 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Messi is a shit footballer because the goals he scores are too complex and 95 % of players won't be able to score like him so he is in fact useless because I can never learn how to be great as him and bla bla woof woof.... so I also want mr. carlsen to play like a patzer so I will be able to emulate him and learn from his mistakes to make even worse ones....
You bring up football in the discussion..wow, let's have fun. Carlsen is like italy at the time of zoff and lippi. Strong, solid, accurate, boring as hell but unbeatable. Tal is like brazil, fun, extroverted, genious in his own rights. Fisher is like Germany. Well organized, coordinated, strong as a panzer faust.
That's the way I see it. And yes, it's prbably the usual world breaking difference between rationality or instinct, reason or feeling, deduction or intuition, art or science.
One is not universally better than the other. But one is remembered forever and the other one forgotten. People travel thousands of kilometers to see temples, museums or cathedrals, not to watch a new hospital or the recently built highway. And that's why people will never forget the artists.
Tal, Kasparov, Morphy,Larsen, Fisher played immortal games..I am still waiting to see an immortal game by karpov, petrosjan or carlsen.
All this blah blah blah just to tell us that YOU, sir, have limitations? It's not my problem if you can't see the whole picture.
the only limitations here are probably the ones you have in front of a woman, wanker.
Classic, start trash talking when your theories go drunk in the night... nothing new
a lot of people say Magnus plays similar to Karpov. I can see the similarity, but I think Magnus plays similar to Tarrasch as well. Some of the prophylactic seems very reminiscent of Tarrasch and lets not forget that Tarrasch was a very strong player in his time. His innovations are very slow and pondering, but they strike with such raw uncut strength. That's my two cents.
Kasparov compared Carlsen with Karpov, and it's not a bad comparison. One difference is that Carlsen has been criticised for playing games out too much, while Karpov sometimes was criticised for the opposite. Going by the Chessgames stats Karpov has 124 draws in 15 moves or less, 43 of them in 12 moves or less.
The last dozen years Carlsen doesn't have a single game with classical time controls drawn in 15 moves or less, and the speed games at Chessgames that are given as drawn in 15 or less are all more than five years old and usually due to transmission problems resulting in the full score not being given, i.e. they were in fact much longer.
One of the rare exceptions is a rapid game against Anand in 2008. Waiting for the award ceremony after Anand already had won the event both players blitzed out a quick draw, and the reaction was as expected furious :-) People called it scandalous, something that shouldn't be allowed to happen, everyone should just stop playing chess if this is how it's supposed to look etc, just going by some of the comments at Chessgames.
I personally feel, that, once you know that a particular way of playing is giving you success and name / fame etc.. you don't want to risk it playing out of the comfort zone. it happens with a lot of people. nobody wants to be remebered being a fool for playing risky when you are at the peak of success.
The one thing I learn from that is that you won't consider a game immortal unless it features some monster tactics. Many will disagree.
Who cares? As long as he keeps winning.
Think carlsen has a lot in common with Karpov but
Much more in the style of Botvinnik. Karpov took little risks, Caruana seems more like Karpov to me. More classical ideas of central control with pawn structures geared towards the endgame. Carlsen will adapt more to play the chess his opponent doesn't want to see
Carlsen is more flexible than Karpov
No ways its boring, Love the way he destroys his opponent. Infact,He is incredible.
Chronos Chess Clocks are Back!!!
by ChessFan1010 a few minutes ago
Chess's illogical rule regarding pins
by Martin_Stahl 3 minutes ago
Watch your f7 square
by missjessica77 3 minutes ago
Why can't pieces capture en passant?
by Sqod 7 minutes ago
Arena 3.5 and Houdini 1.5a
by EscherehcsE 9 minutes ago
Bobby Fischer Lacked Creativity ?....How Dare Me !
by Ginormicat 10 minutes ago
2 knights vs Rook
by ChessNetwork 10 minutes ago
I am quitting chess.
by KnightAndMove 16 minutes ago
WHY DO YOU PLAY CHESS ?
by tkbunny 17 minutes ago
Connection interrupted. Reconnecting...
by wanmokewan 18 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2015 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!