Carlsen is mediocre - my analyses

I sincerely question the knowledge of chess of the OP and if he was following the match?

Since that famous pawn sacrifice in the Sicilian in the match between Karpov and Kasparov has it never happened anymore that there was a real genuine novelty within the first eight moves of the game and this game was not an exception to that statement.

We all know that Anand was playing one of the most well known lines in that game and both players were aware of that. The OP should get an update of his database of chess games, because he completely missed the games of the thematic tournament in Hastings having this exact position as its starting point. He should also understand that it was never played since that tournament again and how controversial - and psychologically brilliant - the move of Anand therefor was. That was all pointed out by the commentators, first of all obviously by Lawrence Trent, who revealed at that day that he was of Normandic descent indeed.

Who expected Anand to be the first one to play the move that was never played anymore since the thematic tournament in Hastings 1066 with its well known aftermath and all its variants displayed at the tapestry of Bayeux? I think that it was one of the best psychological moves ever in the history of chess.

Game 12 was even more mediocre, Carlsen just got lucky again! Then at the press conference he could barely speek propa English. :0)

Well, Anand beat Gelfand over 16 games while Carlsen only won over ten against Anand, so the latter match must have proved less.

This "would/should/could of" of you Americans always hurts my foreigner eyes.

@Zinsch: Recognizable, yet you forgot about ought and might. I think it sums up to something like the next sentence.

You ought to have taken your classes of English more seriously, because then would your English have been better, should you have no problem with those words and could you enjoy the subtleties of English more and might you be able to add your own thoughts to this thread. (Now hoping that I did not make any mistake.) :-)

I want to know where fla2len's original posts went. He's quoted twice but no posts.

lol

Carlsen is phenomenal, here's my (imperfect) analysis from one game:

Here's one where he played the King's Gambit for good measure:

can't that guy promote that pawn on f2?

He could but he saw that White has a forced mate in 11 from there. 

a 1300ish calling carlsen mediocre.... 

I dont know if i should laugh or cry.

x____________x

i agree, but online ratings don't matter much. Your rating is no better.

@chessph: he wasn't saying he was better.  He was saying that you shouldn't seriously hope to critique someone that much  better than you.

And I really hope the originator of this thread gets back on and tries to defend himself.  I'm in the mood for a good laugh.

I'm already laughing!

So if somebody isn't good at basketball are they not allowed to have an opinion as to how basketball players rank in relation to one another?

so you think Magnus is not a strong player...lol

he's world number 1, highest rated player of all time and world champion

Uhm guys, wake up! He is talking about the 11the game, which is the first game that never has been played. He is not serious at all. You should laugh and not refer to his rating. Did you all really think that I was seriously talking about the Hastings chess tournament of 1066?

It is like saying that you are really curious how the current reelected president will do in his third tenure as president of the United States. (Impossible by law.)

Correct, it can only be deduced from what I wrote in my previous post that I believe Magnus is not very good at the game of chess.  Can't get anything by you it seems, but I stand by it.