Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Carlsen vs Top 10


  • 4 months ago · Quote · #21

    clms_chess

    Wow

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #22

    Crazychessplaya

    Fabelous research! Thanks!

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #23

    Jion_Wansu

    owned for free

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #24

    Recoleta

    Why are you leaving out draws?  Because it looks better for the point you are trying to make?

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #25

    ghostofmaroczy

    @Recoleta: The point fabelhaft made is really impressive.  It is legitimate to focus on decisive games only, especially when they almost all go one way.

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #26

    fabelhaft

    "Why are you leaving out draws?  Because it looks better for the point you are trying to make?"

    Well, it takes much more time to count also the draws. Feel free to add them :-)

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #27

    morphy97

    Recoleta wrote:

    Why are you leaving out draws?  Because it looks better for the point you are trying to make?

    Still convinced that Carlsen isn't great, are we? Counting the draws wouldn't affect how many games he's won, you know.

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #28

    clms_chess

    Carlsen's 7 wins 0 loss regardless of how many draws vrs Naka...speaks volumes. I'm still hoping that he will continue to improve enough to challenge Carlsen

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #29

    fabelhaft

    Carlsen's 26-3 in wins against the top ten on the rating list during the previous three years at the time of winning the title says more if it's compared with the stats of his predecessors. Kramnik won the title match against Kasparov in the end of year 2000. His win-loss score during the previous three years against the top ten of the following rating list was 13-8. Anand won the unified title in the end of 2007. His win-loss score counted in the same way was 13-7.

    Kasparov's stats suffer a bit from his eight losses against Karpov in the title matches in 1984 and 1985, so he can't reach any Carlsen style numbers in that respect. Fischer gets a bit closer to Carlsen's 26-3 with his 20-6 in wins 1970-72 against the top ten. 

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #30

    niceforkinmove

    fabelhaft

    Very impressive and interesting research.  

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #31

    MrDamonSmith

    I still think Carlsen has to be putting in the hard work even if he does have enormous natural talent. He gets accused of being too lazy. It's like they're accusing him of puttin' in this guys kind of effort

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #32

    Ubik42

    So, Carlsen mostly wins by cheap endgame tricks and psychological subterfuge?

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #33

    Oecleus

    Ubik42 wrote:

    So, Carlsen mostly wins by cheap endgame tricks and psychological subterfuge?

    No, how did you get that?

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #34

    Ubik42

    It has been discussed in the thread. I just found it interesting that seems to be the conclusion.

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #35

    sapientdust

    Wow, those numbers are truly amazing! Thanks again, fabelhaft.

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #36

    macer75

    However, at the same time u have to consider that Ivanchuk and Svidler aren't in the top 10. So Carlsen's losses against them aren't included in the "3."

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #37

    Ubik42

    macer75 wrote:

    However, at the same time u have to consider that Ivanchuk and Svidler aren't in the top 10. So Carlsen's losses against them aren't included in the "3."

    Thats because they are the tail-enders.

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #38

    macer75

    Edit: nvm, I just read the OP's first post. Looks like the OP addressed that already.


Back to Top

Post your reply: