13247 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!
Fabelous research! Thanks!
owned for free
Why are you leaving out draws? Because it looks better for the point you are trying to make?
@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.
"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 :-)
Still convinced that Carlsen isn't great, are we? Counting the draws wouldn't affect how many games he's won, you know.
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
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.
Very impressive and interesting research.
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
So, Carlsen mostly wins by cheap endgame tricks and psychological subterfuge?
No, how did you get that?
It has been discussed in the thread. I just found it interesting that seems to be the conclusion.
Wow, those numbers are truly amazing! Thanks again, fabelhaft.
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.
Edit: nvm, I just read the OP's first post. Looks like the OP addressed that already.
11/28/2014 - Inch By Inch
by ReyRambler1960 a few minutes ago
by bgianis a few minutes ago
Post your game for expert analysis
by heister 5 minutes ago
Komodo 8 FALSE! Propaganda
by GMMatchPlayer 5 minutes ago
I won a Tournament :)
by Call_Me_Loser 9 minutes ago
by Pulpofeira 14 minutes ago
I need super admin for my groups!
by 09145645023 17 minutes ago
why are there more stronger chess players than there are weaker ones?
by Wilkes1949 19 minutes ago
tactical or positional players
by DrFrank124c 20 minutes ago
by LazyChessPlayer3201 20 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 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!