Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

i just dont know how magnus does it


  • 18 months ago · Quote · #1

    superking500

    every game he seems to be struggling, yet somehow pulls it off,wining...... from the unlikelist of posistions... i just dont get it

  • 18 months ago · Quote · #2

    superking500

    this is interesting what this guy said on chessgames

    Twas not skill that carried Magnus to the top. Let's face it. Magnus is a lucky guy:

    1. In terms of sponsorships- that explains his elo. 

     

    2. In terms of his opponents performing below par- that explains his wins.

     

    He still has to create his perfect game which would reflect his alleged genius than his propensity to be a beneficiary of wins gifted him due to ill moves and blunders committed by his opponents.

     

    http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1705181&kpage=13#reply354

  • 18 months ago · Quote · #3

    unique1234567890

    The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes Cool

  • 18 months ago · Quote · #4

    waffllemaster

    Lucky year after year and staying at the top huh?  Sounds like what you sometimes hear against Lasker heh.

  • 18 months ago · Quote · #5

    superking500

    waffllemaster wrote:

    Lucky year after year and staying at the top huh?  Sounds like what you sometimes hear against Lasker heh.

    i know, do people just like to hate on magnus cause he is young and not a soviet player or something?

  • 18 months ago · Quote · #6

    AndyClifton

    waffllemaster wrote:

    Sounds like what you sometimes hear against Lasker heh.

    Sounds an awful lot like what you heard about Lasker. Wink

  • 18 months ago · Quote · #7

    Tal1949

    Why so surprised? Paulsen outplayed Morphy many times in the opening, yet his midgame development and endgame was miles better. It is the same here.

  • 18 months ago · Quote · #8

    Sunofthemorninglight

    hate to break it to you guys, but Lasker jacked chess in a long time ago.

  • 18 months ago · Quote · #9

    Sunofthemorninglight

    superking500 wrote:

    every game he seems to be struggling, yet somehow pulls it off,wining...... from the unlikelist of posistions... i just dont get it

    i don't get it either, i don't see many games where he was struggling ?

  • 18 months ago · Quote · #10

    TetsuoShima

    Tal1949 wrote:

    Why so surprised? Paulsen outplayed Morphy many times in the opening, yet his midgame development and endgame was miles better. It is the same here.

    are you kidding? Paulsen was like one of the worst opening players i ever seen, with the backward pawn blocked by Morphys Queen.

  • 18 months ago · Quote · #11

    Sunofthemorninglight

    you'll see far worse here. currently there's a bloke trolling the forums with rubbish about openings, really bad for the kids on the site.

  • 18 months ago · Quote · #12

    kco

    Sunofthemorninglight wrote:

    you'll see far worse here. currently there's a bloke trolling the forums with rubbish about openings, really bad for the kids on the site.

    let me guess: yereslov ?

  • 18 months ago · Quote · #13

    plutonia

    superking500 wrote:

    every game he seems to be struggling, yet somehow pulls it off,wining...... from the unlikelist of posistions... i just dont get it

    why would you think that he's struggling?

  • 18 months ago · Quote · #14

    Qaazul

  • 18 months ago · Quote · #15

    Fear_ItseIf

    lol yeah, hes #1 because he is lucky, righto.

  • 18 months ago · Quote · #16

    TetsuoShima

    Fear_ItseIf wrote:

    lol yeah, hes #1 because he is lucky, righto.

    well if the gamblers fallacy is true, then ofc he could be for years number 1 just by luck. Im not saying i dont even know most of his games or anything about him. But if we assume that the gamblers fallacy theory is correct, then he could also be number 1 just by pure chance.

  • 18 months ago · Quote · #17

    Irontiger

    He still has to create his perfect game which would reflect his alleged genius than his propensity to be a beneficiary of wins gifted him due to ill moves and blunders committed by his opponents.

    Sure. The day you win a game without your opponent making a single mistake, come back to ask this.

    All the art is precisely to push the opponent to make a mistake.

     

    And oh, yes, he could be #1 by pure chance. Unfortunately, it fell on Carlsen and not on me ; and strangely, he has still never scored 0 in a tournament which should happen any time now (after all, he's just a patzer, when he runs ot of luck that's what will happen).

  • 18 months ago · Quote · #18

    TetsuoShima

    Irontiger wrote:

    He still has to create his perfect game which would reflect his alleged genius than his propensity to be a beneficiary of wins gifted him due to ill moves and blunders committed by his opponents.

    Sure. The day you win a game without your opponent making a single mistake, come back to ask this.

    All the art is precisely to push the opponent to make a mistake.

     

    And oh, yes, he could be #1 by pure chance. Unfortunately, it fell on Carlsen and not on me ; and strangely, he has still never scored 0 in a tournament which should happen any time now (after all, he's just a patzer, when he runs ot of luck that's what will happen).

    ccording to gamblers fallacy theory it might be possible, anyway i never said he is a patzer though. i mean if in 10000 coin tosses we can get 10000 times head because the past doesn affect the future, then of course we migh have 10000 games were his opponents just played badly or blundered for no apparent reason.

  • 18 months ago · Quote · #19

    Irontiger

    TetsuoShima wrote:

    ccording to gamblers fallacy theory it might be possible, anyway i never said he is a patzer though. i mean if in 10000 coin tosses we can get 10000 times head because the past doesn affect the future, then of course we migh have 10000 games were his opponents just played badly or blundered for no apparent reason.

    Yeah, but in terms of likeliness for GM opponents to "blunder" it is less than 1/2, and the fact this happens regularly makes that "Carlsen is overrated by at least 500 Elo points" less likely than "the FBI conspired with aliens and Illuminati to rig all his matches to make the path to World War 3", if you see what I mean.

    Sure, it's possible - as well as it is possible than you die from suffocation because suddenly all the oxygen particules in the room you are decide to go away from you, leaving you with the nitrogen particles (which are useless to breathe). Or that when mixing an egg suddenly all the white and all the yellow part reform. It's just so unlikely it is not even worth considering.

  • 18 months ago · Quote · #20

    TetsuoShima

    Irontiger wrote:
    TetsuoShima wrote:

    ccording to gamblers fallacy theory it might be possible, anyway i never said he is a patzer though. i mean if in 10000 coin tosses we can get 10000 times head because the past doesn affect the future, then of course we migh have 10000 games were his opponents just played badly or blundered for no apparent reason.

    Yeah, but in terms of likeliness for GM opponents to "blunder" it is less than 1/2, and the fact this happens regularly makes that "Carlsen is overrated by at least 500 Elo points" less likely than "the FBI conspired with aliens and Illuminati to rig all his matches to make the path to World War 3", if you see what I mean.

    Sure, it's possible - as well as it is possible than you die from suffocation because suddenly all the oxygen particules in the room you are decide to go away from you, leaving you with the nitrogen particles (which are useless to breathe). It's just so unlikely it is not even worth considering.

    how can you predict the likeliness of GMs to blunder? 


Back to Top

Post your reply: