Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

i just dont know how magnus does it


  • 22 months ago · Quote · #21

    APawnCanDream

    I think Carlsen is just a pioneer in advancing chess, just like Morphy was in his time, just like Capablanca was in his time, just like Fischer was in his time, Karpov, and Kasparov. They were ahead of their peers and  pathed the way for others to follow them. Carlsen is no more lucky than any of the other chess greats of the past, just listening to him go over games and the possible variations and why one might be better than another demonstrates his intimate knowledge of the game.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #22

    Irontiger

    TetsuoShima wrote:

    how can you predict the likeliness of GMs to blunder? 

    Based on analysing of few of their games, I would say evaluating it at 1% per game is already not very nice for them. (of course, the real question is what is a blunder).

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #23

    waffllemaster

    paulgottlieb wrote:

    The "Gambler's Fallacy" doesn't apply to chess. In the gamblers fallacy, a player can just keep picking up great cards, of keep getting lucky rolls of the dice. In chess, every player gets the same cards every time, and there are no dice.

    The explanation that he is just the lucky benificiary of a stream of blunders from the best players in the world is just too stupid. In fact, the only thing those comments reveal is that the writer is incapable of seeing what actually goes on in Carlsen's games

    That sums it up nicely.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #24

    TetsuoShima

    No it doesnt sum it up im not saying he is a weak player a, besides getting a random number of random strangers agreeing doesnt make you any more right.

    But he could also be like number 10 and just be lucky. I also never said it is necessarily so, im just saying it was a theoritic possibility and the theory  applies to chess in the case i outlined. 

    Also I never said it was so im just saying it could be a possibility. I also said i never watched his games, just that it was a possibility and number 1 doesnt necessarily mean best player.

    But just calling an idea stupid betrays minds father and use proxy statements i never said shows your intellectual dishonesty.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #25

    TetsuoShima

    Moses2792796 wrote:

    Intellectual dishonesty would be claiming that Carlsen is 'lucky' to be number 1 without reviewing the evidence, ie. the games.  Anyone who follows his games will see how ridiculous this theory is.

    i said i never reviewed them, i said it was a theoretic possibility.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #26

    TetsuoShima

    paulgottlieb wrote:

    Sometimes, intellectual honesty requires one to call a stupid ideas stupid. There is a mass of empirical evidence, in the form of hundreds of Carlsen games. To "theorize" about nonsense like the "gambler's fallacy" while ignoring all that evidence is, well, stupid!

    that wasnt the point. the point was that someone said he being number 1 is the prove that its not luck. While my theory isnt stupid, its a valid point because its a possibility.

    Just because something is the most obvious or most likely answer doesnt mean its the correct answer. Its sad and somehow scary that even chessplayers only think in shallow terms.

    Its obviously not stupid its an absolute valid point.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #27

    SmyslovFan

    We aren't talking about a string of games, we're talking about strings of moves. The odds of being lucky for so many moves is astronomically small. 

    That is, to say, "well, theoretically, it's possible it's just luck", shows both a lack of understanding of theory and probabilities. As an exercise, work out exactly the probability of Carlsen playing well purely by chance. Not per game, but per move. Then, figure out what else operates at that level of probability. 

    You will find that there really isn't anything in theory that explains such probabilities by claiming "luck".

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #28

    APawnCanDream

    TetsuoShima wrote:

    No it doesnt sum it up im not saying he is a weak player a, besides getting a random number of random strangers agreeing doesnt make you any more right.

    But he could also be like number 10 and just be lucky. I also never said it is necessarily so, im just saying it was a theoritic possibility and the theory  applies to chess in the case i outlined. 

    Also I never said it was so im just saying it could be a possibility. I also said i never watched his games, just that it was a possibility and number 1 doesnt necessarily mean best player.

    But just calling an idea stupid betrays minds father and use proxy statements i never said shows your intellectual dishonesty.

    Would you also say then that it is possible that Kasparov was at the top of the chess world for over a decade by luck, too? The word lucky is so easily thrown around these days, even in events that aren't based on luck like chess. If Carlsen is "lucky" for numerous people making mistakes in their games against him then we could then say that no chess game is won outside of luck that your opponent blundered. Chess is void of luck however, because the players have the only direct influence on the moves that are made. It isn't like poker where you are given a bad hand, the cards don't play out like you need them to, and you lose. Chess starts with everyone on equal footing and the outcome is determined by the moves the players make during the course of the game. There is no random or chance act in chess, everything is directly related to the moves each player makes in the game and thereore no luck is involved.

    Carlsen isn't lucky that he has the highest rating by a significant margin and for quite a long time now. It is because he is stronger than his peers right now. Luck has nothing to do with Carlsen's, or anyone's, chess.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #29

    plutonia

    Even assuming Carlsen wins because his opponents blunder (that I do not believe), it makes no sense talking about "luck". If you're a decent player you should know that blunders do not come from bad luck.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #30

    TetsuoShima

    i think i somewere missed the point, but you also. The original statement was i think he  is the best player because he was number one .

    You really want to tell me it cant be luck and in reality he could be number 2 player?? you really want to tell me that is totally impossible??? there is no chance in the world he could have been number 2 player????

    @ plutionia why did Ivanchuk blunder against kramnik in blitz???

    do you think that came from the pressure or having a winning position?

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #31

    TetsuoShima

    jempty_method wrote:

    Everybody realizes they're being trolled by the same person who in this other thread who kept insisting Karpov was boring, despite a bunch of games being posted, kept saying it over and over, never let on that he had or hadn't played over the games that were posted, etc.

    http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/i-just-dont-know-how-magnus-does-it?quote_id=12561372&page=1

    jempty what does that have to do with anything? am i trolling when i say i dont like the color blue? or i find mobby dick boring?

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #32

    Suvel

    He is considered a genius because of his memory

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #33

    TetsuoShima

    I also didnt say he isnt the best, i just said its a possibility.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #34

    Irontiger

    When the possibility comes under 0.0000001 % it might be time to tell it is "impossible".

    Not quite correct on a theoretical point of view, but more useful on a practical point of view.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #35

    plutonia

    TetsuoShima wrote:

    @ plutionia why did Ivanchuk blunder against kramnik in blitz???

    do you think that came from the pressure or having a winning position?

     

    I don't know what game you're talking about, but I highlighted the issue in your post.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #36

    conejiux

    There is a big tree of possibilities in each move that all depends on the talent and capacity of the player. If one can see 3 o 4 complete moves ahead, but the opponent can see 6 o 7 (one or two more), sure the second player gonna win. There's no luck in chess, and like the Beatles, I say: The moves you make are equal to the wins you take…

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #37

    TetsuoShima

    jempty_method wrote:
    TetsuoShima wrote:
    jempty_method wrote:

    Everybody realizes they're being trolled by the same person who in this other thread who kept insisting Karpov was boring, despite a bunch of games being posted, kept saying it over and over, never let on that he had or hadn't played over the games that were posted, etc.

    http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/i-just-dont-know-how-magnus-does-it?quote_id=12561372&page=1

    jempty what does that have to do with anything? am i trolling when i say i dont like the color blue? or i find mobby dick boring?

    It shows you have a propensity for disparaging the acheivements of chess world champions, or those more than likely soon to be.  You really think that goes over well on a chess site?

    yes you are right, i should accept the dictatorship of the majority. 

    Karpov was just beautiful, i never saw someone move a bishop like he did and of course Carlsen is the very best who ever lived.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #38

    ilikeflags

    [COMMENT DELETED]
  • 22 months ago · Quote · #39

    ilikeflags

    [COMMENT DELETED]
  • 22 months ago · Quote · #40

    Irontiger

    [COMMENT DELETED]

Back to Top

Post your reply: