Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

i just dont know how magnus does it


  • 20 months ago · Quote · #41

    TheLastSupper

    superking500 wrote:
    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?

    Whenver I look at him, I associate him with an arrogant prick. And once this association has been made, you will start to loathe such person regardless what.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #42

    alec840

    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

    Extremely strong and gifted player with powerful intuition I remember reading a book that says he's like an atomic power station when he's calculating but he has something extra he can put his opponents to sleep or put a spell on them like Tal and Henrique Mecking at the board.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #43

    ah93704559

    The fact that Grandmasters blunder gives this GrandPatzer a lot of hope. I too can one day ascend the heights of chess immorality!

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #44

    SmyslovFan

    The games I see of Carlsen, he rarely struggles. He may have an equal game, but he seems to know what's going on better than his opponents. He was in a losing position maybe twice in his last two tournaments.

    The sort of luck that Carlsen has is called "skill".

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #45

    DrCheckevertim

    SecretOfMana wrote:
    superking500 wrote:
    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?

    Whenver I look at him, I associate him with an arrogant prick. And once this association has been made, you will start to loathe such person regardless what.

    Carlsen...?

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #46

    Byerley

    The gambler's fallacy does not apply here at all, as we're not talking about random events. Technically, if a player randomly chose every move it would be possible to acheive Carlsen's rating although the possibility is so remote I don't even know how to calculate it. Of course, we know that Carlsen isn't randomly choosing his moves. Even if he were, all the gambler's fallacy would have to say about it is that he has exactly a 1/20 chance of making the correct first move in his next game regardless of past results. I'm sure the absurdity of calling the first move correct or incorrect isn't lost here.
  • 20 months ago · Quote · #47

    MrDamonSmith

    "I just don't know how Magnus does it". One move at a time, buddy. One freakin' sledgehammer of a move at a time.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #48

    Sunofthemorninglight

    "that sums it up!" 

    (now where's matthew11 ?)

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #49

    Tal1949

    TetsuoShima wrote:
    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.

    First you say that Paulsen is one of the worst opening players you have seen, then you say that Carlsen may not be the best player in the world now....well what can I say to that? First up, you should give more credit to Paulsen. Most players at the time tended to play Bc4 and use heaps of gambits, while Paulsen played Bb5 and gave the game a very modern edge that was still played 100 years after him. Did he make opening mistakes, of course he did, just like every other player of the time.

    The only real fault to Paulsen was his plodding style on the board. By all reports Morphy would almost fall asleep at the board while waiting for a reply. The real advantage that Morphy had over Paulsen was his development style and his superior endgame play. In that way Carlsen reminds me of Morphy.

    There is no person in the world today who wants to play an endgame against Carlsen. He is a machine. Plain and simple. There is no luck involved.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #50

    MrDamonSmith

    It's all luck. Chess is just a game of luck. We can all stop trying to get better and just give up. It doesn't matter if you think you have talent or try very hard and study like your life depended on it because its all luck

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #51

    TetsuoShima

    Tal1949 wrote:
    TetsuoShima wrote:
    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.

    First you say that Paulsen is one of the worst opening players you have seen, then you say that Carlsen may not be the best player in the world now....well what can I say to that? First up, you should give more credit to Paulsen. Most players at the time tended to play Bc4 and use heaps of gambits, while Paulsen played Bb5 and gave the game a very modern edge that was still played 100 years after him. Did he make opening mistakes, of course he did, just like every other player of the time.

    The only real fault to Paulsen was his plodding style on the board. By all reports Morphy would almost fall asleep at the board while waiting for a reply. The real advantage that Morphy had over Paulsen was his development style and his superior endgame play. In that way Carlsen reminds me of Morphy.

    There is no person in the world today who wants to play an endgame against Carlsen. He is a machine. Plain and simple. There is no luck involved.

     no bishop b5 doesnt give paulson a modern style, Staunton might have been modern. If paulsen were modern, fischer wouldnt have said that staunton would give morphy a hard struggle because he played modern. Because so hard wasnt morphy not struggling with paulsen. 

    http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1242884

    yes that with luck was a bit far fetched but the point i was making was correct, because just being the highest rated player his no sole prove of anything, even though i never said it is not so.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #52

    MrDamonSmith

    Somebody else said what I'm thinking but they worded it different. It's ALWAYS, and I do mean always, the weaker players or those afraid to actually play so nobody can tell their actual ability (throat clearing sound: the original poster) that start these strange acusations of how good players are just lucky or have some special circumstances that give them an unfair edge.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #53

    varelse1

    Magnus Carlsen is the product of a privleged lifestyle. Having every concievable advantage handed to him on a silver platter, he has slid into the top slot in the world chess scene, without ever having to apply even an honest days effort to achieve it.

    In the meanwhile, honest people worldwide break their backs just trying to keep enough food on the table to fed their families. And in the few minutes the can spare from their hectic days, get on chess.com and look at those 64 squares in confusion. Wondering how those priovleged few like Magnus Carlsen seem so at home in this confusing universe. When if fact, any one of us could do what they do. IF we had that much free time to practice it!

    What Carsen does isn't talent. It's spoilage!

    The moral? Carlsen does not deserve our admiration. He stands as a reminder of how none of us can trust the system!

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #54

    MrDamonSmith

    I posted something that I guess has some similarities as #267 in the thread "anyone can be a super GM" by this same poster. it went:

    MrDamonSmith

    Yes, anyone can do it! Anybody can come up with the theory of relativity. Anybody can invent craft that travel through space. Anybody can run 100 meters in 9.68 seconds. Anybody can win the worlds strongest man championship (even girls). Anybody can create nano technology or cure all kinds of deseases. That's why everybody does do it, don't you see? Because everybody's the same, we just all have to believe.

     

    Anybody can do anything if only the world was just fair and there weren't any mean people and everything was free and we all had everything just perfect and equal for all and the unicorns ran free and everybody had rainbows in their yards. We just have to have a big group hug and get all misty eyed and sing Kumbaya and just believe. Then, after the tears dry up and we all get pats on the back for realizing anybody could do anything if only....... Then we can just get on our unicorns and fly off over the rainbows and live happily ever after. Heck, I'm getting tears in my eyes just thinking about it.

     

    You know the lgical extention of this: sense everyone could do anything then it simply means that there must be some reason (evil societal reasons) that everyone hasn't. Well, the fair and equitable solution could be to have tournaments where everyone scores the same no matter what. Because after all, he didn't mean to lose the game ( he could have won or drew) and there must be some unfair reason that kid over there went 5-0. It's just not fair. So, from now on I propose everyone get the same score, no matter what, a log jam of 50% scorers. Right down the middle! That can be for work, schools too. All students get the same, straight c's no matter how hard they study or try. Nobody should be viewed as being better than anyone else. AT ANYTHING. It's only fair, because we're all the same. You just have to believe...................

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #55

    AdamRinkleff

    Carlsen is using a computer, just like Ivanov.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #56

    varelse1

    Or are computers using Carlsen?........

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #57

    Sunofthemorninglight

    kco wrote:
    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 ?

    him too i guess (can't understand why he wasn't permanently muzzled but there you go!)

    although the guy i was referring to's account is now closed.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #58

    Kinghal

    [COMMENT DELETED]
  • 20 months ago · Quote · #59

    TetsuoShima

    varelse i disagree. i would say Carlsen really sacrificed a lot to get top gm, you know its really hard work.I see even many poor people having a lazy lifestyle.. to be top gm you really have to make a lot of sacrifices, where other drink beer and watch p*** he learned.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #60

    bigpoison

    KingsEye wrote:
    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.

    "Luck" and "chance" are not the same thing.


Back to Top

Post your reply: