Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

i just dont know how magnus does it


  • 21 months ago · Quote · #81

    ShindouHikaru

    SmyslovFan wrote:

    In chess, there's a truism:

    The weaker the player, the more they believe in luck.

    "It's a funny thing, the more I practice, the luckier I get!" - Arnold Palmer

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #82

    TetsuoShima

    ShindouHikaru wrote:
    SmyslovFan wrote:

    In chess, there's a truism:

    The weaker the player, the more they believe in luck.

    "It's a funny thing, the more I practice, the luckier I get!" - Arnold Palmer

    i disagree, many wise man said: the more knowledge i got the more i realized that i know nothing. I have no prove but its my honest believe that many strong players believe in luck. Maybe you sleep bad and bang you play bad. There are many many factors of luck. 

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #83

    Gloomshroom

    superking500 wrote:

     

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

     

    Fixed it for you.

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #84

    naturalproduct

    AndyClifton wrote:
    SmyslovFan wrote:

    In chess, there's a truism:

    The weaker the player, the more they believe in luck.

     

    I guess I suck then, because I believe in it big-time.

    @Smyslov: Well put! +1

    @ Andy: how can you suck at your rating? Everything is relative. It makes us real paters feel extra bad about ourselves when experts say how they suck all the time....Cry

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #85

    Irontiger

    TetsuoShima wrote:

    its my honest believe that many strong players believe in luck. Maybe you sleep bad and bang you play bad. There are many many factors of luck. 

    Yes, but what they call luck is over our heads, when what we call luck they call it technique (or lack of).

    A not-so-irrelevant analogy : when you say 'I don't know' about a scientific topic ("why are there seasons ?", "what causes gravity", etc) you assume someone knows the answer even if you don't. When the top-level researcher answers a question relevant to his field by "I don't know" he assumes none knows the answer either in the scientific community. Same for "luck" : when I say "bad luck, I lost that position when it looked playable" I assume that a GM could have drawn it, when a GM says that, he thinks the postmortem will point out very slight mistakes of his part that he would expect other GMs to have done.

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #86

    naturalproduct

    I don't believe in psychology (luck too?)....I believe in good moves. 

    Fischer was onto more than he thought

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #87

    TetsuoShima

    Irontiger wrote:
    TetsuoShima wrote:

    its my honest believe that many strong players believe in luck. Maybe you sleep bad and bang you play bad. There are many many factors of luck. 

    Yes, but what they call luck is over our heads, when what we call luck they call it technique (or lack of).

    A not-so-irrelevant analogy : when you say 'I don't know' about a scientific topic ("why are there seasons ?", "what causes gravity", etc) you assume someone knows the answer even if you don't. When the top-level researcher answers a question relevant to his field by "I don't know" he assumes none knows the answer either in the scientific community. Same for "luck" : when I say "bad luck, I lost that position when it looked playable" I assume that a GM could have drawn it, when a GM says that, he thinks the postmortem will point out very slight mistakes of his part that he would expect other GMs to have done.

    you not getting what i said, my point is even GMs dont play every time the same. Dont you think they sometimes sleep bad and miss stuff?? that obvious fact that its luck, you cant control that.

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #88

    tesla1

    carlsen himself has explained this .he said i just put pressure on them and mistakes will happen.

    http://en.chessbase.com/home/TabId/211/PostId/4007778

    On "hypnotising" opponents

    Viktor Korchnoi has claimed that Magnus Carlsen hypnotises opponents into making mistakes. Carlsen was aware of those comments when Atarov mentioned them, but went on to give a rather more rational explanation:

    Well, you’ll admit it’s no wonder something like that was suggested given how often your opponents blunder?

    Put opponents under great pressure during a game and they’ll make mistakes… I’m not able to assess how much more often they make mistakes playing against me.

    Much more often!

    I don’t know. I fight to the end in every game, putting everything into it. I don’t want to feel after a game that I did less than I could… Probably that mood has an effect on my opponents. Mistakes are a consequence of tension!

    You strive to create tension on the board in each of your games?

    I try! I can’t say it works out like that in every game. Take, for example, my game against Anand in this tournament: I simply didn’t manage to create any tension at all. But in all the others I strove as much as I could…

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #89

    yistate

    the more u toss a coin the more the probability decreases(for consecutive heads)

    this is not a troll, u were just wrong with maths.

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #90

    eddysallin

    TetsuoShima wrote:
    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? 

    If you toss a coin a 1000 times w/ the same result....maybe u best check the coin.

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #91

    SmyslovFan

    You ask to predict the likelihood a GM blundering. The past is prologue. Do a statistical analysis of the last 100 games of a specific GM. Find out how many times that GM has made a fatal error in those last 100 games. Then extrapolate that out to his next game. That is the average blunder rate of the grandmaster. Whether he is punished for each of those blunders is another matter.

    Carlsen increases the blunder rate by applying constant pressure on his opponents, and also has shown that even moves that engines approve of can be blunders too! So whatever the average blunder rate for GM X is, it will increase when facing someone such as Carlsen. 

    This isn't "luck". In the Gelfand-Carlsen game, Gelfand looked ready to cave in even when he had a positional edge. Gelfand seemed to be expecting to lose! Confidence also plays a tremendous role in chess. If you believe you will lose, you will usually be right. 

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #92

    fburton

    Not luck, no - rather loading the dice. 

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #93

    Feanor22

    The only thing that counts is the scoreboard. You win, lose, or draw. From your results certain analyses can be done statistically. That's all you can really say. Probability is an exact science when sample size = infinity, a very inexact game of guessing when sample size is small.

    Carlsen plays a combination of fantastic chess and exudes psychological confidence. There's nothing more to it than that. Dunno what all the fuss is about. He's far from the only GM in history to scare his opponents into suboptimal moves. Some people just have 'it'.

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #94

    yistate

    @Smyslov fan

    i once read this article which contained a lot of statiscal data on all the top grandmasters,(included morpy to anand and kramnik genration). 

    they did a lot of calculation and comparison was given on the basis of topics like absolute error per game, mean error, accuracy, and several more. plus they plotted some of them on graphs too. 

    one interesting graph included tactical motive and strategical motive for a move, as x and y axis, with dotes of GMs plotted across, from bottom left cornor to right top. so it represents which GM puts tacticality on top while making his move and who does otherwise or both equally.

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #95

    TetsuoShima

    SmyslovFan wrote:

    You ask to predict the likelihood a GM blundering. The past is prologue. Do a statistical analysis of the last 100 games of a specific GM. Find out how many times that GM has made a fatal error in those last 100 games. Then extrapolate that out to his next game. That is the average blunder rate of the grandmaster. Whether he is punished for each of those blunders is another matter.

    Carlsen increases the blunder rate by applying constant pressure on his opponents, and also has shown that even moves that engines approve of can be blunders too! So whatever the average blunder rate for GM X is, it will increase when facing someone such as Carlsen. 

    This isn't "luck". In the Gelfand-Carlsen game, Gelfand looked ready to cave in even when he had a positional edge. Gelfand seemed to be expecting to lose! Confidence also plays a tremendous role in chess. If you believe you will lose, you will usually be right. 

    i didnt express myself correctly, in the latest post i didnt want to talk about the blunders anymore. I ment in general everyone could have a bad day and luck exists.

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #96

    TetsuoShima

    you know there is a game of Anand were he loses in under 10 moves because he blundered. Im pretty sure luck exists in chess.

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #98

    TetsuoShima

    come on pfren i want to hear the funny story too.

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #99

    TetsuoShima

    you know there is an even funnier story. you know there was a tournament in dortmund Anand won. The commentator said it was a suprise, even a GM said so, i think it was Helmut Pfleger, if i remember correctly he said: it was a suprise Anand won because many thought he has gotten to old and had his best time behind him. That was before he became world champion, isnt that weird??

  • 21 months ago · Quote · #100

    TetsuoShima

    well actually my story isnt funnier, I didnt see your story before i typed in mine.

    Thank you very much for sharing that awesome bit of information, that was really a good story.


Back to Top

Post your reply: