Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

KASPAROV VS CARLSEN WHO CAN DESTROY THE OTHER ??


  • 13 months ago · Quote · #181

    AndyClifton

    Wow, Nizman looks different than I remember him.

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #182

    yourChess

    I do not think it is possible to compare these two players. '

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #183

    AndyClifton

    Or from Audel's Diesel Engine Manual?

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #184

    McNastyMac

    Nizman, I suggest that you take a look at Carlsen's last game against Aronian at the Sinquefield Cup 2013. He grinds to a 0.3 advantage (according to Houdini) to win the second highest player (now third) in the world. If that isn't impressive, I don't know what could be.

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #185

    Nizman

    @Andy I've changed now no more trouble. Carlsen pulled off an incredible win but fischer quited chess because of gazza

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #186

    sapientdust

    Nizman wrote:

    @Andy I've changed now no more trouble. Carlsen pulled off an incredible win but fischer quited chess because of gazza

    Was Gazza a time traveller, or did Fischer already know in 1975 how strong Kasparov would be 10 or 15 years in the future?

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #187

    sapientdust

    Savage wrote:

    Carlsen's most impressive achievement is making Petrosian look like a firebrand.

    Apart from achieving #1 on the rating list at 19 (the youngest ever, by far), achieving the highest rating ever at age 22, winning 12 of his last 18 tournaments, ...

    Reg: All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #188

    sapientdust

    Savage wrote:

    Ratings are so inflated these days that the "highest rating ever" thing should really have an asterisk attached. That he's won tournaments is not in dispute; I was making the simple point that he's boring as batshit, if not more so.

    Actually, you implied he had no impressive accomplishments, which is factually wrong, as you well know.

    Whether his play is boring is of course a subjective matter, but suffice it to say, many super-GMs and other players far stronger than you or me find his play very interesting.

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #189

    Spiritbro77

    Are you talking both players in their prime or in present day? In thier prime I'd guess Kasparov. But that's just a guess. Today the younger player Carlsen would most likely triumph. It's a shame we can't travel through time, collecting all the greats and assembling them into one huge tournament. Then all the conjecture over who was best could be proven. Get them all right at the height of their ability....

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #190

    ISHAKUSAMAILA

    Carlsen has a long way to go.

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #191

    Estragon

    Savage wrote:
    sapientdust wrote:
    many super-GMs and other players far stronger than you or me find his play very interesting.

    If you say so. But as far as the future of chess is concerned, the opinion of fans counts for far more than that of super GMs.

     

    Your point is taken, BUT Carlsen is the hottest thing to hit chess since Fischer already.  He's a fashion model in his spare time, and draws crowds to the events he attends. 

    It seems that bringing people into chess isn't so much about the actual games, new people aren't able to understand such things.  But they understand winning, and young attractive stars upsetting the established order in a sport.

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #192

    fabelhaft

    Savage wrote:

    Ratings are so inflated these days that the "highest rating ever" thing should really have an asterisk attached. That he's won tournaments is not in dispute; I was making the simple point that he's boring as batshit, if not more so.

    That depends on what you compare with. During their reigns as World Champions both Anand and Kramnik were seen as boring, and they didn't exactly win tournaments the way Carlsen is doing either. Topalov has been "exciting" but on the other hand a bit more unsound in his play.

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #193

    fabelhaft

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #194

    beardogjones

    Carlsen takes over the game - exactly when the other player is ready to

    relax and accept the draw. His tactical ability especially near the ending is sometimes scary at times.

    His openings put him at a slight disadvantage in many instances that he fights

    out of because he finds the opponent loses his way due to unfamiliarity.

    In the candidates match he showed some real weaknesses on king saftey

    - I'm sure something Anand is looking at - especially given Anand's ability to play on multiple fronts.

    ==========

    Carlsen's biggest strength IMHO is  he does not take chess to be more or less than

    the game it is - he does not have romantic theories about it or require it to entertain him in some way.

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #195

    AndyClifton

    sapientdust wrote:
    All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

    They gave us a marvelous party theme (although not so good in colder climes).

  • 10 months ago · Quote · #196

    Nizman

    point!

  • 10 months ago · Quote · #197

    macer75

    I'm surprised that nobody bumped this thread until now!

  • 5 months ago · Quote · #198

    Nizman

    it stil lives. This carlsen and the kasparov of 90's hahahahaha i would watch the match like no mans business lol


Back to Top

Post your reply: