x
Chess - Play & Learn

Chess.com

FREE - In Google Play

FREE - in Win Phone Store

VIEW

Carlsen-Caruana snap judgments

  • #41
    BonTheCat wrote:
    catdogorb escreveu:
    BonTheCat wrote:

    On the other hand, Carlsen hasn't really been firing on all cylinders for a couple of years now. Should be a very interesting contest.

    By which people mean, he's not winning absolutely every single tournament he ever plays in.

    Only for Carlsen is 2nd place considered bad

    He's not so far away from his peak rating.

    He hasn't actually done that well for two years now. Clearly there's no shame in coming second nearly all the time, and he's not really dropping in rating, but this goes to show that he's suffering a minor crisis. As I said previously, all is relative when you're rated E2840 and is the World Champion, but I strongly believe he needs to round out his game and improve his attacking play. Also, am I imagining things or has he actually playing fewer games than most other players in the top 10-15? As a World Champion he's not invited to the Grand Prix and rarely plays the World Cup.

    I agree that he was in a slump for a few years. IIRC he even went over 300+ days without a major tournament win. Compared to his peak period where he seemingly dominated everyone this is very different.

    But statements like "improve his attacking play" and "round out his game" just seem bizarre (for anyone) to say about the world champion. His level of attacking play and well roundedness literally defy even our imagination.

    There are things you can only learn by playing in strong tournaments. There are things you can only learn by playing in high pressure situations. I think only a few people in the world can accurately explain what's wrong with Carlsen, if there is anything wrong in the first place.

  • #42

    Nothing wrong on having a gf. Becoming a father, however, could put him out of the top 100.

  • #43

    Doesn't matter who wins. It will be exciting fighting chess. Not this "Zzz" with Karjakin.

  • #44
    catdogorb escreveu:
    BonTheCat wrote:
    catdogorb escreveu:
    BonTheCat wrote:

    On the other hand, Carlsen hasn't really been firing on all cylinders for a couple of years now. Should be a very interesting contest.

    By which people mean, he's not winning absolutely every single tournament he ever plays in.

    Only for Carlsen is 2nd place considered bad

    He's not so far away from his peak rating.

    He hasn't actually done that well for two years now. Clearly there's no shame in coming second nearly all the time, and he's not really dropping in rating, but this goes to show that he's suffering a minor crisis. As I said previously, all is relative when you're rated E2840 and is the World Champion, but I strongly believe he needs to round out his game and improve his attacking play. Also, am I imagining things or has he actually playing fewer games than most other players in the top 10-15? As a World Champion he's not invited to the Grand Prix and rarely plays the World Cup.

    I agree that he was in a slump for a few years. IIRC he even went over 300+ days without a major tournament win. Compared to his peak period where he seemingly dominated everyone this is very different.

    But statements like "improve his attacking play" and "round out his game" just seem bizarre (for anyone) to say about the world champion. His level of attacking play and well roundedness literally defy even our imagination.

    There are things you can only learn by playing in strong tournaments. There are things you can only learn by playing in high pressure situations. I think only a few people in the world can accurately explain what's wrong with Carlsen, if there is anything wrong in the first place.

    That's not a bizarre statement at all, and I did say that it's all relative at that level. Sure, they'll wipe the board with us any which way and basically anyone below E2600, but that doesn't prove anything. To illustrate my point: Kramnik was a better positional player than Kasparov, and in quiet positions where 'nothing' happens he was even markedly so (just as Karpov was), and that's where Gary lost the match in 2000: He made very bad judgement calls in his opening selections after he was spooked in the second game when he was crushed by some excellent preparation by Kramnik in his beloved Grünfeld. He then tried to defeat Kramnik's Berlin Defence as White, and played QGA as Black, where Kramnik just swapped Queens and proceded to outplay him. (Look at the drawn fourth game, for instance. Kramnik threw away the win in the endgame.) Does that mean that Kasparov was a worse player than Kramnik? No, of course not, he was still the best player in the world, which he went on to prove for another five years before retiring. For this match, however, he had prepared the wrong openings, insufficiently dynamic for himself, and playing straight into the hands of his opponent (who by rights, by the way, should have been Shirov, who defeated Kramnik in the Candidates final).

    The same goes for Carlsen: on the whole, he's the best player in the world, but that doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement in some areas.

  • #45

    Personally, I think it's absurd for plebs like us to say that Carlsen needs to improve an aspect of his game.

  • #46

    No more absurd than people having opinions about the strength and weaknesses of ice-hockey or football players and the teams they play for. By extension you're saying that a coach, who only played at a low level, can't voice an opinion about the abilities of his/her own players, and that only extremely strong players can become coaches. Alexander Koblentz was no more than IM strength at best, and yet he was an excellent trainer for Mikhail Tal. Vladimir Zak was even weaker, and yet he coached Victor Korchnoi and Boris Spassky for years. Just because we're not super GMs ourselves doesn't mean we can't see issues. I think most people would have agreed that Shakhriyar Mamedyarov needed to solidify his game to become a real contender for the World Championship - something he's also done over the past couple of years.

     

  • #47

    "Just because we're not super GMs ourselves doesn't mean we can't see issues."

     

    A perfect example is golfer Tiger Woods paying big money over the years for various swing coaches.  Even when he was the best in the world Tiger still had a swing coach.  And these swing coaches were not even touring pros.

     

     

  • #48

    How can I un-follow this thread?

    EDIT: Thanks @ FishEyedFools

  • #49
    D4Baby wrote:

    How can I un-follow this thread?

    Uncheck "Follow" at the bottom right.

  • #50
    BonTheCat wrote:

    No more absurd than people having opinions about the strength and weaknesses of ice-hockey or football players and the teams they play for. By extension you're saying that a coach, who only played at a low level, can't voice an opinion about the abilities of his/her own players, and that only extremely strong players can become coaches. Alexander Koblentz was no more than IM strength at best, and yet he was an excellent trainer for Mikhail Tal. Vladimir Zak was even weaker, and yet he coached Victor Korchnoi and Boris Spassky for years. Just because we're not super GMs ourselves doesn't mean we can't see issues. I think most people would have agreed that Shakhriyar Mamedyarov needed to solidify his game to become a real contender for the World Championship - something he's also done over the past couple of years.

     

    Of course you can voice opinions... and ok, strong/talented GMs can give useful advice to world champs even if they're not a top 10 player.

  • #51
    How many people gave Alekhine a good chance against Capablanca? Underestimating Caruana's chances is superficial.
  • #52
    Regardless of who wins (rooting for Magnus), I hope the chess games are entertaining.
  • #53

    That Alekhine-Capablanca comparison is not bad.  Probably more on point in Magnus' case, but Fabiano/Alekhine isn't super far off.  Though Alekhine seemed more mature and driven than Caruana at this point.  However, given the state of modern chess, Fabiano probably has MORE ultra-high level competition under his belt coming in than Alekhine did coming in to the match.  

  • #54

    And can even the laid-back Norwegian match "The Chess Machine's" legendary complacency?

  • #55
    BonTheCat wrote:

    No more absurd than people having opinions about the strength and weaknesses of ice-hockey or football players and the teams they play for. By extension you're saying that a coach, who only played at a low level, can't voice an opinion about the abilities of his/her own players, and that only extremely strong players can become coaches. Alexander Koblentz was no more than IM strength at best, and yet he was an excellent trainer for Mikhail Tal. Vladimir Zak was even weaker, and yet he coached Victor Korchnoi and Boris Spassky for years. Just because we're not super GMs ourselves doesn't mean we can't see issues. I think most people would have agreed that Shakhriyar Mamedyarov needed to solidify his game to become a real contender for the World Championship - something he's also done over the past couple of years.

     

    To be fair, Koblentz was hardly "a pleb like us"

  • #56
    3SailorsGambit wrote:

    That Alekhine-Capablanca comparison is not bad.  Probably more on point in Magnus' case, but Fabiano/Alekhine isn't super far off.  Though Alekhine seemed more mature and driven than Caruana at this point.  However, given the state of modern chess, Fabiano probably has MORE ultra-high level competition under his belt coming in than Alekhine did coming in to the match.  

    What's more, when Fabi was asked to chose a preference on 90 seconds interview, "Casablanca or Alekhine?" He chose Alekhine. And by all accounts, Casablanca was fairly complacent about the match. The takeaway for me is that we would be foolish not to give Fabi a reasonable shot.

Top

Online Now