Who is the best person to beat Magnus Carlsen?

I am in agreement with the growing chorus of whispers in the chess world that Wei Yi will be the one to usurp Magnus from his throne. I provide the following reasons -

1. Age - He is only 17 years old and will get better with age. His rating is similar to Magnus' at the same age. Magnus will slowly have to deal with the pressure of playing as champion, rather than fearless challenger. By the time Wei Yi challenges Magnus, he'll be around 21-22 and Magnus will just be entering his 30s.

2. Aggression - This kid is extremely aggressive and always plays for the win.

*continuation of my previous post

2. Aggression - Call it the optimism of youth, but Wei Yi always believes he can win till the very end.

3. Psychology - Magnus is a great player, but most players lose to him before a single move is made because they're afraid of him ! This could be seen best in Karjakin's match against him in Bilbao. Even Nakamura who won was reluctant to feel too confident about his victory (perhaps because he's afraid of the next match). But, this Chinese kid is afraid of nobody. He's not in awe of Carlsen, and I believe he has the ability to challenge Carlsen soon.

The junior number one, Richard Rapport may have a chance too, for the same reasons as Wei Yi.

MVL

This is a list of the youngest 5 GMs ever [pinched from Wikipedia].

 

 

It is a bit early to write the history on Wei Yi.

On the other players, Carlsen went past Karjarkin and has been such for a long time.  Karjarkin went on to be a top player, though I rate his chances against Carlsen as slight.  Bu also became a top player.

Negi was recently No 90 in the world at 2660.  Aronian, who has achieved [arguably] more than any of the above except Carlsen learned the game at age 15. 

Why this should be so is mysterious.  But young performance does not indicate final strength in any reliable way.

Wow. I didn't know Aronian learned the game at 15. That's incredible. I can't even imagine how someone could learn it that late and become a grandmaster, let alone 2700+.
Yes, Negi has been disappointing. Great things were expected of him. They were expecting another Anand, but that hasn't happened.

I didn't include Wei Yi's age of becoming a GM as a reason for my argument. He is no longer just a bright kid with high potential. He's become a dangerous player in his own right. He's rated 2700 already. That's amazing as it is.

But, the main reason I think he can beat Carlsen is his fearless style ! He has a very good record against the Chinese no 1, Ding Liren who is in the top ten. He just pulls out the most outrageous moves out of the blue ! That and the manner in which he was not cowed down by Carlsen's reputation when they played a couple of weeks back is the reason I think he can beat Carlsen.

 

It perfectly fits the 10000 hours rule. Learned chess at 15 and GM around 25.

The ten thousand hour rule isn't really a rule. Malcolm Gladwell quoted the research out of context. (Also, the examples about Beatles and Bill Gates was weird.)
Read "Peak - New Secrets of Expertise" by Anders Ericsson, the person who originally conducted the research for an explanation. If you'd like I could expand further later...but it really would be better to just quote that book.

Moreover, Wikipedia says Aronian learnt chess from his sister at 9. That's still late, but not that late.

I was not arguing with you in my last post Math Lerner.  I don't know a huge amount about Wei Yi, I have seen some of his games and he obviously has vast talent.  Will to win and fearlessness, if not taken to excess, are positive qualities certainly.  Peter Leko would have achieved more had he not been content with a draw rather too often.

I am most interested in why some players strong at a young age develop and others do not.  Sometimes its health, lack of enough devotion to chess, insufficient work ethic.  But its not possible to say.

On the other side, Karpov was promising young, but not spectacularly so.

Also interesting is how long players stay at the top.  For some its 30 years, others 2, like Lev Psakhis.

And my memory or source of information about Aronian may be faulty.

Yes, even I'm interested in why some players develop and some don't. Not just in chess, but in every field. I want to know why that happens.

It's most likely a complex combination of appropriate vs inappropriate nurturing of talent, motivation, misunderstanding of weaknesses and how to correct them, etc.

It is very complicated indeed. Also most practitioners eventually hit a plateau after which they are not able to improve no matter how hard they try. But, the world champions and top players seem to have found a way to never hit that plateau. (This is applicable to tennis, other sports and other activities like improving typing speed.)

Oh yes.

I am not sure elite players have not hit a plateau.  I suspect hey are not going to get better once they hit their peak, but its just higher than most everyone else's.

A few points-

1 It is extending yourself that allows improvement.  So learning new things and trying oneself out against better players will facilitate improvement.  Showing up to the same club playing the same players will stop improving you at some point, and it would not be long coming.  More or less the same is true of most endeavors.

2 Humans are biologically programmed to learn young, in childhood especially and up to around 30.  Beyond that learning is more difficult, but learning new things and mental stimulation is good for retaining brainpower.

There is a player on this site named Alison Brown who seems to be seriously trying to improve her chess and has been for some time.  I played her a couple of times and concluded she was good strategically but much weaker tactically.  I don't think this has changed and suspect she is suffering from trying to learn later in life.

3 There is a lot of stuff on these points in Kasparov's books on Chess History and Modern Chess.

4 To keep improving, you need to be able to objectively identify weaknesses and address them.  Kasparov talks about Andrei Sokolov, who rose to lose the candidates final quite young.  He lost to Karpov, who exploited a weakness in static [or boring] postions.  He was unable to correct this and dropped out of the world's elite fairly soon.

5 The ability to keep learning and adapting is likely key to staying strong as you age.  That and a good work ethic, attention to fitness and good health.

For all this, there remains quite a bit of mystery.  There may be some clear and identifiable reason Negi, say, never got anywhere near as good as expected, I just don't know it.  Or it may be just something mysterious.

Makes sense for Fischer.

>me

>my games

Eh, these "roleplaying" users...

There is a rumour that their is a supercomputer in France that does nothing but Najdorf analysis for MVL.  He certainly played very well against Svidler.

You know what a computer is fischer!!! That's odd!

There were computers in Fischer's time. They just weren't well-developed.

Hmmmmmmmm ........... I think it's either Hikaru ,Levon , Wesley or Giri

His Daddy:

It probably, Won't be the pictured 'groom' - As his 1st time-apportioned 'loyalty'.. is to his 'wife' - And, Not.. how many 'hours' he can devote, beforehand; To stategizing, against 'Magnus'! o: