I think Carlson is totally overrated. He will lose the candidates tournament to Kramnik, mark my words!
I'm just curious....how is a person with the highest chess rating of all time "totally overrated"?
Ratings are not opinions!
I think Carlson is totally overrated. He will lose the candidates tournament to Kramnik, mark my words!
Number #1 in the world rated 2873 he's breaking world records all the time high odds he'll be playing for the championship of the world at 23 years old no not overated.
If I were looking at you that's pretty much what my expression would resemble as well.
Kasparov said recently in an interview that he wishes he could attribute Carlsen's success to his training but Carlsen is a genius.
At Chess.com. Yes chess openings really matter.
As nobody is going give you a win here by losing in the game in the opening. And if they do they manage to correct it in few games. Plus players move quickly and i am not just talking about live chess. So you do not want to spend all your mental energy trying to get out the opening. Without an opening you find yourself exhausted by the endgame.
I think Carlson is totally overrated. He will lose the candidates tournament to Kramnik, mark my words!
You can't be wrong with your vast knowledge of chess... can you?
Of course not!
Prove that he is overrated. You said it not me. Show and tell.
Yeah, and if it wasn't for Garry Kasparov's one-on-one mentoring, Carlsen wouldn't be as good as he is today. He owes it all to Kasparov. And why does Carlsen always look like he's smelling feces, lol?
Hey if GK mentored me i would have won a couple tournaments also. Hey if taught my parrot my have to taking lesson from that stinking bird. I could just hear the insults like calling me a Birdbrain and that move was a Blunder.
Hey do not hate the player hate the opportunity. Is he the greatest of all time? We have to wait till he has stopped playing to know for sure then evaluate his chess career.
Openings are the most important, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paHdsGkP7nI Peter Svidler mentions that you are most likely to be killed in the opening, so that is where you should focus your study.
Yeah they do, here's one I just played against the chess.com beginner computer. Rule: Don't develop your king.
And like I said before, Kasparov is just too humble/modest to actually come out and say that Carlsen owes him. In the overly politcally correct world we live in, Kasparov could never pubicly take credit for Carlsen's success, because people would interpret that as "Kasparov patting himself on the back." Bottom line is, Kasparov is TOTALLY responsible for Carlsen's success; it's just not politically correct for Kasparov to come out and say that.
Carlsen is the Russian in Rocky 4 but he wins. He just another player to ensure the Russian dominance in chess for the next generation. Nothing more nothing less. And will pass on his secrets as the cycle goes on.
Kasparov cares less about the credit at this point in his life. Remember Russians do not think like the rest of the world. Think about it. That is the reason for their dominance in the game.
Yeah, when I reach a very unclear opening, i try to use to the best of my abilities my understanding of general principles. All great players do it well, so if they wing a line (especially in blitz).
And like I said before, Kasparov is just too humble/modest to actually come out and say that Carlsen owes him. In the overly politcally correct world we live in, Kasparov could never pubicly take credit for Carlsen's success, because people would interpret that as "Kasparov patting himself on the back." Bottom line is, Kasparov is TOTALLY responsible for Carlsen's success; it's just not politically correct for Kasparov to come out and say that.
royalbishop wrote: Carlsen is...just another player to ensure the Russian dominance in chess for the next generation. Nothing more nothing less.
Ok I think you lost all credibility as soon as you brought in the whole "Russian conspiracy" theory. Do you really believe that Russia is conspiring to dominate chess? What would the country of Russia gain from that, besides an ego-trip?
Have they not had a lock as one of the top countries with strong players for the last couple generations? That would be a Yes.
Do you think they forget what Fischer did when he came to their country and put a whuppin on them? No
Being superior is a ego think. Even more if it is slipping. Not saying this about the players but about the program they have in place to keep cranking out strong players. They used to be a dominance in Olympic Gynastics. Russia is the type of country that does not like to appear weak at all. Name a move where you saw a punk azzzz Russian. Never. Russian mafia is either top or a good 2nd. If i had a choice to train in Russia to learn chess i would gone before i could finish this sentence. And gladly raise the Russian flag in a tournament only. I know i would not like Russian food but i will learn to love it with a smile.
Staying on top is no accident my friend. Getting to the top is easy but to remain there is a different story. Ask any member on this to name 5 top countries in chess and all of them will include Russia. Ask them to name a top Russian player i say half of them would mention Carlsen and that is becuase he is a current top player.
Openings are the most important, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paHdsGkP7nI Peter Svidler mentions that you are most likely to be killed in the opening, so that is where you should focus your study.
Have to say half my opponents that have resign dis so because i caught them in the opening. I focus my study on the End Game because you have to finish off your opponent even if up in material in which case they will fight you down to the last pawn. Some even act like they are ahead and you are about to get mated which is funny......after the game.
The End Game is my focus as i do not want to miss my chance to mate as they may come unexpected at times.
i actually think openings are quite important.
The theoretical advantage you get from them is bullshit at our level of course. BUT playing a set of moves will get you into similar positions each game, here you can gain experience and learn all the important themes, wich will make you a stronger player than if you were winging it every game.
i actually think openings are quite important.
The theoretical advantage you get from them is bullshit at our level of course. BUT playing a set of moves will get you into similar positions each game, here you can gain experience and learn all the important themes, wich will make you a stronger player than if you were winging it every game.
Curious. Favorite opening?
Trompowsky
i actually think openings are quite important.
The theoretical advantage you get from them is bullshit at our level of course. BUT playing a set of moves will get you into similar positions each game, here you can gain experience and learn all the important themes, wich will make you a stronger player than if you were winging it every game.
One could argue that at our level, it's even more useful to get experience in a wide assortment of different positions. It's a question of better short-term results vs faster growth as a chess-player.
i actually think openings are quite important.
The theoretical advantage you get from them is bullshit at our level of course. BUT playing a set of moves will get you into similar positions each game, here you can gain experience and learn all the important themes, wich will make you a stronger player than if you were winging it every game.
One could argue that at our level, it's even more useful to get experience in a wide assortment of different positions. It's a question of better short-term results vs faster growth as a chess-player.
Im somewhere between. I think its bad for people to play stuff like the colle or stonewall every game as it doesnt give them a wide enough range of positions to play.
However, i think only playing something like ruy lopez v e5,open sicilian etc etc is enough to give a large variety of positions without changin your moves too much, by say playing 1.e3 one game and 1.d4 the next.
Variety is good, too much variety could slow progress though, as experience becomes a lesser factor.
I don't think the Kasparov Carlsen coaching (such that it was, lasing only a few months IIRC) benefited either player much. It seems to me they have completely different styles and philosophies. I think Kasparov told Carlsen he will have to work hard, and how to structure his work. I think this was probably quite useful for Carlsen, but so far as gaining chess specific skills I suspect it wasn't a productive partnership.
All this coming from a person who has a fascination with waffles (just look at his profile picture...need I say more). And OF COURSE the one-on-one coaching that Carlsen received from Kasparov helped Carlsen; nobody's contesting that. But this idea that somehow Carlsen just MAGICALLY became a thousand times better at chess overnight on his own (after receiving coaching from Kasparov) is just ridiculous. I mean come on, they even have VIDEOS OF IT ON YOUTUBE, videos proving that Kasparov was going over specific chess lines with Carlsen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkIB1ex5irY
How much longer are you going to deny this? Wow. *facepalm*
This wasn't a coaching relationship yet. It says soon after but it was actually about 5 years later when Magnus was about 18 already... and #3 in the world.
You can check his rating progress: http://ratings.fide.com/id.phtml?event=1503014
It seems a few months after that video his rating took a dip (lol). Otherwise his progress has really never slowed (or accelerated) since the beginning.
I think Carlson is totally overrated. He will lose the candidates tournament to Kramnik, mark my words!
that would be awesome