It is strange that the criticisms of Carlsen pretty much echo the criticisms of Capablanca when Capablanca started making his mark. Tarrasch said that Capablanca knew how to make combinations, but didn't really understand chess.
Carlsen - not a real chess player?
Sort:
May 15, 2013
0
#23
There's a common, well-known principle at play here -- coming from the domain of psychology. Namely, people from an existing establishment cannot accept someone from outside of their establishment, even if objectively this someone is able to show superiority. To them, this is heresy.
Carlsen is certainly not a classical player -- in the sense that he does little about openings, plays very well in middle games (but so do his 2750+ peers), and has extreme attention, endurance, and knowledge in endgames (unlike most of his peers, except perhaps Kramnik). So he wins in non-traditional ways -- not by blowing people off with spectacular novelties, but by grinding them down, literally.
This is not the establishment's definition of classical chess, so they resent it. Incidentally, this is identical to how those same establishment players would lose to computer engines -- not by classical play, not by spectacular novelties, just by small accumulation of deficiencies here and there, gradually bring ground down. Hence the comparison to computerized play.
It all makes sense from their perspective, given their expectations and hopes. Of course, Carlsen remains a much stronger, results-oriented player than all of his critics (whether his play is computer-like or not).
Jan 3, 2014
0
#24
Actually the title of this blog comes closest to the truth. The reason why Carlsen plays like a computer is because he, in fact, is one. Those of you who have watched the Star Trek Voyager tv series are familiar with holograms and the holosuite and the doctor who was a hologram and was able to travel around independant of the holosuite. I have inside information that the CIA has been experimenting with a holographic projector similar to the one the doctor used, that can be carried by the hologram itself, so that it can walk around and mingle with human beings and use the projector's built in computer to play chess and beat mere humans. This not a hoax or conspiracy theory, it is a true fact!
I had forgotten about this thread, but there have been later comments on the same theme. In 2013 Sveshnikov said that "Magnus' future doesn't look so promising" since "only those who will be making the strongest moves can become the champions". He calls Carlsen a practical player, and states that "not a single practical player has a chance of becoming the champion". As Dreev Sveshnikov compares Karjakin with Carlsen to the former's advantage: "I prefer Karjakin's play. I like him as a player and he really has a perspective".
These comments by Sveshnikov were made after round 12 of Tata, where Carlsen had scored 7 wins and 5 draws in 12 games (and later drew in the last round). It's funny that Carlsen has been so criticised by among others Dreev, Tkachiev and Sveshnikov, the question is what one should say about all the other top players if the clear #1 deserves such harsh criticism.
http://chess-news.ru/en/node/10931
Svesh should stick to 2.c3 and keep quiet.
Jan 3, 2014
0
#27
No, I am sure Carlsen is not real. He is more like a dream. A GM's worst nightmare, in fact.
In all fairness, most of Hou Yifan's games don't sparkle a lot either.
Master_Po wrote:
Wonder if he'll still be vilifying Carlsen, when in two years, he becomes the new world champion?
Nice call.
Bottom line is Carlsen is world champion the best player the game has ever seen. Carlsen is going to do really good things for Chess inspire young people and small children to take it up and play.
He is a very good ambassador for Chess like Judit Polgar he gives the game a good image abroad and Carlsen sends the right message about what Chess is about.
Now all that remains is to get rid of Kirsan and chess gets a new life.
[COMMENT DELETED]
Crazychessplaya wrote:
Svesh should stick to 2.c3 and keep quiet.
:D:D:D
Jun 1, 2014
0
#34
Someone early said it right. Capablanca seems to be Carlsen's godfather. Capa didn't always play the most accurate fashion but everyone around was in awe of his talent, especially in the endgame.
I recall a position recently that arose in between Aronian and Carlsen where Aronian could snap off a pawn or make a less clear move. It turned out that the pawn grab was an inaccuracy and his N stayed offside for the rest of the game while Carlsen sliced and diced his way to victory. Aronian was clearly angry with himself and after the game showed Carlsen the move where he went wrong. Carlsen seemed a little puzzled as if it wasn't clear to him.
Who can forget the recent game against Nakamura where Carlsen was clearly at a disadvantage and it looked as if Nakamura was going to take him down. But a blunder leveled the game and it appeared as if Nakamura was shaken and then lost his fighting spirit and consequently the game.
Capablanca you think ? I'm not sure. Carlsen's play has a few features that make everybpdy remember Capablanca : youth, amazing understanding of chess positions, love for endgames...
But he also love positions that are a little more complicated than what Capablanca would have liked. And he is an amazing defender. For me Carlsen's chess godfather is Lasker : both don't really care about openings, both often win or draw from worse positions... And both excell in finding the move that will create the most problems for the opponent.
About luck and mistakes :
"Looking at Carlsen’s games you get the impression it’s precisely against him that people play their worst chess, and certainly below what they’re capable of." said Dreev
This was said of : Morphy, Steinitz, Lasker, Pillsbury, Capablanca, Tal, and Fischer.
Maybe it was also said about Alekhine, Euwe, Botvinnik, Smyslov, Petrossian, Spassky, Larsen, Karpov, Korchnoï and Kasparov, but I'm not sure...
Wow, I thought for sure the only subject this could be about is whether or not Magnus is human. I find it so funny that professionals will do anything to get good results, yet, when things don't go their way, they'll still make immature excuses. "He played in a way I didn't like!" Yeah, and any strong player chooses ways of playing that help their opponents win -- or maybe, it's the opposite!
The complaints about Carlsen don't look good for Chess. It sounds to me like these players are saying that some middlegames 'aren't worth playing' and that Carlsen is just waiting for his opponents to get tired in these positions in which 'nothing can be done.'
They make it sound like chess is dead by move 30 if you aren't winning or something...
[COMMENT DELETED]
fabelhaft wrote:
Tkachiev writes that Carlsen’s performance in Biel provokes a lot of questions. According to Tkachiev one could try to explain it away by him not being in form, but concludes that there are good grounds to believe that it is a “systematic crisis”. Tkachiev’s conclusions were published before Carlsen’s last wins, but also then he had been very close to winning two other games. Tkachiev also means that the fact that Carlsen isn’t capable of finding new ideas is a long-established commonplace, and that it’s unlikely that he’ll ever become World Champion unless he does something about his openings. Of course Tkachiev also writes positive things about Carlsen, but on the whole I find it surprising that there is so much criticism directed towards him considering his results.
I'm always taken slighlty aback when I read crap like this. I think, for whatever reason, there are some bitter people out there.
Results matter.
Gotta problem with Carlsen? Go beat him. Otherwise, STFU.
Looking at Carlsen’s games you get the impression it’s precisely against him that people play their worst chess, and certainly below what they’re capable of.
Wonderfully naive.