And Carlsen did not get his rating by being inconsistent nor folding. That man has a long future ahead, I'm sure.
i don't like Carlsen, he's fake. Anand is honest
Sort:
Carlsen either has Asperger's or some other social disorder. He is very ackward. He cannot really express himself. Also, no matter what his sexual orientation, he should have someone in his life by now. This is not natural.
He plays some of the finest chess that one has ever seen though. Reminds me a lot of Capablanca only he is much better.
Aug 9, 2014
0
#24
As we all know from trotters64's previous posts, when Caruana needs to win to win a tournament ahead of Carlsen, gets a worse position by move 8 or so, and gets ground down from there, Carlsen was just lucky, but when Carlsen needs to win for his team to win a match, overpresses, and loses the endgame, that's a totally accurate and complete representation of his current form.
The truth is that one game is one game.
If we're talking about the World Championship match, I predict that Carlsen will win by at least as large a margin as the last one, that is, by three or more games. Winning 6.5-3.5 would be nothing more than living up to his rating, just like last time.
I think you're finding reasons for him to be beaten. Let him lose first...
TheMushroomDealer wrote:
Indubioproaggredi wrote:
What Carlsen is? he is world champion of chess.
CORRECTION WARNING: He is the current world champion in bullet, blitz and standard chess.
---------------------
AND....... the highest rated.
In history.
Ok, so maybe Carlsen is fake at interviews, but that doesn't count when the chess moves are coming!!
P.S. I don't think he is fake at interviews. He is just careful. Anand is also careful, but he is better at doing interviews.
P.P.P.S. Nakamura wears heart on sleeve in interviews. Perhaps you should like him more than Anand? 
Aug 10, 2014
0
#29
To not like Carlsen is ok, but to fall him fake? You are comparing a gay in his early 20s with anand. Wait untill he can grow a beard before you start comparing them. How Much tv practis do you think he have compared to anand? He will be better in the future
"You are comparing a gay in his early 20s with anand."
Really?
Aug 10, 2014
0
#32
Ptolemy2 wrote:
"You are comparing a gay in his early 20s with anand."
Really?
guy ;)
79Abraxas79 wrote:
Carlsen either has Asperger's or some other social disorder. He is very ackward. He cannot really express himself. Also, no matter what his sexual orientation, he should have someone in his life by now. This is not natural.
He plays some of the finest chess that one has ever seen though. Reminds me a lot of Capablanca only he is much better.
Carlsen is only 23, so he doesn't have to have "someone in his life" now, and he may just not be interested in romance, which is perfectly natural. Also keep in mind that he is a world champion chess player- he focuses on chess and probably has little time for "someone in his life".
As for your "diagnosis" of him, I am getting annoyed at the rate of people thinking that great intellects must have autism and therefore be autistic savants. Autism does not mean being shy or awkward; it is a developmental disability characterized my many deficits in theory of mind and communication as well as ritualized and repetitve behavior and patterns of thinking, usually with associated sensory difficulties. Savants usually are extremely proficient at one or two specific skills, but there are not that many savants in chess out there. Many people look at famous scientists or mathematicians who made their accomplishments before autism was widely recognized, and regardless or whether they had any traits of autism, say these people probably had autism. People who really do have autism, even a relatively mild form such as PDD-NOS or Asperger's, live with it as a disability, and with the exception of people such as Temple Grandin, usually are unable to suceed in intellectual pursuits enough to become well-known or famous, despite their talents. Only about 1% of the general population has autism, so pointing to every famous intellect wouldn't be accurate.
Some gifted people might appear socially awkward or have repetitive behaviors and therefore might have some traits of autism, but they don't really unless they have the required deficits as specified by the DSM-V, which would mean they have problems with empathy and social understanding, not just awkwardness. You can't just say an intelligent person has autism, especially if you are not well informed about either autism or the person. I think Carlsen is most likely neurotypical (though you never know... Bobby Fischer certainly wasn't).
Ha ha OK just checking... don't wink at me please I didn't mean it that way
Awesomechess said it well.
I have what may be a controversial opinion that I don't think a person is really (morally) obligated to do media related interviews if they don't want to, even if they are famous. (In the real world such an ideal probably can't materialize, but life's not fair) I don't see how one's achievements gives people who didn't achieve them the right to claim they need to know things about them. You get this strange situation where apparently a person who may not have achieved anything special has more of a right to what people can know about them than someone who actually has achieved something remarkable (many famous people) -- so we are punishing success? Well, ideally I wouldn't want people like Carlsen to feel that way. In fact, any interview a person does do should be considered a luxury, because they don't need to tell you anything about them at all.
Elubas wrote:
Awesomechess said it well.
I have what may be a controversial opinion that I don't think a person is really (morally) obligated to do media related interviews if they don't want to, even if they are famous. (In the real world such an ideal probably can't materialize, but life's not fair) I don't see how one's achievements gives people who didn't achieve them the right to claim they need to know things about them. You get this strange situation where apparently a person who may not have achieved anything special has more of a right to what people can know about them than someone who actually has achieved something remarkable (many famous people) -- so we are punishing success? Well, ideally I wouldn't want people like Carlsen to feel that way. In fact, any interview a person does do should be considered a luxury, because they don't need to tell you anything about them at all.
I agree with you. I think media interviews are mainly for the reporters and fans of the interviewed person, which just ends up in the media making more money. Media interviews put people on the spot and the reporters clearly do not care about the person, especially if the person is very famous. For example, I've seen lots of TV interviews where a member of a sports team or an Olympian has just lost a competition, and the reporters interview them vigorously about what has just happened. Not only is the athlete put on the spot when they most likely don't want it, but the reporter intentionally reminds them of losing the game so that more people will listen to the interview. People who are famous are still people, who most likely don't like interviews and reporters and papparazi and lots of fans asking for autographs. Whatever they reveal in interviews is most likely not true, or a minimized version of the truth in an effort to protect their privacy.
Yuri_K wrote:
I like him before but after I watch interviews of carlsen, no longer like him because he give fake answers.
he reminds me of korean celebrities, they give scripted answers for protect their public image. Carlen does same. No honesty.
Anand is honest, speaks his mind, not afraid to offend people. I hope he beats Fake Carslen.
Carlsen might be catious in how he talks, but that doesn't mean he's dishonest. Being dishonest and making constatnt use of rhetoric are two different things.
"Just because you are cute, it does not follow that you are well informed. Of course that is only my opinion. Many of my friends think that good looking people are very intelligent (that`s a reversal from when I was in high school when it was believed that ugly or homely people were smarter and that good looking women were "ditsy")."
" I don't like Carlsen either. Everyone praises him as a god. He's not. He looks and acts like a mannequin. So fake, as you said.
Anand is much more symphatic. :)
BTW, Yuri you're pretty!"
" A pretty girl can have her own opinion, she doesn't like Carlsen."
" i get the feeling that lots of girls dislike carlsen because he is young attractive and masculine and they think that carlsen is threatening. whereas anand is more like a friendly older man that girls feel comfortable talking to and having tea with"
" Carlsen either has Asperger's or some other social disorder. He is very ackward. He cannot really express himself. Also, no matter what his sexual orientation, he should have someone in his life by now. This is not natural."
Oh, don't mind me, I'm just scouring the forums collecting reasons to kill myself. Or everyone else.
Yuri_K wrote:
I like him before but after I watch interviews of carlsen, no longer like him because he give fake answers.
he reminds me of korean celebrities, they give scripted answers for protect their public image. Carlen does same. No honesty.
Anand is honest, speaks his mind, not afraid to offend people. I hope he beats Fake Carslen.
-------------------------
Are you serious? Abso-freakin-lutely incredible, I'm almost speechless.
You mean to tell me Korea has celebrities??
Just kidding. I like the Gangnam Style guy but there are more?
After winning the title Carlsen has scored +13-3=14 in classical chess plus winning both rapid and blitz World Championships, so he does win a game now and then too. I don't think Anand feels all that encouraged by Carlsen's chess at the moment, but hopefully he will play better in the second match than in the first, even if I think Carlsen also will do that.