Why Magnus Carlsen is so overrated?

Excuse me, but they did not play a single move in that game!

They just replayed Vallejo Pons- Dominguez, Cuernavaca 2006, as well as Motylev- Karjakin, Nizhni Novgorod 2013. All three games are carbon copies of home analysis...

Oh, so it's a known draw. How much of a professional player's time is spent just going through games? I probably know 1000x less theory than any GM.

It´s better if you create a new thread, and then you post your results. Here many people is not going to read it, since it´s just a troll thread and they are not going to bother entering.

I gotta say, I was watching the Adams- Wei Yi game until move 29 and thought White must lose. White's position was completely passive. I haven't done any deep analysis, but I didn't think White could free up his pieces unless Black let him off.

In general, Black would win that sort of position by improving his Q-side and looking for a second weakness. 

I'm shocked that Caruana didn't win, and I'm also very surprised that Wei Yi didn't win. That game was almost as bad as a loss. It will be very interesting to see how Wei Yi responds in the next round.

Btw, thx, xman, for that interesting post about your analysis of Kasparov and Carlsen!

Trying Adams' endgame against an engine a few times I'm failing spectacularly.

Before trying I took a few minutes to assess the position... I have to say my impression was completely wrong. I think this is a recurring error actually -- I misevaluate the knight in knight endgames. I seem to think that a little passivity for the knight is not so bad... when it's utterly crushing.

This is a total load of crap. You're comparing a guy who has been world chess champion for a short time to a guy that was ranked number 1 for 20 years. Kasparov was MUCH more dominant. Toward the end of his career he was drawing more games than he was at the start. I can believe maybe he lost more games, because he took greater risk, but he definitely won a higher percentage. Just go to chessgames.com. I can't believe anybody would post this crap.

Once Carlsen loses the title, his doubters can form an argument.

I'm not hysterical and those are not straight forward facts.

Okay, Carlsen won his title in 2013.

So the yeras so far are 

Carlsen 2014

Carlsen 2015

Kasporav became champion in 1985. You're right that I averaged all the years, so let's not do that. Comparison:

Kasporav 1986 vs. Carlsen 2014

Kasporav 1987 vs. Carlsen 2015

These are Kasporav and Carlsen's 1st and second years as world champion.

First year:

Kasporav: 

25|27|7

42%|46%|12%

Score: 65%

Carlsen:

35|29|6

50%|41%|9%

Score: 71%

Second year:

Kasporav: 

42|33|8

50%|40%|10%

Score: 70%

Carlsen: (Disastor Year)

31|34|9

42%|46%|12%

Score: 65%

Note that I manually removed all blitz/rapid/simul games from the result.

For the first two years, Carlsen and Kasporav have performed neck and neck score wise. If people think that Carlsen is underwhelming based on his first 2 years as world champion, then logically they should have thought Kasporav was underwhelming too.

Kasporav's 1st year as world champion (1986) was "atrocious"... the same as Carlsen's 2015 score wise.

We also see that, in terms of who is more drawish, Kasporav and Carlsen are almost exactly the same - 43% and 43.5% respectively- you can argue that Carlsen is more drawish... bu 0.5%... but this is easily within the margin of probabilistic error.

Based on what we know now, there is no reason to conclude that Carlsen is any worse than Kasporav.

Karpov because world champion in 1975. Here are the same figures for 1976 and 1977

1976:

29|29|3

48%|48%|5%

Score: 72%

1977:

44|28|2

60%|38%|3%

Score: 79%

Karpov, for his first two years, performed  better than both Kasporav and Carlsen. 79% is a very impressive tournament record.

I've never really appreciate Karpov, but clearly I should with a 60% win rate for 1977. Clearly there were some tournaments he must have cleaned house in. And Kudos to the two guys who beat Karpov in 1977.

I know that many people who have posted on this thread don't really care, but I know there are many lurkers who are legitimately interested in how Carlsen performs compared to the past, so that is why I find it useful to make posts like this.

Thanks xman.

Seems the trolls managed to actually convince some people.

Reminds me of when ALIVE started a topic about how premoves were illegal and ignorant people (some who didn't even know what premoves were) were all up in arms about how terrible it was that chess.com allowed premoves.

Kasparov was the strongest player in the world for maybe 15 years.

10 years ago Carlsen was rated 2625 and #89 in the world.

I don't think their lifetime records make for a good comparison yet...

I wonder, would you say that if Carlsen were Swedish? I suspect neighbour's rivality: http://www.dailyinterlake.com/members/swedes-and-norwegians-friends-or-foes/article_6cec1b24-161f-11e0-b62a-001cc4c002e0.html

Kasparov was the number 1 ranked player for 20 years. This is easily verifiable.

That's hypocritical. The pro Carlsen camp is all about ratings and you didn't speak up then. I disagree with you, though. Kasparov was definintely better than Karpov prior to 1994. In fact, that's ridiculous. He had a better head to head score and also better scores against mutual competitors.

So he was the number 1 ranked player for what? 19 years and 11 months? pfffff whatever. I'm not sure what it was, but he was removed from the list after retirement. For most of the time between 2000 and 2005, he was still the strongest player in the world.

There has always ben rivalry going on betwen us and the Swedes.

And jokes.

Here is one about the Dane, the Norwegian and the Swede that should compete in swimming from Sweden to Copenhagen. First the Swede swam. At half distance he got to tired and swam back. The Dane was stronger. He made 2/3 of the distance before he had t give up and swim back. Of course the Norwegian was the stronger one. He almost made it, and was only five yards short of the harbour in Copenhagen before he gave up and swam back.

Norwegian chess has been growing stronger than the Swedish lately. Its the Magnuseffect. I think the rise of Magnus was prepared by GM Simen Agdestein, the first Norwegian to reach GM and the main resource in building the chessclass on the Norwegian top-sport gymnasium. Something interesting evolves there.

About the Carlsen drawish; remember he faces Anish Drawish. All super-GM´s get very drawish playing Anish. Drawishness isnt always the choice of the champ. I think the top ten today plays more solid than sharp, and even Morphy would have made more draws against that bunch.

My opinion about Carlsen vs Capablanca-Kasparov-Morphy; They were all top-players of their time. Fantastic! They have given us great chess! Comparing them is like comparing the Tone Dahl Chocolate Foundant with The Macallan Reflection: Not the same, but absolutely fantastic!

Maybe lifetime vs. lifetime is how a lot of this got started. It's not really a fair comparison yet a lot of people make it. Of course Carlsen is not as dominating has all those people who were top for 15 to 20 years, he hasn't had a chance to live out his career yet.

It's similar to the people in 1766 who said "Sure, Mozart's Operas are good for a 10 year old, but he's still nowhere as good as Bach so what's all this fuss about him being the next great composer?"

Technically true, but you have to compare career vs. career instead of single year vs. career. Carlsen doesn't have a career yet to compare to anything and so the question of whether he is as great as people who do have full careers is unanswerable.

In my opinion though, the fact that with only 3 years as world champion the question of career vs. career is even being asked shows how dominating he has been.

Ok then, 20 years.

20 years ago Carlsen didn't know how to play chess.

Yeah. It's not even good enough for him to win, he has to win with perfect play too. A draw? Even worse, a loss, is a disaster.

Clear sign of being a legend in his own time already. Whether for him or against him you're still admitting legend status... e.g. no one cares if Anand or Caruana come in 2nd. No one starts talking about careers after Arnoian or Kramnik lose a game.