FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
Is it just me or was this weeks 60 Minutes interview with GM Carlsen really lightweight? There wasn't a word about why he didn't participate in the recent Candidates Matches or one question about his opinions on that or any of his world-class opponents. And they kept on referring to him as "The No 1 Player in the World" which indicates a real lack of serious research, he's the No 1 rated (or ranked) player in the world which does not = being the world champion, but few non-chessplayers will be aware of this apparently trivial detail - or at least trivial to CBS.
Perhaps CBS is too chess-illerate to give him a proper grilling?
And they kept on referring to him as "The No 1 Player in the World" which indicates a real lack of serious research, he's the No 1 rated (or ranked) player in the world which does not = being the world champion
But being the World Champion does not necessarily mean you are the best player in the World. Magnus Carlsen is "The No.1 player in the world"
They had to pitch things at a level that people who know nothing about chess can understand, even a lot of club players could care less about the politics of the Pro game. Also, seeing as how the name Magnus Carlsen means nothing to the general public it would have been pointless asking him about Kramnik, Anand, Aronian and the rest who are even less in the public conciousness.
The footage of him playing 10 blindfold games was remarkable though. I know ten games isn't a big deal in the historical sense but it puts in perspective the kind of mind you need to play chess at the highest level. I don't care what anybody says, some people are just born with a gift for playing the game, like the great Bridge players have that 'card sense' that tells them how the suits are distributed.
The reason 60 minutes was interested was probably all down to that film of him playing Kasparov as a twelve year old. Kasparovs attitude was appalling, I bet he was one of Carlsen's heroes until then. You're playing a 12 year old child for god's sake, you might at least acknowledge his presence when you turn up half an hour late for the game or at least say well played when he got a draw.
The fact that he makes $1.5 million a year is a bit of an eye opener, those appearance fees for Wijk, The Tal Memorial and the London Classic really add up...
Appearance fees? Maybe it's just all that modeling he does as well...
How in the world can someone play 10 games and not look at board and win all of them, must use some kind of all encompassing strategy or he has 10 brains!!
It was so light weight, it's a wonder it didn't float away. I stated my opinion that it sucked in the thread a started about it.
Thanks for all the input, I think Vease hit the nail on the head, esp. about what an ignoramus Kasparov was around a 12 (13 I think they said) yr old Carlsen. But then again we're talking about someone who illegally took a move back vs Judit Polgar as well.
Has Kasparov ever played Magnus, other than that draw at 13?
Dunno but Kasparov trained Carlsen for awhile - for a hefty fee, and why Carlsen quit was never made clear.
The fact that Kasparov clearly employs intimidation as a 17th piece has
made me lose respect for him.
ALL GMs employ intimidation whenever they can...it's not Kasparov's intimidation but his rampant arrogance & rudeness that irks me.
Yes, he played and won a second game at that event which they neglected to mention.
I don't know why everybody is making a big deal about Kasparov being "ignorant", did you expect him to take Magnus out for ice-cream afterwards? And it's not like Carlsen is the most outgoing and friendly person either...
They played two games at the Reykjavic Rapid in 2004. I think Kasparov retired pretty soon after that. Here's the other game:
And the game which Magnus managed to draw:
I agree with Vease on this - it'd be hard to get too in depth in the span of 13 minutes when you're interviewing a guy who most of your viewers have probably never heard of before. I thought they did an okay job of briefly touching on various aspects of the life of a professional chess player - but none of them was covered with enough depth to satisfy people who are really into chess.
That whole 'blind games' thing is amazing though - it just shows how far advanced these people are at that level.
I agree with Vase on this - it'd be hard to get too in depth in the span of 13 minutes when you're interviewing a guy who most of your viewers have probably never heard of before. I thought they did an okay job of briefly touching on various aspects of the life of a professional chess player - but none of them was covered with enough depth to satisfy people who are really into chess.
At least they could have told about the second game. Shows how good the media is at twisting things by omission.
You're probably right - talking about the other games they played would have ruined the story arc they were trying to create I guess, i.e. "boy genius earns a draw against the best player in the world and then eats ice cream"
No they don't - what's your source for this fascinating bit of misinformation?
No arguing about Kasparov's rudeness however, at least not from me!
Heh, was a bit misleading though... I didn't notice it, but after the interview a friend asked me "so does he ever study?!" Because it did make it look like he picked up the game just to beat his sister, a week later he was playing simuls at the mall wondering why adults cared he never lost, then he won some tournaments and drew kasparov. They ended by saying he's lazy.
Us chessplayers can fill in all the blanks, but I didn't realize how much it seems like some random kid never practiced but beat everyone and likes icecream :p