Are Magnus games boring?

So, if i say i like kasparov more than karpov im an ignorant?

if i consider that kasparov was a more creative player than magnus or karpov im an ignorant?

Do you think that magnus dominates the world today with the same superiority over the rest as Kasparov did?

You certainly must know more about chess than me but i dont like being called ignorant... but leaving that behind, speaking for the general public, im sure that like oran said, in the future the general public wont be as fascinated with his games than with other masters games...

@wtf_BobbyF,

I don't agree that Carlsen's games are boring, but of course we're just having a difference of opinion, and we're each entitled to our own.

But I would like to ask you how many of Carlsen's games have you played through? Are you basing your opinion on just a few games, or have you actually looked at a large number of them? You should remember that there are thousands of Kasparov games that have been published, so it shouldn't be difficult to find (or remember) the more exciting ones. I can assure you that plenty of Garry's games are pretty tame as well.

Possibly not, but you might have a strange notion of creativity.

If he wasn't so goddamn good them his games might be boring, but he's good enough that it makes up for the slow play.

Not to mention that his creative opening choices are fascinating.

"So, if i say i like kasparov more than karpov im an ignorant?"

No.

"if i consider that kasparov was a more creative player than magnus or karpov im an ignorant?"

Probably, yes.

It depends what you want,entertainment or education? Many of Tal's sacrifices have been shown to be unsound, although the chances of anyone finding the refutations over the board in time pressure were minimal. I would rather play over Karpov's games in the Tarrasch French to get a complete course in how to play against an IQP than an anthology of unsound combinations or badly played openings from Anderssen to Shirov.

Probably? Yes or no sir. If you're going to make a point then you'd better believe in it.

Anyway both are opinions so I don't see how you can label someone as ignorant for believing either. The criteria for liking a player and what makes one player more creative than another are all subjective.

No, I'm fine with probably. It's true that it's basically subjective, but I think if one did understand what it's really like in the heads of top level chess players, even the "dull" ones like Kramnik, it would fall within most people's definitions of creative.

It's like music. It is subjective what you like and dislike, but at the same time, those who know more about music will appreciate subtleties better, things that music novices would probably ignore, or perhaps not even notice.

wtf bobbyF  wrote:

"Im not sugesting that he should give away his pieces like a patzer, im just saying that if you are far superior than your oponent you can destroy him... if you are not then you cant... if you are forced to arrive to the endgame then you did not prove you are that far superior..."

Magnus Carlsen has a game plan, and he sticks to it.

He is the best in the world at endgames, and he exploits that advantage to its fullest. The top players are at a loss to solve this problem. 

Many naturally think "I know! I'll mate him before it reaches an endgame!" These are the most dangerous attacking players in the world, mind you. But time and again, magnus fend off their attacks and notches up another point.

And until somebody does figure out how to solve this, he will continue to be #1.

Magnus's games are least boring of all these days.

If there is anyone who is continuously fighting to win his games, he is the very man.

These days, for many, many top players, one of the biggest temptations is to focus too much on PREPARING chess with engines.

Magnus has very well understood that chess today still can be about PLAYING and FIGHTING chess by outwitting your opponent over the board.

By reaching positions that he has a great chance of handling better than his opponents. And by playing positions in which preparation of his opponents is not a relevant advantage.

It is great that Magnus has been working with Garry for some time. But is was great to see how consequently Magnus ended that training relationship after some time, knowing fully well that the real efficient advantages of chess nowadays are found beyond pure search of perfection in engine-based preparation.

Very notable is to see how often modern top players are talking about things that are not given by computer evaluations --- things that are relevant because they make the difference these days. How often have they been saying things like: This position is equal according to the engine, of course. But there are so many possible moves, it is not possible to prepare a single line. And this position is much easier to play for white, in a battle of humans over the board...

But if it is all subjective then how could it be ignorant to agree with either idea? This is why I didn't like that response.

Your passage about noticing subltlties seems a bit loaded as well. If you really think that is not subjective I don't have a problem with it. Everyone has opinions. But your use of the word "probably" and your second paragraph seem to try and sneak a point in without just comming out with it.

If one doesn't know something for sure but is able to make an educated guess, then "probably" seems a perfectly fine wording.

You simply don't understand the subtleties of chess.

All right, everyone is assuming that i think things i didnt actually said, please dont put words in my mouth. I did not said Magnus is not creative, of course every top super GM is creative, but some are more than others... they are all excellent players, but some dominate the others... if i enjoy Sebastian Bach's music more than Chopin's music, and if i think that Bach's is more creative as a composer than Chopin, that doesnt mean im saying that Chopin is a bad composer and that he is not creative, im comparing titans you know...

Im not comparing Magnus with Naka or Caruana, im comparing Magnus to Kasparov, Fisher, Karpov... to put him in that group its a compliment... he has yet to prove he belongs there with at least 6 or 7 more years of consistency...

Also being the most creative player doesnt mean you are going to be the best... there are players that can be super creative and super strong in 2 or 3 games and then play a very bad one, they not have endurance, his nerves crack, maybe they are phisically weak and get sick a lot so they cant have the consistency required to be number 1... if one player is more creative than another that does not necessarily mean he is better in the long run ok?

Magnus is a machine at playing chess, and he is the king right now, nobody can argue that... but i still think that he is not as creative as Kasparov, and not as entertaining... but he is very young and maybe still improving so who knows? just dont make him the god of chess just yet...

Funny you should say that considering what Kramnik said an hour or so ago. Something along the lines of, 'Magnus isn't a chess god, but he almost is.'

This is a good point, he knows he is very strong mental and phisically, he knows of his incredible endurance, so he knows that the longer the game gets the most likely that his oponent is going to crack, so he has advantage in long exhausting games and he conducts his games there... he is more a marathon runner than a 100 mts runner... 

Maybe im asking too much of the kid, i want the number 1 to destroy his oponents, especially if he is already considered by some the "greatest of all time"

He is the greatest rigth now, i give him that

the key word is "almost" haha he is a chess demigod right now :)

Looks like the only worthy opponent for Magnus is Houdini....the chess program.

It will be so interesting if I crash my queen in the third or fourth move into the pawn file of the opponent :) and then dance my knights and bishops all over the board but at the end of it you will find it interesting but I would have lost.. if you watch some novices you will find that their game is very interesting .. coz they make some real funny moves .. of course the same applies to me .. coz I too ain't more than a novice right now ... :) .. I cannot even spell the names of these GMs as of 2day .. analyzing their games as of now is a far cry .. but I feel you got my point :D..  right?