Carlsen's style is not entertaining. It is boring as hell in most of the cases and completely unaccessible to understand by people rated under 2000.
Yes, everybody knows that people rated under 2000 have many difficulties in understanding Carlsen's style but face no problems when fully understanding Kasparov or Fischer or bla bla... for example you
You somehow fail at quoting.
Yes, I took it from your comment at the top of the page and didn't see it.
Most professional games are boring compared to the wild scrambles of amateur games. Like some people find NFL games boring compared to college football. A small number of GM's captivate us with their active play. Fischer, Tal, Kasparov. I find Karpov's games beautiful, but they would be boring to watch in progress. Action excites.
Why dont you comment on my specific statements instead of stopping at the surface ? Because you have no arguments. And of course I insult. Most of you are a bunch of conformists
I refuse to read your comments, and deduce my I.Q. rating.
Go play against a cabbage, you have chances drawing one game out of many.
If your IQ is so vulnerable then I suggest you lock yourself in a bunker and spend the rest of your life meditating.
I expressed my point of view in regards of a Grand Master and the reason I did it in a bitter way is because I feel anger when I realize that people like Carlsen only because he is inaccessible to their understanding and because he is the world's number 1. If tomorrow a Mister XY became the new worldchampion, everybody would just stop considering the existence of carlsen and start following the newcomer.
The ridiculous thing is that there is almost NOTHING that an amateur can learn from a guy like Carlsen, because the complexity he creates on the board is something that we normal players will never reach. Most of the people on here just play chess for the fun and in that case the games of Morphy, Tal and CApablanca are way more exciting and instructive.
And at the same time I still am convinced that people like Tal and Fisher at the top of their carreer would have beaten Carlsen without many problems.
Carlsen's play is too deep for the stupid.
From the introduction to Spielmann's book: The Art of Sacrifice in Chess:
"The beauty of a game of chess is usually appraised, and with good reason, according to the sacrifices it contains. Sacrifice--a hallowed, heroic concept! Advancing in a chivalrous mood, the individual immolates himself for a noble idea.
Such sacrifice evokes our homage and admiration even where the idea as such does not meet with our full approval. In chess, which we like to view as a counterpart of life, a sacrifice arouses similar feelings in us. On principle we incline to rate a sacrificial game more highly than a positional game. Instinctively we place the moral value above the scientific. We honor Capablanca, but our hearts beat higher when Morphy's name is mentioned. . ."
And that was as far as I ever got in that book, not even halfway through the introduction. I disagreed so much, with so many of those statements, I couldn't go on.
I like Carlsen's play.
My head knows it's not true, but in my heart, attacks on the king and sacrifices are cheat crap played by kids who don't know how to castle. It's for idiots.
People who like Carlsen doesn't have to understand his play any more than Tal fans have to understand his sacrifices.
From the introduction to Spielmann's book: The Art of Sacrifice in Chess:
"The beauty of a game of chess is usually appraised, and with good reason, according to the sacrifices it contains. Sacrifice--a hallowed, heroic concept! Advancing in a chivalrous mood, the individual immolates himself for a noble idea.
Such sacrifice evokes our homage and admiration even where the idea as such does not meet with our full approval. In chess, which we like to view as a counterpart of life, a sacrifice arouses similar feelings in us. On principle we incline to rate a sacrificial game more highly than a positional game. Instinctively we place the moral value above the scientific. We honor Capablanca, but our hearts beat higher when Morphy's name is mentioned. . ."
And that was as far as I ever got in that book, not even halfway through the introduction. I disagreed so much, with so many of those statements, I couldn't go on.
I like Carlsen's play.
My head knows it's not true, but in my heart, attacks on the king and sacrifices are cheat crap played by kids who don't know how to castle. It's for idiots.
People who like Carlsen doesn't have to understand his play any more than Tal fans have to understand his sacrifices.
No wonder Spielmann got all enthuthiastic about sacrifices. He was known to be one of the best tacticians, but admitted himself that other masters were strategically superior.
The ridiculous thing is that there is almost NOTHING that an amateur can learn from a guy like Carlsen, because the complexity he creates on the board is something that we normal players will never reach.
Are you really this dumb and believe in the logic of your argument or I have to go get more pop corn while I watch your twisted jealousy explode piece by piece?!
Messi is a shit footballer because the goals he scores are too complex and 95 % of players won't be able to score like him so he is in fact useless because I can never learn how to be great as him and bla bla woof woof....
so I also want mr. carlsen to play like a patzer so I will be able to emulate him and learn from his mistakes to make even worse ones....
The ridiculous thing is that there is almost NOTHING that an amateur can learn from a guy like Carlsen, because the complexity he creates on the board is something that we normal players will never reach. Most of the people on here just play chess for the fun and in that case the games of Morphy, Tal and CApablanca are way more exciting and instructive.
And at the same time I still am convinced that people like Tal and Fisher at the top of their carreer would have beaten Carlsen without many problems.
"If tomorrow a Mister XY became the new worldchampion, everybody would just stop considering the existence of carlsen and start following the newcomer."
That's nonsense. I know people who have been following Carlsen's games since 2004.
"And at the same time I still am convinced that people like Tal and Fisher at the top of their carreer would have beaten Carlsen without many problems."
Your 1196 blitz rating makes it doubtful that you are capable of accurately assessing the abilities of players rated more than 1000 rating points above you.
My games are boring, unless of course you enjoy watching people blunder winning positions.
Messi is a shit footballer because the goals he scores are too complex and 95 % of players won't be able to score like him so he is in fact useless because I can never learn how to be great as him and bla bla woof woof....
so I also want mr. carlsen to play like a patzer so I will be able to emulate him and learn from his mistakes to make even worse ones....
You bring up football in the discussion..wow, let's have fun. Carlsen is like italy at the time of zoff and lippi. Strong, solid, accurate, boring as hell but unbeatable. Tal is like brazil, fun, extroverted, genious in his own rights. Fisher is like Germany. Well organized, coordinated, strong as a panzer faust.
That's the way I see it. And yes, it's prbably the usual world breaking difference between rationality or instinct, reason or feeling, deduction or intuition, art or science.
One is not universally better than the other. But one is remembered forever and the other one forgotten. People travel thousands of kilometers to see temples, museums or cathedrals, not to watch a new hospital or the recently built highway. And that's why people will never forget the artists.
Tal, Kasparov, Morphy,Larsen, Fisher played immortal games..I am still waiting to see an immortal game by karpov, petrosjan or carlsen.
Bye bye.
All this blah blah blah just to tell us that YOU, sir, have limitations? It's not my problem if you can't see the whole picture.
the only limitations here are probably the ones you have in front of a woman, wanker.
Classic, start trash talking when your theories go drunk in the night... nothing new
a lot of people say Magnus plays similar to Karpov. I can see the similarity, but I think Magnus plays similar to Tarrasch as well. Some of the prophylactic seems very reminiscent of Tarrasch and lets not forget that Tarrasch was a very strong player in his time. His innovations are very slow and pondering, but they strike with such raw uncut strength. That's my two cents.
a lot of people say Magnus plays similar to Karpov. I can see the similarity, but I think Magnus plays similar to Tarrasch as well. Some of the prophylactic seems very reminiscent of Tarrasch and lets not forget that Tarrasch was a very strong player in his time. His innovations are very slow and pondering, but they strike with such raw uncut strength. That's my two cents.
Kasparov compared Carlsen with Karpov, and it's not a bad comparison. One difference is that Carlsen has been criticised for playing games out too much, while Karpov sometimes was criticised for the opposite. Going by the Chessgames stats Karpov has 124 draws in 15 moves or less, 43 of them in 12 moves or less.
The last dozen years Carlsen doesn't have a single game with classical time controls drawn in 15 moves or less, and the speed games at Chessgames that are given as drawn in 15 or less are all more than five years old and usually due to transmission problems resulting in the full score not being given, i.e. they were in fact much longer.
One of the rare exceptions is a rapid game against Anand in 2008. Waiting for the award ceremony after Anand already had won the event both players blitzed out a quick draw, and the reaction was as expected furious :-) People called it scandalous, something that shouldn't be allowed to happen, everyone should just stop playing chess if this is how it's supposed to look etc, just going by some of the comments at Chessgames.
I personally feel, that, once you know that a particular way of playing is giving you success and name / fame etc.. you don't want to risk it playing out of the comfort zone. it happens with a lot of people. nobody wants to be remebered being a fool for playing risky when you are at the peak of success.
Messi is a shit footballer because the goals he scores are too complex and 95 % of players won't be able to score like him so he is in fact useless because I can never learn how to be great as him and bla bla woof woof....
so I also want mr. carlsen to play like a patzer so I will be able to emulate him and learn from his mistakes to make even worse ones....
You bring up football in the discussion..wow, let's have fun. Carlsen is like italy at the time of zoff and lippi. Strong, solid, accurate, boring as hell but unbeatable. Tal is like brazil, fun, extroverted, genious in his own rights. Fisher is like Germany. Well organized, coordinated, strong as a panzer faust.
That's the way I see it. And yes, it's prbably the usual world breaking difference between rationality or instinct, reason or feeling, deduction or intuition, art or science.
One is not universally better than the other. But one is remembered forever and the other one forgotten. People travel thousands of kilometers to see temples, museums or cathedrals, not to watch a new hospital or the recently built highway. And that's why people will never forget the artists.
Tal, Kasparov, Morphy,Larsen, Fisher played immortal games..I am still waiting to see an immortal game by karpov, petrosjan or carlsen.
Bye bye.
The one thing I learn from that is that you won't consider a game immortal unless it features some monster tactics. Many will disagree.
if you love watching torture, carlsen games are the best
i think if kasparov were young today and playing against magnus, he could not handle the stress. moves could have been boring but watching kasparov's facial expressions would have been deffinetly fun