fla2lens wrote:
nice - game 11 out of 10.
lol
Carlsen is mediocre - my analyses
Sort:
If he is mediocre, then how come he won 3 games of the matches and Anand only managed remis at best against him? I mean, with all do respect, if the world champion chess player loses time and time again to the same person, and that person is mediocre, what does that make the loser? Bottom line, you can analyze all you want, but that does'nt change the fact that Magnus Carlsen beat the world champion by a mile! Anand met the Wall, or just a better chess player if you will.
and fyi...game 11 does not exist. lol@post
Dec 2, 2013
0
#4
chess19788 wrote:
Carlsen is mediocre. I am going to take game 11 of the world championship as an example. Hope you enjoy my analyses. He played against Anand obviously. He may have won that game, but he failed to find the right moves. Seems during the opening, Carlsen was full of memorization, the moves wasn't his own. On move 7, anand went out of opening book just to try and confuse him, this is supposed to be chess? On move 20. Carlsen failed to see Rook takes g4. a move I am sure that Fischer would of saw.
There was 10 games, not eleven.
IF game 11 had existed - " Seems during the opening, Carlsen was full of memorization, the moves wasn't his own" That is the point of opening theory, welcome to chess.
Dec 2, 2013
0
#6
It must have been some really good stuff to make the OP hallucinate a complete game. 
Dec 2, 2013
0
#7
Timothy_P wrote:
IF game 11 had existed - " Seems during the opening, Carlsen was full of memorization, the moves wasn't his own" That is the point of opening theory, welcome to chess.
True, but I am thinking the OP was making a point that Carlsen's play was not natural or creative, more computer like, but I could be wrong.
Ah, what a perfect thread title! You belong in analysis.
Acclaim to the OP for the successful troll!
Shame on those of you who took the bait 
woodrow wrote:
I suggest you also work on your English. "Fischer would of saw" should be "Fischer would have seen."
Uh-oh, looks like the SWAT team has arrived.
fla2lens wrote:
that's a lot to work on - chess, math, english - at least 30,000 hours
lol
Hey, at least it's got some claim to fame!
You have talent man
I agree, I haven't seen such a dull victory since Morphy vs. Fischer.
But then shouldn't it actually be "Fischer wood of saw"?
Why is a fisher sawing wood anyway?
wow! u guys are so gullible, obviously the OP knew there was only 10 games. and yah carlsen just always gets the luck of the dice
Carlsen is mediocre. I am going to take game 11 of the world championship as an example. Hope you enjoy my analyses. He played against Anand obviously. He may have won that game, but he failed to find the right moves. Seems during the opening, Carlsen was full of memorization, the moves wasn't his own. On move 7, anand went out of opening book just to try and confuse him, this is supposed to be chess? On move 20. Carlsen failed to see Rook takes g4. a move I am sure that Fischer would of saw.