To all you "MC haters": why on earth so negative to one of the best players in the world, and argubly one of the best (the best!?) ever?? So childish. Admire skilled people.
If you need to irritate youself on someone, why not pick a player like yourself - someone on chess.com... totally insignificant.
Carlsen is surely right, people may get upset about these claims only if they equate their chess skill with their value as a human being (pro-tip: don't do that)
What that means probably is the following:
After almost any single play made by a sub 1800 player in almost any type of position, Carlsen would tear apart the position or at least gain a significant advantage because of the decision the sub 1800 played made.
Here is a little experiment for you haters: once you've played a game, put the pgn in stockfish (or any good chess software available you may think of) , analyse the whole game for blunders and make sure you display the score for every move. Let us assume that whenever the score of your position is x point below than what it was one move before then your move is a mistake that a 2700 player can exploit in a very unpleasant manner...
how much is x? 1? 0.5 maybe ?
This true statement really unnerves the 1800 chess player. Pleez. 1800 players are patzers. They just delude themselves into thinking that they couldn't be 'cuz they're way smarter that that.
The reality is-is that they're not.
I play 1400+ chess. I often beat players between 1600-1799. It's 'cuz they hang pieces alot. This is the epitomized definiton of a patzer.
This true statement really unnerves the 1800 chess player. Pleez. 1800 players are patzers. They just delude themselves into thinking that they couldn't be 'cuz they're way smarter that that.
The reality is-is that they're not.
I play 1400+ chess. I often beat players between 1600-1799. It's 'cuz they hang pieces alot. This is the epitomized definiton of a patzer.
Honestly, I think any player below 2500 is patzer-level—which is really the majority of all chess players, unfortunately.
But that's okay, because it means most of us patzers are playing against fellow patzers, as well! :D
This thread "slept" for 4 months. Then got revived about 25 hours ago, with post #19.
The problem arises because a misleading attribution was applied to the current thread, as well as its prior "zombie life."
The Joke's on Us. Like Lemmings plunging off a cliff?
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wildlifenews.view_article&articles_id=56
I must say I don't blunder every move (only some).
I would call a blunder a move that probably changes the result of the game. A computer evaluation is just an imperfect indication of this.
nFor me its like golf. I rather play then practice at the range all day. just want to have fun. Please be relevant, helpful & nice!
It also depends on which time control we're talking about.
Playing Rapid OTB I think I've lost, and won, because of a blunder only a handful of times. Even if we double that (i.e. a blunder that both myself and my opponent missed) it still is a low percentage of games. So no, I don't blunder every game, let alone every move (that's ridiculous). My rating was 1700 FIDE.
Playing online blitz it's different, then I do blunder very often but because I don't care / I don't pay attention. But if a 1700 plays at his best he should blunder almost never.
who gives a toss about blunders...we enjoy our chess regardless...life is more than winning and chess ratings
Magnus, we below 1800 Fide can play better games, sometimes. Here is a ten minute blitz with only 28% mistakes:
https://www.chess.com/home/computer_analysis?id=1536655461&game_type=2
It says gullible on the ceiling btw
Carlsen’s greatest chess strength is his remarkable intuitive grasp of simplified positions and his tremendous accuracy in them. I coached Carlsen for a year, in 2009, and I was amazed at how quickly he could correctly evaluate a position “cold,” seemingly without any calculation at all. My own style required tremendous energy and labor at the board, working through deep variations looking for the truth in each position. Carlsen comes from a different world champion lineage, that of Jose Capablanca and Anatoly Karpov, players who sense harmony on the board like virtuoso musicians with perfect pitch - G. Kasparov
http://time100.time.com/2013/11/25/a-new-king-for-a-new-era-in-chess/#ixzz2mUJ9ZYQB
Robbie, that Kasparov-quote was very nice. It is well known that he and Karpov didnt get along at all, but Kasparov anyway speaks so fine about him. I like that.
Just saying, 1800 is BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is what Carlsen actually said:
What advice would you give a beginner starting out at chess?#AskMagnus:
MC "All games between beginners are decided on pieces being blundered on almost every move. So I guess the most useful thing is just do exercises -- which pieces can you capture in this particular position?
Just thought I'd post again what Magnus said rather than what people think he may have said. He is talking about beginners, and 'almost every move' is just hyperbole to make a point, but not that far out.
Most games I play (five minute blitz at around 1600) are still decided by blunders. Also of course a blunder at top level may be missing a strategic move that gives a lasting positional advantage rather than hanging a knight. The better I get at chess the more I realise avoiding bad moves is probably the most important factor in improving your rating.
Robbie, that Kasparov-quote was very nice. It is well known that he and Karpov didnt get along at all, but Kasparov anyway speaks so fine about him. I like that.
Its a very interesting approach. Intuition, how does one teach or acquire intuition? surely it only come through experience? Kasparov is correct Magnus is probably closer to Capablanca than any other chess player, they thrive in simplistic balanced positions. I am playing through Golombeks Capablancas 100 best games and he hardly every gets anything from the opening and plays simple positions with an unerring accuracy.
Capablanca and Carlsen is among the strongest endgamemonsters of all time.
Carlsen fuck off. ok you are a genius in something I am only understanding barely the basics as a am a beginer chess player. But I am pretty sure a lot of these guys you piss in the ass are way more instructive than you are about music, science, and all these little things that makes chess part of a whole world and not placing it (and you, so) a center of it. I am for now 900 rating on a chess website but don t give a s. about this kind of stuff. you are the actual champion of a thing which the purpose is abstraction and philosophy. Learnt way more from local friends about various stuff than you regarding what chess actually should be
This is what Carlsen actually said:
What advice would you give a beginner starting out at chess?#AskMagnus:
MC "All games between beginners are decided on pieces being blundered on almost every move. So I guess the most useful thing is just do exercises -- which pieces can you capture in this particular position?
Hey BlackWarmaster, that's a lot of rage over something that wasn't even said. MC was asked for advice. He gave it. It turns out to be the exact advice that virtually every decent chess teacher would give.
But hey, you don't need advice because you appreciate music and science and lose your temper over the slightest hint of offence even when it doesn't actually happen.
Enjoy what is likely going to be a very short chess career.
Bon Chance and be seeing you,
6
To the OP: why didn't you check first what MC actually said?? Very irritating with people like you, just posting whatever nonsense that come to your mind.
Quiksilverau wrote:u
Carlsen was asked interesting question on twitter:
Q -
"What advice would you give someone rated 1600?"
A -
"All games between players rated