Carlsen has had pretty amazing results and is currently the highest rated player ever while showing no signs yet of slowing down in terms of rating increase. Breaking 2900 would have seemed incredible a few years ago, but it seems almost inevitable now.
How much do people think his success is a result of his unique playing style (outplaying people in non-critical positions that are not well-known to either of them even if it means giving the opponent equalizing chances as Black or a better than normal advantage as White) versus a result of other factors such as his presumably different training methods (since he dislikes opening theory and certainly doesn't spend as much of his time studying openings like other super-GMs) or something related to generic chess genius?
Is Carlsen so strong because he has spent lots of his training time over the years doing things that other GMs don't do as much of -- while they're studying openings, he's doing some kind of training or study that improves his positional sense and middlegame/endgame play, and that explains why he is so much better in those phases? Of course, he does plenty of research on openings to find interesting non-standard positions in less well-known openings, but I doubt he spends as much time as other GMs on openings, so does he train less or does he spend more time than most in other forms of training (and if so, which)?
On a related note, is Carlsen's success and his unusual approach to chess openings and high-level game strategy affecting other players? How are they changing their game to be able to better face Carlsen? And are any trying to improve their game by adopting his methods? Or is he just a chess genius who happens to use the methods he use, which work for him but wouldn't work nearly as well for others?
Would be interesting for someone to contrast this with Morozevich who used to be the top-flight GM who appeared to not care about top-flight opening theory?
Is Carlsen a more competent + consistent Moro? :)
I saw carlsen' matches here, a long time ago, there are a few nice positions
i think i recall hearing/reading the breakdown of carlsen's study as 60-30-10. (openings-middlegames-endgames). Don't recall where though, I think in some interview, so don't quote me on that. Obviously Carlsen studies a lot of openings - you don't play the wide variety of openings Carlsen does (and variations such as the Ruy Archangel and the Sicilian Dragon from Black's perspective) without an immense amount of openings study.
I'm just flat out impressed with Carlsen's play at Tata so far. Another win today, I think he broke 2870 in the live ratings with that win... He's play great chess and not showing signs of slowing down. However he studies it seems to be working out very well for him!
I'm just flat out impressed with Carlsen's play at Tata so far.
He said it was OK, nothing more.
...but nothing less
...but nothing less
He is playing some very strong players, most of them Super GMs themselves, so they don't make the sort of errors that often permit flashy game-ending combinations. Carlsen just keeps playing and exploiting the opportunities they do give him, it is understandable he doesn't think it impressive.
And in any single game, maybe it isn't. But then you look at PLUS SIX over ten games and realize we are watching an historic performance.