Carlsen's opinion on Vladimir Kramnik

Shame on you

Sounds like Kasparov.

I first heard of Kramnik back in '93, when I read a short article about him.

I went to my chess team, and said "This is the guy Kasparov needs to watch out for!"

All my teammates just shook their heads, and blew me off.

Chess is a very humbling game played by very arrogant people.

lol

Kasparov - Kramnik 2000 wasn't a legitimate title match or a legitimate result.

Of course, by traditional tie breakers, Kramnik should have won the right to challenge Anand; instead of Carlsen. Karma, huh? Kramnik never did qualify for a world chess championship match. This and the refusal to give Kasparov a rematch are what arguably make Kramnik the most tainted world chess champion in chess history. Carlsen has no class, but in a way this cheap shot he took at Kramnik was entirely warranted.

I have no admiration for either player, as a person or competitor. However, at least Kramnik is admirable as a theoretician; and that, Carlsen is not.

"I have no admiration for either player, as a person or competitor. However, at least Kramnik is admirable as a theoretician; and that, Carlsen is not."

I'm sure they will both be crushed at the news that they haven't earned the respect of such an esteemed judge. 

"Often he seems to think he’s in the right, but I’m actually right." This was an actual quote from Magnus in his post. Arrogant quote. Then again, there's not many humble chess players of any level that I have encountered. 

What did he do that made you want to punch him? 

If anyone here likes Conor McGregor then yall automatically are hated by me

Carlsen waits for crying Hikaru to resign the game: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0l0joEc3aW4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2olt976Svk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjtGYEn2XPE 

Kramnik defeated the legitimate world champion (though he did not qualify to challenge him.) 

And cemented that legitimacy, by winning the reunification match vs Topolov.

And though he has since lost the title, he has remained a Super-GM by anybody's standards. And a serious threat to following champions.

There have been very few legitimate and untainted world chess champions.

On a list of illegitimate and tainted world chess champions, you can put Kramnik at #1.

The only real problem with such a list is that you have to begin with Lasker and Alekhine, which actually were the best two players in the world at the time they were world chess champions. The two of them are just tainted. This isn't as bas as just outright illegitimate.

Botvinnik was just outright illegitimate, as well as super tainted after the fact.

Petrosian? .. Tainted ...

Karpov? … History wasn't kind to Karpov.

And we give credit to this long list for defeating an incumbent, but illegitimate and/or tainted world chess champion:

Capablanca

Euwe

Smyslov

Tal

Kasparov

… of course it's fun to sit here and analyze all these crimes, but consider this! It has taken us x number of years of chess history to produce a world chess champion that was a legitimate challenger and defeated a legitimate and untainted world chess champion to become world chess champion.

This is Magnus Carlsen. Anand was a legitimate and untainted WCC; and even then, his previous match against Gelfand wasn't a legitimate match because Gelfand wasn't a legitimate challenger.

… So Lasker defeated Steinitz, but wasn't a legitimate challenger because there was no cycle in those days. Tarrasch probably would have been the best challenger, then Lasker just came out of no where to go on cherry picking and ducking the best player for 20+ years.

Honestly, Steinitz was no more legitimate than Karpov. It was neither his nor Karpov's fault that Morphy and Fischer (respectively) wouldn't play.

So Alekhine defeats Capablanca and won't give him a rematch, despite the fact that the two are clearly the best two players in the world. I suppose Kramnik was Kasparov's punishment for admiring Alekhine ...

Alekhine defeats that Bogo guy twice - an illegitimate challenger - before losing to Euwe … an illegitimate challenger.

So far we have quite a list of l3!@tches.

1.Kramnik

2.Alekhine

3.Lasker

Now there is Botvinnik. Keres, a legitimate challenger, was coerced to lose to Botvinnik in a world chess championship tournament. Then Bronstein was coerced … then Smyslov finished x number of world chess championship matches as a former world chess champion and a plus score against Botvinnik!

Now that I think of it, why not just bump Kramnik down to number 2?

We gotta throw Petrosian on this list simply because he won a world chess championship candidates tournament that involved heavy Soviet collusion, in which he was very much involved.

And then, of course, everyone wants to put Karpov on such a list because Fischer ducked him - and not the other way around.

1.Botvinnik

2.Kramnik

3.Alekhine

4.Lasker

5.Petrosian

6.Euwe (Sorry, but he wasn't a legitimate challenger and defeated a drunkard. This is a shame, because this man was by far the most respectable person of all world chess champions.)

7.Karpov (Because … you know, the USSR was evil and Fischer was the hero.)

I have a list of "Illegitimate champions,' that would rank even higher that Botvinik or Kramnik.

How about:

Alexander Khalifman

Ruslan Ponomariov

Rustan Kadsimdzhanov

Veselin Topolov

Well, okay. Maybe not so much Topolov. I could call him World Champion, with a straight face. 

But the rest of them.

Well, sir … we're just going to have to AGREE on this!

… but Topalov was just the equivalent of a legitimate challenger.

I love how Carlsens opinion branches out to other opinions.

The comments, culled from several sources, are more than five years old. 

https://chess24.com/en/read/news/kramnik-calls-carlsen-a-genius-gets-icy-response