Do you think he will be world champ next time around that it is played for? His rating wouldn't be as important to me , if I were him. I would rather be the champ than to reach 2900...
Do you think Magnus Carlsen will reach 2900 rating?
Sort:
2900 would be many times harder than winning the World Championship. Gelfand came an inch from winning the title, and so did Schlechter and Leko, but to reach 2900 now one has to be the best player in the world with a huge margin for many years, and at the moment that just looks impossible.
Carlsen was 2802 when he was 19 and has reached 2835 a couple of years later thanks to nine 2815+ tournaments in a row. But to gain 65 points more he would have to constantly reach results players like Anand and Kramnik scored maybe once or twice in their long careers, and that has to be too much.
fabelhaft wrote:
2900 would be many times harder than winning the World Championship. Gelfand came an inch from winning the title, and so did Schlechter and Leko, but to reach 2900 now one has to be the best player in the world with a huge margin for many years, and at the moment that just looks impossible.
Carlsen was 2802 when he was 19 and has reached 2835 a couple of years later thanks to nine 2815+ tournaments in a row. But to gain 65 points more he would have to constantly reach results players like Anand and Kramnik scored maybe once or twice in their long careers, and that has to be too much.
Lets say Magnus reached the awesome pinnacle of 2900, but if he never is crowned world champ, would you agree it will hurt his legacy, as compared to other past greats who did win it?
Easy. Because of inflation of ratings. :(
nameno1had wrote:
fabelhaft wrote:
2900 would be many times harder than winning the World Championship. Gelfand came an inch from winning the title, and so did Schlechter and Leko, but to reach 2900 now one has to be the best player in the world with a huge margin for many years, and at the moment that just looks impossible.
Carlsen was 2802 when he was 19 and has reached 2835 a couple of years later thanks to nine 2815+ tournaments in a row. But to gain 65 points more he would have to constantly reach results players like Anand and Kramnik scored maybe once or twice in their long careers, and that has to be too much.
Lets say Magnus reached the awesome pinnacle of 2900, but if he never is crowned world champ, would you agree it will hurt his legacy, as compared to other past greats who did win it?
Yes, to many the World Championship is in principle what counts, but to me it has become less relevant the last decades. It's not like when Fischer won 24 games in Candidates and title match before the title was his. Now Gelfand won in all 3 games in Candidates and title match and was still only one blunder away from the crown. It's much less predictable nowadays.
MSC157 wrote:
Easy. Because of inflation of ratings. :(
The World Champion in 1972 had a rating of 2785, the World Champion in 2012 has a rating of 2780 (and it could easily have been 2727...), so it's hardly all that easy to reach 2900.
Carlsen, or somebody else, will reach 2900 because there are too many high rated players.
fabelhaft wrote:
MSC157 wrote:
Easy. Because of inflation of ratings. :(
The World Champion in 1972 had a rating of 2785, the World Champion in 2012 has a rating of 2780 (and it could easily have been 2727...), so it's hardly all that easy to reach 2900.
Sorry, I mean Spassky (2600) & Fischer (2700) and Karpov (2700) & Kasparov (2800). Why is Fischer then "God", if today there are hundred of players with such a rating...
The amazing point is: How do you guys know such lots of things about chess players and matches ?
I wouldn't believe this would be possible a year ago but currently (after the 8th round of Wijk an Zee) he only has 32 points to go according to the live ratings and it actually does seem possible at the moment! Really amazing player. It's crazy. The WC candidates and probably the WC himself should prepare themselves for the hardest challenge of their careers: beating this incredibly strong young player.
http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2013/01/32-points-from-2900.html
Shouldn't be hard, even discounting inflation. Dominating players can be nearly 100 points above the field (read the #2 guy). #2 is above 2800, so 2900 (i.e. a near 100 rating point difference) has historical precedent.
nameno1had wrote:
fabelhaft wrote:
2900 would be many times harder than winning the World Championship. Gelfand came an inch from winning the title, and so did Schlechter and Leko, but to reach 2900 now one has to be the best player in the world with a huge margin for many years, and at the moment that just looks impossible.
Carlsen was 2802 when he was 19 and has reached 2835 a couple of years later thanks to nine 2815+ tournaments in a row. But to gain 65 points more he would have to constantly reach results players like Anand and Kramnik scored maybe once or twice in their long careers, and that has to be too much.
Lets say Magnus reached the awesome pinnacle of 2900, but if he never is crowned world champ, would you agree it will hurt his legacy, as compared to other past greats who did win it?
It won't be so much that he never wins it, but the circumstances of his non-WC status. I.e. if he died during the next WC match after having dominated all major tournaments and breaking 2900 then it wouldn't hurt his legacy... at least not as much as, say, declining to complete for a spot in all future WC cycles. Or say he loses every WC match he plays until he retires. These would hurt his legacy. Premature death, not so much.
The answer is obvious now.
The real question should be... who will break the 3000 mark?
2014, Carlsen will be playing as the first 2900 rated chess player !
I think 2900 is an attainable, albeit challenging, target for Magnus. 3000 belongs in a future discussion - perhaps 7-8 years from now, if ever.
He'll probably do it. I mean come on guys, it's Magnus
I wonder if his results will one day start to decline and he'll become just another "ordinary" elite player like Kramnik, Aronian and Anand. Doesn't this kid ever fall in love? Have deep existential problems? Get sick of family problems? Wants to finally live on his own and move out, deal with house problems from time to time? Develop a problem with spending too much time online? A slight problem with alcohol, porn, perhaps reading too much fan mail? 
I imagine some interviewer asking him at 2016, "hey there Magnus, at 2013 there was a huge gap between you and the others, what happened?" and he replies, "well, life happened."
I mean, I never had few years in a row in which everything went smoothly and as I expected. If he were immersed in chess the way Fischer was, I would understand, because Fischer didn't have a lot of life besides chess, but Carlsen doesn't seem like that at all, he seems like he does have a life after all. Howecome that life doesn't happen to this guy?
I have the exact same questions for Messi. He steadily plays on a different level than the others and shows no signs of slowing down or declining. 2 really interesting young men, I would love to know more about them not only on an every-day life level but also on a psychological level.
Well looka at this
Kasparov(19 years)-2600 from 19 to 41 he went up to 251 point.
Magnus (19) - 2835 well 65 points?