No
Do you think Magnus Carlsen would have slaughtered Anand?
Sort:
Why not?
If it is Anand at his best, no.
If it is Anand like the recent 2012 WCC, yes.
hankas wrote:
If it is Anand at his best, no.
If it is Anand like the recent 2012 WCC, yes.
Probably right.
Anand should retire.
I still have confidence in Anand. He is capable of doing much more.
Anand has played 2750 chess the last years while Carlsen has performed 2815 at worst during the same period. Anand hasn't won a tournament in almost five years while Carlsen has won a dozen in half that time. Unless something radical happens with Anand's form it seems as if he is past his peak with some margin, and I think he will lose the next title match. He wasn't convincing against a declining Topalov in 2010 and even less so against a far from top ten Gelfand in 2012, the difference compared to the Anand in the World Championships 2007-08 is huge.
Still, no top player crushes another top player over 12 games: Kramnik-Leko was drawn (and 14 games), Kramnik-Topalov decided in rapid tiebreak, just like Anand-Gelfand, while Anand-Topalov was 5.5-5.5 before the last game, where Topalov avoided repetition because he thought he would lose a tiebreak. Only Anand-Kramnik was somewhat uneven, but that's an exception and it was still only +2.
Estragon wrote:
Carlsen is already a stronger player than Anand, but not by much. Anand's greater experience at playing for the title, particularly his match experience against Kasparov, Kramnik, Topalov, and Gelfand in Championship conditions and pressure should make up that difference at least for the first match they played for the title.
So it would be a toss-up, either player could win it, neither would "slaughter" the other.
In the longer term, Carlsen hasn't even yet been convinced to work hard on his openings and he uses computers less than any other top player today, and he is only 21, so there is little doubt he will demonstrate his superiority over Anand in time.
+10, Always a pleasure to read your posts. Thanks.
Conflagration_Planet wrote:
Had he gone for the world championship?
Carlsen is still working on his "modeling" career. Chess WC comes later. 
Jun 30, 2012
0
#12
This is too hard to answer, though I doubt Carlsen would have slaughtered Anand.
Given his minimal match experience and frequent lack of opening penetration it could even go in Anands favour.
Having said that, I imagine if he had been in the match, he would have addressed his openings at least, so who knows.
Jun 30, 2012
0
#13
Anand WAS good, but now he fell from his peak. Carlsen should probably beat him if they faced in a match
fabelhaft wrote:
Anand has played 2750 chess the last years while Carlsen has performed 2815 at worst during the same period. Anand hasn't won a tournament in almost five years while Carlsen has won a dozen in half that time. Unless something radical happens with Anand's form it seems as if he is past his peak with some margin, and I think he will lose the next title match. He wasn't convincing against a declining Topalov in 2010 and even less so against a far from top ten Gelfand in 2012, the difference compared to the Anand in the World Championships 2007-08 is huge.
Still, no top player crushes another top player over 12 games: Kramnik-Leko was drawn (and 14 games), Kramnik-Topalov decided in rapid tiebreak, just like Anand-Gelfand, while Anand-Topalov was 5.5-5.5 before the last game, where Topalov avoided repetition because he thought he would lose a tiebreak. Only Anand-Kramnik was somewhat uneven, but that's an exception and it was still only +2.
Might make sense.
I don't think Carlsen would have shattered Anand, but I think he would be the new champ, if they would have played. I am gonna say he would have had a 2 or 3 point margain of victory, with probably many draws occuring. I wouldn't call that shattered.
No. The conservative style Anand uses to maintain his title would easily prevent "slaughtering".
FirebrandX wrote:
From what I understand, Carlsen has not played a match series like what's involved in a world championship. As such, it's generally understood that Anand would be the favorite, since he'd got WAY more experience in that field.
But the importance of experience in matches is probably exaggerated. In all title matches lately the player with least experience of matches has been the one that played better than expected. Gelfand had never played a title match or any match even ten games long but overperformed against Anand and could just as well have won the tiebreak (against a much stronger rapid player).
Topalov has bad match results in general but had 5.5-5.5 before overpressing in the last game against Anand. Before Bonn 2008 everyone was saying that Kramnik was the much better match player, but Anand won easily. Topalov had never won a serious match but got close against the much more experienced match player Kramnik (even if he lost the rapid tiebreak).
Leko had no experience at all in matches but drew Kramnik, who just had beaten Kasparov. In 2000 the difference couldn't be bigger: Kramnik had lost all his matches against Shirov, Kamsky and Gelfand while Kasparov never had lost a match against a human opponent, still Kramnik won.
pellik wrote:
So you're saying if I ever want to play and win a serious match I should focus on not playing matches now to prepare?
Maybe :-) Fischer hadn't won a match before 1971 but did well in 1971-72 in spite of that, even if Spassky was the much more experienced match player. Korchnoi was more experienced than Karpov, and Karpov was more experienced than Kasparov, but it didn't help to win any of the in all eight matches the three K's played against each other. So it seems as if the rule is that the younger or less experienced match player in general does better than the more experienced match player.
fabelhaft wrote:
pellik wrote:
So you're saying if I ever want to play and win a serious match I should focus on not playing matches now to prepare?
Maybe :-) Fischer hadn't won a match before 1971 but did well in 1971-72 in spite of that, even if Spassky was the much more experienced match player. Korchnoi was more experienced than Karpov, and Karpov was more experienced than Kasparov, but it didn't help to win any of the in all eight matches the three K's played against each other. So it seems as if the rule is that the younger or less experienced match player in general does better than the more experienced match player.
This simply isnt true .
Had he gone for the world championship?