I'm also not giving up chess because Carlsen doesn't inspire me.
Does Magnus Carlsen's Play Inspire You?
Sort:
Magnus wrote a play? Is there nothing he can't do?
I think the OP underappreciates just how similar Carlsen is to Fischer. Both have a drive, a fighting spirit and will to win that grinds their opponents mercilessly.
When you sit down to play Carlsen, you are playing a full chess game. There will be no "Grandmaster Draws" with Magnus. The only other player I can think of who shunned short draws so much is Fischer.
(And maybe Nakamura, too early to tell. but that's another thread.)
Granted, Magnus doesn't play the sharpest opening lines. But his "Chess Begins at Move 40" attitude means that he is just hitting his stride, when most Super-GM's are used to being out in the skittles room. Their game comfortably concluded.
When Carlsen sits down to the board, he just assumes the position is won for him. Until you can prove to him otherwise.
Just like Bobby did.
Yes, I view sixty games of Carlsen and if I can play a better endgame or quiet position; Magnus is worth studying.
varelse1 wrote:
I think the OP underappreciates just how similar Carlsen is to Fischer. Both have a drive, a fighting spirit and will to win that grinds their opponents mercilessly.
When you sit down to play Carlsen, you are playing a full chess game. There will be no "Grandmaster Draws" with Magnus. The only other player I can think of who shunned short draws so much is Fischer.
(And maybe Nakamura, too early to tell. but that's another thread.)
Granted, Magnus doesn't play the sharpest opening lines. But his "Chess Begins at Move 40" attitude means that he is just hitting his stride, when most Super-GM's are used to being out in the skittles room. Their game comfortably concluded.
When Carlsen sits down to the board, he just assumes the position is won for him. Until you can prove to him otherwise.
Just like Bobby did.
I think that Magnus and Bobby both share the same burning desire to win, but I think that the similarities stop there.
To me, Fischer played for an advantage from move one. He wanted to force his will onto the other guy. To crush his spirit.
Magnus, to me, sits back and waits. Just gets a position that is equal and waits for a mistake.
Both are equally effective, but only one inspires me.
To put it another way, let's say that you and I are each given the assignment to read a book. The book I am assigned is The Adventures of Tom Sawyer. The book you are assigned is a repair manual for a cotton gin.
At the end of the assignment we each will have read a book, but only one of them will have been a thing of beauty.
This doesn't mean that I don't like Magnus or don't appreciate the abilities of Magnus or whatever else. It just means that he would not be my first choice.
Having said all that...there is one thing about Magnus's play which I find truly enjoyable, and that is his amazing intuitive powers when it comes to piece activity.
I do think that Magnus is the player after Kasparov with the deepest understanding of the true power of piece activity.
Chess is a wide world and I think that I don't need any particular great player to be my idol . If you compare chess with religions, I think chess is like the pagan religion(s) of the ancient Greeks where one worshipped many gods instead of just one. By the way, every great chess player has some particular strengths which others of the same calibre may not have. So, why should one player be my only focus of attention ?
Interesting. To be perfectly honest, I think playing extremely well is inspiring in itself. Just the fact that a person can find a way to beat the top players as much as he does. In particular he gives off an air of indestructibility, something that a guy like Tal or Kasparov wouldn't necessarily give. I'm inspired by Magnus because I would really like to play chess that well -- sadly, when I "sit and wait" it tends not to work very well -- but Magnus has the magic to make it work that no one else seems to have the capacity to do as well.
I guess with music it would be different, but I'm impressed with what goes on in a person's brain and character to produce the seemingly impossible kinds of results he gets. The same goes for Kasparov and Tal.
In any case, it's a matter of taste. You seem to have admitted to thinking he is deserving of the status he has in chess (e.g., world champion, etc), so I guess there isn't really much to argue about.
"his play is dry as dust, and usually he wants to go for the boring endgame because he has been so succesful at it."
Hahaha... I remember that quote. Of course, Anand probably didn't mean too much by it, but I can't help but laugh... it's like when a little kid beats his older brother and then the brother claims he cheated or didn't do it right or something. I guess this slight case of being childish can still happen at the elite level! Even at this, professional, level, a win is not enough; the loser will just complain about how he lost!
Everyone talks about Fischer's attacking play but he really preferred simple positions and would only go into the occasional crazy variation if he thought he could get something out of it. Carlsen plays the same way.
Here's my opinion, it may be wrong, or right, or somewhere in between:
Perfect chess is boring. Ultimately, chess is a game of objectivity. It's a science more than an art. Magnus Carlsen is possibly closer than anyone else has been to perfecting the science of chess.
It's why Tal is my favorite player. He (amongst others) showed that chess was an art as well. You can be creative and beautiful and wild and still compete with the best. But I have to admit that any perfectly correct chess player could beat any artistic chess player. I think that's just how the game is, and that's how to truly be the best.
/shrug
I plead guilty of sharing the OP's thoughts on Carlsen. While I can't deny facts, he is the strongest player alive and possibly the strongest who ever lived. For me personally I'm not rushing to review his games like I have done with Kasparov, Fischer, Topalov, Spassy, Tal, Anand etc... I'm sure it's true that I'm simply too weak to appreciate his style and brutal endgame play. In this respect he may be worst for me than even Karpov, Petrosian, Smyslov and Kramnik:) I actually enjoy playing over their games as well, but Carlsen takes all the fun out of study for me. I just don't see anything going on in his games and it amazes me how he wins games after 50-60+ moves when the game is dead even at move 40. He effectively grind games out and pounces over the slightest mistakes.
No, he reminds me that I have no talent
Carlsen's play doesn't inspire me but his results do. A possible exception is Game 9 vs. Anand.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1737896
Game 9 along with the commentary of the tournament is incredibly entertaining to watch. For me Carlsen's character is more inspirational than his play. To use a poker term Carlsen puts his opponents on "tilt" just by coming off as an unbeatable happy machine. He brings out the blunders.
Game nine was very nice. I had the pleasure of seeing GM's Jesse Kraai and Josh Friedel analyze that game in front of a crowd of perhaps ten of us in a mid size town in WI a couple of month's back.
To me there are lots of very inspiring Carlsen games every year, from last year there is for example:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1704802
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1713205
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1705534
This year there are games like:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1744962
If inspiring = fun, amateur blitz games are more inspiring, but high level chess is another thing. Nakamura's games are often more fun than Carlsen's because they are less "sound". For example his wins against Anand are quite exciting games.
Carlsen's games are often more dry, but it's not as if Anand's or Kramnik's games always are some sort of sac-fests either. But Carlsen plays a high amount of very impressive games, some of them "boring" grinds, but some also more like those linked above.
Only two Chess players have truly inspired me. That is Bobby Fischer and Garry Kasparov. Both were brilliant and outstanding players. Kasparov has been and is a great promoter of Chess. Magnus Carlsen still needs to prove himself before he can become an inspiration for me. If he wins or ties for first in the majority of tournaments that he enters and is world champion for over 15 years and he is a huge promoter of Chess. Then there is no doubt that he will be the inspiration that the Chess world needs. Only time will tell...
Magnus is like the Arnold Schwarznegger of chess. Tough guy, full of self confidence, just gets on with things doing it all his own way. Figured he'd be right for hollywood. He holds back a lot, could easily write some blockbuster book to let the world in on what he sees during his chess games. I don't see much point in the candidates over the next 10 years or so as he's gonna be stuck in his throne for some time.
here's the thing: ALL SUPER GM'S ARE UNIVERSAL PLAYERS AND KNOW HOW TO PLAY MOST POSITIONS VERY WELL, otherwise they would not be able to reach that level and as far as carlsen is concerned, he is also a universal player but he tries to remain in his comfort zone[which is pretty vast] and that is totally fine, this is also an art of chess and I would say carlsen is really inspiring, I mean, look at his previous records and games, its really impressive and INSPIRING.....ciao
It sure does.