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
Does Magnus Carlsen's Play Inspire You?
Sort:
Nov 30, 2014
0
#44
DrCheckevertim wrote:
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
+ 1
Carslen to me proves that being perfect, being the best, being the number 1, winning all the time just isn't the Holy Grail.
When he was 13, Carlsen lost a game to Kasparov. After the game, he dismissed his play saying "...I played like a child".
Nov 30, 2014
0
#46
Answer to question: Yes.
It helps that I purchased books on him, with his games and have tracked his progress.
Yes, I do find him inspiring. Away from the discussion about the aesthetics of his playing style, for me he is a great role model for pursuing excellence - not just in chess, but in any field. Just because we are talking about inspiring people, I really have to say that Josh Waitzkin was the first chess player that really inspired me to learn and play chess, through his work on the chessmaster series. I really found him to be a great teacher, full of enthusiasm and love for the game (and life for that matter!).
The only way Magnus Carlsen's play affects me is making me understand why so many people despise chess.
NotAllowedTo wrote:
"He played the Berlin, I played the most solid line, yada yada yada, let's go to the doping control."
Magnus Carlsen on the press conference after holding Vishy Anand to a draw in the 8th game of the World championships, using only 15 minutes of his thinking time.
It was a Queen's gambit, not a Berlin. The whole variation was cooked to perfection by his second, PH Nielsen. Even the ending that occured was totally familiar to him, as an almost identical position had occured in a game of his close friend, IL Hammer, where white won.
The entire problem with chess is that you have to be at a level of 2200+ to have meaningful opinions on what's going on in the chess world or to find meaning and inspiration in the games of champions. Most people will never attain such a level no matter how much they try. That's a main reason why chess isn't popular in society. And I really mean 2200+, anyone can have a contrived opinion by going along with what the experts say even if they don't realize it's contrived.
If you take away all context I bet almost noone here could recognize a Carlsen move from an Anand move apart from in the opening.
Yes, Magnus' play inspires me. Nothing fashionable about his openings as he does not rely on them. It's all in his deep understanding of chess and the dynamics of the pieces, hence his penchant for steering into endgames. It's all technique.
pfren wrote:
NotAllowedTo wrote:
"He played the Berlin, I played the most solid line, yada yada yada, let's go to the doping control."
Magnus Carlsen on the press conference after holding Vishy Anand to a draw in the 8th game of the World championships, using only 15 minutes of his thinking time.
It was a Queen's gambit, not a Berlin. The whole variation was cooked to perfection by his second, PH Nielsen. Even the ending that occured was totally familiar to him, as an almost identical position had occured in a game of his close friend, IL Hammer, where white won.
He's talking about Game 8 in 2013, which was a short draw in the 5 Re1 Berlin
When I read the topic, I was taken back to being a kid again, playing through some of Morphy's games. Talk about inspiring! Some of those were crazy beautiful. At the time, I didn't realize that many of those games were against much weaker players. If he were, say, 2600, and his opponent was 1700, then naturally, he could come up with beautiful combinations, sacs, and the like. I think as time has progressed, opponents' skills have closed in and there is a much tighter group of players now than ever before, disallowing such " inspiring" play. The way to go now seems to be to eke out a tiny advantage and mine it for all it's worth. Just my 2 cents.
he plays like a weenie, shuffles his pieces around until his opponent makes a mistake. sad way to play chess.
Of course he's inspiring! He is the highest rated player in history and has a deep understanding of the game. He would make Capablanca, Botvinnik, Smyslov, and other greats proud!
The inspiration is lost amid the rampant desire of armchair champions and carlsen fanboys to cut his most recent opponent down based solely on age. Its almost like "how dare that old buzzard challenge the young, proud rooster?!"
Fiveofswords wrote:
The thing that always amazes me when i watch carlsen games is frankly....how poorly his opponents play. I dont get it. People will make amazing blunders in equal positions that i would never imagine they would do against any other player. I dunno if magnus has hypnotic powers or what...but his opponents seem to lose mroe often than magnus seems to win.
They made the same kinds of blunders more frequently against Fischer too. Look at his Candidates matches against Taimanov and Larsen. He was absolutely the strongest player of all time at that point, but his strength relative to his peers is not accurately reflected in scores of 6-0 and 6-0. If you go through the games, you'll see some with equal positions followed by blunders. If you want an example, see game 5 of his match against Taimanov, where coming back to an ajdourned game that Komodo evaluates as 0.00, within a few moves Taimanov left a rook en prise from a position that was still dead equal. Fischer captures the rook with a tactic that most 1500 players would see immediately, and Taimanov resigns.
It's really not much of a mystery why it happens from time to time. The stronger the opponent is, and the more intimidated one is by the opponent, the more often there will be uncharacteristically poor moves, and the more the opponent will seize on every small inaccuracy and give you nothing to work with yourself.
Every game of chess with a decisive result is due to one person losing the game, as there is no such thing a win without mistakes. Games without mistakes are called "draws".
Fiveofswords wrote:
well i dont think you are being fair to karpov. Karpov had some brilliant ideas and highly entertaining games.
The thing that always amazes me when i watch carlsen games is frankly....how poorly his opponents play. I dont get it. People will make amazing blunders in equal positions that i would never imagine they would do against any other player. I dunno if magnus has hypnotic powers or what...but his opponents seem to lose mroe often than magnus seems to win.
Maybe they're over thinking it because they know their opponent is so good... and choose a move they usually wouldn't... but it's worse than their original choice.
Does Magnus Carlsen's Play Inspire You?
Yes.
But he didn't sacrifice a knight :'(
Go be inspired by a 1600 player then.
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.