That Carlsen would be beaten by Burn and Spielmann isn't even good trolling :-)
Actually this is kind of counter-trolling. :-)
The primary trolling is suggesting that masters of the past were weaker than today's. Firstly it is disrespectful, secondly nothing proves that (only some dubious computer-generated "data", unfortunately some not-very-bright-minded people tend to trust it) and thirdly there is a reason today's top level declines (I have already written about).
It is utterly ridiculous to say that Carlsen is clearly the best . Today's ratings are flawed. They keep going up and up for top players and are clearly inflated. Again no grandmaster ever won 20 games in a row excedpt Fischer and this streak included 3 top grandmasters in qualifying matches. Fischer was the best and it's not even close.
Steinitz won 25 in a row, and that included going 7-0 against then #2 in a match (plus beating him three times more). That doesn't equal him playing objectively better chess than Fischer, just like Fischer winning 20 in a row doesn't equal him playing objectively better chess than Carlsen. If Leko wins 20 in a row this month that would be a great accomplishment, but it wouldn't make him greater than Kasparov.
The only way to make any fair comparison is by comparing achievements. Steinitz isn't a less great player than Anand just because he played in a time when it was impossible to play on as high level. I'd rank him as greater because he won numerous title matches, won every match he played for more than 30 years, and scored great results for decades. Carlsen isn't greater than Lasker because his moves are more correct according to engines. Lasker achieved more and should be ranked well ahead of Carlsen at this time, which isn't strange since Carlsen is 23.
"only some dubious computer-generated "data", unfortunately some not-very-bright-minded people tend to trust it"
lol, so you would be willing to oversimplify this issue so much that you are willing to assume people tussling with the complexities of the question are dumb just because they don't reach the same conclusion as you? Maybe the analysis works, maybe it doesn't, but simply making some vague claim ("Computers don't understand humans!! Grr!!!") without being much more specific and rigorous in the objection makes it hard for me to elevate the objection to anything more than total speculation. It's not much more convincing than an amateur chess player claiming they're underrated because "they just feel stronger." I'd take consistent data (even engine data!) over arbitrary feelings any day, until a better alternative is proposed.
I'd take consistent data (even engine data!) over arbitrary feelings any day (...)
And I would not, at least not in chess. I value my expert chess intuition and knowledge higher than some engine feelings.
I did not know that Steinz won 25 in a row but these games were not in candidates matches. Fischer beat Taimanov 6 to 0 and Larsen 6 to 0. There simply is not anything that compares to this. And yes the only fair way to compare is by looking at acievement and Fischer's is by far the most compelling.
Cappablanca
Una paloma Capablanca!
He's just a bird in the sky!
People talk about the superiority of today's chess knowledge, and how this allows the modern masters to beat the crap out of the old greats. This may be true when we are talking about the majority of the old masters, but it does not apply to people like Capablanca (seriously!).
Capablanca relied so little on existing chess theories. Chess knowledge at that time focused much on openings and middlegames. Reti, Nimzo, Alekhine, Tarrasch, and Lasker wrote about various opening variations. Capablanca on the other hand didn't bother to try to find some winning subtleties in the openings. In fact, his openings were nothing spectacular compared to his peers. Capa just played logically and made the openings work for him.
In the middlegame, Tarrasch's dogma was the chess bible of the day. The majority of people during that time played in accordance to the Steinitz/Tarrasch's principles. On the other hand, Capablanca played nothing like Tarrasch. He might be labelled as a classical champion, but he did rook lift, prophylaxis, and a number of hypermodern concepts even before Nimzo, Reti, and the gangs labelled them. In fact, to illustrate some of the ideas, Nimzo and Reti used some of Capa's games.
Capa mentioned that his favorite chess books were certain books on the endgame. This led people to believe that Capa studied the endgame theories. However, it must be noted that endgame literature at that time was scarce. Endgame knowledge was disorganized and people paid very little attention to endgame. Most endgame books were mere collections of chess puzzles. So I don't think that Capa learnt anything much from the endgame books he read as a child! It wasn't until Capa took the center stage in chess world that the world started to pay attention to endgame. Capa complained how little was written about the endgame. In fact, much of what we know today about the endgame, we learn it from Capa's games.
Despite today's superior chess knowledge, nobody can play like Capablanca. In fact, we can go over Capa's games and still be awed by them. This goes to show how much of what Capa knew that we still don't.
Both Capa and Morphy are true chess geniuses who moved the chess world by leaps and bounds. The question is whether Carlsen deserves to be ranked among them.
the only fair way to compare is by looking at acievement and Fischer's is by far the most compelling.
That depends on which achievements you count. Fischer played one title match, against one of the World Champions that isn't counted among the top half of them, and won 12.5-8.5. He won few top tournaments but had a couple of very strong years just before retiring. As I see it maybe top five on the list but not comparable with the greatest, who won numerous title matches and top tournaments for decades.
Capablanca in his prime was unbeatable and his chess knowledge was superior to all opponents, he dominate all his opponents. He crush Lasker without losing a game and never was in danger of losing. This not so with Carlsen, in the world champion against Anand in two games Magnus was losing. Remember Anand is number 8th in the world while playing Carlsen, Magnus should NEVER been in danger of losing, but he had two lost games. And Magnus played SOOOO passive and safe, look at his two weak opening tries, come on 1.Nf3 the Reti or the King's Indian Attacking against Anand it is like giving the first move advantage away. Capablanca would crush Magnus easily.
So, coming back to the absolutely good vs. comparatively good flaw ?
It's not like it has been pointed out multiple times in that thread, is it ?
As this research proves CAPABLANCA would be toasted
http://www.chess.com/blog/SamCopeland/how-strong-were-fischer-and-morphy
Either utter nonsense or at least unreliable.
Regan's research has some value for catching computer cheats, but that is all. It says nothing about level and evolution of play, only what computer "thinks" about it. Not how it actually is.
And who is Sam Copeland?
Not only Capablanca. Marshall, Tartakower, Maroczy, Duras, Rubinstein, Chigorin, Blackburne, Tarrasch, Burn or Spielmann would beat Carlsen too.
Yep it's easier for us to prefer computer chess data than your dubious chess knowledge and intuition as is with most patzers..
Do not counter-troll counter-trolls made by counter-trolling counter-trolls on the original troll!!!
23 hours ago·Quote·#165
Capablanca in his prime was unbeatable and his chess knowledge was superior to all opponents, he dominate all his opponents. He crush Lasker without losing a game and never was in danger of losing. This not so with Carlsen, in the world champion against Anand in two games Magnus was losing. Remember Anand is number 8th in the world while playing Carlsen, Magnus should NEVER been in danger of losing, but he had two lost games. And Magnus played SOOOO passive and safe, look at his two weak opening tries, come on 1.Nf3 the Reti or the King's Indian Attacking against Anand it is like giving the first move advantage away. Capablanca would crush Magnus easily.
Which two games were Carlsen even losing? Can you support what you say with variations? This is beginning to seem like obvious trolling now. Kudos on the great
It obvious you did not played through the games of the world champion match of 2013, Magnus was lost in the third game and the nineth game. Carlsen fail to win the tenth game, Capablanca, Lasker, Fischer and Karpov would won the tenth game. :)
Carlsen wins. In fact, Carlsen is the greatest player in the history of the world due to the fact that he has an unsurpassed grasp of the endgame.
And the obvious trolling continues. Carlsen was in a difficult position in game 3, but he was by no means lost at any point in time. I did play through every game, and game 9 was far too complex for anyone to assume he was lost without providing any variations, considering that the position had top class grandmasters stumped with regards to finding a win. I'm not even necessarily disputing your claims. However, I take issue with people who just say things without the slightest shred of evidence and jump around enough as if it will make people believe them.
Carlsen extremely over rated.
Carlsen has been "extremely overrated" since the first time I heard of him. He would never reach top 100, beat a top player, reach top 10, win a top tournament, reach #1 on the rating list, stay #1, pass 70 points down to #2, qualify for a title match, win a title match, keep the title, etc. But people never give up about how overrated he is :-)
I can't help but wonder which results he should have scored not to be overrated. In his last ten tournaments he has won seven and finished second in the remaining three, and if he beats Anand again he will win the Chess Oscar for best player six consecutive years, that's a first, and not bad for a player who turned 23 just a few months ago. At least not compared to all the not overrated players out there.
I guess they also think that Kasparov is a chessic idiot and wastes time on over rated talent, perhaps refraining from directly stating what they are implying ?...
trust issues.
Yep it's easier for us to prefer computer chess data than your dubious chess knowledge and intuition as is with most patzers..
I am afraid I don't understand true meaning of this phrase:
a) He prefers computer chess data, because he finds it easier to understand for patzers (like him) than chess knowledge and intuition
b) He despises my opinion as unfounded (compared with computer chess data), because he assesses wrongly my chess skills among patzer's.
Which one is correct?
It is utterly ridiculous to say that Carlsen is clearly the best . Today's ratings are flawed. They keep going up and up for top players and are clearly inflated. Again no grandmaster ever won 20 games in a row excedpt Fischer and this streak included 3 top grandmasters in qualifying matches. Fischer was the best and it's not even close.