Well everyone who likes chess is magnus' fan. He is the best chess player to have ever lived on earth so how can one not be?
Is chess experiencing a weak era?
Sort:
I agree with the OP, chess is in the middle of a weak era. People don't care about chess as much as they did before, there are too many things to do nowadays. There's a Netflix show yes, but all the hours people used to play chess before are now devoted to videogames or netlix series or browsing online.
I think Carlsen is a decent world champion but pales in comparison to the likes of Kasparov, Karpov, Fischer and Spassky. Carlsen also has the benefit of modern theory that helps make him good compared to the likes of Steinitz, Lasker or Alekhine.
kartikeya_tiwari wrote:
Do you understand that as competition increases it becomes very hard for players to actually rise above the competition?
This is not true, it is simply something you have imagined as a thought experiment in your mind and decided it must be the case - similar to how you imagine that we're all just taking part in nostalgia. You thinking something up with some logic doesn't make it so, you have to be more critical than that.
Look at football (soccer) or basketball - both of these games have a million times more competition and harder competition than chess. Yet players like Diego Maradona or Michael Jordan come along that are so good they absolutely obliterate the competition. There was no levelling out of players and neither is there any reason to expect there to be. That's all just propaganda for chess because people won't care as much about the game if the current world champion is mediocre.
Uhohspaghettio1 wrote:
I agree with the OP, chess is in the middle of a weak era. People don't care about chess as much as they did before, there are too many things to do nowadays. There's a Netflix show yes, but all the hours people used to play chess before are now devoted to videogames or netlix series or browsing online.
I think Carlsen is a decent world champion but pales in comparison to the likes of Kasparov, Karpov, Fischer and Spassky. Carlsen also has the benefit of modern theory that helps make him good compared to the likes of Steinitz, Lasker or Alekhine.
Have to take exception to the last part there. Steinitz was comparatively weak, but both Lasker and peak-form Alekhine would be more than a match for Magnus Carlsen.
First, with regard to Lasker, modern theory still can't explain what Lasker was doing, so it would be of little use against him. It was the theorists (Tarrasch, Nimzowitsch) whom he crushed most emphatically. Lasker would know your system (and its imperfections) better than you, and that is why he would win. Just as importantly, Lasker never displayed mental fatigue, which Carlsen clearly does suffer from. Lasker could probe a dead-drawn position for 70 moves (and win a fair portion of the time), then come back for the next game fresh as the first. Not a player active today could handle that in a 12-game match.
As for Alekhine, at peak form (which is admittedly a brief part of his career), his tactical depth and ability to force endgame complications would be more effective against modern GMs than it was against Capablanca in 1927. In that match, he won six games against a player who never lost more than two to anyone else (and that many to only three players, one of whom was Lasker).
Dsmith42 wrote:
First, with regard to Lasker, modern theory still can't explain what Lasker was doing, so it would be of little use against him. It was the theorists (Tarrasch, Nimzowitsch) whom he crushed most emphatically. Lasker would know your system (and its imperfections) better than you, and that is why he would win. Just as importantly, Lasker never displayed mental fatigue, which Carlsen clearly does suffer from. Lasker could probe a dead-drawn position for 70 moves (and win a fair portion of the time), then come back for the next game fresh as the first. Not a player active today could handle that in a 12-game match.
I don't know about Lasker - Fischer called him a "coffee-house player". He would make strange-looking moves from time to time. I could see Carlsen grinding out wins by slowly exposing Lasker's inferior moves in the opening. Lasker's endgame have have rescued him a lot of the time but it's also one of Carlsen's major strengths. Carlsen is notorious for grinding out even-looking endgames favourably. With modern theory of the endgame and the opening, as well as computer evaluation of many types of positions, I think I'll give the edge to Carlsen.
Dsmith42 wrote:
As for Alekhine, at peak form (which is admittedly a brief part of his career), his tactical depth and ability to force endgame complications would be more effective against modern GMs than it was against Capablanca in 1927. In that match, he won six games against a player who never lost more than two to anyone else (and that many to only three players, one of whom was Lasker).
That's quite true. If Alekhine manages to get into wild tactical complications without being at a disadvantage I will favour him. The trick will be to try to get to that scenario against someone whose play is as dull as dishwater.
Dsmith42 wrote:
Uhohspaghettio1 wrote:
I agree with the OP, chess is in the middle of a weak era. People don't care about chess as much as they did before, there are too many things to do nowadays. There's a Netflix show yes, but all the hours people used to play chess before are now devoted to videogames or netlix series or browsing online.
I think Carlsen is a decent world champion but pales in comparison to the likes of Kasparov, Karpov, Fischer and Spassky. Carlsen also has the benefit of modern theory that helps make him good compared to the likes of Steinitz, Lasker or Alekhine.
Have to take exception to the last part there. Steinitz was comparatively weak, but both Lasker and peak-form Alekhine would be more than a match for Magnus Carlsen.
First, with regard to Lasker, modern theory still can't explain what Lasker was doing, so it would be of little use against him. It was the theorists (Tarrasch, Nimzowitsch) whom he crushed most emphatically. Lasker would know your system (and its imperfections) better than you, and that is why he would win. Just as importantly, Lasker never displayed mental fatigue, which Carlsen clearly does suffer from. Lasker could probe a dead-drawn position for 70 moves (and win a fair portion of the time), then come back for the next game fresh as the first. Not a player active today could handle that in a 12-game match.
As for Alekhine, at peak form (which is admittedly a brief part of his career), his tactical depth and ability to force endgame complications would be more effective against modern GMs than it was against Capablanca in 1927. In that match, he won six games against a player who never lost more than two to anyone else (and that many to only three players, one of whom was Lasker).
Don't worry, lasker won't have to play long games because he will make a match losing mistake in the middle game as his tactics were absolutely horrendous.
Also, it's funny that u said that magnus doesn't have stamina when the dude is known for winning equal endgames like how he put constant pressure on karjakin in game 3 of WCC, a game which went on for 7 hours and 100+ moves
Uhohspaghettio1 wrote:
That's quite true. If Alekhine manages to get into wild tactical complications without being at a disadvantage I will favour him. The trick will be to try to get to that scenario against someone whose play is as dull as dishwater.
Carlsen would absolutely stomp alekhine in any position, whether it's strategic or tactical lol.
Uhohspaghettio1 wrote:
kartikeya_tiwari wrote:
Do you understand that as competition increases it becomes very hard for players to actually rise above the competition?
This is not true, it is simply something you have imagined as a thought experiment in your mind and decided it must be the case - similar to how you imagine that we're all just taking part in nostalgia. You thinking something up with some logic doesn't make it so, you have to be more critical than that.
Look at football (soccer) or basketball - both of these games have a million times more competition and harder competition than chess. Yet players like Diego Maradona or Michael Jordan come along that are so good they absolutely obliterate the competition. There was no levelling out of players and neither is there any reason to expect there to be. That's all just propaganda for chess because people won't care as much about the game if the current world champion is mediocre.
I am not going to argue a point which should seem pretty much second nature to anyone and is a well known theory in both psychology and economics. If you want to dream in your head that as the number of competitors increase it becomes easier then sure go ahead, i would definitely not buy into a comment which is as ridiculous as a troll comment
llama45 wrote:
kartikeya_tiwari wrote:
how can one not be [a fan of Carlsen]?
His personality and backstory aren't particularly compelling. Some people like to root for an underdog. Some people like the players representing their country.
Personality? this is chess my dude... also have u watched his streams? he is pretty funny.
More people in the world = more competition and not a clear winner
Luigi4011 wrote:
More people in the world = more competition and not a clear winner
I just gave clear examples of how this is not the case. There are always outstanding players who come out head and shoulders above the rest. Football, basketball, running (Usain Bolt) boxing (Muhammad Ali, Mike Tyson).... all of these things have way more competition and at the elite level than chess. If you still disagree with me after considering my arguments you are just stupid. That is not how it goes.
I understand your logic to it - the idea that you reach the limits of human potential right? That's a fallacy as we are all so different, it's not how the reality is with any sport or game that we know of. There is no level of strength or competition or people playing it where that happens and if there was there certainly wouldn't be for people playing chess, which as said has less than one millionth of the popularity of other big sports.
It works the same with non-sports - the best mathematician by far was Euler, the best composers, the best singers, eg. Whitney Houston, Mariah Carey, Celine Dion, Arianna Grande. You don't just have a ton of people around at the same level.
Once u started talking about singers i understood that you have no clue how the world works. The best singers are the ones who are marketable, not "objectively good" singers.
Coming back to objective things where market value is not important, more the competition the harder it is to stand out. Capa stood out when 10 people took chess seriously, will he stand out today when 1000 people take it seriously? i won't bet on that
Cinematic wrote:
staples13 wrote:
Magnus did not manage to win one single classical game against Caruana
Chill.... Magnus could beat all of the players from the past easily. Why? Logic. He beat Vishy who beat Kramnik who beat Kasparov and so on. This means that he is better than all of them. If let say, player x beat Magnus, that means he can beat Fisher.
ONly reason why is that he was spoiled with computes
Epiloque wrote:
Redgreenorangeyellow wrote:
Cinematic wrote:
staples13 wrote:
Magnus did not manage to win one single classical game against Caruana
Chill.... Magnus could beat all of the players from the past easily. Why? Logic. He beat Vishy who beat Kramnik who beat Kasparov and so on. This means that he is better than all of them. If let say, player x beat Magnus, that means he can beat Fisher.
ONly reason why is that he was spoiled with computes
But Vishy had computers too when Magnus played him. That is unrelated though.
Computers do not magically make you beat a World champ, they just improve your play. So Magnus was already good enough to beat Vishy.
That is why you and me are not WCs, bc no matter how much we use a computer it will not help us beat them.
Ok sure, yeah. Magnus's raw skill is probably better than Vishy's; but what I am trying to highlight is that the reason why there has been this rapid improvement in players throughout the past couple hundreds are years is that chess knowledge has been increasing. Raw skill may vary a bit, but the best of the best have not naturally become significantly more intelligent than they were in the past. Contrary to popular belief, humans have possessed relatively the same raw intelligence throughout the ages (I mean relatively modern humans from a historical stanpoint, not humans from a long long time ago). They only reason why our natural intelligence may appear augmented compared to previous generations is because, again, we have access to more knowledge (and better diet and nutrition but that is besides the point).
I'm not a big fan of how @staples13 is reviewing out this issue. I am weaker than you bro but hark to me out.
Just because the players are not playing like "Bobby Fischer or whatsoever" chess doesn't inevitably mean that they are not good. Also, I don't like why you are 'rushing' this theory.
These days computer are at their top. And have officially been the sovereign. Back in those days, there were not many legit anonymous players out there. These days there are so many prodigies, chess is becoming more and more prominent day by day! So what If the players are not so devout? everyone is learning chess, chess is becoming more populous and it's becoming a sensation. If you really heed about the game, 70% of it should be towards its growth and popularity.
what up chess nerds its been awhile
sgreen13 wrote:
what up chess nerds its been awhile
wassup
Nice.
After being trash talked by Petrosian it's fun to see So turn in a great performance.
I don't know what petrosian actually said but it must be noted that wesley himself called magnus a huge favorite before the finals. He has also in his stream said that magnus is clearly better than him in bullet. Wesley knows that magnus is just the better player in faster time controls, today was not magnus' day for sure