Is Coaching Carlsen Keeping Kasparov's Game Strong?

     I was wondering today whether or not the coaching of Magnus Carlsen by
Garry Kasparov is keeping the former Champion's game at a higher level than
it would be otherwise.
     I'm sure there are no definitive studies to prove this, but it seems logical.
However, logical does not always live up to empirical evidence alone, just
because the eye sees something one can't conclude that it is so.
     Is this the first time in history a former World Champion has coached
a number one player in this fashion?
     How good will Carlsen become, and can he beat Anand for the title?  I am about to turn
47 myself so I always root for the older athletes, as soon as a professional
in any discipline reaches 35 wins become rare, although Tom Watson almost
won the British Open at 59 and Jack Nicklaus won a Masters at 46, and Walter
Ray Williams Jr. just won a bowling event at 50.
     Is Carlsen in danger of burnout?  How many times have we seen this happen
to chess players, or tennis prodigies such as Tracy Austin?
     Can Carlsen reach 3000?  Rybka is at 3200+ now and the sky seems the limit.
If he does break 3000 under today's scoring will he be better than Fischer, and what ranking could Bobby have achieved in today's system?
     Back to the initial thought, is this coaching keeping Kasparov sharper than
if he just trained on his own?
     What are your thoughts?

I'm too lazy to answer all of your questions, but I will answer the easiest one: "Is Carlsen in danger of burnout?"

The answer is NO, and again, I'm too lazy to elaborate. 

"Is this the first time in history a former World Champion has coached
a number one player in this fashion?"

Botvinnik coached Kasparov and Kramnik, probably Karpov too. There was a Sosonko article in "New In Chess" some months ago, where he writes that "they were all Botvinnik's children" or sumthin' to that effect.

I would bet he can eventually put some distance between himself and the pack, as Kasparov did, and Fischer before him, but 3000 seems wildly unlikely.  Kasparov got to 2850, and at that point, I dont think there was generally anyone else real close to 2800 during his era -- for example, Karpov never got about 2780 according to Wikipedia.  Not sure about Fischer's gap, but clearly there is precedent for an 80-100 point gap or so.  Since there are several 2800 players today, that means that 2900 for the next truly dominant #1 is potentially realistic, although not a given. 

Magnus is not as aggressive as Kasparov or Fischer though, which could be a factor in how big a gap he can sustain, given that draws will start to *hurt* as the gap gets bigger.  Since its reasonable to think he will always draw more then Kasparov did, he will need to have a better won/lost ratio then Kasparov just to get the same rating gap.  Might be doable, but every additional gap point will increase the pain of draws, so how is he going to get to 3000?  There is no modern precedent for a human champ having a 200 point gap. 

As a sidenote, can someone compare the won/lost/draws records of all the games (against master level opponents > FIDE 2500 in non-blitz/bullet games) played by Garry Kasparov, Bobby and Carlsen with both White and Black?

Just wanted to see how aggressive (which I believe is sufficiently indicated by the number of decisive games players have been involved in at master level) is Carlsen compared to these legends!

Thanks and Cheers,

"I was wondering today whether or not the coaching of Magnus Carlsen by
Garry Kasparov is keeping the former Champion's game at a higher level than
it would be otherwise."

According to Kasparov, their styles of play are markedly different. Carlsen plays in style of Capablanca or Karpov, while Kasparov's play resembles that of Alekhine and Tal. It would be useful for Carlsen to understand how "the other side" thinks. I'm sure Kasparov shared some of his opening repertoire with Carlsen, and possibly influenced Carlsen training regime. From my own experience, Kasparov is an excellent teacher - his "How to Play the Queen's Gambit" was really helpful in my own opening preparation.

In their last six encounters, Carlsen defeated Anand four times, and drew twice. Looks like the psychological barrier was broken. In a match I would place my bet on Carlsen, taking into account Vishy's spotty form in the past year.

If Carlsen reaches 3000 then that means he is Bobby Fischer Jr. We have to keep in mind the inflation of ratings over time. Fischer will always be number 1 for me.

 Yeah, I don't see anyone surpassing Fischer's 6-0 wins over Taimanov and Larsen, followed by wins over Petrosian and Spassky. AND preceded by the Interzonal win.

I think so.  Whenever players of this caliber work together is more like a collaboration and both generally improve.  Carlsen said Kasparov gives him a lot of psychological advice too, his win over Kramnik in the London Chess Classic he attributed partly to such advice -- but also they work a lot on opening theory.

Botvinnik founded the soviet chess school and was even as much as a father figure to those strong young players -- I'm sure he coached 3 or more WC.

I'm also pulling for Anand to keep the WC title for a while, but it seems at one point or another Carlsen will win it -- if not he'll be a serious contender for a long long time, it took Anand many years as #2 to finally get it, I'm sure Carlsen will get the title sooner or later.

He said in one interview he wasn't worried about some of the chess players that died crazy, like Morphy, because he didn't describe himself as obsessed with chess.  He said although he takes chess seriously (obviously) chess is not his life.  This at least sounds like he has things in perspective and is not in danger of burn out.

No, his peers aren't rated high enough for that to happen.  Also, ratings are relative to the pool of players, 3000 is an arbitrary number anyway.

I'm sure Fischer fans would hate to here this theory, but there are some who say there hasn't been that much rating inflation at the top -- because there are more players than ever and also players are receiving structured training younger, that the numbers today, although not 1 to 1, are comparable to ratings past.  Meaning he's already passed Fischer.  Regardless of if you follow that or not, 3000 is a ludicrously high rating if you're talking about surpassing Fischer, the legend is bigger than the man in this case.

Yes he swept Larsen and Taminov, but look at the games, it's not like he crushed them in under 30 moves.  They even had draws/wins but played desperately -- yes psychology is part of the strength of a player, but lets not pretend Fischer's chess was so perfect that no player has or will surpass him.

Fischer's chess lived by his illness and died by his illness, today's system would make no difference, he wouldn't be able to stay competitive very long.  Remember it was no small miracle they got him to play the WC match.  Genius, as wel as obsession and paranoia were the nature of his ability.

That said, he would easily be in the top 5, so I'm sure he'd surpass his high water mark of 2780-whatever it was, and have good chances to be in the low 2800s -- If he were able to separate his illness from his chess strength I would say easily mid 2800s, but such was the nature of his ability.

Yes chessmetrics gives him a high peak rating -- but because of the candidates matches and Sassky not taking the WC completely seriously I think his rating was inflated -- of course this is all speculation (you did ask for our opinion) but I also believe he woudln't have it as easy today, or even back then if he'd faced Karpov.

Nice post, orangehonda.

Let's not turn another thread into a Fischer thread.

     I really would like to see Kasparov play another tournament.