ofc its safe but what does it mater if he never becomes world champion? but seriously why now? wasnt the endgame easily winning anyway?
is it safe to say that Magnus
Sort:
SmyslovFan wrote:
Ask Kramnik, Anand and Aronian.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1705520
Scottrf wrote:
SmyslovFan wrote:
Ask Kramnik, Anand and Aronian.
what a game
I was pointing out his amateur offer of converting into a draw pawn endgame 
Saying that, I do like his endgame that was on tactics trainer, but even I got it right 
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1018063
Gelfy blundered an equal endgame... but i's very hard to withstand the continuous pressure Carlsen exerts. We have o be on the alert for many hours, and even some of the best players in the world cannot cope with that.
No, Emory Tate is the best ever. Just ask him or superking500
Gelfy did blunder, but don't discount how much time pressure affected him. He was working hard all game while Magnus was more or less coasting. It was kinda shocking how quickly Boris used up his extra hour (which he barely made it to). It's tough to make consistently accurate moves in that situation against an endgame player like Carlsen.
HurricaneMichael1 wrote:
The guy's a machine, so in short yes.
superking500 wrote:
is by far the best endgame player currently playing.. and one of the greatest endgame player of all time
It's hard to imagine anyone being greater in the endgame than Capablanca but yes he will be the greatest if Carlsen keeps going in the direction he is his intuitive powers are frightening.
I think even the old masters would be astonished how strong he is.
Carlsen would create nothing but miniatures against Capablanca.
I dont believe it is fair to compare players a hundred years ago to now. These days you have more resources and opportunities to work with.
If you want to rank who is the best player, really you have to look at some combination of their the amount of well played moves and games, and their dominance over their opponents over their career. I understand that Carlsen's skill level is off the charts (really it is), but like in any major sport or activity, you have to be the world champion or hold the title for the championship to complete the course of being the best.
If he does this, then we can start comparing. There is always that .00001% chance that carlsen never becomes a world champion.
pfren wrote:
Gelfy blundered an equal endgame... but i's very hard to withstand the continuous pressure Carlsen exerts. We have o be on the alert for many hours, and even some of the best players in the world cannot cope with that.
Surely there were some practical chances though given the queen+knight vs queen+bishop and all black's pawns on dark squares. Yes, I guess it's a draw, but as you said in such a position I wonder how difficult it is to secure that draw after a long game.
Trading queens was a scholar's mistake (apparently time pressure blunder), but black already had "something" due to previous small inaccuracies- maybe no more than a draw, but who cares about what is the objective evaluation of the position... It's really extremely hard to withstand the pressure against that guy, he plays almost flawlessly, and... his endgame knowledge is worse than his openings' one: The only position he knows being a draw is king vs. king!
pfren wrote:
Trading queens was a scholar's mistake, but black already had "something" due to previous small inaccuracies- maybe no more than a draw, but who cares about what is the objective evaluation of the position... It's really extremely hard to withstand the pressure against that guy, he plays almost flawlessly, and... his endgame knowledge is worse than his openings' one: The only position he knows being a draw is king vs. king!
I agree. What we can show is drawn in analysis may be impractically difficult over the board in an important tournament or game with your clock ticking. I mean, I have no idea how hard it is for top players... I wonder if Gelfand believes the draw should have been easy for him? (seems very hard to me).
Haha :)
The queen trade was an obvious mistake but both Gelfand and Carlsen spoke about 40. h5 as the turning point. Such a seemingly small (to me anyway) inaccuracy under terrible clock pressure was just enough to unbalance the game in Carlsen's favor. But that's all Magnus needs
Mar 17, 2013
0
#18
Amazing how often that inaccuracy will come at move 40. Even when the 39 moves before it were perfect.
It should also be noted that Carlsen absolutely flew through the opening compared to Boris. He was obviously very well prepared in what I gather is an unorthodox opening, which helped to create that time pressure.
Byerley wrote:
It should also be noted that Carlsen absolutely flew through the opening compared to Boris. He was obviously very well prepared in what I gather is an unorthodox opening, which helped to create that time pressure.
Heh, how frightening would it be to realize even with great preparation and an equal middlegame that Magnus has very good chances to win anyway...
is by far the best endgame player currently playing.. and one of the greatest endgame player of all time