Nope.
Until the next time...
is this a fair criticism aganst Magnus
Sort:
...
come on guys.... i mean if you tend to play risky you might be able to win more games, but also open up to losing more games
Na.
Why is everyone so down on Carlsen lately, he did what he had to do and won the Title what more do you want from the guy?
Mersaphe wrote:
Why do always try to bring Carlsen down with your lame theories? It never works
This is no better than your idea that Aronian is better than Carlsen because he likes "complicated positions" where Carlsen likes "simple positions"
doesn't aronian (in their last games) outplay carlsen in opening and middlegame everytime and magnus only wins cause aronina blunders
Yeah that's right, everyone is better than Carlsen, they just magically lose.
whats wrong with my theory
GM can easily draw each other..if they play for a draw during a game
superking500 wrote:
whats wrong with my theory
GM can easily draw each other..if they play for a draw during a game
First, you have no support for the argument.
Second... no need for a second if you don't have any support.
Dec 1, 2013
0
#11
World Champion Carlsen has earned his immunity from criticism.
Those who need the criticism are the arm chair quarterbacks and backseat drivers.
Without it, they'd have no place in the world of chess at all.
Now how does that "food for thought" apply to you?
superking just keeps on trying doesnt he? Superking, why not just learn to play chess? It's easier to understand if you learn the basics first, like how the horsey moves, etc. You won't have to keep posting this inane rhetoric because you will at least have a simple understanding of that which you seek to pass judgement on. You keep flip flopping on whether or not Carlsen is good. Just fess up, you've got a crush on him don't ya?
I have reviewed the world championship match. Magnus plays very fast tactical type of chess. He is a good player. I do not like his style of playing. It is very superficial. The nice thing about chess is that it is irrelevant what some high ranked player does somewhere, it can be completely ignored unless you believe it has some relevance to your thinking, which most of the time it does not.
"World Champion Carlsen has earned his immunity from criticism.
Those who need the criticism are the arm chair quarterbacks and backseat drivers.
Without it, they'd have no place in the world of chess at all.
Now how does that "food for thought" apply to you?"
You forgot to realize the irrelevance of what any other player does in chess to your own play unless you believe it will help your own playing. The nice thing about chess is that you can operate in your own world, chess is largely a tool to eliminate day to day bs and is fun. But playing chess isnt a real career, nor is anything categorized as a game. These game players may be fun to watch, or very boring and superficial, and can be seen as a momentary distraction from your own life which is priority number one.
zazen5 wrote:
I have reviewed the world championship match. Magnus plays very fast tactical type of chess. He is a good player. I do not like his style of playing. It is very superficial. The nice thing about chess is that it is irrelevant what some high ranked player does somewhere, it can be completely ignored unless you believe it has some relevance to your thinking, which most of the time it does not.
What leads you to the conclusion that his play is superficial? And what does that even mean?
EricFleet wrote:
zazen5 wrote:
I have reviewed the world championship match. Magnus plays very fast tactical type of chess. He is a good player. I do not like his style of playing. It is very superficial. The nice thing about chess is that it is irrelevant what some high ranked player does somewhere, it can be completely ignored unless you believe it has some relevance to your thinking, which most of the time it does not.
What leads you to the conclusion that his play is superficial? And what does that even mean?
It means that he doesn't understand it at all. 
I think superficial means magnus just reacts to one-move threats. And really, I can't think of a time when Magnus has lost to a one move threat, so maybe he is on to something here.
After reading this thread, I am confident I could take on Magnus.
Magnus is a king, and who are you to criticize Magnus?
Hold on. He hasn't defeated anybody. Only euphoria that will fade in about 3 months.
Well, there will be news on him everyday. So let them have it, they will be fed up in 3 months.
Dec 1, 2013
0
#19
None of us posting are in a position to analyze and criticize the style of Carlsen... For sure not people below the rank of International Master at least
that he is good cause he tends to play safe, why other players lose to him because they tend to play risky chess
maybe naka record against carlsen is poor because he tends to play more risky then magnus
if players played safe against magnus=draw