you honesty believe nakamura is stronger then magnus
No, of course not, but he does need everyone commenting on the nonsense he's spitting out. Of course he could still attract attention by saying something clever, or funny, but alas, not everyone is capable doing that.
i wonder why top super gms havn't commented on the WC yet
you honesty believe nakamura is stronger then magnus
No, of course not, but he does need everyone commenting on the nonsense he's spitting out. Of course he could still attract attention by saying something clever, or funny, but alas, not everyone is capable doing that.
bit irrelevant to the discussion, but I'm just wondering what you think:
Who gets the highest level if they are in perfect shape and play at their very limits? guess i'd say Kramnik or maybe even Ivanchuck, not talking about a match here (which they would probably lose against carlsen)
Look at game 9.
Completely inspirational play by Carlsen.
Granted, the other games were kind of depressing. And this doesn't exactly compare to Fischer - Spassky. But going so far as to say that they are old ladies who are detriments to the game is going to far. They have both played quite a bit of very inspirational chess in the past, and just because one match wasn't the most exciting thing you have ever seen you have to bash the players.
For example, you could compare this years candidates tournament to many of the classic events of the past.
What is the difference? They are both detriments to the game.
Chess, nowadays, is all about seeing who is more of an old lady. I'm not going to say that either of them couldn't completly thrash the likes of Anderssen or Tal. They probably could. I'll give them that much. Still, neither one of them is likely to have the enduring glory that some of the old timers still have today.
Seems to me that chess, like a lot of things, goes in cycles. After Cappablanca it stunk for quite a while. Not necessarily the strength of the players but their inspiration. We had a brief comeback starting in the 50's and we are now back in a boring, lackluster phase.
It hardly matters who is better. Neither of them is memorable.
This comment could only be made if you haven't seen their games.
Nakamura plays very much in the spirit of Tal or perhaps Bent Larsen. Today's top grandmasters are making incredibly deep sacrifices in almost every game, and are playing right on the precipice, trying to push their opponents off the cliff. If anything, the problem is that they are creating far too many amazing games! It's hard to choose just a handful of great games when every tournament creates incredible works of art.
And here's one from Nakamura:
And here's one from Carlsen:
No. Not like Fischer v Spassky. A different era. I really don't blame the players as individuals. It just so happens that they are on the scene at a time where chess is particularly uninteresting. They didn't cause it. The worst you could say about them is that they are helping to sustain it. Perhaps detriment is too strong a word. I apologize for that.
Not everyone is a Tal. Actually, Tal wasn't much of a Tal in his later years. Probably a sign that chess was moving into a new snoozer period. Kasparov held it at bay for a while but now it is fully estabished. Who is to say when fire will reappear in chess but I have no doubt that it will.
I agree with you, heard he can squat & deadlift more than Magnus
No. Not like Fischer v Spassky. A different era. I really don't blame the players as individuals. It just so happens that they are on the scene at a time where chess is particularly uninteresting. They didn't cause it. The worst you could say about them is that they are helping to sustain it. Perhaps detriment is too strong a word. I apologize for that.
Not everyone is a Tal. Actually, Tal wasn't much of a Tal in his later years. Probably a sign that chess was moving into a new snoozer period. Kasparov held it at bay for a while but now it is fully estabished. Who is to say when fire will reappear in chess but I have no doubt that it will.
Note, he made that comment four minutes after I posted three games. He made a judgement about the quality of those three amazing games in under four minutes!
I know. Crush him Vlad next year!
I would not say that Kramnik is stronger than Magnus, but in terms of performance I think Kramnik has been more consistent than the others. So I would say that Kramnik is probably the strongest candidate to face Carlsen.
KRAMNIK IS MORE EXPEIENCED!!
KRAMNIK HAS BETTER OPENING PREP!!
KRAMNIK CAN KILL CARLSEN!!!!!
blahblahblahblah
And all the other fail arguements people used to predict Anand would win.
No. Not like Fischer v Spassky. A different era. I really don't blame the players as individuals. It just so happens that they are on the scene at a time where chess is particularly uninteresting. They didn't cause it. The worst you could say about them is that they are helping to sustain it. Perhaps detriment is too strong a word. I apologize for that.
Not everyone is a Tal. Actually, Tal wasn't much of a Tal in his later years. Probably a sign that chess was moving into a new snoozer period. Kasparov held it at bay for a while but now it is fully estabished. Who is to say when fire will reappear in chess but I have no doubt that it will.
Note, he made that comment four minutes after I posted three games. He made a judgement about the quality of those three amazing games in under four minutes!
My guess is that it took him at least four minutes to write the comment.
It seemed more like he was replying to my comment and was unaware that you had even responded yet.
And your response was better, I was too lazy to go find specific games 
.
Yes, Kramnik is much better than Carlsen. Boy was increadibly lucky this time.
I know! A bottom seed's first major tournament victory. No one could have guessed it. I guess after Anand wipes the floor with him we'll get a real challenger a few years from now.
Got something else to say? 
Magnus is weak, agreed... and he's just lucky that every other player in the world is even weaker.
blueemu wrote:
Magnus is weak, agreed... and he's just lucky that every other player in the world is even weaker.
.
Agree 100%
Also, he never does anything to win his games. He just waits from them to blunder, and capitolizes!
It is just that his 2700, 2800 rated opponents keep blundering, and he never does. No matter what they throw at him.
Luck. Nothing more.
Don't forget about his patented "cheap endgame tricks", and "boring his opponents to death".
He also uses psychological tricks on his opponents, and makes nonsense moves in order to confuse them ;-)
The weights room is the only thing that can decide who is the strongest.
Don't forget about his patented "cheap endgame tricks", and "boring his opponents to death".
He also uses psychological tricks on his opponents, and makes nonsense moves in order to confuse them ;-)
I bet once the Iron Curtain fell, the Norweigans finally got their hands on some of the KGB's secret mind control data. I think they covertly trained Carlsen from his youth, to use mind control tactics on his opponent's and now he crushes them all.
I bet this how all of the Soviet players dominated, until the CIA intercepted how to defense against it and the US State Department, secretly implanted Bobby Fischer's skull with a special plate to block his frontal lobes from such manipulation. That is what drove him nuts and he was p!$$#d that they never paid him for it either....
So...Kramnik is stronger than Magnus?
you honesty believe nakamura is stronger then magnus
No, of course not, but he does need everyone commenting on the nonsense he's spitting out. Of course he could still attract attention by saying something clever, or funny, but alas, not everyone is capable doing that.