What I really like about him is that he is not quick to accept a draw...like most other GMs...he sometimes presses, and extends the game in search of the win. I've seen top GMs agree to a draw after move 11...and this just pisses me off, I've seen him fight for a win over 100 moves, and then take the draw...but he really tries to win every game, just like Fischer.
...funny how, when Magnus refuses the draw and continues on, no one critises this, but if weaker GMs do this I am certain they would be raked over the coals for disrespect.
I think, if I may say so, that chess fans present very knowing opinions, but my main point is this. Its easier to go back and say, this player or that player was one of the best, because of their opening, middlegame or endgame strategy that was absolutely edging on perfection. My other point though is in conjunctive that if we are trying to define the ranking of current tournament players, my view is that they are all only about equal, and I am not sayng they do not get some respect. But, I am trying to say that anything can happen in the future, whether its a 50 point lead of one over the other or a 200 point lead, a tournament is not defined by the point rank of the players: It is only defined by the outcome--who wins more pointal by winning the most games. At this point, the discussion is not logical by saying, "This guy is now the current world's best, bar none." Most of them if not all, we can say in logic, are competing at roughly the same level. Is it not true that Anand and Carlson are just as equally able to produce a win the the tournaments in the next 3 years, say? Because this is true, then we can't say that one or the other has established preeminence in the game over all others, nor much less that they have established prominence over real any players of the past, who have passed on also. In logical terms, I just am seeing that bullish speculation is not the author of considered commentary or logical inference, please.
Is it not true that Anand and Carlson are just as equally able to produce a win the the tournaments in the next 3 years, say?
No it's not true, which recent tournament would give you that impression?
London, Bilbao; Carlsen is a far better tournament player than Anand right now.
If I may go further, I will use a non-chess example of how ability and skill could be rated to try and make another point in the discussion of "best player ever." If we compare a man who did a two year tour of duty in Vietnam, then went home, with the man who completed a six year tour and escaped with his life, it would seem easily concluded that the second man was the better comparable soldier. But, if the first man was a medic not in the field and the second man was in combat every day, then the second man would definitely have been the better corpsman. Just an aside on that point.
But to determine the best chess player ever, I think it would require a statistical analysis through computer engine, to see who made more very good or excellent moves over their career, at tournament play. Even though Alekhine beat Capablanca in one or two tournaments, Capablanca has respect for his complex calculating in endgames, but equally so in the opening moves and middlegame, which prepared for his seemingly easy wins in the endgames. As such, many more would say that Capablanca was a superior player, an inference that most people agree with than take issue. But, I think a beginning way of looking at how did a player make a mark far beyond his peers to take a seat as "the best ever" we must look at all their tournament level games, and determine who had a higher average of "best moves" and obversely, a lower average of "blunders" or "moderate mistakes" at the tournament level, correlating factors only possible discovered through computer generated analysis-- But it is true that chess enthusiasts can addice a knowing on who achieved more perfection in the game absent any computer analysis. And, we like certain players more over years because, well, they were much better players and we try to aspire to that level. But yes, I am saying the players that competed and won in tournaments for a longer range of time, Fischer was one who won it all, then dropped out, but Alekhine and Capablanca competed over and over again, displaying their passion, and proving easily and quickly that they are better masters of chess than was Fischer. And, I say Fischer loses points in ranking for unsportsmanship that is well known as a fact. But, also when they are saying that because of the high point rank of the current tournament players, that these players are way better than the seminal players of age old, I fully disagree. I don't think there is a correlative between current point rank and overall standing in the total history of chess.
Scott, I disagree because we all know that past performance is no guarantee of future results. Can you agree with me on this point--which I obviously borrowed from the field of financial investments?
Nobody is saying anything is guaranteed.
It's just not comparable with a financial instrument where price movements may be due to any number of tangible and intangible factors, and swings can be due to subjective as well as objective factors. This is completely different, the intangible and unpredictable factors don't have an influence to anything like the same extent, Carlsen is just playing better chess and giving his opponents more problems.
BTW, past performance isn't a guarantee of future results, but it's certainly used as an indication in a lot of financial analysis.
We can only make predictions based on what we have seen, and you'd have to be blind to give Anand as much chance of Carlsen of winning the tournaments they both enter over the next 3 years.
You can draw some basic conclusions from ratings differences at the top, but to determine how good the best player is solely on the margin between 1st and 2nd just doesn't work. The first place player doesn't automatically become greater if the second place player gets worse.
If you want to make a comparison of how much better the top player is based on ratings, it would make more sense to see how much higher his rating is compared to the average of the top 20 players or so.
As ive said to be the best you have to beat the best. If he beats Anand in a match for the WCC then he is thereby the best.It doesnt matter if youre number one in the ratings. Until beaten in the 64 square board, Anand is and will still be the best of em all. Period and fullstop.
Wrong as wrong can be! As I pointed out earlier there were players that never were World Champion (Bronstein, Keres, Larsen and many others). But those players had had enormeous influence on chess!
So only to state only WCC counts (or #1) is completely wrong. The influence of a player on the development of chess is as important as WCC or #1 in ELO ranking. Remember such all-time greats as Réti, Nimzowitsch, Tarrasch (all have never been World Champion). But their influence on chess is still present!
The WCC match is not necessary to decide superiority (just as it wasn't with Karpov, who never played a WCC match against Fischer, and went on to prove his superiority in many other tournaments against other top players around the world).You and I have never played a game with each other. Yet, out of the two of us, one of us categorically is already best at chess. Glancing at our ratings (which are generated by our play against other opponents), I would say it is probably me.If we were to go ahead and play a match to decide the matter, and I were to win it, that would demonstrate my superiority, but the superiority existed and was demonstrated by games with chess players at large before it was demonstrated by a deciding match.So it is with Carlsen and Anand. Carlsen is constantly outperforming Anand in his games in chess at large, even if he has not played a WCC match against Anand to decide and demonstrate it.
Many will never see Carlsen as the greatest until he has also won the world championship in a serious match against a reigning world champion . I am one of them . Some people put too much faith in ratings and tournament play is very different from match play .
I think as a fact that Magnus is not really that great, I guarantee if I had his brain I could play equally as well. ha. there's chess nuts then there's chess nuts. plea
"Usain bolt is not great at all, someone should just strip him of all the medals. You know why? Because if I had his body, I could run just as fast."
I just wanted to demonstrate how flawed your logics is. That somebody is great means that they have a good body, brain or skills. What do you think great means? lol..
When he beats Anand in a match then i'll probably say he's the greatest.
Yes, he needs to win and defend the title a while to secure that status.
But when was the last time Anand finished ahead of Carlsen in a tournament? Unlike previous contenders, Carlsen has spent most of his career as an elite GM playing exclusively in Super-GM tournaments. While Karpov, Kasparov, Kramnik, and Anand competed in many or most of the Super-GM events they could, the fields they faced just haven't been of the strength top-to-bottom of those Carlsen has contested.
Before Karpov, there just weren't such events except every several years. So prior standouts did not have the opportunity. But Carlsen has, and he has delivered. His tournament record alone puts him among the all-time greats already.
Think how good he will be by the time he has to shave every day!
But Anand, until beaten in a match, is still and will always be the best and the King of chess players of this generation. Not Kasparov.. and yes not even Carlsen. Until Carlsen wrests the crown from the king could we all say he (Carlsen) is undoubtedly the best hands down. But not now. No...until he beats Anand.Amen
Please... Anands rating is almost 100 below Carlsens. These ratings are stabilized over thousands of matches, and Carlsen has the highest rating ever and is still increasing it. Increasing rating with a high rating is also MUCH harder.
Carlsen didn't participate in the last World championship of chess, because of cheat rules letting Anand play finals without having to play himself to the finals.
I'd like to see some proof, or at least SOME logics (which your post is 100% void of) explaining why Anand is "best" only because he won one type of tournament (which Carlsen didn't participate in).
So why is Carlsen better than Fischer, Kasparov etc etc? Because the population is increasing, thus more chessplayers exist, making the competition harder. Also due to modern theory we can assume that today's chessplayers have better strategy than earlier chess players. Also due to Carlsens young age, if it still happens to be a fact that he still isn't the greatest (which is quite unlikely) he surely will be soon.
Oh yes, this is a very fine logic.
So, Rustam Kasimdzhanov who is a former World Champion is greater than Magnus, and Ushenina is greater that Jutka - right?
I don't get this logic at all. It is not fine at all either. Rating is more accurate at determining chess knowledge, than a stressfull world championship under pressure.
Melkor, that was Frenzy's point - he was using a reductio ad absurdum argument to illustrate silliness of the logic, just as you did in another post regards Usain Bolt.
Sorry, but there's no logic in this statement. The only difference of chess players before computer power came into use is the opening preparation (and you can perfect your tactical and ending skills with the help of computers).
For Fischer 30 games in a special opening was a lot. While Kasparov had only to click in his database to find hundreds of games played in this line. A great help for each GM!
What would I give for a complete analyses of WCC 1972 by Fischer. Fischer had shown sevral of his analyses to Timman ... Maybe some time we could see this analysis. (By the way Robert Hübner did a great work in analysing some of Fischer's 60 Memorable Games. He even refuted Kasparov's analyse in Game 56:
Only to give an example of some of the best (regarded) analysis ...
Please note I said GREATEST and not just great . Ofcourse he is better/ greater than the weakest world champions produced by silly knock out tournaments but is he greater than the strongest world champions just because he has a high rating ? Do you really believe he's greater than a Kasparov or Fischer simply due to his higher rating ? I do not and would be surprised that an IM would put so much faith/importance in rating alone .
The logics, which do exist in my post remains that skill of top chess players increases with population (at least in countries where chess is popular). Now the population has doubled since 1966, allowing even more gifted geniouses like Carlsen to be born to take the chess throne.
I don't see what is so remarkable about the game you showed me above. The person playing black had a bad beginning, lost a lot of tempos, and lost his queen and resigned? Is that really supposed to be something that no other grandmaster could accomplish or what?