Magnus = Great - Chess Forums - Page 4

NeXT111

Dec 12, 2012

0

#61

konhidras wrote:

Melk0r wrote:

"He may not be the worlds number one but it is Carlsen's task and not Anands to prove who is the best."

Oh my god, your entire post is full of this kind of "logic" allthough that's not really the word I like to refer your statements to. Please learn to distinguish emotional delusions from facts. Thanks.

Also a single match (which your entire measurement of who is best is based on) means relatively nothing.

Anand or anybody who holds the title is the best player of the moment of which he has to dethrone to put and exclamation mark to his top rating. Now here is the logic...Would the world considered Bobby Fischer the greatest player had he not played Spassky for the crown or if he had lost? He was the world number 1 then aint he not?. To be one of the greats one has to be beat one of the greats. Who has he beaten? Kramnik, Topalov, Svidler ,Anand? Its not about a single match dude not even of emotions lol. Carlsen is already "made" he just has to put the seal on it. What is lacking? The World Chess Champion Crown.

Let's say they play next year in the world championship and let's consider if it is the case that Carlsen wins. Does that mean that Carlsen was a worse chess player than Anand 5 minutes before the match, and a better player than Anand right after their match? Think about that.

konhidras

Dec 12, 2012

0

#62

Melk0r wrote:

konhidras wrote:

Melk0r wrote:

"He may not be the worlds number one but it is Carlsen's task and not Anands to prove who is the best."

Oh my god, your entire post is full of this kind of "logic" allthough that's not really the word I like to refer your statements to. Please learn to distinguish emotional delusions from facts. Thanks.

Also a single match (which your entire measurement of who is best is based on) means relatively nothing.

Anand or anybody who holds the title is the best player of the moment of which he has to dethrone to put and exclamation mark to his top rating. Now here is the logic...Would the world considered Bobby Fischer the greatest player had he not played Spassky for the crown or if he had lost? He was the world number 1 then aint he not?. To be one of the greats one has to be beat one of the greats. Who has he beaten? Kramnik, Topalov, Svidler ,Anand? Its not about a single match dude not even of emotions lol. Carlsen is already "made" he just has to put the seal on it. What is lacking? The World Chess Champion Crown.

Let's say they play next year in the world championship and let's consider if it is the case that Carlsen wins. Does that mean that Carlsen was a worse chess player than Anand 5 minutes before the match, and a better player than Anand right after their match? Think about that.

lol thats a funny logic. read my post dude , i never said he is better or worse than anand (although anand has beaten him in a match before). He is already "made" the crown seals his destiny whoever has it (doesnt matter really it just so happend to be Anand). The timming is right , he is the highest rated player of all time and the youngest to do so the exclamation mark is needed to bring him to the summit of the chess gods...the crown. Actually i could have said "i'll tell you my answer when the bridge is crossed". But if felt like explaining...logically. . Now you think about that.

AnastasiaStyles

Dec 12, 2012

0

#63

konhidras wrote:

i never said he is better or worse than anand

Yes, you did. You said that Anand is the best chess player. If he is best, then he is better than all others, and that includes Carlsen. That's how superlatives and comparitives work.

mvtjc

Dec 12, 2012

0

#64

you really don't get it do you? the crown is for just the seal or a marker that someone is the best,you are so dumb to think that he was worse 5mins before winning, yes we can imply he is one of the greatest, but we can not completely say he is until he gets the crown. The thing is you misinterpret the idea, we can't say Chicago bulls are the champions though they have the potential untill they win the championship(talking about MJ era) Melk0r wrote: konhidras wrote: Melk0r wrote: "He may not be the worlds number one but it is Carlsen's task and not Anands to prove who is the best." Oh my god, your entire post is full of this kind of "logic" allthough that's not really the word I like to refer your statements to. Please learn to distinguish emotional delusions from facts. Thanks. Also a single match (which your entire measurement of who is best is based on) means relatively nothing. Anand or anybody who holds the title is the best player of the moment of which he has to dethrone to put and exclamation mark to his top rating. Now here is the logic...Would the world considered Bobby Fischer the greatest player had he not played Spassky for the crown or if he had lost? He was the world number 1 then aint he not?. To be one of the greats one has to be beat one of the greats. Who has he beaten? Kramnik, Topalov, Svidler ,Anand? Its not about a single match dude not even of emotions lol. Carlsen is already "made" he just has to put the seal on it. What is lacking? The World Chess Champion Crown. Let's say they play next year in the world championship and let's consider if it is the case that Carlsen wins. Does that mean that Carlsen was a worse chess player than Anand 5 minutes before the match, and a better player than Anand right after their match? Think about that.

konhidras

Dec 12, 2012

0

#65

DavidStyles wrote:

konhidras wrote:

i never said he is better or worse than anand

Yes, you did. You said that Anand is the best chess player. If he is best, then he is better than all others, and that includes Carlsen. That's how superlatives and comparitives work.

Because hes the champ. He is the current king. Any yes technically thats how superlatives and comparatives work. But not practically.

konhidras

Dec 12, 2012

0

#66

Kabayan...hinayhinay ka lang bakamapikonang mgabugoknaito saatin.HIndi silamakaintindi. Bakamamayapagtulungan tayodito.

konhidras

Dec 12, 2012

0

#67

Estragon wrote:

There have been many periods in chess history when the strongest player did not hold the title. Capablanca spent many years as the world's strongest without the title, both during the latter part of Lasker's reign and the first half of Alekhine's. By WWII, Botvinnik, Keres, and Reshevsky - not to mention Fine - were stronger than Alekhine. Botvinnik barely held onto the title with tied matches and guaranteed rematches, he was not a dominant champion. Petrosian and Spassky were both haunted by Fischer. No one seriously believed Kramnik was the strongest when he won the match from Kasparov, especially when he spent years ducking a rematch.

The title is heavy in symbolism, but has never made its holder the strongest player in the world.

But still Capa had to play Lasker to establish his fate to the chess world. Now, saying Botvinnik, Keres, Reshevsky and Fine are better than Alekhine is kinda "Off" and youll probably earn the ere of others here. We can only remember those although a bit shallow, all those who almost reached the "chess god-like" status :Pilssburry, Keres,Bronstein,Nimzovich. Add more if you want. This is Carlsens era, it is his time and he has to fullfill this destiny...(that is if there is one waiting for him in the "chess olympus"."

jesterville

Dec 12, 2012

0

#68

Long before that thing called "Elo" was ever dreamed of, the WCC was indeed the only yardstick to measure greatness...the best played the best for the crown. Times however, have changed. Now we can actually measure performance by some standard (although not perfect).

So we have two systems side-by-side. Anand the WCC, who has been tried and tested, and remains unmoved from his summit by any challengers in Match play. And then we have Magnus, who not only has the highest performance rating ever, but has been the most prolific current player in tournament play (at least over the past few years). Previous WCC such as Karpov and Kasparov were also the highest rated Elo for most of their reign...so no conflict there, but now we have a clear disparity. The current WCC is not the strongest/most consistant Tournament player. It is interesting to note that in their head to head encounters Anand is still ahead of Magnus...the boy wonder beats everyone except I believe Anand and Kramnik...where there are mostly drawn games.

I think it is correct to say that Anand is on his way out/down. Even though he won the past two WCC encounters, his play was lacking, and he was actually lucky to win over Gelfand...he certainly did not display any clear superiority over Gelfand...and his performance outside of the WCC is nothing to be proud of. I think it is also fare to say that while Anand is on the down side of the performance curve, Magnus is on the upside...and I don't believe he has reached his best yet.

I think all of us want to see Magnus meet with Anand for the WCC, and see how the wonder boy plays in a Match setting...I don't think that reality is far off.

konhidras

Dec 12, 2012

0

#69

jesterville wrote:

Long before that thing called "Elo" was ever dreamed of, the WCC was indeed the only yardstick to measure greatness...the best played the best for the crown. Times however, have changed. Now we can actually measure performance by some standard (although not perfect).

So we have two systems side-by-side. Anand the WCC, who has been tried and tested, and remains unmoved from his summit by any challengers in Match play. And then we have Magnus, who not only has the highest performance rating ever, but has been the most prolific current player in tournament play (at least over the past few years). Previous WCC such as Karpov and Kasparov were also the highest rated Elo for most of their reign...so no conflict there, but now we have a clear disparity. The current WCC is not the strongest/most consistant Tournament player. It is interesting to note that in their head to head encounters Anand is still ahead of Magnus...the boy wonder beats everyone except I believe Anand and Kramnik...where there are mostly drawn games.

I think it is correct to say that Anand is on his way out/down. Even though he won the past two WCC encounters, his play was lacking, and he was actually lucky to win over Gelfand...he certainly did not display any clear superiority over Gelfand...and his performance outside of the WCC is nothing to be proud of. I think it is also fare to say that while Anand is on the down side of the performance curve, Magnus is on the upside...and I don't believe he has reached his best yet.

I think all of us want to see Magnus meet with Anand for the WCC, and see how the wonder boy plays in a Match setting...I don't think that reality is far off.

Finally! someone gets the point. Man!.Love you dude!. Want a pizza?

jesterville

Dec 12, 2012

0

#70

"Finally! someone gets the point. Man!.Love you dude!. Want a pizza?"

...................................................................................

Thanks...and yes please

konhidras

Dec 12, 2012

0

#71

Hawaiian Pizza with pineapple chunks. We'll watch a movie "The Destiny" starring : Matt Damon as Magnus Carlsen.

PIRATCH

Dec 12, 2012

0

#72

Melk0r wrote:

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?

There is no logic in greater population. Even if there are more chess players it does not necessarily mean there will be more genius like Carlsen!

The game has been played by two of the best GM of their time. There are no losses of tempi! The queen was not lost! I don't see your point of critics on the game (it only shows the analysis) the full game you'll find easily in your database!

konhidras

Dec 12, 2012

0

#73

nice one tube.

Razdomillie

Dec 12, 2012

0

#74

This thread is really making me realise how much I would hate to be someone like Carlsen, I mean to have people debating how 'great' you are as if you aren't even human... Must be stressful to say the least.

PIRATCH

Dec 12, 2012

0

#75

Razdomillie wrote:

This thread is really making me realise how much I would hate to be someone like Carlsen, I mean to have people debating how 'great' you are as if you aren't even human... Must be stressful to say the least.

As Carlsen you can do two things.

First ignore all discussions about him.

Second smile about the silly things written about him.

jambyvedar

Dec 12, 2012

0

#76

mcjpd wrote:

Chesschief09 wrote:

Best player of all time! Hands down. He will break the 2900 barrier soon. His Endgame is second to none.

I agree Magnus is a very strong player, but I have to disagree with your statement, either Akiba Rubenstein, J. R. Capablanca or Vasily Smyslov is the best ENDGAME players, possibly include here Petrosian.

Yup, Carlsen is not the very best in endgames, he has many technical rook endgames in which he made mistakes..

konhidras

Dec 12, 2012

0

#77

Estragon wrote:

Razdomillie wrote:

This thread is really making me realise how much I would hate to be someone like Carlsen, I mean to have people debating how 'great' you are as if you aren't even human... Must be stressful to say the least.

Nah, it has no effect on him at all. He neither knows nor cares.

Well said Estragon well said.

Razdomillie

Dec 12, 2012

0

#78

Estragon wrote:

Razdomillie wrote:

This thread is really making me realise how much I would hate to be someone like Carlsen, I mean to have people debating how 'great' you are as if you aren't even human... Must be stressful to say the least.

Nah, it has no effect on him at all. He neither knows nor cares.

Yeah, yeah, of course. But don't you think the comments here reflect the thoughts of the public which Magnus interacts with. I got the same feeling when watching the London chess classic, when he was talking after winning the tournament.

And even if he doesn't care at all, my comment was about how I wouldn't like to be him

PIRATCH

Dec 12, 2012

0

#79

jambyvedar wrote:

mcjpd wrote:

Chesschief09 wrote:

Best player of all time! Hands down. He will break the 2900 barrier soon. His Endgame is second to none.

I agree Magnus is a very strong player, but I have to disagree with your statement, either Akiba Rubenstein, J. R. Capablanca or Vasily Smyslov is the best ENDGAME players, possibly include here Petrosian.

Yup, Carlsen is not the very best in endgames, he has many technical rook endgames in which he made mistakes..

Have you taken into account that the rules have changed?

There is no sealed move. And taken up games probably the next day. What helps to analyse the position and even make less errors. Today you have to play endings with restricted time ... After already having played sevral hours. No wonder errors occur!

konhidras

Dec 12, 2012

0

#80

Razdomillie wrote:

Estragon wrote:

Razdomillie wrote:

This thread is really making me realise how much I would hate to be someone like Carlsen, I mean to have people debating how 'great' you are as if you aren't even human... Must be stressful to say the least.

Nah, it has no effect on him at all. He neither knows nor cares.

Yeah, yeah, of course. But don't you think the comments here reflect the thoughts of the public which Magnus interacts with. I got the same feeling when watching the London chess classic, when he was talking after winning the tournament.

And even if he doesn't care at all, my comment was about how I wouldn't like to be him

You mean you dont wanna be a Matt Damon look-alike too?.