Razdomillie wrote:
konhidras wrote:
You mean you dont wanna be a Matt Damon look-alike too?.
I'll take the looks and skills anytime, just not the fame
Good one! FAME "im gonna live forever..im gonna learn how to fly..Fame!"
Magnus = Great
Sort:
konhidras wrote:
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.
Well that "funny logic" is your logics. However when I put your own logics into perspective, you can see how unlogical it is. So you thought about it and figured out that your own arguments don't make sense at all. Now think about that lol..
I wonder if he has the drive to want to keep playing at the highest level for another 20 years, he doesn't appear to be as totally obsessed by chess as some of the other top guys. I'm sure he wants to win the World Championship to validate his greatness but once that happens....
Lot of people missing the point. Winning the World Championship isn't important for Carlsen to prove that he's the strongest player, but as an achievement in itself. Sporting success isn't measured by absolute strength but by what you win.
mcjpd wrote:
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.
Yeah I get the point that you have poor reasoning skills as well. Neither can you distinguish between my logics and the person you defend. It is the opinion which you defend, that presumes Carlsen is worse 5 minutes before he beats Anand.
Anyway: Ofcorse it may be possible that it is reasonable to conclude that Carlsen is the best chess player, even if he has not happened to win the world champion ship.. That's a very simple logical statement, and good practice to develop some logical thinking. Good luck!
My...my...(from Gulliver's Travels)...he ran out of reason..
Melk0r wrote:
So why is Carlsen better than Fischer, Kasparov etc etc? Because the population is increasing, thus more chessplayers exist, making the competition harder.
Ows...really now..huh. Ok if you say so.
Scottrf wrote:
Lot of people missing the point. Winning the World Championship isn't important for Carlsen to prove that he's the strongest player, but as an achievement in itself. Sporting success isn't measured by absolute strength but by what you win.
That's something I can somewhat agree with, but this is clearly different from what some people are actually saying here.
PIRATCH wrote:
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!
Well if the queen moves the rook can just follow attacking the queen while checking the king. But perhaps those moves marked in blue weren't the actual game? (edit: ok so i double checked and I thought it was white to move on the last move but it was black.)
The part of my argument which you critisized is more probability based. I don't know why you find it necessary meddle "logics" into that case.
So just to be as dumb as you I could say: "hey, saying that there is no logics in population is unlogical, because the term logics can not be defined without a population".
PIRATCH wrote:
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!
But these technical rook endgames that Carlsen have are not complicated by IM standards..
jambyvedar wrote:
But these technical rook endgames that Carlsen have are not complicated by IM standards..
This ought to be the dumbest comment I've read since a very long time ago.
Feel free to play any of them "better". Engine usage is allowed (it will simply make matters worse for you).
This guy is winning a hell of a lot against top opposition playing equal, and sometimes dead equal positions. He has drawn a few, to be sure, he even lost one (against Caruana- I guess he lost because his position was winning rather easily!), he has virtually redefined the way chess is played against a bunch of "Silicon Kids", and the comment is- what? That he is massively scoring against 2700+ opposition because his endgame technique is flawed... 
You won't regard it as an insult if I ask what your actual chess rating is, will you? (your IQ rating does not bother me).
Melk0r wrote:
The part of my argument which you critisized is more probability based. I don't know why you find it necessary meddle "logics" into that case.
So just to be as dumb as you I could say: "hey, saying that there is no logics in population is unlogical, because the term logics can not be defined without a population".
As dumb as your last sentence would also be:
"Let's say we have 4 times as many people today than in the 18th century. Thus we ought to have 4 W. A. Mozarts ..." Do we really? Statistically we should ... 
Churchill had no trust in statistics unless he made the statistics himself!
pfren wrote:
jambyvedar wrote:
But these technical rook endgames that Carlsen have are not complicated by IM standards..
This ought to be the dumbest comment I've read since a very long time ago.
Feel free to play any of them "better". Engine usage is allowed (it will simply make matters worse for you).
This guy is winning a hell of a lot against top opposition playing equal, and sometimes dead equal positions. He has drawn a few, to be sure, he even lost one (against Caruana- I guess he lost because his position was winning rather easily!), he has virtually redefined the way chess is played against a bunch of "Silicon Kids", and the comment is- what? That he is massively scoring against 2700+ opposition because his endgame technique is flawed...
You won't regard it as an insult if I ask what your actual chess rating is, will you? (your IQ rating does not bother me).
I am not bothered at all by this post, because I think beyond chess you are nothing. I am only talking of rooks endgames, not other endgames. I am merely stating an opinion of other masters regarding Carlsen that I read before. I don't care if I don't have a high rating of masters, because chess is not my life.
jambyvedar wrote:
I am not bothered at all by this post, because I think beyond chess you are nothing. I am only talking of rooks endgames, not other endgames. I am merely stating an opinion of other masters regarding Carlsen that I read before. I don't care if I don't have a high rating of masters, because chess is not my life.
Sorry, but rook endings are one of the most complicated endings on the chess board. There is a common saying: "Won Rook endings end often in a draw. Drawn Rook endings were often won/lost!"
PIRATCH wrote:
Melk0r wrote:
The part of my argument which you critisized is more probability based. I don't know why you find it necessary meddle "logics" into that case.
So just to be as dumb as you I could say: "hey, saying that there is no logics in population is unlogical, because the term logics can not be defined without a population".
As dumb as your last sentence would also be:
"Let's say we have 4 times as many people today than in the 18th century. Thus we ought to have 4 W. A. Mozarts ..." Do we really? Statistically we should ...
Churchill had no trust in statistics unless he made the statistics himself!
Well if you had infinite paralell universes we could maybe start talking about 4 Mozarts. I don't know how you can interpret that amount of Mozarts is proportional to population from anything that I've said. Seriously why/what did u get that from? Statistically we should surely not have 4 Mozarts. Do you believe that statistics are untrustable?
jambyvedar wrote:
pfren wrote:
jambyvedar wrote:
But these technical rook endgames that Carlsen have are not complicated by IM standards..
This ought to be the dumbest comment I've read since a very long time ago.
Feel free to play any of them "better". Engine usage is allowed (it will simply make matters worse for you).
This guy is winning a hell of a lot against top opposition playing equal, and sometimes dead equal positions. He has drawn a few, to be sure, he even lost one (against Caruana- I guess he lost because his position was winning rather easily!), he has virtually redefined the way chess is played against a bunch of "Silicon Kids", and the comment is- what? That he is massively scoring against 2700+ opposition because his endgame technique is flawed...
You won't regard it as an insult if I ask what your actual chess rating is, will you? (your IQ rating does not bother me).
I am not bothered at all by this post, because I think beyond chess you are nothing. I am only talking of rooks endgames, not other endgames. I am merely stating an opinion of other masters regarding Carlsen that I read before. I don't care if I don't have a high rating of masters, because chess is not my life.
But did you ever let a piece hang in a blitz game? If so even to beginner standards that is not very complicated to grasp that you shouldn't let your pieces hang. Therefor if it has ever happened to you, then you aren't a very good player right?
konhidras wrote:
Carlsen is the highest rated yes!. But not the best there is at the moment. Anand is undoubtedly the best until beaten in a match. Besides in match play Anand has beaten Carlsen 3-1
Anand is undoubtedly ranked 7 and going lower. And he undoudtedly didn't win the london chess classic soo I see no reason why he should be the best, everything says he's not.
Melk0r wrote:
PIRATCH wrote:
Melk0r wrote:
The part of my argument which you critisized is more probability based. I don't know why you find it necessary meddle "logics" into that case.
So just to be as dumb as you I could say: "hey, saying that there is no logics in population is unlogical, because the term logics can not be defined without a population".
As dumb as your last sentence would also be:
"Let's say we have 4 times as many people today than in the 18th century. Thus we ought to have 4 W. A. Mozarts ..." Do we really? Statistically we should ...
Churchill had no trust in statistics unless he made the statistics himself!
Well if you had infinite paralell universes we could maybe start talking about 4 Mozarts. I don't know how you can interpret that amount of Mozarts being proportional to population from anything that I've said. Seriously why/what did u get that from? Statistically we should surely not have 4 Mozarts. Do you believe that statistics are untrustable?
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.
Isn't it the same like "4 Mozarts"? And if you ask me: no I don't trust statistics. (Even ELO has had inflation because of increasing players - to an existing system ...)
You mean you dont wanna be a Matt Damon look-alike too?.
I'll take the looks and skills anytime, just not the fame