Magnus = Great - Chess Forums - Page 6

mvtjc

Dec 13, 2012

0

#101

It's awesome to see comments not related to the original post(I'm just teasing, please don't include me in your war)

elig5428

Dec 13, 2012

0

#102

konhidras wrote:

pfren wrote:

Reb wrote:

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 .

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?

Unbelievable!. Magnus is a great player and yes one of the best. He is the top ranking player but there has to be a "seal" to his dominance if he is to be considered the greatest. And that is the crown which Anand holds. The crown which he has wrested from Kramnik the conqueror of Kasparov.The crown he has defended against the then top ranking Topalov and yes the crown he so rightly achieved in match play against Gelfand. Anand has all the credibilities Carlsen has to ovecome. Former World Junior Champion, Former Asian Champion and now as Mike Buffer would say "the reigning...defending.." absolute world chess champion. The torch of the crown has been passed to Anand fair and square. He may not be the worlds number one but it is Carlsen's task and not Anands to prove who is the best. When Fischer said he was the best... he proved it although in a not so pleasant way, he challenge and beat the champ thereby becoming what to be his destiny. Magnus will be considered the highest and strongest chess player of all time but not the greatest or the best there is.HIs destiny as a legend or a has- been will rely on him wresting the crown from the champion Anand. I personally admire Carlsens play and games but to be one of the gods, he has to have absolute dominance even for this generation. Beat Anand and he will be the Greatest! hands down.

The point I will take up now on this lengthy and increasing argument-- which I think is interesting since commentators have gotten into developing points on strategy, and some helpful hints as I am about 1100 elo and seeking growth and new principles to incorporate--is the debate about who is better current, Anand or Carlson. I think its really not representative that they have a diff of 100 points in rating, but i will suggest this:

Would it not prove better who is the ultimate better player if they were to compete in Match play 3-5 times in several years, rather than having all chess avids say that after one Match, it would be absolute as to who was current the best??? I think they are soooo utterly compared in proven skills and talent that at least 2-3 Matches, untimed being better to measure the outcome and effect, would have to occur before chess fanatics would be able to trump around with "Carlson is apparently better than Anand." I would think Magnuson and Carlson would agree on this point. I would think that 10 tourna Match games in one sitting, with no time limits, as they used to have by the old rules would be less conclusive than about 30 games with no time limits. Remember, I think it true that time limits engage a restriction on the best possible game of any and all players!! In the old days, the games would be about 6 to 8 hours with no time restrictions and superior skill would be more properly rated by the tally of total wins and losses (+1, -1, or 1/2). If you think about it, doesn't time restrictions just basically limit the analysis of such game to be restricted to a bounded discussion in statistics as to which opponent discovered through all their moves a higher average of with clarity deciding on the best, most proper move by chance and under the focus of the time restriction, than through the best exercise of their inherent skills and analysis abilities, as in all correspondence chess, or computer chess rated at one move per day? With timed chess games in matches, I think the winner is just the one who happened to make fewer mistakes, being forced to make decisions quickly and without using the maximum ability of theor logic and analysis of the given game.. This means that timed games are merely just a random measurement of who happened to make more best moves, and obversely, who happened to decide on fewer blunders. I am against timed restrictions in national and international championships, but then the concept of bullet games, as a fun thing is something that does not truly measure the ability of tournament level players, in the big picture and in comparison to all the chess players ever alive!..

NeXT111

Dec 13, 2012

0

#103

PIRATCH wrote:

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 ...)

The probability of a generally gifted person being born increases with the amount of children being born. That is quite obvious and even a realistic event. The probability of Mozart being born again, with the exact same genetic combination, name etc etc etc, is like zero.

Rating and statistics are two different things.

NeXT111

Dec 13, 2012

0

#104

elig5428 wrote:

konhidras wrote:

pfren wrote:

Reb wrote:

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 .

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?

Unbelievable!. Magnus is a great player and yes one of the best. He is the top ranking player but there has to be a "seal" to his dominance if he is to be considered the greatest. And that is the crown which Anand holds. The crown which he has wrested from Kramnik the conqueror of Kasparov.The crown he has defended against the then top ranking Topalov and yes the crown he so rightly achieved in match play against Gelfand. Anand has all the credibilities Carlsen has to ovecome. Former World Junior Champion, Former Asian Champion and now as Mike Buffer would say "the reigning...defending.." absolute world chess champion. The torch of the crown has been passed to Anand fair and square. He may not be the worlds number one but it is Carlsen's task and not Anands to prove who is the best. When Fischer said he was the best... he proved it although in a not so pleasant way, he challenge and beat the champ thereby becoming what to be his destiny. Magnus will be considered the highest and strongest chess player of all time but not the greatest or the best there is.HIs destiny as a legend or a has- been will rely on him wresting the crown from the champion Anand. I personally admire Carlsens play and games but to be one of the gods, he has to have absolute dominance even for this generation. Beat Anand and he will be the Greatest! hands down.

The point I will take up now on this lengthy and increasing argument-- which I think is interesting since commentators have gotten into developing points on strategy, and some helpful hints as I am about 1100 elo and seeking growth and new principles to incorporate--is the debate about who is better current, Anand or Carlson. I think its really not representative that they have a diff of 100 points in rating, but i will suggest this:

Would it not prove better who is the ultimate better player if they were to compete in Match play 3-5 times in several years, rather than having all chess avids say that after one Match, it would be absolute as to who was current the best??? I think they are soooo utterly compared in proven skills and talent that at least 2-3 Matches, untimed being better to measure the outcome and effect, would have to occur before chess fanatics would be able to trump around with "Carlson is apparently better than Anand." I would think Magnuson and Carlson would agree on this point. I would think that 10 tourna Match games in one sitting, with no time limits, as they used to have by the old rules would be less conclusive than about 30 games with no time limits. Remember, I think it true that time limits engage a restriction on the best possible game of any and all players!! In the old days, the games would be about 6 to 8 hours with no time restrictions and superior skill would be more properly rated by the tally of total wins and losses (+1, -1, or 1/2). If you think about it, doesn't time restrictions just basically limit the analysis of such game to be restricted to a bounded discussion in statistics as to which opponent discovered through all their moves a higher average of with clarity deciding on the best, most proper move by chance and under the focus of the time restriction, than through the best exercise of their inherent skills and analysis abilities, as in all correspondence chess, or computer chess rated at one move per day? With timed chess games in matches, I think the winner is just the one who happened to make fewer mistakes, being forced to make decisions quickly and without using the maximum ability of theor logic and analysis of the given game.. This means that timed games are merely just a random measurement of who happened to make more best moves, and obversely, who happened to decide on fewer blunders. I am against timed restrictions in national and international championships, but then the concept of bullet games, as a fun thing is something that does not truly measure the ability of tournament level players, in the big picture and in comparison to all the chess players ever alive!..

It depends on how chess skill is defined. If player A beats player C and D. Player B only beats player A, but can't beat anybody else. You can't say that player B is better than A.

Timed games measure who has more positional experience and who can think fastest. This is a skill as well. Longer games can require different types of skill, perhaps analytical abilities among others.

Vease

Dec 13, 2012

0

#105

Everybody is so obsessed with ratings that we think we live in strange times when the 'strongest' player in the world isn't also World Champion, just because there is some number next to a players name. Kasparov was supposedly stronger than Kramnik when he lost, Tal was supposedly stronger than Botvinnik when he lost in 1961, Alekhine was supposedly better than Euwe when he lost in 1935, Capablanca was supposedly better than Alekhine when he lost in 1927, Steinitz was supposedly better than Lasker when he lost in 1894.

Numbers are irrelevant, what matters is what happens over the board in serious match play. Carlsen will be in the same rank as Ivanchuk, Keres and Rubinstein as great players with the * next to their names that they never became world champion if he doesn't win a WC. The chances of that happening would appear to be remote as Anand is there for the taking in his current form.

Scottrf

Dec 13, 2012

0

#106

If you find numbers irrelevant, what about performances?

NeXT111

Dec 13, 2012

0

#107

Vease wrote:

Everybody is so obsessed with ratings that we think we live in strange times when the 'strongest' player in the world isn't also World Champion, just because there is some number next to a players name. Kasparov was supposedly stronger than Kramnik when he lost, Tal was supposedly stronger than Botvinnik when he lost in 1961, Alekhine was supposedly better than Euwe when he lost in 1935, Capablanca was supposedly better than Alekhine when he lost in 1927, Steinitz was supposedly better than Lasker when he lost in 1894.

Numbers are irrelevant, what matters is what happens over the board in serious match play. Carlsen will be in the same rank as Ivanchuk, Keres and Rubinstein as great players with the * next to their names that they never became world champion if he doesn't win a WC. The chances of that happening would appear to be remote as Anand is there for the taking in his current form.

They're not obsessed with ratings. It's just that unlike you, most people realize that rating is a better measure of skill than a tournament. Yes even if that tournament is named world championship.

Vease

Dec 13, 2012

0

#108

Melk0r wrote:

Vease wrote:

Everybody is so obsessed with ratings that we think we live in strange times when the 'strongest' player in the world isn't also World Champion, just because there is some number next to a players name. Kasparov was supposedly stronger than Kramnik when he lost, Tal was supposedly stronger than Botvinnik when he lost in 1961, Alekhine was supposedly better than Euwe when he lost in 1935, Capablanca was supposedly better than Alekhine when he lost in 1927, Steinitz was supposedly better than Lasker when he lost in 1894.

Numbers are irrelevant, what matters is what happens over the board in serious match play. Carlsen will be in the same rank as Ivanchuk, Keres and Rubinstein as great players with the * next to their names that they never became world champion if he doesn't win a WC. The chances of that happening would appear to be remote as Anand is there for the taking in his current form.

They're not obsessed with ratings. It's just that unlike you, most people realize that rating is a better measure of skill than a tournament. Yes even if that tournament is named world championship.

So a number is more important than actual moves played on a chessboard? Incredible..The only proof of whether one player is stronger than another is what happens when they play each other. Check out the chessmetrics ratings site and you see all kinds of wondrous anomalies, did you know for example that the No 1 rated player in the world for a few months in 1905 was David Janowski? You realise what would have happened if Janowski played Lasker in a match at that time, he would have been destroyed (as happened a few years later). But he was the number one ranked player in the world! How could this happen if numbers are the whole truth?

Scottrf

Dec 13, 2012

0

#109

The number is a product of the moves played on the chessboard...

Vease

Dec 13, 2012

0

#110

@Scottrf

I'm not arguing that Carlsen isn't a great player, I'm saying that if for example he cruises through the candidates tournament to play Anand, theres a possibility he could be 120 rating points higher than Anand when they play..but he could still lose. If that happens will it drive him on to win it next time like Spassky after he lost to Petrosian in 1966 or will he just give up and use his fortune to do something he might actually enjoy.

The reason he could lose is because his opening preparation is not on the same level as most of the other top guys, thats the reason most of his wins come in the late middle game or the endgame.

The 'numbers' are an accretion from hundreds or thousands of games against different opponents. Only when two players have accumulated a serious amount of games against each other could you predict what the likely outcome of a match between them is. In my example regarding Janowski v Lasker in the previous post the lifetime score between them was Janowski 7.5 Lasker 28.5 (or 4 wins to Janowski, 25 wins to Lasker and 7 draws if you like) yet according to the numbers Janowski was expected to beat Lasker in a serious match in 1905?

jambyvedar

Dec 13, 2012

0

#111

Melk0r wrote:

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?

Wow what is the point of this? There are even GM who hang piece in standard time control. Does it mean they are beginner and not very good? A beginner is someone like you who can't even surpass 1200 in blitz even thought your opponent's average rating is 1010. And even before you say blitz is nothing, GM have the highest blitz rating. It means the strength of a chess player reflect in their blitz play.

elig5428

Dec 13, 2012

0

#112