Magnus = Great

Sort:
NeXT111
Vease wrote:
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?

Rating is a consequence of how good or bad the moves made on the board are.

NeXT111
jambyvedar wrote:
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. 

Ok so if grandmasters can hang pieces, why do you judge Magnus so harsly because he does errors on rook and pawn endgames or whatever it was? Blitz/bullet reflect more positional experience than analytical thinking. Read my great posts before spewing ur stupidity everywhere kthx.

It is true i suck at blitz, but in online chess i've won over 10 matches in a row so my "realistic" rating is even higher than the currently displayed number. As for standard time chess I've played like 7 matches and lost 1. That fact can't be changed regardless of what you say grandmasters are good at.

PIRATCH
Melk0r wrote:

Rating is a consequence of how good or bad the moves made on the board are.

Sorry, but ELO only takes into count which result was reached. There could be excellent moves winning. But also one blunder leads to a loss or a draw.

So rating is nothing else but the addition of results in view of the strength of your opponent. Wink (It's not perfect. But even better than tennis rankings (IMHO)!

NeXT111
PIRATCH wrote:
Melk0r wrote:

Rating is a consequence of how good or bad the moves made on the board are.

Sorry, but ELO only takes into count which result was reached. There could be excellent moves winning. But also one blunder leads to a loss or a draw.

So rating is nothing else but the addition of results in view of the strength of your opponent. (It's not perfect. But even better than tennis rankings (IMHO)!

No measurement system is 100% perfect.

NeXT111
elig5428 wrote:
jambyvedar wrote:
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. 

Geez Jamby, you totally shut down this guy Melk0r.  I think he might have been adding a creative sort of play on words situation, but if you reviewed his games, which is a good free aspect of this sight, then I'd say well done review bro.  Is there any reason not to argue so tempestuously over who is the reigning world champ in women's chess??  Polgar, because she's apparently hot and made a nice teaching video containing advice on control of the center to beginners.   OR for the record, would the reviewers agree that they should be able to compete against men in every major tournament match??  I am sending a pizza and beer to Jamby for closing mate on such a finely crafted technique. What will Melk0r say in rebuttal, I posit?

Here's my favorite game of today. Feel free to review it: http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=414687647

NeXT111
PIRATCH wrote:
Melk0r wrote:

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.

No! First is not proven. (And "4 Mozarts" are a metapher for gifted person which you also deny. Thanks for that!)

Rating is always statistic!

Mozart is mozart. Also Let's just say there are y amount of people in the world and x amount of them are gifted. Now, if we randomly remove half of y. Then statistically half of x will be removed. That proves the first statement. Happy now?

NeXT111
elig5428 wrote:
Melk0r wrote:
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. 

Melk0r, I hope your skills in analytical logic in conducting an argument are better than your correspondence chess skills.  lol.  On point, I feel your argument that timed games measure only "who has more positional experience and who thinks fastest" in NO WAY contravert my arguments based on logical reasoning that timed games are a more random measure of skills and aptitude than untimed games.  Would any agree with my statement, plea??

You're the one who argued that timed games are completely pointless and should be removed? If so, I proved you wrong. Trying to convince us that you wrote something different further proves how wrong you were, thanks.

PIRATCH
Melk0r wrote:
PIRATCH wrote:
Melk0r wrote:

Rating is a consequence of how good or bad the moves made on the board are.

Sorry, but ELO only takes into count which result was reached. There could be excellent moves winning. But also one blunder leads to a loss or a draw.

So rating is nothing else but the addition of results in view of the strength of your opponent. (It's not perfect. But even better than tennis rankings (IMHO)!

No measurement system is 100% perfect.

Sorry. But inflation in a rating system I won't call "perfect".
The ELO-system is already complicated. You would have to exclude inflation to compare players of today with historical players. (Yes, there are such ratings. But they have always to be changed ...)

Perfect mesurement does not exist!

jambyvedar
Melk0r wrote:
 

Ok so if grandmasters can hang pieces, why do you judge Magnus so harsly because he does errors on rook and pawn endgames or whatever it was? Blitz/bullet reflect more positional experience than analytical thinking. Read my great posts before spewing ur stupidity everywhere kthx.

It is true i suck at blitz, but in online chess i've won over 10 matches in a row so my "realistic" rating is even higher than the currently displayed number. As for standard time chess I've played like 7 matches and lost 1. That fact can't be changed regardless of what you say grandmasters are good at.

Either  you have poor reading comprehension or you are just stupid. I never judge Magnus so harshly, all I say is that he has weakness in technical rook endgames (as observe by other masters, his other endgames are good).

So I am supposed to be impressed with you winning 10 in a row in online chess against players below 1500? This does not change the fact that your level is beginner..Also people can cheat in online chess(like reading lines).

grant_obama

MAGNUS is MAGNIFEEEEK!!!

PIRATCH
Melk0r wrote:
PIRATCH wrote:
Melk0r wrote:

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.

No! First is not proven. (And "4 Mozarts" are a metapher for gifted person which you also deny. Thanks for that!)

Rating is always statistic!

Mozart is mozart. Also Let's just say there are y amount of people in the world and x amount of them are gifted. Now, if we randomly remove half of y. Then statistically half of x will be removed. That proves the first statement. Happy now?

If you have only y/2 then not necessarily x/2 must result! That's my point here.

You have in both cases (y and y/2) to count how many people were gifted. Maybe you will be proven right (outcome x and x/2). But it could also result in x (for y) and x (for y/2)!

Mathematically you would be right (in an equation). But in reality you cannot forcast x this way. (Or you can but you may be proven wrong!)

PIRATCH
Chess4001 wrote:

MAGNUS is MAGNIFEEEEK!!!

Agree.

Anand is great, too. I would not put one over the other.

Anand is the current World Champion. Carlsen the current No. 1.
What's wrong with it?

A_State_of_Trance

Magnus will eventually become world champion. It is inevitable.

Actually, we're all supposed to die on December 21st of this year, so it's all moot point.

PIRATCH
A_State_of_Trance wrote:

Magnus will eventually become world champion. It is inevitable.

Actually, we're all supposed to die on December 21st of this year, so it's all moot point.

Only because of an old Maya calendar (which ends)? *rofl*

We will see. Next opponent of Anand for WCC in 2014 will be Peter Svidler!

NeXT111
PIRATCH wrote:
Melk0r wrote:
PIRATCH wrote:
Melk0r wrote:

Rating is a consequence of how good or bad the moves made on the board are.

Sorry, but ELO only takes into count which result was reached. There could be excellent moves winning. But also one blunder leads to a loss or a draw.

So rating is nothing else but the addition of results in view of the strength of your opponent. (It's not perfect. But even better than tennis rankings (IMHO)!

No measurement system is 100% perfect.

Sorry. But inflation in a rating system I won't call "perfect".
The ELO-system is already complicated. You would have to exclude inflation to compare players of today with historical players. (Yes, there are such ratings. But they have always to be changed ...)

Perfect mesurement does not exist!

Sorry for what? That you're wrong? Thanks

NeXT111
jambyvedar wrote:
Melk0r wrote:
 

Ok so if grandmasters can hang pieces, why do you judge Magnus so harsly because he does errors on rook and pawn endgames or whatever it was? Blitz/bullet reflect more positional experience than analytical thinking. Read my great posts before spewing ur stupidity everywhere kthx.

It is true i suck at blitz, but in online chess i've won over 10 matches in a row so my "realistic" rating is even higher than the currently displayed number. As for standard time chess I've played like 7 matches and lost 1. That fact can't be changed regardless of what you say grandmasters are good at.

Either  you have poor reading comprehension or you are just stupid. I never judge Magnus so harshly, all I say is that he has weakness in technical rook endgames (as observe by other masters, his other endgames are good).

So I am supposed to be impressed with you winning 10 in a row in online chess against players below 1500? This does not change the fact that your level is beginner..Also people can cheat in online chess(like reading lines).

Well your comment looked like it was intended to argue that Carlsens skills weren't as good as his rating or something. From what I've heard he is an end game genious compared to other GMs.

Well I'm just playing against people at my rating. Joined a tournament, won every single match in it so far. That alone almost brought me to a rating soon higher than yours, noob. Also you can't cheat in standard chess where I'm still having increasing rating. However I'm more comfortable with online chess where there's no stress about time, since whenever I have to worry about time I'm too worried to calculate anything deep.

NeXT111
PIRATCH wrote:
Melk0r wrote:
PIRATCH wrote:
Melk0r wrote:

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.

No! First is not proven. (And "4 Mozarts" are a metapher for gifted person which you also deny. Thanks for that!)

Rating is always statistic!

Mozart is mozart. Also Let's just say there are y amount of people in the world and x amount of them are gifted. Now, if we randomly remove half of y. Then statistically half of x will be removed. That proves the first statement. Happy now?

If you have only y/2 then not necessarily x/2 must result! That's my point here.

You have in both cases (y and y/2) to count how many people were gifted. Maybe you will be proven right (outcome x and x/2). But it could also result in x (for y) and x (for y/2)!

Mathematically you would be right (in an equation). But in reality you cannot forcast x this way. (Or you can but you may be proven wrong!)

As I said it would statistically be x/2 gifted people left, if you removed half of y. Let's say half of the population is removed. Then it's 50% chance that any person is removed. Did you ever go to school or what?

NeXT111
PIRATCH wrote:
Chess4001 wrote:

MAGNUS is MAGNIFEEEEK!!!

Agree.

Anand is great, too. I would not put one over the other.

Anand is the current World Champion. Carlsen the current No. 1.
What's wrong with it?

Your stupid reasoning. Rating is more reliable indication of a player than being world champion. Particularly when the person with the highest rating didn't attend the world championship tournament. So why can't you realize this? You read these facts over and over, but your subconcious mind want's to remain stupid or what?

ForgoneMoose
ITT: grammatically challenged nerds insult each other over something that I don't even remember after so many pages, and I kind of think that they don't either at this point Back on topic; I, for one, accept our new Carlsen overlord.
TheOldReb

Whats the current head to head record between Anand and Carlsen now ?  ( classical games only )