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.
(It's not perfect. But even better than tennis rankings (IMHO)!
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.