GPE, in your world, who was an example of a good World Champion?
Magnus Carlsen -is he finished?
Sort:
It is a temporary matter, people always want him immortal like god and that is not fair.
MorraMeister wrote:
he's going to be just another 2795 player at this rate....anyone following his play at London? Yesterday was an embarrassment vs Adams..
these seems SO over-reacting to me.
look at past, I can only think of one great chess-player that suddenly dissapeared from the chess scene. Rubenstein.
Really? Ever heard of a guy named Fischer????
Dec 8, 2015
0
#65
tx7081040 wrote:
...
he's going to be just another 2795 player at this rate....anyone following his play at London? Yesterday was an embarrassment vs Adams..
That was an embarrassment? It was a fantastic game that Adams defended brilliantly!
Take a look at the game, with notes provided by Sagar Shah at chessbase:
http://en.chessbase.com/post/lcc-r04-nakamura-is-world-no-2
Dec 8, 2015
0
#66
AlexandraThessa wrote:
pretty amateurish game me thinks
Thanks. That says everything one needs to know about your understanding of chess.
SmyslovFan wrote:
That was an embarrassment? It was a fantastic game that Adams defended brilliantly!
Did you really expect the average woodpusher to understand this game?
Dec 8, 2015
0
#68
Good point, Pfren. I know I don't understand the game, and I was analysing it live with titled players online. That was the game of the day, even considering Naka's important win over Anand elevating him to #2 in the live ratings.
Nice
He may be bored. Drive to become champion is one thing, proving it with the defense of title another, but now what? Greatest ever? That can't be won, ever, as it will always be public opinion.
SmyslovFan wrote:
Good point, Pfren. I know I don't understand the game, and I was analysing it live with titled players online. That was the game of the day, even considering Naka's important win over Anand elevating him to #2 in the live ratings.
Syurely enough I did not mean you.
The Adams' defence was pure class, while for example an engine would dismiss it because it could not envision the inpenetrable fortress Adams built. This was the best game in a rather dull tournament, together with the Naka-MVL fighting draw, which had a different, "wild" beauty.
pfren wrote:
The Adams' defence was pure class, while for example an engine would dismiss it because it could not envision the inpenetrable fortress Adams built.
It was funny to see so many spectators posting messages like "Stockfish says +1.34, easy win for Carlsen". Lots of people have no clue how unreliable engines are with long endgames, and especially those involving a fortress. When skeptics asked for explanations of why Adams was "lost", a frequent reply was "because the engine says so". This is maybe more worrisome than humorous since it seems that many young people lack the thinking skills needed to formulate any kind of specific explanation.
TurboFish wrote:
pfren wrote:
The Adams' defence was pure class, while for example an engine would dismiss it because it could not envision the inpenetrable fortress Adams built.
It was funny to see so many spectators posting messages like "Stockfish says +1.34, easy win for Carlsen". Lots of people have no clue how unreliable engines are with long endgames, and especially those involving a fortress. When skeptics asked for explanations of why Adams was "lost", a frequent reply was "because the engine says so". This is maybe more worrisome than humorous since it seems that many young people lack the thinking skills needed to formulate any kind of specific explanation.
You hear this engine speak all the time at tournaments. And yes it is mostly amongst kids huddled around laptops between rounds, and when you ask them what +.4 means they give you a blank stare.
This looks a bit more like the usual Carlsen, both Anand and Adams had to suffer in the endgames even if they didn't lose this time. If Carlsen can hold with black against Aronian his remaining schedule looks as if he won't lose any game but have good chances to avoid being winless. Considering the high amount of draws +2 will probably be enough to at least share first.
Im telllin ya, He's got a girl. Probably his first GF..everything is exciting and new. You're always thinking about that person. You guys know what Im talkin about. That would affect my play.
sup!
People, every time you feed a troll God kills a puppy. Won't someone please think of the puppies?!
Dec 8, 2015
0
#79
he is making the oponents to think that he is not in shape for the next world champion match,then he will destroy them
TurboFish wrote:
pfren wrote:
The Adams' defence was pure class, while for example an engine would dismiss it because it could not envision the inpenetrable fortress Adams built.
It was funny to see so many spectators posting messages like "Stockfish says +1.34, easy win for Carlsen". Lots of people have no clue how unreliable engines are with long endgames, and especially those involving a fortress. When skeptics asked for explanations of why Adams was "lost", a frequent reply was "because the engine says so". This is maybe more worrisome than humorous since it seems that many young people lack the thinking skills needed to formulate any kind of specific explanation.
Yeah and they only let Stockfish loose on it for all of 2 or 5 minutes (if that). Let it go 12 or 24 or 36 hours like you might do in an engines-on correspondence game, and at depth 50+ it very well may have seen things more equally.
I like to think I would have seen the basic fortess idea, taking advantage of the opposite color bishops. I don't think I would have done so well however with the subsequent maneuvering.
Carlsen still only managed a draw against a player 200 points below him who was playing black...
...and who, a few years back, crushed Morozevich (former world #2 rating) with Black in just 22 moves. Papaioannou is an extremely dangerous semi-professional, with exquisite understanding of the game.