Magnus Carlsen 3004 USCF


  • 3 years ago · Quote · #141

    bean_Fischer

    Here_Is_Plenty wrote:
    bean_Fischer wrote:
    Here_Is_Plenty wrote:

    It's better than ideolizing Cockraoches. I bet you play with them on your board. Watch out, they bite.

    Idealising?  Maybe read the thread and the insane "cockaroach" posts to understand the humour injected.  Personally, I cannot stand creepy-crawlies but why should that stand in the way of ripping fun out of another idiot?

    I am surprised there are cockroaches varieties. Maybe you can name them. When I see some cockroaches, I don't ask, I just crush them.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #142

    ProfessorProfesesen

    Antonio_Montana wrote:
    ProfessorProfesesen wrote:
    Antonio_Montana wrote:
    Here_Is_Plenty wrote:
    Antonio_Montana wrote:
    ProfessorProfesesen wrote:
    Antonio_Montana wrote:

    I still think that Magnus Carlsen looks like a cockaroach man.

    Here judge for yourself..

    you are not marrying him are you?

     

    stop your ranting and raving...wannabe scarface...couldn 't you have chosen a better alter ego????? Shakespeare? Mozart? Riemann?? Franz Kafka?

     

     

    That is coming from someone who idolizes Mr. Bean.

    BTW, Bean looks like a cockaroach too.  UK variety of cockaroach. 

    lol everyone is not like you

    just coz i put a picture don mean i idolize it...it's just a funny pic...

    now you sir are TRYING to be hannah montana or wateva the f...

    at least roaches are real

    roaches             1

    hanna montana 0

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #143

    clms_chess

    Hmm? Two Beans are better than one Montana... I think :D

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #144

    ProfessorProfesesen


    the kafka example a very good one.

    See Carlsen is really great, just perfect technique like a really good writer who is in the command of the english language better than anyone.

    but he is missing the great inspiration of a Kafka or better a Fischer.

    I never said Carlsen was bad, that was not my intention, maybe technique wise he will be the best ever ome day who knows.

    but the magical god given inspiration of a Fischer, he never will get. Its lost on him

    thats what they said about steinitz...they didn't know what he was doing

    carlsen is playing against computer theory...he is laying the groundwork, the foundation that later generation players can use to create chess pyrotechnics...

    you cannot play chess like fishcer did in this day and age and expect to be number one...

    everything is hyper analysed...

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #145

    TetsuoShima

    ProfessorProfesesen wrote:


    the kafka example a very good one.

    See Carlsen is really great, just perfect technique like a really good writer who is in the command of the english language better than anyone.

    but he is missing the great inspiration of a Kafka or better a Fischer.

    I never said Carlsen was bad, that was not my intention, maybe technique wise he will be the best ever ome day who knows.

    but the magical god given inspiration of a Fischer, he never will get. Its lost on him

    thats what they said about steinitz...they didn't know what he was doing

    carlsen is playing against computer theory...he is laying the groundwork, the foundation that later generation players can use to create chess pyrotechnics...

    you cannot play chess like fishcer did in this day and age and expect to be number one...

    everything is hyper analysed...

    that is the excuse they always come up with..

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #146

    ProfessorProfesesen

    TetsuoShima wrote:
    ProfessorProfesesen wrote:


    the kafka example a very good one.

    See Carlsen is really great, just perfect technique like a really good writer who is in the command of the english language better than anyone.

    but he is missing the great inspiration of a Kafka or better a Fischer.

    I never said Carlsen was bad, that was not my intention, maybe technique wise he will be the best ever ome day who knows.

    but the magical god given inspiration of a Fischer, he never will get. Its lost on him

    thats what they said about steinitz...they didn't know what he was doing

    carlsen is playing against computer theory...he is laying the groundwork, the foundation that later generation players can use to create chess pyrotechnics...

    you cannot play chess like fishcer did in this day and age and expect to be number one...

    everything is hyper analysed...

    that is the excuse they always come up with..

    thats a convinient way to slip out of the reason

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #147

    bean_Fischer

    ProfessorProfesesen wrote:
     

    thats what they said about steinitz...they didn't know what he was doing

    carlsen is playing against computer theory...he is laying the groundwork, the foundation that later generation players can use to create chess pyrotechnics...

    you cannot play chess like fishcer did in this day and age and expect to be number one...

    everything is hyper analysed...

    The fact is nobody can play like Fischer these days. (Even Fischer himself after the championship).

    Fischer techniques were much better than Carlsen.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #148

    bean_Fischer

    Why not 20. ... Qa5?

     

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #149

    ChastityMoon

    The problem with theorizing about Fischer vs. Carlsen is:

    Fischer was hugely insecure.  If Fischer in peak form was to face Carlsen at his peak, Fischer would have found an endless string of excuses for avoiding playing him.

     

    Strange how as time moves on all the negatives about the man are sloughed off until all that remains is positive and fanciful.   

    Fischer had a brilliant talent but is was embedded in a deeply flawed individual.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #150

    Escapest_Pawn

    bean_Fischer

    My guess is that 20...Qa5 would be met with 21 b3 and 22Bh5 would be difficult to meet, though possible.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #151

    TetsuoShima

    ChastityMoon wrote:

    The problem with theorizing about Fischer vs. Carlsen is:

    Fischer was hugely insecure.  If Fischer in peak form was to face Carlsen at his peak, Fischer would have found an endless string of excuses for avoiding playing him.

     

    Strange how as time moves on all the negatives about the man are sloughed off until all that remains is positive and fanciful.   

    Fischer had a brilliant talent but is was embedded in a deeply flawed individual.

    Fischer was never insecure, he had honor that is a difference!!!

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #152

    TetsuoShima

    ProfessorProfesesen wrote:


    the kafka example a very good one.

    See Carlsen is really great, just perfect technique like a really good writer who is in the command of the english language better than anyone.

    but he is missing the great inspiration of a Kafka or better a Fischer.

    I never said Carlsen was bad, that was not my intention, maybe technique wise he will be the best ever ome day who knows.

    but the magical god given inspiration of a Fischer, he never will get. Its lost on him

    thats what they said about steinitz...they didn't know what he was doing

    carlsen is playing against computer theory...he is laying the groundwork, the foundation that later generation players can use to create chess pyrotechnics...

    you cannot play chess like fishcer did in this day and age and expect to be number one...

    everything is hyper analysed...

    but someone forgot to tell ivanchuk


Back to Top

Post your reply: