Magnus Carlsen 3004 USCF

  • #141
    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.

  • #142
    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

  • #143

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

  • #144


    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...

  • #145
    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..

  • #146
    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

  • #147
    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.

  • #148

    Why not 20. ... Qa5?

     

  • #149

    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.

  • #150

    bean_Fischer

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

  • #151
    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!!!

  • #152
    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

Top
or Join

Online Now