What you see is not what is happening.
Magnus Carlsen 3004 USCF
Sort:
TetsuoShima wrote:
ProfessorProfesesen wrote:
Antonio_Montana wrote:
Here_Is_Plenty wrote:
Antonio_Montana wrote:
ProfessorProfesesen wrote:
Antonio_Montana 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
Tetsuoshima, why does suddenly your English become so poetic? I thought a native who wrote this. Then I look and find your name. It's a surprise.
I can never express myself better.
If only there was an engine that plays like 3000 elo Magnus style
bean_Fischer wrote:
What do you think Fisher's rating today if he were still active?
Unfortunately, 'Batshit Crazy' doesn't have a rating number attached to it.
DazedKnight wrote:
bean_Fischer wrote:
What do you think Fisher's rating today if he were still active?
Unfortunately, 'Batshit Crazy' doesn't have a rating number attached to it.
well he was respected and probably one of the smartest people. he was world champion and will be forever remembered, he also was millionaire and saw the world.
who will remember you ?? what have you done great?? where you ever the best in anything, are you millionaire?? how can you insult him just like that??
QuantummKnight wrote:
Impressed by Tetsuoshima's at best average command of the english language, but not by Carlsen's chess ability.
I know, lol. So why don't you write a good poem?
TetsuoShima wrote:
DazedKnight wrote:
bean_Fischer wrote:
What do you think Fisher's rating today if he were still active?
Unfortunately, 'Batshit Crazy' doesn't have a rating number attached to it.
well he was respected and probably one of the smartest people. he was world champion and will be forever remembered, he also was millionaire and saw the world.
who will remember you ?? what have you done great?? where you ever the best in anything, are you millionaire?? how can you insult him just like that??
He was nowhere near smart. He was psychaotic and he only developed chess as a talent because he's a recluse. He had superb visualization skills but IQ wise, estimations say hes 180 but thats in terms of chess and just an estimate because you cant really test a chess IQ
avi97 wrote:
TetsuoShima wrote:
DazedKnight wrote:
bean_Fischer wrote:
What do you think Fisher's rating today if he were still active?
Unfortunately, 'Batshit Crazy' doesn't have a rating number attached to it.
well he was respected and probably one of the smartest people. he was world champion and will be forever remembered, he also was millionaire and saw the world.
who will remember you ?? what have you done great?? where you ever the best in anything, are you millionaire?? how can you insult him just like that??
He was nowhere near smart. He was psychaotic and he only developed chess as a talent because he's a recluse. He had superb visualization skills but IQ wise, estimations say hes 180 but thats in terms of chess and just an estimate because you cant really test a chess IQ
i know thanks to Freud everyone is psychoanalyst and i know we like to stereotype and put people in boxes they belong to. just because they something we dont like.
to me he was one of the greatest genius of his time.
Sure, Fischer was brilliant. But the question was about where Fischer would stand now against Carlsen. Seeing how Fischer went nuts, he would not play well.
I worked in a factory in UK years ago and spotted a cockroach. I was concerned and contacted my supervisor (since it was a well-known foodstuffs factory) - he asked me about its characteristics and explained to my shocked younger self that they got five varieties of cockroaches there. Point is that you may have to be more specific about the variety. Again, cockroaches rule the world and are due your respect. When you are as successful as Rowan Atkinson (Mr Bean) then you may cast aspersions on a subject you do not actually know much more on than how they taste in your (name-of-foodstuff-withheld-out-of-compassion-to-readers).
Here_Is_Plenty wrote:
I worked in a factory in UK years ago and spotted a cockroach. I was concerned and contacted my supervisor (since it was a well-known foodstuffs factory) - he asked me about its characteristics and explained to my shocked younger self that they got five varieties of cockroaches there. Point is that you may have to be more specific about the variety. Again, cockroaches rule the world and are due your respect. When you are as successful as Rowan Atkinson (Mr Bean) then you may cast aspersions on a subject you do not actually know much more on than how they taste in your (name-of-foodstuff-withheld-out-of-compassion-to-readers).
It's better than ideolizing Cockraoches. I bet you play with them on your board. Watch out, they bite.
bean_Fischer wrote:
Here_Is_Plenty wrote:
I worked in a factory in UK years ago and spotted a cockroach. I was concerned and contacted my supervisor (since it was a well-known foodstuffs factory) - he asked me about its characteristics and explained to my shocked younger self that they got five varieties of cockroaches there. Point is that you may have to be more specific about the variety. Again, cockroaches rule the world and are due your respect. When you are as successful as Rowan Atkinson (Mr Bean) then you may cast aspersions on a subject you do not actually know much more on than how they taste in your (name-of-foodstuff-withheld-out-of-compassion-to-readers).
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?
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.
Sep 23, 2013
0
#135
Antonio_Montana wrote:
ProfessorProfesesen wrote:
Antonio_Montana wrote:
Here_Is_Plenty wrote:
Antonio_Montana wrote:
ProfessorProfesesen wrote:
Antonio_Montana wrote:
you are not marrying him are you?
I still think that Magnus Carlsen looks like a cockaroach man.
Here judge for yourself..
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
Sep 23, 2013
0
#137
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...
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..
Sep 23, 2013
0
#139
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
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.
I still think that Magnus Carlsen looks like a cockaroach man.
Here judge for yourself..
stop your ranting and raving...wannabe scarface...couldn 't you have chosen a better alter ego????? Shakespeare? Mozart? Riemann?? Franz Kafka?
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