magnus carlsen= u.s open

Sort:
Yereslov
Scottrf wrote:

How is he at the same level when Carlsen's rating is >100 points higher and he beats him at every tournament?

And I didn't call Nakamura a patzer.

The rating is meaningless. Carlsen is very picky about the tournaments he picks. He hasn't played in any major tournments since Tata Steel. If he played in lesser tournaments, his rating would drop, and he knows it.

TetsuoShima

Ratings dont tell the whole story i would believe.

Kingpatzer

So, ratings don't count and head-to-head results don't count. What pray tell does count? 

Scottrf

Ratings only tell part of the story, want to compare Carlsen with Naka another way?

http://www.tatasteelchess.com/tournament/standings/year/2013/group/1

http://www.tatasteelchess.com/history/recent/year/2012/standings/1

http://www.londonchessclassic.com/classic.standings.htm

http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/carlsen-wins-7th-tal-memorial

http://www.chessdom.com/magnus-carlsen-wins-mikhail-tal-memorial-2011/

Yereslov
Kingpatzer wrote:

So, ratings don't count and head-to-head results don't count. What pray tell does count? 

Results count. Ratings not so much.

Yereslov

And did you see the games? Nakamura played very solidly against the best player in the world. Most of them are hard fought matches, especially the one at London 2012.

theoreticalboy

Ratings tell a pretty damn big part of the story: i.e, who is constantly beating everyone else.  Yeah there may be externals, but the fact is Carlsen's rating shows he's consistently beating everyone else, and I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would need more than that.

ivandh
Kingpatzer wrote:

So, ratings don't count and head-to-head results don't count. What pray tell does count? 

Half-baked opinions of patzers are what counts.

Scottrf

Pretty solidly =/= at the same level as Carlsen, so what's your point?

theoreticalboy
Yereslov wrote:

And did you see the games? Nakamura played very solidly against the best player in the world. Most of them are hard fought matches, especially the one at London 2012.

....that he lost.

This is a stupid conversation.

Yereslov
theoreticalboy wrote:
Yereslov wrote:

And did you see the games? Nakamura played very solidly against the best player in the world. Most of them are hard fought matches, especially the one at London 2012.

....that he lost.

This is a stupid conversation.

You are thinking too simply. It's not as if Carlsen crushed him. 

ivandh

Post five tournament games that Naka won against Carlsen.

theoreticalboy
Yereslov wrote:
theoreticalboy wrote:
Yereslov wrote:
And did you see the games? Nakamura played very solidly against the best player in the world. Most of them are hard fought matches, especially the one at London 2012.

....that he lost.

This is a stupid conversation.

You are thinking too simply. It's not as if Carlsen crushed him. 

So what?  You said Nakamura is on the same level as Carlsen; not being crushed is not an argument for parity, it just shows that he's good enough to not get crushed.

TetsuoShima
ivandh wrote:
Kingpatzer wrote:

So, ratings don't count and head-to-head results don't count. What pray tell does count? 

Half-baked opinions of patzers are what counts.

but seriously do you really want to tell me that the rating of Ivanchuk really were a true mirror of his chess strenght for example??? i dont think so.

Yereslov
TetsuoShima wrote:
ivandh wrote:
Kingpatzer wrote:

So, ratings don't count and head-to-head results don't count. What pray tell does count? 

Half-baked opinions of patzers are what counts.

but seriously do you really want to tell me that the rating of Ivanchuk really were a true mirror of his chess strenght for example??? i dont think so.

No, Ivanchuk waxes and wanes like the moon. Recently he has been really suffering.

varelse1
Yereslov wrote:
netzach wrote:
 

To be fair, Nakamura at his best is God-like.

True.

And God, at His best, is Carlsen-like.