Behold the Mangus Sponge.
MIKHAIL TAL VS MANGUS CARLSEN?
Sort:
4 posts including me in a row about MANGUS
And now here's one about Magus.
Followed by one about the Grand Nagus.
Lastly, we feature someone who pierced their tragus.
Oct 3, 2016
0
#27
Tal was a great quiet positional player and his endgames were super solid. He could also play insane sacrifices. There's a reason he was WC.
who is mangus carlsen
Magnus Carlsen would crush any player in any era ever. Why even ask this question?
Silk94 wrote:
Paul Morphy and Fischer are only ones who would beat Magnus. Fischer by hard work and determination, Morphy by his superb talent. More talented then even Mangus Carlsen or Jose Capablanca.
Nah. Pure speculation. So you're saying Carlsen isn't determined or doesn't work hard. I reckon Capablanca had just as much natural talent, too.
BlargDragon wrote:
Lastly, we feature someone who pierced their tragus.
looks like a wireless tranceiver...
Well of course Capablanca was too modest to describe himself in the same glowing terms...
Feb 23, 2017
0
#33
Mozart of chess ? oh i get it, Mozart plays really boring music like synthesizers. Tal would sac the living day lights out of Carlsen.
you guys are all freaking chess geeks
By my reckoning, Capablanca would only have been about 26 years old when he made that claim, still very young and not yet World Champion. He probably didn't even know his own true strength then. And many World Champions have come and gone since he said it. Just saying.
You also have no "proof". Just speculation and opinions (even if one is Capablanca's). Your hypothesis is impossible to test as well.
Tal has that 2+2=5 aire about him, so difficult to fix all the complications he creates over the board. Carlaen would, but it would be bloody, with not many draws
Silk94 wrote:
The magnificent American master had the most extraordinary brain that anybody hasever had for chess. Technique, strategy, tactics, knowledge which is inconceivable for us; all that was possessed by Morphy fifty-four years ago. – Jose R. Capablanca
#4820 min ago
You also have no "proof". Just speculation and opinions (even if one is Capablanca's). Your hypothesis is impossible to test as well.
Capablanca couldn't see into the future. And it was only his opinion. You are entitled to your opinion, but it doesn't mean it is right. And you will never be able to prove it. At present, it is just speculation on your part. You can copy and paste that quote as many times as you like, but it is just one person's opinion and your claims can never be put to the test. So why not give it up?
I'm done with this "debate" now. You are arguing purely from opinion "X is the best because I think so or XX thinks so". But you have no way of testing your claims. Like I said, you can paste that quote as many times as you like, but it doesn't make your speculation any more true. And that's all it is, speculation.
Mangus Carlsen?
I dont know if people really noticed that.