Playing Carlsen was like playing a computer= Anand

http://www.firstpost.com/sports/playing-carlsen-was-like-playing-a-human-computer-anand-1258811.html

is that a good thing or bad thing?

So if Carlsen were to play Kasaprov – you have played them both – who wins? One thing that is clear about Carlsen is that he is one of a kind. I am a big believer in comparisons. I would say both are very good, very strong. But these are the kind of kind of comparisons that chess buffs all over the world make all the time. It probably just adds to the fun… Well, Carlsen is a more allround player. His strengths are harder to determine. Kasaparov was a specialist. He thought hard about his game and had very specific strengths. So if anything, I would Carlsen the edge there. Being an allrounder is not easy – you are backing yourself to keep up the level throughout the game but somehow Carlsen has managed i

Read more at: http://www.firstpost.com/sports/playing-carlsen-was-like-playing-a-human-computer-anand-1258811.html?utm_source=ref_article

Nice interview.

I thought this was an insightful remark Anand made about Carlsen:

He can do everything well and he makes mistakes – but they aren’t big enough to take advantage of.

Also:

I think what is not understood about Carlsen is that he is not bad at openings. He is not a specialist but a generalist. He can play a lot of opening and he can play them at a fairly high level. His aim is to get a solid position and you can’t do that at the top level if you are bad with openings. This thing about openings is an exaggeration.

And interesting was:

I think the recent trend is away from openings. In a sense, computers have killed the opening phase. There is only so much that you can do. So if anything can be done, it is to rebalance the game. That can only happen by concentrating on the middle and end game.

he also said magnus was superior to kasparov.....? thats a pretty damm strong thing to say