My money is on Wei Yi, 14 yrs old and 2600 rating. But again, many young players showed a lot of promise at a young age, only to fizzle out after hitting their ceiling.
Leko, Karjakin, Bu Xiangzi, Radjabov....etc, come to mind.
There is only Caruana IMO who may have a shot....but he needs to improve greatly by next year and be more consistent.
Wei Yi +1
The matches keep getting shorter the last decades and played more and more often. The last years FIDE have implemented a World Championship every year system, and as good as Carlsen is he or any other player will never be so good that he wins every event. The last years he has won around 65% of all events he has played, but it's enough with a bad week and he's no longer World Champion. Apart from that I wonder if he won't lose interest a bit now that he has won everything. He's no Kasparov that saw every single game during 25 years as a chance to build his legacy.
So I think Carlsen's reign as World Champion will be fairly short, but even a player like Capablanca lost the title immediately and so did Fischer, and in that respect I'd expect Carlsen to be closer to them than Lasker and Kasparov. Of course Lasker also had the luxury of keeping the title for 11 years without playing, both 1896-1907 and 1910-1921, and without having to play the strongest opponents. Today it's one match a year, and there's no avoiding the strongest players if you prefer to play Janowski :-)
Carlsen is too good. It is hard to imagine him losing to almost everyone. Kramnik might have a shot if he gets there soon. Other than that, someone will have to improve a lot to dethrown Magnus. I predict he will last over 20 years.
Carlsen is too good. It is hard to imagine him losing to almost everyone. Kramnik might have a shot if he gets there soon. Other than that, someone will have to improve a lot to dethrown Magnus. I predict he will last over 20 years.
If his heart is in it he might be the best player in the world for 20 years, but with so frequent and short title matches something is bound to happen sooner or later. Lasker was much stronger than Schlechter, Alekhine better than Euwe and Kasparov better than Kramnik, but that's never a guarantee in one single event.
When Anand was the champion, beating Anand had more incentive than beating the highest rated player.
No it didn't. People spoke much more highly of somebody beating Carlsen than of beating Anand.
I think the excuse Anand fans used was that Anand was "hiding preparation" because he valued keeping the world championship title more than winning some silly tournaments. We all saw how that played out
I am not an Anand fan. I have stated that almost everytime. And I don't speak on the behalf of Anand fans. Anand is old and held the championship for so many years. What else do you wish from him?
Kasparov won at 22 years old and has been champion for a long time. I predict that Carlsen will last just as long as Kasparov
I think I concur with some of the sentiments that would liken Carlsen to Kasparov and if all goes to plan he will be world champion for many years to come. The young man is a breath of fresh air and a worthy champion. I liked the way he grounded down his opponent with solid draws and then eking out two wins when most of the pundits were predicting draws. And here I admit I was rooting for Anand, being an oldie myself.
Initially, I didn't like Carlsen, seeing him as a young brat, but during the match I liked the way he conducted himself, on and off the chess board. I was particularly impressed when asked the politically sensitive question of what he thought about what some (including me) saw as the discourteous treatment of Kasparov when he entered the auditorium. His straight forward response to the effect that great champions need to be afforded respect, and coming from someone so young, spoke volumes.
I don't understand your argument Bean, that people having more incentive to beat him will be bad for his results. That logic is completely flawed. If this is indeed true it can only be good for his results as he will be presented with more opportunities to win the games himself.
As if they haven't had enough incentive to beat him anyway. He has been the man to beat for years.
jrb136 wrote:
I think I concur with some of the sentiments that would liken Carlsen to Kasparov and if all goes to plan he will be world champion for many years to come. The young man is a breath of fresh air and a worthy champion. I liked the way he eked out two wins when most of the pundits were predicting draws. I admit I was rooting for Anand, being an oldie myself.
Initially, I didn't like Carlsen seeing him as a brat, but during the match I liked the way he conducted himself. I was particularly impressed when asked the politically sensitive question of what he thought about the discourteous treatment of Kasparove when he entered the auditorium. His response to the effect that great champions need to be afforded respect, and coming from someone so young, spoke volumes.
nicely stated... I agree
Rich Rapport will be the next WC(google)
Carlsen will easily defeat Andreikin in next year's match.
Carlsen's rating advantage over his rivals is quite exceptional: like Kasparov's at his peak, but I suspect the error rate of top play has decreased even further.
till i challenge him in 2015
You are the greatest!
i don't think he will last even one year. right now he is winning because he is playing a kind of chess which current GMs are not used to - slow boring end game chess. soon GMs will figure out a way to beat him. Anand came very close to beating him in a few games. frankly, Anand lost mainly due to his own carelessness and mistake prone chess(maybe due to fatigue and age) and not really due to any particular brilliance on Carlsen's part. perhaps nakamura may beat him or Anand may make a comeback.
1. His style isn't new, why haven't they figured it out yet?
2. Which games did Anand nearly win?
3. There is nothing to suggest Nakamura or Anand will ever beat him in a match. Pure fantasy.
The answer might depend on whether the title remains unified. Carlsen is strong enough to walk off with it if FIDE makes unreasonable demands and negotiations break down. If he does so, he could defend the title every 3 or 4 years and hold unto it for a very long time.
If not maybe he will lose it in a tiebreak game.
nobody knows of course and there are and will be new talent that will vye to be the best (it has always been thus) but my instinct is that this is a mightyly impressive young man and barring something unforeseen that will prevent this he will be at the top for some time to come.
He will be champ for 10 years or more. He is 22. What makes anyone think he has reached his peak? I dont think he has peaked. I think he will only get better. He defeated Anand easily and Anand is a midrange 2700+ player. Naka has never beaten him. Nah... Carlsen will be champ for a decade or longer.
He will be champ for 10 years or more. He is 22. What makes anyone think he has reached his peak? I dont think he has peaked. I think he will only get better. He defeated Anand easily and Anand is a midrange 2700+ player. Naka has never beaten him. Nah... Carlsen will be champ for a decade or longer.
23. November 30.
Probably, a long time like Kas was, since he is so young.
I think the excuse Anand fans used was that Anand was "hiding preparation" because he valued keeping the world championship title more than winning some silly tournaments. We all saw how that played out
Yeah, that was another of their excuses. "Anand only tries hard in World Championship matches, to save his prep." And whenever I asked them why he had such a hard time in his last match against Gelfand, whom Aronian, Kramnik, or Carlsen would almost certainly have defeated in the regular games, they ignored the question.
Likewise, the Carlsen-haters have cycled through a bunch of excuses over the years, with one perennial being that ratings don't mean very much, and the WC is the true measure of chess skill. I suspect we won't be hearing that one so much anymore either now, but no doubt they'll come up with some new explanations why Carlsen is "overrated", just like a conspiracy-theory nutcase always finds more support for the conspiracy no matter what new evidence comes to light.