No.
so did carlsen single-handily end the "preperation era"
Sort:
Yes!
(Death by ranch dressing? That's hard to envision.)
Okay, the results so far:
Yes = 1
No = 1
Hopeful maybe = 1
Hopefully, but no.
No, chess needs a major rule change to throw out preparation.
Is the question about sex or chess?
Nov 24, 2013
0
#10
You can't stop people from preparing, and mediocre people aren't going to give up their crutch. So, no.
One thing´s for sure - the player who eventually eclipses Carlsen is going to have a style all his own, he won´t out-Carlsen Carlsen. There´s probably a six-year-old somewhere in China or in some north French fishing village (for instance) who will be a GM at 13 and a Candidate at 16; maybe he´ll have a photographic memory and will have every single variation of every single opening effortlessly memorized; maybe he´ll be so brilliant in the middle game that he never needs to win subtle endgames. Maybe, maybe ... I think the answer is "no", because it will depend on the next generation, and the one after that, and so on. That´s the glory of it, the game is after all played by humans against humans, and we´re all different!
You might not be able to prepare for Carlsen in the traditional sense, but not every player plays like Carlsen. Carlsen is but 50% of the players who most likely will be playing at the next few up coming WCC. Carlsen himself can take advantage of the older ways, but I think he has already improvised a better way.
Interesting observations so far. I don't see how 1. e4 is in any way refuted or even lessened as an opening. What one poster said above about accepting an equal position in the opening and playing from there is logical. I've found that most openings which supposedly lead to an advantage for white are incredibly difficult to play. Furthermore, even if you do memorize a ton of theory, it doesn't really matter if you can't convert the advantage.
You can memorize a super sharp line of the Sicilian 20 moves deep, and if your opponent stays within mainline theory that long ( which is highly doubtful at the under
How many of us know how to convert that small of an advantage to a win?
Meanwhile, you are going to get crushed every so often when you play really sharp lines, because the sharper they are, the more double edged they are. There is a quote by a famous GM (can't remember who at the moment), where he said 'the problem with playing sharp lines is that they are sharp for your opponent too, and sometimes he will sharpen it farther than you'd like'
On the other hand, you could play a quiet opening like the Reti, English, KIA, or even some of the quieter lines of 1.d4 and 1.e4 and then look for a real, exploitable advantage by having a superior middle and end game strategy and better tactical vision.
tubebender wrote:
nameno1had wrote:
You might not be able to prepare for Carlsen in the traditional sense, but not every player plays like Carlsen. Carlsen is but 50% of the players who most likely will be playing at the next few up coming WCC. Carlsen himself can take advantage of the older ways, but I think he has already improvised a better way.
Although I love hearing these opinions on topics such as these, let`s not kid one another. Virtually none of us are even close to GM levels and I, for one, would feel not worthy to even be in the same room with such fantastic people such as them. I would beg for special permission, on my knees, to even cast a gaze upon their faces.
We are obviously two different people.
Many famous icons, who are quite gifted, start to find their celebraty status a curse. They find having normal relationships, that don't revolve around their gift, instead of them annoying.
They want acknowledged and appreciated but, when you start wanting to worship the ground they walk on, always having more appreciation for the gift, than them, or even yourself, they will decide you aren't worthy of your time, by your own admission.
If you treat them like a human being with dignity, they will realize you command respect and give it equally, generally to everyone, and they are far more likely to give you the time of day.
DrCheckevertim wrote:
Hopefully, but no.
Crap, there goes my system. 
tubebender wrote:
Virtually none of us are even close to GM levels...
"Virtually"? lol
McHeath wrote:
One thing´s for sure - the player who eventually eclipses Carlsen is going to have a style all his own, he won´t out-Carlsen Carlsen. There´s probably a six-year-old somewhere in China or in some north French fishing village (for instance) who will be a GM at 13 and a Candidate at 16; maybe he´ll have a photographic memory and will have every single variation of every single opening effortlessly memorized; maybe he´ll be so brilliant in the middle game that he never needs to win subtle endgames. Maybe, maybe ... I think the answer is "no", because it will depend on the next generation, and the one after that, and so on. That´s the glory of it, the game is after all played by humans against humans, and we´re all different!
Yes this is a great point. Traditionally world champions seem to have bounced back and forth between the "strategic crush" method and the "brilliant attack" method. Of course all of them are super strong in every aspect of the game, but their personal preference on how to play shines through.
The quiet, crushing players often seem to lose their title to brilliant attacking players, as was the case with Capablanca losing to Alekhine and Karpov losing to Kasparov.
it is funny Andy, some people have no idea who they could be talking to, and are quick to put themselves in your catergory...
Pacific_Victory wrote:
McHeath wrote:
One thing´s for sure - the player who eventually eclipses Carlsen is going to have a style all his own, he won´t out-Carlsen Carlsen. There´s probably a six-year-old somewhere in China or in some north French fishing village (for instance) who will be a GM at 13 and a Candidate at 16; maybe he´ll have a photographic memory and will have every single variation of every single opening effortlessly memorized; maybe he´ll be so brilliant in the middle game that he never needs to win subtle endgames. Maybe, maybe ... I think the answer is "no", because it will depend on the next generation, and the one after that, and so on. That´s the glory of it, the game is after all played by humans against humans, and we´re all different!
Yes this is a great point. Traditionally world champions seem to have bounced back and forth between the "strategic crush" method and the "brilliant attack" method. Of course all of them are super strong in every aspect of the game, but their personal preference on how to play shines through.
The quiet, crushing players often seem to lose their title to brilliant attacking players, as was the case with Capablanca losing to Alekhine and Karpov losing to Kasparov.
Yeah, like when Bovinnik beat Tal or Kramnik beat Kasparov....
?????????????????