superking500 wrote:
?????????????????
Not worth responding to the question when the OP does this.
so did carlsen single-handily end the "preperation era"
Sort:
tubebender wrote:
AndyClifton wrote:
tubebender wrote:
Virtually none of us are even close to GM levels...
"Virtually"? lol
I do have a friend who is an international master. He equates himself to a pro tennis player who is ranked 400 in the world--still pretty damn good but not nearly as good as Nadal. That`s what I meant as "virtually".
Meh, "figuratively," "literally," what's the difference am I right?
I don't believe we'll see an end to pre-preparation any time soon, if at all. One thing that I am curious to see is the type of games that Carlsen plays in ten years or so, when he's at his full maturity as a chess player.
Savage wrote:
Bad health, not Botvinnik, robbed Tal of his title. It's commonly known that Tal was sick as a dog during the rematch, and was playing against the advice of his doctors.
Reading "Life and Games of Mikhail Tal" at the moment, what a spoiler!!
Savage wrote:
waffllemaster wrote:
Pacific_Victory wrote:
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....
Bad health, not Botvinnik, robbed Tal of his title. It's commonly known that Tal was sick as a dog during the rematch, and was playing against the advice of his doctors.
And Kasparov was getting old (and some rumors about distraction / losing on purpose).
I agree they're not good examples, but they're just as bad as the ones he gave IMO.
tubebender wrote:
AndyClifton wrote:
"Virtually"? lol
I do have a friend who is an international master. He equates himself to a pro tennis player who is ranked 400 in the world--still pretty damn good but not nearly as good as Nadal. That`s what I meant as "virtually".
And is anybody here an IM? That's what I meant by "lol." 
The funny thing is this guy didn't seem to use any of the things "crushing" strategists use - he didn't do things traditionally - play to gain tempo etc. He was simply aiming for hard fought end games where his superior memory no doubt serves him better as with lesser pieces on the board you need to be, I think, more careful of mistakes. That's where no amount of preparation can save you. I think this guy has devised some method of taking games to end game configurations he likes.
^^Really just seems like Carlsen is 21st-century Capablanca
Nov 24, 2013
0
#30
AndyClifton wrote:
tubebender wrote:
AndyClifton wrote:
"Virtually"? lol
[something]
And is anybody here an IM? That's what I meant by "lol."
lol
I'm rooting for Carlsen if he can take it back to being a game of pure skill. Wishful thinking, I know.
That is why I wish chess 960 were held in higher regard...much harder to prepare for it and develop an opening repertoire....
Shivsky wrote:
I think working with Hammer (Preparation "H" would make a fine code name for this partnership) made things nice and smooth for Carlsen.
This post didn't get enough love BTW.
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.
Worship should be for God only. If you don't believe in God, well, then your statement makes sense. But it doesn't do you or the other party any favors.
Nov 24, 2013
0
#36
Carlsen's opening preparation is stellar. He cannot be surprised. No matter what the opponent tries to do, either they must face a long endgame where he has easier moves, or he "shuts it down."
DundyO wrote:
Worship should be for God only. If you don't believe in God, well, then your statement makes sense. But it doesn't do you or the other party any favors.
Nobody said anything about worship of a deity, only about begging them for special permission to gaze upon their faces, in a purely secular fashion, of course.
Nov 24, 2013
0
#38
Let's put this another way: the GM who may be the strongest since Kasparov at preparing openings, cannot get an advantage in the opening against Carlsen. Carlsen doesn't prepare? NO. Rather, his preparation is so intense, so thorough, so effective that it appears that he does not prepare.
Call it Ninja preparation.
Its not that Carlsen doesn't prepare, its just that he prepares differently. Other GMs look for a novelty very late in the opening that will give them some advantage; Carlsen prepares many openings to make sure there are no surprises which would leave him at a significant disadvantage.
sapientdust wrote:
DundyO wrote:
Worship should be for God only. If you don't believe in God, well, then your statement makes sense. But it doesn't do you or the other party any favors.
Nobody said anything about worship of a deity, only about begging them for special permission to gaze upon their faces, in a purely secular fashion, of course.
lol. Well worded. 
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....
It works equally both ways of course, the attacking players also lose to the crushing positional players (as we just saw with the traditionally fierce attacker Anand losing to crushing Carlsen)... I was simply phrasing it that way because we were talking about who will eventually defeat Carlsen. My guess is it will be some super strong attacking player similar to Kasparov.