Why will Magnus gain 7 points in 10 days?
Also, his current rating seems to be 2837 according to FIDE site.
Also, ratings aren't an absolute measure. Kasparov's 2851 was more impressive as the next highest rated player was 82 points below that. The difference between #2 and #9 was just 60 points. (So Kasparov to #10 was 142)
The difference between Magnus and #10 is 68 points. No one dominates today like Kasparov had in the past.
kasparov dominated chess with more than 50 points, carlsen is just ahead of Aronian by 30 points, just wait untill carlsen gets over 2900 , then you can say he s better than kasparov.
If Carlsen achieves a higher rating than Kasparov, so what? Kasparov was, after all, Carlsen's trainer through most of 2010. If the student goes on to geatness, isn't that just another victory for the teacher?
IMO Carlsen has the potential to go on to be greater than Kasparov, but edging over Kasparov's highest rating with the benefit of playing people with ratings only 30/40 points lower doesn't qualify for that, since, as already mentioned, it was Kasparov's sheer dominance over everyone else for so long that made him so great. Think about it; to maintain a rating 100 points higher than the nearest player, you gotta score 66% against the #2 in the world, and then better than that against the next best players! Magnus isn''t quite as formidable yet, although he is very difficult to beat, you don't expect him to win every game the way people did Kasparov at his height. Not yet, and not after the addition of 7 more rating points.
It doen't matter if Carlsen rating becomes higher does it? Different pool, so there is no comparison.
Yeah
@joeydvivre what does Fischer have to do with anything here?
Well since you brought it up, someone has to bite.
1# You misquote wafflemaster he said: "No one dominates today like Kasparov had in the past." So he did not exclude Fischer. He might as well agree with you that Fischer dominated in the same or better way then Kasparov did.
2# Like I said before the group is different so if Kasparov has more or Fischer has more it doesn't prove anything either way
3# Still, you really shouldn't say "I dunno" and then continue making claims on it (like more then 142). It's silly. Look it up, or don't talk about it.
4# I'm still giving you my opinion on Fischer. You probably like it. To me Fischer is a very strong chessplayer, whom after reaching the highest possible was so afraid of losing that he stopped playing at a high level. Therefore he did not dominate like Kasparov did, who succesfully maintained the title and dominated the chessworld for many years more.
You can claim Fischer was the greatest ever, you may believe it if you choose to. To me since he decided to hide under a rock he failed to show his continued superiority/dominance.
Who is Kasparov?
Who is Kasparov?
Joke! :P
I think in past Kasparov was a champion but now it is the time for Magnus Carlsen to rock on the board!!!
joeydvivre bringing up Fischer does have some point, though, but I think more for post #3. Fischer's lead from #1 to #2 was greater than Kasparov's lead. If you go with that chessmetrics system, which some have good arguments for and against, Fischer did have the highest rating over a 1 year period.
Breaking 2851 will give Carlsen some deserved bragging rights but he has a long haul to even approach Gazza's match dominance. Coming back from the dead against Karpov (down 5-0) in the '84/85 unlimited match to make it competitive is truly beyond belief.
To be fair Kasparov was 36 when he reached 2851 whereas Carlsen is still under 22. Let's wait some 20 years and then it might make more sense to make these comparisions.
Carlsen doesn't play chess, as we learnt on another thread, so this is all irrelevant.
Fischer was a gifted player, but he was ahead of his time by a large margin. Kasparov wasn't AS ahead of his time as Fischer, but made up for it with his hard work, and intense preparation.
I prefer Kasparov as to who is better, but the question will be around til the end of time.
2842 for MC... Oh dear...No! :)
Fischer was a gifted player, but he was ahead of his time by a large margin. Kasparov wasn't AS ahead of his time as Fischer, but made up for it with his hard work, and intense preparation.
I prefer Kasparov as to who is better, but the question will be around til the end of time.
Did you know that Anatoli Karpov was no Chess Prodigy?
What a stupid thread.
My favourite chess player ever to live is Kasparov and i think he is better than anyone that ever played chess but his rating is about to get broken.i know that rating doesnt mean anything.Its just that on wikipedia now will say Kasparov helds the world SECOND best record.Im saying this beacuse enter 2700chess.com and see carlsen is 2844.5 7 points and he is 1 number one in history of humanity.In less than 10 days Gary will fall off of the position.Im sorry about that :(((((((((((((((((((