What sets Magnus apart from everyone else?

I stumbled upon a game (above) where I saw Magnus dispatch Anand with apparent ease in just 30 moves. However, when I delved into the game I found a few things that Magnus does, I can say confidently, is the reason WHY CARLSEN WINS:

1. He give openings his own spin. Plays openings more creatively - with childlike enthusiam, turning away from the dogma and stereotypes of how to play certain openings, and instead finding fresh ideas.

2. Puts his opponent in highly stressful situations. He either does this with sound ideas, or sometimes even "BS" ideas that actually don't work, but require a computer to refute. The only one I can see getting past his BS ideas is Caruana, which is why I think Caruana's precision is the only thing that can get past Carlsen's bluff ideas.

3. Even in draw-ish positions, Carlsen always finds a way to keep life in the position by finding ideas that seemingly come from nowhere. This is where his relentless pressure usually cracks even players of Kramnik's caliber. I mean how many times have we seen Carlsen grind out an endgame win against the top 10 players? so many I lost count.

So there you have it. His original ideas, relentless pressure and confidence in his own ability to dive into complicated position is what sets Magnus apart from others. 

Is it going to be fun to see the world championship Carlsen vs Anand in November. It will be even more delightful to see how Carlsen will change his style a bit to battle Caruana's insane precision in future years.

I made a video about the game above that highlight certain points I said in this post.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_8OWQXhcK8

I will be making more videos on more Carlsen games in the future! so make sure to subsribe to my channel! Thanks

FM Gauri Shankar

Could you explain the evidence for your ideas in the game you posted?

Where is the fresh opening spin to be seen?  I don't know all these lines out to 20 moves, so perhaps there was a TN somewhere?

I can see the opponent being in a stressful situation at move 30, with the kingside attack at the same time Anand has to try to hold onto his d pawn. However, I am not sure I see why Anand had to resign. I assume Anand concluded he would lose his d pawn because he is unable to bring his rooks over to defend.

Still, the loss of the d pawn would only leave the material situation equal. Is there a forced win from the ending position?

Maybe you cover them in your 30 minute video.  Some people like to read, however. I would encourage you to put some of these thing in your posts.

/ I did listen to the end of the video and you covered these questions.

I explain everything in the video in detail, including why Anand resigned (some original analysis).

Please watch the video in full, and if you still have any questions I'd be happy to answer them. It takes too much time for me to translate everything I said in the video to the post.

In regards to the opening, a world no.1 player simply playing an Anti-Sicilian to win, is pretty original. Carlsen MUST have some original ideas to play these lines. One game obviously can't prove anything, though, but I have seen other games which I plan to do in a video series.

Thanks for your answer.  It was a nice lecture. 

What an excellent breakdown and analysis of the game.  Although it's one thing to be able to observe the genius involved, and quite another to be able to employ similar tactics ourselves.  Still, very instructive and well explained.  Two things that took hold with me.  One, be patient.  If there is nothing black can do in a certain position then continue to increase the pressure as the champion does.  Two, there are more choices available than people realize so think a little outside the box.  Well done.