In many tournments, Carslen has won like 6 times in a row. Isn't that suspicious? How is that even possible against other super grandmasters. Is no one suspicous?
Carlsens overall win rate isn't unprecedented. You should check some old Kasparov stats.
In many tournments, Carslen has won like 6 times in a row. Isn't that suspicious? How is that even possible against other super grandmasters. Is no one suspicous?
Do you have even the faintest comprehension of the sorts of problems he poses for his opponents? I get suspicious when he loses.
I just don't get it. Nakamura wasn't always not even in the top twenty five. suddenly he's the number 2? I liked the old days better when it was Kramnik, Leko, and Topalov as the best players. Now things are weird. Caruana had a fine tournament at st louis and now he's results are mediocre. Aronian is dropping down. Magnus has a rating even higher then Kasparov's. It just so weird now.
Nakamura is number 3, not 2. He's been consistently in the top ten for several years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D99wBFYwSog
he is number 2. And no, Nakamura has not always been in the top twenty five. It took him to be an adult for that to happen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D99wBFYwSog
he is number 2. And no, Nakamura has not always been in the top twenty five. It took him to be an adult for that to happen.
RankNameTitleCountryRatingGamesB-Year
1 Carlsen, Magnus g NOR 2863 0 1990
2 Caruana, Fabiano g ITA 2802 0 1992
3 Nakamura, Hikaru g USA 2798 0 1987
4 Topalov, Veselin g BUL 2798 0 1975
5 Grischuk, Alexander g RUS 2794 0 1983
6 Anand, Viswanathan g IND 2791 0 1969
7 Giri, Anish g NED 2790 0 1994
8 So, Wesley g USA 2788 0 1993
9 Kramnik, Vladimir g RUS 2783 0 1975
10 Aronian, Levon g ARM 2770 0 1982
I just don't get it.
I noticed.
Nonsense, all sheer and utter nonsense. Pretty obvious a player like Morphy would be in the elite group, which with today's inflated ratings would be well over 2700. Computers have pretty much proven the power of sheer analytical power. Top GM's get owned in 18th century openings all the time, the modern chess understanding they suppossdly posses never saves the day. Chess is 99% tactics. Other players should be expected to hit 2600-2700 with a few exceptions. Possibly a couple of relative unknowns might be in the world's elite. Heck just enter a super tournament and have a flat score, you just got a 2740 performance rating!
Morphy would be in the top group today because his competitive skill let him rise to the level of his competition, and then a little higher. The moves he played, however, have flaws.
I can't imagine what's up to these Morphy-worshippers who consistently claim that Morphy would be a Super GM today. Nonsense. Morphy would be a Grandmaster with a rating of about 2500-2550. Maybe even less. There wasn't much competition back then.
One way of looking at the issue, Muhammad, is to forget about whether an 1800s player could catch up with modern opening theory and strategy, but instead look at their tactical expertise.
Morphy did not just outpay his peers from the opening of the game (after all, he used many opening not in favor today). Look at his tactics and combinations he used to win. I suggest, in that respect, he is fully comparable to the best players today.
One way of looking at the issue, Muhammad, is to forget about whether an 1800s player could catch up with modern opening theory and strategy, but instead look at their tactical expertise.
Morphy did not just outpay his peers from the opening of the game (after all, he used many opening not in favor today). Look at his tactics and combinations he used to win. I suggest, in that respect, he is fully comparable to the best players today.
You're completely right. Morphy was a chess-prodigy who knew many things that were not yet known by other players in his era.
Yeah, the way Morphy beat the crap out of fish really cements his status as GOAT (well, for some people anyway).
Yeah, the way Morphy beat the crap out of fish really cements his status as GOAT (well, for some people anyway).
I doubt Morphy would be in the GOAT debate; however, it's silly to say Morphy was just a normal player. He was VERY talented in chess.
You just agreed Morphy is fully comparable to the best players today... like, 10 minutes ago. I'm looking at it right now. It's on this page.
You just agreed Morphy is fully comparable to the best players today... like, 10 minutes ago. I'm looking at it right now. It's on this page.
I never said Morphy was as good as modern grandmasters in every aspect of chess. I agreed about the fact that his combinations were absolutely stunning and that he may be comparable with today's GMs in THAT aspect. You would've understood what I meant if you read JamieDelarosa's post more carefully.
Morphy was 2100 and wuold be 2400 today
dark_837 wrote:
Morphy was 2100 and wuold be 2400 today
You have no idea how strong Morphy was and the strong masters he won against. Morphy is easily in the 2700 elo.
leiph18 wrote:
Yeah, the way Morphy beat the crap out of fish really cements his status as GOAT (well, for some people anyway).
Morphy played against very strong masters and won, that is why he is famous. These some the strong players he beat Loewenthal, Paulsen,Harrwitz and Anderssen and many strong masters; he was like the Carlsen in his times; players were in awe of his chess talents.
Yuree, stop with the hyperbole. Do you really believe Morphy was better than Alekhine and that Alekhine was better than Petrosian or Spassky? Or that Morphy was better than Korchnoi?
Morphy was about 2350 strength, which is incredible when you consider that Staunton was only a mid 19xx player.
Yeah! You or I at our best coulda beaten Staunton at his best!
Don't believe me? Compare your best games to his.
Untermenschen. All of them.