I like Carlen's play. I don't believe he's the best. We might see a 2900 rated player who attacks like Tal and defends like Petrosian, and is younger than Carlsen was when he hit 2800. But I won't say Carlsen is weak like many people here say.
Why all the hate for Carlsen?
Sort:
'cause they're dumb. No other explanation really.
Envy. Successful individuals always attract jealousy and criticism from frustrated wanna-bees. The human ego is needed to operate in the material world, but its default setting is selfishness and negativity.
Carlsen is not helping people to like him by making arrogant statements from time to time, such as his recent " I can beat Tal and Fischer". How can you touch the undisputed (in the eyes of many) Demigod of Chess and not expect a strong reaction? LOL.
Compare with Caruana for example, who maintains he is not as good as Karpov...
spaceball2 wrote:
carlsen is just overconfindent at times!
True, but this is normal and healthy for a youngster (lack of confidence might be more justified by reality, but society punishes timidity). And in any case, it's not unreasonable to speculate that Carlsen could beat Fischer, and therefore also Tal.
Dec 1, 2015
0
#7
LetTheW00kieeWin wrote:
Just curious. I *think* most of us still believe he is the best, but there are a vocal few who like to point fingers and say he is weak and all washed up, that he is nothing compared to WC's of the past etc.
They are trolls or idiots, take your pick.
Dec 1, 2015
0
#8
RasputinTheMad wrote:
Players with a universal style tend to attract hate, because their games aren't as fun to watch.
Spassky had a pretty entertaining style, IMO.
You know what people are like. Years from now these same people will be saying what a genius the man was.
LetTheW00kieeWin wrote:
Just curious. I *think* most of us still believe he is the best, but there are a vocal few who like to point fingers and say he is weak and all washed up, that he is nothing compared to WC's of the past etc.
Trolling is one explanation, but the ignorance about the game and its history is also enormous among many discussing these subjects. Carlsen is called weak for a World Champion by those not knowing anything about the results of even the latest World Champions before him.
If they read up a bit on how Anand or Kramnik did as World Champions, or for example Spassky or Petrosian for that matter, they would learn a thing or two. Or take someone like Capablanca, how did he do in his first top tournaments as World Champion, like New York 1924 and Moscow 1925, or his first title match as Champion?
When Carlsen had a bad result in Norway this year it was after winning 10 and finishing second in 4 of his last 14 tournaments, all of them with lots of top ten opponents, and counting average world ranking stronger than those previous Champions played.
It's also a question of media knowing what makes people "tick". When Carlsen is asked what player from the past he would like to play he mentions Tal and Fischer, saying it would be difficult to beat Fischer but that he thinks he could make it. Media turns this into a simple "I would beat Fischer", knowing that this will get the discussion going...
I also think it's a bit of a media thing that Carlsen is doing all that badly. Chessbase write that it would be an understatement to call Carlsen's 2015 a flop, others called his year "horrible" etc. That in spite of his winning three of the strongest tournaments, finishing second in a fourth, and winning the rapid World Championship as well.
No other reigning World Champions except Karpov and Kasparov won more top events in one year than Carlsen did in 2015, and even they very rarely did it (and Carlsen could still win two more before the year is over). So I think all the talk about his doing worse than other Champions etc is exaggerated. If not for one bad result he would still be more than 50 points ahead of #2 instead of "only" 31.
He is certainly not weak. On the other hand he's not best.
He was on a good streak and has continued it just recently, but he certainly won't stay WC for long...
Bu he will be in top 10
Dec 2, 2015
0
#14
aman_makhija wrote:
He was on a good streak and has continued it just recently, but he certainly won't stay WC for long...
Bu he will be in top 10
Is this Indian pride talking? Have to trash the Norwegian genius because he beat Anand twice in World Chess Championship matches 
I think it's absurd to say he's not the best, all things considered. As fabelhaft pointed out in #13 and #14 only compared to Carlsen's previous results could this year be considered to have been less than perfect. Won 10 Tourneys, 2nd in 4. LoL.
Carlsen just turned 25 a few days ago. Fischer was 29 when he beat Spassky. I hope and believe that Carlsen will continue to improve and work hard and think he will one day reach 2900. But we saw what happened to Fischer after 1972, he lost the hunger. Maybe Carlsen is facing similar psychological issues?
It is disrespectful to put down Carlsen, and make excuses for why he's had such success. And of course irrational and silly. The fact is, most people aren't capable of grasping the subtleties and depth with which Magnus operates.
Korchnoi once said something incredibly silly and dismissive of Carlsen, implying that Carlsen didn't put in the work and that he made strange moves, and he (Korchnoi) couldn't believe Carlsen was a real chess player (whatever that means) but Ivanchuk replied (and I quote) "that he can see Magnus Carlsen’s thoughts at work, that it’s no accident that he comes up with such strange moves"*
*http://whychess.com/node/1724
Dec 2, 2015
0
#15
LetTheW00kieeWin wrote:
Just curious. I *think* most of us still believe he is the best, but there are a vocal few who like to point fingers and say he is weak and all washed up, that he is nothing compared to WC's of the past etc.
You mean the single troll on chess.com who can't be bothered to try a new troll topic? The one who struggles to spell "Carlsen" without the letter 'o' consistently?
Why should he be best?
Dec 2, 2015
0
#17
aman_makhija wrote:
Why should he be best?
Highest rated player in history of chess, current world champion, you know, little things like this.
The reason why there is a dip in form
shine5 wrote:
I like Carlsen's play. I don't believe he's the best. We might see a 2900 rated player who attacks like Tal and defends like Petrosian, and is younger than Carlsen was when he hit 2800. But I won't say Carlsen is weak like many people here say.
Funny how I view it the exact opposite way. I believe he is indisputably one of the Top 3 chess players of all time at this point, even though Firouzja has been on a frighteningly meteoric tear lately. Alireza's time is yet to truly come, so we'll see how it turns out.
On the other hand, I HATE Carlsen's playing style. He tried being more aggressive on average some two years ago, but I guess it did not yield favourable results for him, so he went back to his boring ol' grinding. I can't wait for someone of Firo's caliber to willingly engage in wild complications and come out on top.
...
Also, I really despise Carlsen's arrogance. I'd rather have someone who doesn't seem like an entitled meathead be the World Champ.
Dec 3, 2021
0
#20
Shaikidow wrote:
Also, I really despise Carlsen's arrogance. I'd rather have someone who doesn't seem like an entitled meathead be the World Champ.
I don't know about this. I feel like a lot of people would poke at top players' arrogance, but I don't think they could be that humble in his position either.
Because, first of all, he deserves it. Heh. As world champion, I'd say you're entitled to some leeway in arrogance. And second, I think it's not even that bad. Everyone's human. You can't control your emotions 100% of the time. Someone who isn't arrogant from time to time in a high position doesn't really feel like a person.
I don't really follow top level chess all that much, so I don't really have a lot of exposure to carlsen or the interviews or any of that. I'd like to hear why your opinion on carlsen is that he's arrogant.
Just curious. I *think* most of us still believe he is the best, but there are a vocal few who like to point fingers and say he is weak and all washed up, that he is nothing compared to WC's of the past etc.