After the era of Kasparov, who used extreme opening prep, Carlsen was new in that he didn't play for an opening advantage. He played innocuous crap to get an equal middlegame and won anyway because he outplayed his opponents, especially in the endgame.
You would already know this if you've been paying attention for the last 5 years... since your account was made in 2012 it seems like a dumb question.
And I'm not a Carlsen "fan" I'm a fan of chess.
His theory is to draw and win against someone who isn't good at fast chess like Caruana to keep the "classical" WCC title. If it is classical, shouldn't he win at least one classical game?
Also, where is Carlsen playing Duda as black? I don't see it. Have the balls Carlsen. Play Duda with the black pieces.
His theory is to draw and win against someone who isn't good at fast chess like Caruana to keep the "classical" WCC title. If it is classical, shouldn't he win at least one classical game?
Also, where is Carlsen playing Duda as black? I don't see it. Have the balls Carlsen. Play Duda with the black pieces.
I didn't think carlsen's balls decided the color of his pieces.
To magnus carlsen fans:
Any new style? Any new opening? Did any old opening become fashionable?
In 20 years, what would chess theory say about Carlsen?
What about anand before him?
Anand had the misfortune of being between Kasparov and Carlsen.
After what seemed like 20 straight years of being #2 in the world, he got to be WCC after Kasparov retired, so at least he got that.
I didn't think carlsen's balls decided the color of his pieces.
Lets rearrange the words in that sentence:
Carlsen's balls didn't decide the color of his pieces... I think (cue Illuminati music)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRWbIoIR04c
Anand had the misfortune of being between Kasparov and Carlsen.
After what seemed like 20 straight years of being #2 in the world, he got to be WCC after Kasparov retired, so at least he got that.
Sounds like a menage a trois 😀
Their claim to fame seems to be primarily being non-russian.
The simple reason is that all the openings have been played out and there is hardly any new variations any more. Computers have risen and done all the work, so there is no new theory.
In the 1960s you could still get a variation named after you, but that era is long gone.
After the era of Kasparov, who used extreme opening prep, Carlsen was new in that he didn't play for an opening advantage. He played innocuous crap to get an equal middlegame and won anyway because he outplayed his opponents, especially in the endgame.
You would already know this if you've been paying attention for the last 5 years... since your account was made in 2012 it seems like a dumb question.
And I'm not a Carlsen "fan" I'm a fan of chess.
I do not know Carlsen's chess. I know only that of kasparov because it is from my time and write a lot about himself.
I did not ask a provocative question, my intention was to attract people (fans) who know the chess of carlsen and can tell what kind of novelty he brought to the practice of chess.
Maybe we'll have to wait 20 years and see what theorists will write about the boy. I am sure that after the heat of the moment the truth always appears about the players, Bronstein, Schlechter, Saemish, etc. (media is sense common!)
If Kasparov is right, when he says that every world champion needs to bring something new into the game, a contribution (as Newton improves Kepler / Copernicus that is improved by Einstein that is improved by Bohr or something like that), then Carlsen must have something new to keep on top. I do not think he has just such a high mental stamina, because many other players in the past were as talented or more talented than Carlsen and could not keep on top: Suffice to say that Anand is as talented as Carlsen or Capablanca but was just when Kasparov leaving the scene for him I got a short period of glory. Carlsen is there long enough, so he does have something very special and innovative, but my scientific knowledge of Chess can not tell me what: that's why I asked this question, does anyone know what.
I should to say, my question is not just about openning. Fischer is known to be one of the first to deal professionally with the game. Kasparov showed the importance of the initiative at all costs, needing a Kraminik that showed the importance of neutralizing the initiative at all costs when black. Etc..
When people 'hate' Carlsen, maybe is because people dont like natural talent that cannot be learned. The people like informations, people like learn from the greates human being. If Carlsen have something which just he can obtain, carlsen is not interesting more... Science is good because they can learned, we can use Pythagorean theorem, but if some idiot-savant can calculate any double-digit power, using some obscure algorithm, it will just be a circus little monkey without much importance to mankind. And these people somehow feel that they are not being important, it is very sad both for humanity and for these people, one can not learn, the other can not teach ...
I just think that Carlsen could at least try to convey his ideas, so he would seem less autistic.
I just think that Carlsen could at least try to convey his ideas, so he would seem less autistic.
I didn't know drawing 12 games was being autistic. Carlsen can't win at classical chess, FACT.
He didn't do it with Karjakin, and he didn't do it with Caruana. He got lucky with Anand who is on his way out. FACT.
FACT is you can't handle the truth. The truth is, you can't handle the facts. And then you take good, you take the bad, and there you have, the facts of life!!!
Carlsen can win any player in classic. Karpov x Kasparov match have 40 draws or something like that. What is 12 draws compared to 40 or more?
... Draw between strong players is not new.
But carlsen have a plus. Kasparov had a plus against Karpov. Alekhine had a plus against Capablanca. Tal against Botvinnik. That 'plus' is something new in chess world. After few years others players use that plus and need someone with a novity to conquer the hegemenoy.
My question is: what, excatlly, is the carlsen plus? That is not a simple question, that is a deep question. Carlsen.
The superiority of carlsen can not be ignored. I do not think you need me to put all facts about the kid achievements, need you?
Again: why carlsen hegemony last by about 10 years? Mental stamina? have something theorical (a new one)? That is my question...
You have to give Carlsen a little love for playing the Dutch and openly claiming that it - like the Sicilian - is one of the best tries by black to equalize. whether or not it's true, there hasn't been a real, top level proponent of the Dutch since the mid 60s.
To magnus carlsen fans:
Any new style? Any new opening? Did any old opening become fashionable?
In 20 years, what would chess theory say about Carlsen?