Magnus Carlsen is just ok in tactics, let me explain why: as he almost always plays the best move, he just need to calculate 1 or 2 moves in advance.
Tate was a greater tactician than Magnus Carlsen
Sort:
May 4, 2019
0
#23
Jokes aside. Rashid Nezhmetdinov had a potential to exceed Magnus in tactical skills.
maybe the best tactician ever was an unknown dude who played for some bucks in a square, and we will never know it
May 4, 2019
0
#26
It'd be interesting to hear some of the top player's opinions on who the best tactician is... even if their answer is "that's a dumb question for the following reasons . . . "
Grischuk would have some unpopular but well reasoned opinion. I'd like to hear him talk about it for a while.
May 4, 2019
0
#27
Because... AFAIK tactics isn't what sets super GMs apart from each other. So to me they're all about equal in terms of tactics... but of course that's what it would look like to someone like me who is like... 1000 points lower than Carlsen 
May 4, 2019
0
#28
ghost_of_pushwood wrote:
The best tactician...hm. That is interesting...especially since what's usually called Tactics is just the tip of the iceberg...
Exactly.
So it really may end up being someone like Morphy if we're just talking pure tactics... because super GMs like Tal weave together all sorts of complexities into their combinations including things most players wouldn't expect like marginally superior endgames.
May 4, 2019
0
#29
ghost_of_pushwood wrote:
And I'm gonna go ahead and say that, in that larger sense, I'll bet tactics do largely separate one genius from an even bigger one.
When Karpov was world champ, they asked him what made him better. His answer was that the WC is just a little bit better at everything. Tactics, endgames, openings, etc.
Seems like a down to earth response.
May 4, 2019
0
#30
ghost_of_pushwood wrote:
I mean real tactics. Not hanging pawns...keeping your pieces coordinated...which (as usual with these things) merge seamlessly into Playing Well.
Yeah, so first of all we'd have to define tactics. Do they mean calculation? Imagination? A good sense for taking practical risks?
I remember I think it was an Aronian - Grischuk game where Grischuk got really low on time (as usual) so Aronian made a rook sac that both players knew was objectively bad, but the position became so sharp it was impossible for Grischuk to play well due to the clock and in the end Aronian won.
congrandolor wrote:
maybe the best tactician ever was an unknown dude who played for some bucks in a square, and we will never know it
possible?
May 4, 2019
0
#32
One of the things I really admire, and I'm no good at, is during a sacrificial king hunt, a GM isn't just playing for mate... they're playing for position too (so to speak). In other words they're always mentally prepared to stop the attack and and just win a "normal" way, even with something boring like a technical endgame.
Whereas in my games, if I sac material, and there's a king hunt, I get nervous and my calculation skews towards finding ways to mate or continue the attack. Making the mental switch to something more mundane is, to me, really impressive... and no doubt something extremely elementary at the GM level. They'd probably laugh at me to know I'm pressed by it lol.
May 4, 2019
0
#33
congrandolor wrote:
congrandolor wrote:
maybe the best tactician ever was an unknown dude who played for some bucks in a square, and we will never know it
possible?
"Possible" is a really low bar.
It's possible I'm an alien from Mars.
The best tactician (or chess player) being some unknown guy in a park is about as likely as that.
May 4, 2019
0
#34
ghost_of_pushwood wrote:
I really think a heckuva lot of tactics is not hanging pawns. At least, that's how it seems when you play a comp.
Yeah, who was it after some super tournament said they needed to work on seeing more possibilities for short combinations. Like 2 and 3 moves.
Petrosian or Spassky? It was some world champ around that time IIRC.
mangnus carslen