If they're really asking that they're pretty dumb for being super-grandmasters. Obviously, what Magnus has done is to dominate the chess world. Do you imagine the other players...haven't noticed that?

"Why not me?"

When Carlsen was a kid he memorized thousands of chess games plus their major variations because that's what kids can do if they have the right circumstances and right aptitude. It's actually not that much different from what Smyslov did as a kid, only Carlsen might have done it an order of magnitude more. And Smyslov was famous for being a consummate positional player plus endgame master.

Smyslov writes in his 125 Selected Games:

"From the very start he [his father] instilled in me a love for so-called 'simple' positions ... I could sit at the board for eight hours, and sometimes even more ... Among my favorite books ... Die Moderne Schachpartie by Tarrasch ... Of course, I have no listed all the books and magazines which I read then ... My father's library contained everything, so to speak, of an everyday nature ... Thus I as though traced the evolution of chess thought, and repeated the steps in my own development ... I wanted to get to the heart of the matter, to grasp the logic of the development of events on the board, both in games by players from the past, and in the games of contemporary masters ..."

Carlsen may have memorized an order of magnitude more games but his program of study sounds strikingly like a modern version of Smyslov's.

Now the difference is that Carlsen's other major interest appears to be playing football (Carlsen's first chess master mentor Agdestein is a retired professional footballer), while Smyslov's was music. Carlsen's chess is like football: one can play for 90 minutes but then in a moment of attention concede the losing goal to someone just a bit more fit. Smyslov's chess was a quest to discover the harmony, the truth, of a game that had a beginning, middle, and end.

The essential thing is to know many games but also of course to know the patterns and themes (positional and tactical) of many examples. Soltis explains how Seirawan and the Polgars used to paste in thousands of tactical types and many many position types to study. Seirawan also used to study and write about his own games, then get advice and discuss his games. So all these are valid.

Of course it helps to have a lot of talent.

While saying Capablanca was in his 50s when he lost to the new generation, and we mention his plus score against Lasker, we have to make the note that Lasker was 53 when in 1921 he lost to Capa in the tropical climate of Cuba. During the 1920s, however, it was Lasker who dominated in the important tournaments with New York 1927 as the exception, since he didn't participate. Lasker was over 60 before Alekhine could win his only game against him, and Lasker did very well against the upcoming star, the theoretician Euwe.

Anand's hope is to engineer complexities but he failed to do that as White in the last game so all is not looking good. He looked shaky against Gelfand. Kasparov was basically right, he was out of form and it seems he will stay out. Chess is nowadays for young men and women.

I don't think the Kirsan/Magnus relationship is going to be a love affair. The young man knows he is the present and future of chess. He has a lot of clout.

with re. to Smyslov's youthful chess education, you might wish to read Shereshevsky's contribution to the book "Training for the Tournament Player" by Dvoretsky and Yusupov.

Shereshevsky basically writes that the young talents of the Dvoretsky/Yusupov school were introduced to all the classic literature and games, such as "Lasker's Manual of Chess" to name one. The reasoning being a more profound knowledge of modern chess is to be gained from a study of the heritage.

It's why I raised my eyebrow when Anish Giri said he likes the Kasparov series of books but only really uses a computer and isn't bothered with the old masters. (He said that some years ago after the one of the Experience v. Talent matches, now defunct.) For some reason, I feel he is doing himself a great disservice if he still has that attitude, although clearly a top class GM.

That intimacy with the past is what they call(ed) "chess culture" in Russia(Soviet times), I think.