< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 130 OF 131 ·
|Feb-07-10|| ||The Rocket: "I'd prefere to be a dry winner rather than a dynamic loser."|
that is beside the point, he was comparing different succesfull players ways of winning their games..
|Feb-07-10|| ||Billy Vaughan: <Operas by Wagner are to me just kitsch (besides the fact that Wagner himself was an anti-semitic douche bag), but there are probably a lot of people who disagree here.>|
"Better than they sound" as Twain said ;)
|Feb-07-10|| ||boz: In chess, creativity is not measured strictly by tactics. Carlsen has repeatedly demonstrated a rich imagination, often finding new ideas in positions most of us thought were dry or lifeless. Like Capablanca he plays beautiful combinations but only when he has to. I personally find his economy of style aesthetically pleasing.|
|Feb-08-10|| ||KingG: <As all the action was going on there, Carlsen managed to get himself into a spot of trouble with Caruana after an unnecessarily adventurous opening in a Spanish. The world #1's piece sac was turned back and he ended up down a pawn in a knight endgame. He narrowly saved the day and the tournament victory after nearly reaching the third time control. Kasparov was delighted, of course, although he said it was something of a shame that Shirov couldn't share the honors. "He played an amazing tournament with several great games," said Kasparov.> http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt...|
Even Kasparov thinks it's a shame that Shirov didn't share first.
|Feb-08-10|| ||frogbert: still a bit different from thinking it's a shame that carlsen won. kasparov would certainly not agree to the latter. :o)|
|Feb-08-10|| ||KingG: That's true, on the other hand, considering that Kasparov is training Carlsen, and his history with Shirov, it's remarkable that he even goes that far. It certainly shows that for impartial observers, who don't have any links with Carlsen, or a history with Shirov, thinking it's a shame Shirov didn't win is certainly not a crime.|
|Feb-08-10|| ||badest: <But Carlsen's real problem solving skill and imagination are really only on display when he's playing opponents who are true grandmasters. So it's only now that we get to see his real game.> I have a feeling that against the "big guys", Magnus can relax and really perform... against players his own age and games he is "expected" to win ... he usually performs much worse (maybe not point-wise but certainly play-wise).|
|Feb-08-10|| ||Ezzy: I've had enough of all this :-)
Nowhere on these pages, OR the pages on the professional chess websites do you see any written superlatives about Carlsen's tournament victories. I mean, real 'over the top' references to his tournament victories.
Well I'm going to correct that by saying Magnus Carlsen is the greatest thing that's happened to chess since Garry Kasparov. His Nanjing, London, and Corus victories were breathtaking, and it takes an extremely precious talent to achieve all this in the span of 10 months.
Forget all this rubbish about Shirov deserved to win it, and it's a shame Shirov didn't win because he played great chess. However which way you try to dissect a tournament, it is the person with the most hard earned points that win. If a player makes unsound sacrifices and manages to eek out a win, then it's all well and fare to me. If a player saves a lost position, then that requires determination energy and skill.
There are lots of ways to analyse tournaments, but the determining factor in all the analysis is the points you amass at the end of it. How you got there doesn't matter to the history books.
Magnus is playing magnificently. He's competing against the worlds best and is finishing on top regularly. He will never play like a machine and will always (untill the end of his career) have problems in games because he's playing class chessplayers. But to go through a whole tournament and hold it all together time after time is simply STAGGERING!!
I know nothing about his future successes, but I know about his past and present successes and they are astounding.
Magnus must have created interest for millions of youngsters new to the game of chess. He is the popstar of chess. This is so easy for me to say when a 19 year old is world number 1 and rated 2810!!, but I get the feeling that sometimes people are trying to undermine those achievements by petty nitpicking at his tournament victories.
Well I'm not going to do that. Magnus has had outstanding almost unprecidented success, and this has rated him higher than most people in the HISTORY of chess!!!!!!!!!!!
Why isn't EVERYBODY going 'over the top' like me. Obviously so called professional chess writers don't find it easy to give excessive praise, but I find it very easy for someone like the the UNBELIEVABLY BRILLIANT Magnus Carlsen.
He's setting the chess world on fire, and I wouldn't embarrass myself (just yet :-) ) by trying to nitpick at the errors he makes, because the great things he does far outweighs the bad things.
I don't know what the future holds, but for now Magnus Carlsen (In chess terms) YOU'RE THE MAN!!
|Feb-08-10|| ||wanabe2000: <Ezzy> Thank you for your spot on comments. Magnus Carlsen has re-juvinated chess in 2008-2010, if not before, to the extent that people look forward to his tournaments. Much like Tiger Woods, if he's in I watch golf, if not, my interest level is low. Now, having said that, I was watching the Moscow Open with interest, but when MC plays I'm glued. Unfortunally I am not a writer but MC did get a nice article in January 11, 2010 Time Magazine
"Prince of the Chessboard: The Youngest No.1 in History". It is a start.|
|Feb-08-10|| ||ycbaywtb: Ezzy was a little funny in the post, but the point is fairly accurate. Where is the praise for Magnus, being the winner of these tournaments?|
After reading Ezzy's post, i have become curious how long Magnus may dominate events like these, because he certainly has been dominating lately, winning everything in sight
|Feb-08-10|| ||storbondemongoen: Thank you Ezzy for putting it all into perspective. I wonder, when will Slo-off-the-marko come to the same conclusion?|
|Feb-08-10|| ||badest: <Ezzy> You have a very good point. But ... the comparison with Kasparov (and Fischer, which some other fans use) is weak. Both K and F were very charismatic players/people both at and off the board. Magnus will never be that.|
|Feb-08-10|| ||Shams: <badest> Carlen's lack of megalomania is a feature, not a bug.|
|Feb-08-10|| ||frogbert: shams, hehe :o)|
|Feb-09-10|| ||badest: <Shams: <badest> Carlen's lack of megalomania is a feature, not a bug.> LOL ... but honestly ... got to have some megalomania ... it goes with the territory ;)|
|Feb-09-10|| ||Rolfo: Thanks Ezzy|
|Feb-09-10|| ||messachess: I am surprised to see it reported that Carlsen hasn't been getting the praise he deserves. I seem to recall having seen abundant praise on these pages. Of course he deserves praise. Any reservations would probably have to do with all the help that players get today from computers. And, of course, there is the special perceived advantage of his coach. Presumably past top players had a tougher time of it.|
|Feb-09-10|| ||Bdellovibrio: <messachess> Perhaps everybody is getting used to Carlsen constantly winning tournaments.|
|Feb-10-10|| ||The Rocket: "i have become curious how long Magnus may dominate events like these, because he certainly has been dominating lately, winning everything in sight"|
you think he dominated this tournament??? he won it by a half point!! and wasnt even really leading the tournament untill the very end.
|Feb-11-10|| ||Billy Vaughan: It did feel like Magnus just stumbled his way into first place.|
But I mean, really. The fact that I can, with a straight face, say he "stumbled his way into first place" means that Magnus Carlsen really does dominate. We hold Carlsen to such a high standard that we treat <winning a super-tournament> as something he can do almost by accident.
|Feb-11-10|| ||Petrosianic: Yes, but what does that mean? Really, it was Kramnik who stumbled, not Carlsen. If all you mean is that Carlsen wasn't in first place all the way through, that's true, but so what? If the person in First Place after Round 5 always won, there'd be no point in playing the rest of the tournament.|
|Feb-11-10|| ||SetNoEscapeOn: <Even Kasparov thinks it's a shame that Shirov didn't share first.>|
Notice that he didn't say anything about Kramnik :)
|Feb-11-10|| ||The Rocket: "If the person in First Place after Round 5 always won, there'd be no point in playing the rest of the tournament"|
well the point was about domination... and you are not dominating a tournament if you end up winning it in the final round!!! and especially with half a point!!.. dumbass!(sorry love that word).
|Feb-11-10|| ||ycbaywtb: i kind of meant Carlsen is dominating because of everything rolled into one: he shot to the top of the ratings, and has stayed there, he's winning all of his tournaments, nobody seems to be able to come ahead of him, despite a +5 start, or beating him in an individual game, he is dominating because he is the best, #1 rated, and a winner overall, not because of leading a tournament throughout, BUT i see your point that dominating a single tournament can be viewed differently, he may not have dominated Corus, but he won, and in combination with the chess events of last few months, Magnus Carlsen , to me, is very dominating when it comes to CHESS|
|Feb-23-10|| ||eraserhead: Guys, I completely missed this tourament. Can someone point me towards the most entertaining games? Were there any classic ones? Seems like people are a little disappointed.|
Also, being Norwegian I gotta ask, did Carlsen show any awesomness, or was it more of a grind?
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 130 OF 131 ·