Carlsen wins Pearl Spring with 3002 performance

[George Tsavdaris]

I do not claim that rybka needs at least a quad to beat Magnus Carlsen but I believe that Magnus Carlsen is the best player in the world

Best human player or best player generally(including engines that is)?

[Uri Blass]

I do not claim that rybka needs at least a quad to beat Magnus Carlsen but I believe that Magnus Carlsen is the best player in the world

Best human player or best player generally(including engines that is)?

I meant best human chess player and it is clear based on my other posts.

I posted that rybka is a clear favourite in a match against Magnus.



Uri

[M ANSARI]

Carlsen is a formidable opponent against any human because he has incredible chess intuition. You cannot teach that to anyone, I guess it comes as a gift and you are born with it. This was noticed by Kasparov many years ago while Carlsen was extremely young, and even then Kasparov was extremely impressed. Some stuff in chess you can teach, like tactics or general endgame technique in winning a technically won game. Also opening theory can be taught, but intuition you are just born with it.

Having said that I think Carlsen would have no chance against a Quad Rybka 3, or even a fast single core Rybka 3. The computer is simply way too tactically strong and that will overcome any chess knowledge advantage that Carlsen might have. If Carlsen gets a dream position where tactics are not there and long term strategic manouevering is in order, ofcourse he might win or draw that game. But in a match where Rybka's book has been designed specifically to avoid such positions, I would think that Carlsen would have absolutely no chance.

[George Tsavdaris]

Carlsen is a formidable opponent against any human because he has incredible chess intuition. You cannot teach that to anyone, I guess it comes as a gift and you are born with it. This was noticed by Kasparov many years ago while Carlsen was extremely young, and even then Kasparov was extremely impressed. Some stuff in chess you can teach, like tactics or general endgame technique in winning a technically won game. Also opening theory can be taught, but intuition you are just born with it.

I don't think this is true.
Most probably there must be a tendency in your DNA to have that intuition more than the others, but unless you train your brain by hard training to develop this tendency, there will be no intuition talent at all.

Talent is most often excessively overestimated and i think that talent without extreme hard work(i suppose you know the theory of 10000 hours--that is all highly successful people in one field have trained for at least 10000 hours to become what they are) is almost zero(in a highly competitive field), while extremely hard work without talent is much much better.

Having said that I think Carlsen would have no chance against a Quad Rybka 3, or even a fast single core Rybka 3. The computer is simply way too tactically strong and that will overcome any chess knowledge advantage that Carlsen might have. If Carlsen gets a dream position where tactics are not there and long term strategic manouevering is in order, ofcourse he might win or draw that game. But in a match where Rybka's book has been designed specifically to avoid such positions, I would think that Carlsen would have absolutely no chance.

I agree. There might be many draws in such a match but also many wins for Rybka 3, so overall an easy win for Rybka 3.

[Father]

Is going to play Magnus Carlsen versus Rybka or other Comp? I would like to see that beutifull quarrel !!!!

[Matthias Gemuh]

Carlsen is a formidable opponent against any human because he has incredible chess intuition. You cannot teach that to anyone, I guess it comes as a gift and you are born with it. This was noticed by Kasparov many years ago while Carlsen was extremely young, and even then Kasparov was extremely impressed. Some stuff in chess you can teach, like tactics or general endgame technique in winning a technically won game. Also opening theory can be taught, but intuition you are just born with it.

I don't think this is true.
Most probably there must be a tendency in your DNA to have that intuition more than the others, but unless you train your brain by hard training to develop this tendency, there will be no intuition talent at all.

I think you misunderstand Ansari here.
Nobody thinks anybody can play chess above Elo 2750 without very hard work.
Ansari's point is that to emerge as strongest from that strong field, the odds favour the guy with best intuition than the guy with just extra hard work.
Carlsen indeed seems to have that extra intuition.

My personal opinions are :
- Rybka 3 on now fastest single processor PC is stronger than best human.
- best human is presently Carlsen
- best GUI for offline eng-eng tournaments is ChessGUI .

Matthias.

[lonola]

My opinion is not based only on the fact that he won one tournament.

I also disagree that he cannot see a tactical combination.
He did not see a tactical combination during the game and there is a difference.

Uri

Again that is fanboyism not based on results over many, many years or wins in matches against the top chess players. Unfortunately in chess one has to win matches against the top chess players to even consider awarding "top player" status.

[Matthias Gemuh]

My opinion is not based only on the fact that he won one tournament.

I also disagree that he cannot see a tactical combination.
He did not see a tactical combination during the game and there is a difference.

Uri

Again that is fanboyism not based on results over many, many years or wins in matches against the top chess players. Unfortunately in chess one has to win matches against the top chess players to even consider awarding "top player" status.

"... not based on results over many, many years" ? Really ?
When did the world know that Kasporov was strongest active player ?
Was that shortly after he beat Karpov or shortly before he retired ?

"... or wins in matches against the top chess players" ? Really ?
Does Carlsen's thick Elo come from playing mostly guys weaker than 2730 ?

Please, restrict your inappropriate use of the insulting "fanboyism".

Matthias.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

My opinion is not based only on the fact that he won one tournament.

I also disagree that he cannot see a tactical combination.
He did not see a tactical combination during the game and there is a difference.

Uri

Again that is fanboyism not based on results over many, many years or wins in matches against the top chess players. Unfortunately in chess one has to win matches against the top chess players to even consider awarding "top player" status.

"... not based on results over many, many years" ? Really ?
When did the world know that Kasporov was strongest active player ?
Was that shortly after he beat Karpov or shortly before he retired ?

"... or wins in matches against the top chess players" ? Really ?
Does Carlsen's thick Elo come from playing mostly guys weaker than 2730 ?

Please, restrict your inappropriate use of the insulting "fanboyism".

Matthias.

Agrees,it sounds ugly to say the least....
Dr.D

[lonola]

Fanboys, fanboys, fanboys.

I have not seen any "evidence" from the fanboys that Carlsen is at the elite level. Let me give you acceptable "evidence" of being at the elite :-

- emergence as the top player in a classical world chess championship cycle like Karpov when he faced Fischer or Kasparov before he faced Karpov.
- wins of tournaments where all the strong players of the world participate or majority of the players are the strongest. E.g Kasparov had 15 tournament wins from 1981 to 1990. Fanboys, tell us the no of tournament wins Carlsen has had in his career.
- being the top ranked player of Fide lists for 3 years at a minimum and playing in all those years.
- wins in matches against the top chess players in the world.

If you cannot produce any evidence from the required criteria, then your admiration of Carlsen is simply fanboyism.