Uri Blass wrote: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.
I disagree with you.
Some facts
1)Magnus Carlsen is clearly younger than the other guys at the top and he has rating above 2750 from april 2008(we can expect young players to improve and their rating is often lower than their real level).
2)I read that Magnus Carlsen got lately expensive training from kasparov and common sense tells me that he did not pay a lot of money for nothing.
3)Magnus Carlsen got 8/10 in his last tournament when all of his opponents are with rating above 2700 and it supports the theory that the expensive training with kasparov helped Magnus to get better.
These facts are enough for me to believe that Magnus Carlsen is probably the best human player in the world today.
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.
Paul,
Your definition of elite is a bit odd, almost trollish. Most non-trolls I know (and I would guess most non-trolls I don't know) would consider a top 5 or even top 10 player as an elite player. You seem to be trollishishly implying that at any given time there are between 0 and 1 elite players, which is...well...an untraditional, troll-like view. One would almost suspect you don't actually believe that and are just trying being argumentative for the sake of self-entertainment. Your not trolling for fanboys are you?
Unfortunately these guys are computer chess fans not people who understand how the likes of Tal, Karpov, Fischer, Kasparov "earned their spurs". Some guy is basing his claim that Carlsen is the top player in the world solely because he is receiving coaching from Kasparov. What about the Soviet chess school, did the students learn how to play droughts from the former world chess champions?
At the end of the day Carlsen doesn't have enough tournament wins or even wins in matches against the top players for anyone to make the claim that he is the best in the world. Even if it was Kamsky in Carslen's position, his Dad would not be making these outrageous claims because in chess your results do the talking for you.
lonola wrote:Unfortunately these guys are computer chess fans not people who understand how the likes of Tal, Karpov, Fischer, Kasparov "earned their spurs". Some guy is basing his claim that Carlsen is the top player in the world solely because he is receiving coaching from Kasparov. What about the Soviet chess school, did the students learn how to play droughts from the former world chess champions?
At the end of the day Carlsen doesn't have enough tournament wins or even wins in matches against the top players for anyone to make the claim that he is the best in the world. Even if it was Kamsky in Carslen's position, his Dad would not be making these outrageous claims because in chess your results do the talking for you.
I do not based my opinion solely on the fact that Kasparov coach Carlsen
and it is only one of the reasons for my opinion(before the latest result of Carlsen and after knowing that kasparov coached carlsen I had no clear opinion if Carlsen is the best) .
I believe that Carlsen knows what is good for him and if he agree to pay a lot of money for kasparov then it is because kasparov helps him to increase his level significantly.
Uri Blass wrote:I do not based my opinion solely on the fact that Kasparov coach Carlsen
and it is only one of the reasons for my opinion(before the latest result of Carlsen and after knowing that kasparov coached carlsen I had no clear opinion if Carlsen is the best) .
I believe that Carlsen knows what is good for him and if he agree to pay a lot of money for kasparov then it is because kasparov helps him to increase his level significantly.
Uri
Yes but at the cost of repeating myself that is nothing new. The Soviet school model has been going on for a long, long time but you probably didn't know that. If you have actual results from tournaments and match play please produce them so that we can marvel at the outstanding results Carlsen has achieved that can compare him to Tal, Fischer, Karpov or Kasparov and be called the "best player in the world today". The number of tournament wins by Karpov or Kasparov in their heyday were legendary, Carlsen is not yet at that level. HINT This is a point that can only be understood by chess players not computer chess fans.
Uri Blass wrote:I do not based my opinion solely on the fact that Kasparov coach Carlsen
and it is only one of the reasons for my opinion(before the latest result of Carlsen and after knowing that kasparov coached carlsen I had no clear opinion if Carlsen is the best) .
I believe that Carlsen knows what is good for him and if he agree to pay a lot of money for kasparov then it is because kasparov helps him to increase his level significantly.
Uri
Yes but at the cost of repeating myself that is nothing new. The Soviet school model has been going on for a long, long time but you probably didn't know that. If you have actual results from tournaments and match play please produce them so that we can marvel at the outstanding results Carlsen has achieved that can compare him to Tal, Fischer, Karpov or Kasparov and be called the "best player in the world today". The number of tournament wins by Karpov or Kasparov in their heyday were legendary, Carlsen is not yet at that level. HINT This is a point that can only be understood by chess players not computer chess fans.
I also play chess and
I have a fide rating above 2000.
I disagree with using number of wins to decide about the best players of the world.
You first become the best player in the world and only later you win.
In case that Carlsen fails
I am going to admit that my opinion was wrong but until we see more results of Carlsen I believe that he is the strongest chess human player.
I am sure that there are strong chess players that also believe that Carlsen is today the best human chess player.
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.
Paul,
Your definition of elite is a bit odd, almost trollish. Most non-trolls I know (and I would guess most non-trolls I don't know) would consider a top 5 or even top 10 player as an elite player. You seem to be trollishishly implying that at any given time there are between 0 and 1 elite players, which is...well...an untraditional, troll-like view. One would almost suspect you don't actually believe that and are just trying being argumentative for the sake of self-entertainment. Your not trolling for fanboys are you?
-Sam
I completely agree with you Sam. My trollometer already reached
unbelievable heights for 'Mr. Lonola' for other posts of him in the last
10 days. Obviously trolling is his only business and I find several insulting
posts there already.
I wouldn't be surprised if he suddenly shows up as another 'Steen' or
a little kid with his first chess courses and with bad manners.
May be Gremlins have taken over his computer, to use one of his
trollish answers.
bigo wrote:How about a Carlson vs Rybka match? I'll put my money on Carlson, provided hardware is a Quad and not a cluster.
Who is Carlson? Are you talking about Magnus Carlsen? He is not even a world champion. I'm willing to bet you that the top programs i.e. Rybka/Hiarcs/Fritz would beat the world chess champion in a 24 game match at classical time controls on only an off the shelf laptop.
Yeah I meant Magnus Carlsen not Carlson. He is the Worlds strongest player by elo, and he is very young I think 19, so he has the energy to survive against Rybka, I might be a little over optimistic about him winning but I am almost sure that he can atleast Draw.
michiguel wrote:
First of all, why are we assuming that Rybka will spank the best player of the world in normal match conditions? I guess that Rybka will win based on indirect evidence, but it is not clear whether the best human may make it close. I would like to see this. Rybkas 3200 ELO among engines is meaningless against humans. We do not know accurately its real strength.
Miguel
First of all tell us what happened between Kramnik and Fritz. You must be living in a cuckoo world if you are not aware that the top GMs are no match for Fritz/Hiarcs/Rybka. What evidence do you have that the GM will come out on top and based on what matches/games?
Let me revise my statement I am not positive Carlsen would win be I'm also certain he can draw. I'm not sure the draw problem has been solved in computer chess. Computers definitely have improved recently but I still see lower rated GM's like Joel Benjamin drawing rather easily, if the match conditions were Draw odds then Carlsen would definitely win the match.
Uri Blass wrote: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.
I disagree with you.
Some facts
1)Magnus Carlsen is clearly younger than the other guys at the top and he has rating above 2750 from april 2008(we can expect young players to improve and their rating is often lower than their real level).
2)I read that Magnus Carlsen got lately expensive training from kasparov and common sense tells me that he did not pay a lot of money for nothing.
3)Magnus Carlsen got 8/10 in his last tournament when all of his opponents are with rating above 2700 and it supports the theory that the expensive training with kasparov helped Magnus to get better.
These facts are enough for me to believe that Magnus Carlsen is probably the best human player in the world today.
Uri
Uri how do you know that it was expensive training? Was a figure quoted somewhere that I missed?
