I've watched many of his youtube lectures and lot of his twitch streams and he keeps hating on Carlsen pretty much all the time. He is saying that Carlsen is barely top 5 player ever and his argument is that he can't be compared to Fisher or Kasparov becouse he draws so much .
"When he wins the tournaments he only wins by one point or so... Fisher , Kasparov and Karpov used to dominate the tournaments. ... Carlsen drew 12 games in a World Championship match haha imagine calling that guy the greatest of all time."
When people suggest that it's much harder to win games nowdays because the overall chess understanding is much higher and that players are simply better than before , his response is that players today are actually worse than they used to be... "The only thing that is better is the opening preperation."
What do you guys think? To me he seems like a bitter old man. Does he have a point?
IMHO, Finegold and KingCrusher, although strong players, aren't even close to world class players and belittle others to bolster their own ego.
There are two points about comparing past and present (and future) players. 1) As the competition becomes stronger, the player has to become stronger. 2) It's easier to learn for past masters than it is to discover for yourself.
It's easy to learn Calculus today, but for Newton and Leibniz to invent it would have been difficult. Are today's mathematicians better than these two?
I think the way Finegold method of evaluation is to compare the relative strength of a player relative to his peers. Carlsen has yet to domintate the way Karpov, Kasparov, or Fischer did. But give him time. He is still in his 20s and has won the last few tournaments he has participated in.
Chess is so different now - there is a supertournament once a month, maybe more frequent. than that In Fischer's time it was once a year or so. In Lasker and Botvinnik's times, even less. I think Lasker and Botvinnik were able to dominate also for a long period, but their participation and the opportunity was so infrequent we don't think of them as "top 5" contenders
He's joking lol.
The 1984 Karpov-Kasparov World Championship match went for 48 rounds without a decisive result in a match that went on for five months. At that point FIDE gave up and canceled and rescheduled the match, and in the following year's rematch Kasparov eked out a 13-11 win. To cite Carlsen's 12 draws as evidence of his inferiority to either of these players is quite absurd.
If topicstarter isn't trolling, Finegold is.
@Aardbevings He is definitely not trolling. He actually gets mad when ppl say that Carlsen might be the best player ever.
The old masters who made „Hängepartien“ after a couple of hours? To let their team analyze them? I‘m fed up with this glorifying bullshit. Those old masters wouldn’t win price money in a open today.
Of course Magnus is the GOAT. Winning 5,6,7 tournaments in 2019, some with a large margin? Come on! As we say in German envy makes people yellow and green. Some of you glow in the night like this Finegold meatloaf.
Thank you
@Sarg0n. Carlsen has the highest ELO ever. Yes, due to inflation he has an advantage but he is 70 ELO in front of Caruana, 80 ELO in front of Ding and 100+ ELO in front of everyone else. Kasparov was similarly far ahead at some point but back then ELO was only calculated twice a year. It's way more difficult to keep such a rating gap if every month the ELO gets updated.
Allright, haven't seen much of Ben lately. Bitter old man it is!
