The player that will replace Carlsen might not be stronger player than himself, it s not written in stone. For example Karjakin came close to win WC in a match against him yet hardly anyone would think he was superior to Carlsen.
"For example Karjakin came close to win WC in a match against him yet hardly anyone would think he was superior to Carlsen."
Not superior, but Karjakin and Caruana or Ding Liren, I would include here Radjabov too!, etc.. They are as good as Carlsen in long games.
Matches are different from tournaments. Preparation skills and good memory are more important than sport-related skills. It is more a science than anything else.
E.g. Carlsen was criticized for playing a Ruy Lopez variantion against Karjakin. The reason for the criticism is that at this level of chess you will not surprise your opponent by playing these theoretical openings. Karjakin, Radjabov, Caruana, Ding Liren (perhaps), among others, are players with extraordinary chess knowledge and if they are not world champions it is not for lack of knowledge!
People like the sport factor, but, for example, Carl Schlechter was very close to beating Lasker, Bronstein could have beaten Botivinnik, etc ... Only a few world champions were unquestionably superior to all the others. Carlsen, having tied the last 2 matches, has not convinced much! Although in tournaments he convinces!
when 2 players play against each other he cannot be champion by winning 'another player'. For example, Carlsen wins MVL and Nakamura in a tournament and Ding Liren wins only Nakamura, so Ding Liren and Carlsen tie. Carlsen is winner of the tournament. The point is: Carlsen is superior to Ding Liren for being able to beat MVL and Ding Liren is not, among them superiority has not been demonstrated! Tournaments evolve a little luck, Ding Liren could lose the tournament because MVL blunder against Carlsen and not him! Luckily, MVL's blunder is not under Ding Liren's control!
Not superior, but Karjakin and Caruana or Ding Liren, I would include here Radjabov too!, etc.. They are as good as Carlsen in long games.
Matches are different from tournaments. Preparation skills and good memory are more important than sport-related skills. It is more a science than anything else.
E.g. Carlsen was criticized for playing a Ruy Lopez variantion against Karjakin. The reason for the criticism is that at this level of chess you will not surprise your opponent by playing these theoretical openings. Karjakin, Radjabov, Caruana, Ding Liren (perhaps), among others, are players with extraordinary chess knowledge and if they are not world champions it is not for lack of knowledge!
People like the sport factor, but, for example, Carl Schlechter was very close to beating Lasker, Bronstein could have beaten Botivinnik, etc ... Only a few world champions were unquestionably superior to all the others. Carlsen, having tied the last 2 matches, has not convinced much! Although in tournaments he convinces!
when 2 players play against each other he cannot be champion by winning 'another player'. For example, Carlsen wins MVL and Nakamura in a tournament and Ding Liren wins only Nakamura, so Ding Liren and Carlsen tie. Carlsen is winner of the tournament. The point is: Carlsen is superior to Ding Liren for being able to beat MVL and Ding Liren is not, among them superiority has not been demonstrated! Tournaments evolve a little luck, Ding Liren could lose the tournament because MVL blunder against Carlsen and not him! Luckily, MVL's blunder is not under Ding Liren's control!
@gayweather I agree with you about the next WC. It does not have to be a stronger player than Carlsen that will replace him, just remember when Kramnik defeated Kasparov. Noone at that time and also today will claim that Kramnik was a better player than Kasparov and Kasparov also won the tournaments afterwards but he was dethroned.
@willwss If these players are at the same level as Magnus, how come that he is ratet much higher than they are? His rating reflects his playingstrength which is above the rest of the field of today. That does not mean he is invincible, noone is that!
@willwss If these players are at the same level as Magnus, how come that he is ratet much higher than they are? His rating reflects his playingstrength which is above the rest of the field of today. That does not mean he is invincible, noone is that!
@ErikSkov I'm talking about a pool with just 2 players. What do you think could happen in a 100-game match between one of those players I mentioned and Carlsen? I don't think Carlsen could be so superior in the long run these players will be breakeven.
Think, for example, of the first match between Karpov and Kasparov. Karpov was winning 5-3, but no one doubted that in the long run Kasparov would be able to reach Karpov. For practical reasons such a match is not acceptable, but I do not doubt that elite players are long-term breakeven. This explains why players considered 'weak' can eventually become world champions in a match. The last two matches show what I'm talking...
If the wch match were made to win only the one who had 6 wins we would never know the new world champion, this once again corroborates what I am talking about!
Think, for example, of the first match between Karpov and Kasparov. Karpov was winning 5-3, but no one doubted that in the long run Kasparov would be able to reach Karpov. For practical reasons such a match is not acceptable, but I do not doubt that elite players are long-term breakeven. This explains why players considered 'weak' can eventually become world champions in a match. The last two matches show what I'm talking...
If the wch match were made to win only the one who had 6 wins we would never know the new world champion, this once again corroborates what I am talking about!
@willwss Only time can tell what will happen in a match between MC and Ding or between MC and Fabi if the match would be decided on 6 wins. At the moment between MC and Ding in their head to head games MC is far ahead of Ding and I think at the moment MC would win such a match, but I am only guessing.
@willwss
If it were a 100 game match, which is ofc unreal in modern times, then we would see the real difference in playing strength. Karjakin and Caruana managed to hold their own against Carlsen, but does that mean they could do it in a 100 games match? I doubt that, while Caruana could be able to do that Karjakin would most likely fall significantly behind. One of the greats Anand didn t really fare well against Carlsen and his playing strength at the time was similar if not superior to that of Karjakin. As far as Ding Liren goes, he is still quite an enigma. He s at the very top yet his record against players like Wei Yi or MVL are quite disastrous, who knows what he is capable of in the future, the fact that he won Sinquefield ahead of Carlsen is not really telling much. As far as rating goes I would say that live elo rating is not really the best way how to determine the real strength of an elite player, their highest ever rating seems to be a better indicator of their true strength.
If it were a 100 game match, which is ofc unreal in modern times, then we would see the real difference in playing strength. Karjakin and Caruana managed to hold their own against Carlsen, but does that mean they could do it in a 100 games match? I doubt that, while Caruana could be able to do that Karjakin would most likely fall significantly behind. One of the greats Anand didn t really fare well against Carlsen and his playing strength at the time was similar if not superior to that of Karjakin. As far as Ding Liren goes, he is still quite an enigma. He s at the very top yet his record against players like Wei Yi or MVL are quite disastrous, who knows what he is capable of in the future, the fact that he won Sinquefield ahead of Carlsen is not really telling much. As far as rating goes I would say that live elo rating is not really the best way how to determine the real strength of an elite player, their highest ever rating seems to be a better indicator of their true strength.
@willwss you are conflating skill at classical chess with how certain players match up. The best player is the one who does the best against the greatest number of top players. At the end of the day, Magnus is currently the best at classical chess because he is able to adapt and succeed against a more diverse pool of players than anyone else in the world. Just because someone matches up well against him individually doesn't make them the better classical chess player. I think the term "top" player confuses the matter because it implies that the rankings are just a matter of above/below. The world #1 is great because of the height *and* breadth of the their achievements.
two matches, two draws... just that I have to say... In carlsen-karjakin, for example, Karjakin was better, carlsen was luck! By analysing using engines we see karjakin losing opportunities...
The problema was not in classical games... Carlsen was good, the problem was his blitz/rapid perfomance... In next wch Carlsen cant wait for rapid/blitz lol!
Carlsen is dead!!! accept that it hurts less!!!
The problema was not in classical games... Carlsen was good, the problem was his blitz/rapid perfomance... In next wch Carlsen cant wait for rapid/blitz lol!
Carlsen is dead!!! accept that it hurts less!!!
^ *applause* :)
@willwss Untill someone kills him he is the top Dog! To be honest, who will that be? Fabi, Karjakin or Ding? I think we will have to look for the rising stars like Alireza!
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.