I wouldn't call Magnus an all-time great, for many reasons. He's contributed almost nothing to the theory of the game, while Fischer and other champions literally rewrote theory. Kasparov went out while way on top and is still the "Lineal" champion.
Someday there will again be a dominant player but right now we have none. With a 900-point gap between Carlsen and the top engines, someone is going to step into that gap by figuring out what the computers "see" and bringing it over the board. It's not just about finding the best moves, or the right answers, but also asking the right questions, questions no player is currently asking.
The moves Carlsen makes are clearly inferior enough that he would lose 110 games out of 100 against Stockfish, let alone Alpha Zero. Top-level chess is little more than the WWE, a showcase where the top players can train a few hours a day and make nice livings playing meaningless games in public. Fischer said they were prearranged, not the results, but the openings are scripted.
One day you're gonna see stuff like the Latvian in a title match.
#11, Carlsen made a big leap forward in 2019, learning much from AlphaZero? Plays the Sveshnikow like a improved KID, scores with Rossolimo? Crushing main lines like the Grünfeld against MVL?
Come on^2
@AlphaZeroDark30 is clearly trolling.
I'm not sure that players of today are necessarily 'better'. They know more. But then we don't know how well individuals of the calibre of Morphy, Lasker, Capablanca and Fisher would do if allowed today's accumulation of knowledge. Similarly, we don't know if the likes of Carlsen would do well if sent to the past, had their brains emptied, and were then only allowed the works of Steinitz and Nimzowich.
@sajdragon0 LMAO" I guess the World champion even though he is not the best player in the world has to play well occasionally"
That's what I'm saying... He has been hating for a long time.
Ben Finegold makes a valid point, the ad hominem personal attacks on him here notwithstanding. A player like Carlsen who draws so often - hence wins so infrequently - is hardly in the same league as the greats of the recent and less recent past.
It's not "trolling" to question why our champions can't at least hold their own with engines that are literally showing them the best moves.
What AlphaZero did was teach us that the Romantic style of play (Morphy) was stronger than the positional approach of Steinitz, that the Stockfish evaluations still could not be trusted, and that the horizon effect is alive and well. Playing like AlphaZero is nothing new -- Morphy did it -- but what is new is our skepticism towards Stockfish, that has opened up a great deal of creativity because we are no longer tied to material the way we thought we had to be.
My point about Carlsen is that if someone is 900 points weaker than an engine, there are players who could theoretically hit 3300-3400 by learning more from the computers than their rivals, and who would then dominate the way Fischer did. I don't know who will do this, or when, but it is literally just a matter of time. We won't see it coming because players can work alone with engines.
In horse racing, one of the biggest advances in technology was the indoor treadmill on which a horse could run 45 mph, thus eliminating the need for public workouts. First-time starters could develop in secret and win easily whereas before the clockers would have had fair warning. Carlsen is a great player, no doubt, but I rank him more along the lines of a Botvinnik or Spassky than a Fischer or Morphy.
Personally, I think the greatest player ever was Max Euwe, given that he won the world title while literally playing only part time. I think also the next dominant player may be more like Carl Schlecter, aiming for draws and grabbing wins when the opponent overreaches.
@nayf Wins so infrequently? Guys, from which planet do you come from?
In 2019, Carlsen has an extraterrestrial winning rate on the way to 2900? Are you blind, ignorant, envious or what?
„I think also the next dominant player may be more like Carl Schlecter, aiming for draws and grabbing wins when the opponent overreaches.“
@AlphaZeroDark30 A run-of-the-mill approach. I rest my case.
