Magnus Carlsen - The New Chess World Champion

[LitNetIsGreat]

Just to let people know (seeing as it is not in much mainstream press?) that we have a new world chess champion, as Magnus Carlsen beats Viswanathan Anand, the former Indian world champion today in Chennai, India.

http://chennai2013.fide.com/

Carlsen is from Norway, 22, and is the highest rated player ever and probably the best player of all time.

Really he is a chess genius. At 12 year old he drew with Kasparov, at the time unbeatable. He has a chess memory of about 10,000 chess games. These are all fully memorised which he can call upon at any time. Like a lot of top players he can also play numerous games at once, blindfold, but it is his ability to win from 'totally drawn' positions towards the end of games and his ability to grind down opponents with his computer-like brain, that really stands him out from the chess crowd. It is no surprise that he beat Anand and he looks to dominate world chess for the foreseeable future where he is only likely to gather in strength.

[mona amon]

I don't know anything about chess so usually don't bother, but this time the tournament was in Chennai, Anand's from Chennai, and I'm from Chennai, so it was impossible not to be interested. Of course I was rooting for local boy Anand, but it was not to be.

[JBI]

Imagine what he could have done with that brain besides Chess. I still don't understand how, after memorizing so many games somebody can still think the game is fun. It seems more of a chore once it becomes scientific.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I don't know anything about chess so usually don't bother, but this time the tournament was in Chennai, Anand's from Chennai, and I'm from Chennai, so it was impossible not to be interested. Of course I was rooting for local boy Anand, but it was not to be.

Oh great. It sounds like there was a good atmosphere there.

Imagine what he could have done with that brain besides Chess. I still don't understand how, after memorizing so many games somebody can still think the game is fun. It seems more of a chore once it becomes scientific.

Well many of the top GMs have huge chess memories - it's just that the figure of 10,000 has been associated with Carlsen and he doesn't dispute it, he might even have made that claim himself and would be about right. It sounds an amazing figure (and it is) but these top players have only to flick through a game once quickly and it is memorised and stored. It's not about who can memorise the most games though at all, it's a useful thing but it's not what separates him from the rest; he's just a better all round player, especially in the middle and end game. In terms of being bored, well it is all about perspective, it's a bit like someone saying 'I'm surprised JBI likes books having read so many!'

[JBI]

And I would agree - that's why I don't read novels anymore.

[Volya]

He should try playing Go instead, much better game

I do remember seeing an article in then newspaper about him, something about him being the 'Justin Bieber' of the chess world and attracting more younger players - I'm not sure if it has worked though.

[Lokasenna]

...remind me, how does the horsey piece move again?

It's an impressive feat that this young chap has managed. I'm abysmal at chess, but I can understand the effort and mental agility required to succeed at it - not to mention a large dollop of innate talent!

[kiki1982]

Yes, when I was about 5, my father attempted to get me interested in it, but sadly I wasn't the girl to focus on what piece could move where and what my father could do afterwards... I was never that competitive.

I suppose memorising games is a bit like what they teach in the army in terms of strategy. Commanders of old learnt war history or whatever it's called in English, consisting of battlefield topography, positions and movements. I suppose if they were on a battlefield, the best commander would know what X, Y and Z did, which position they took and where they sent their troops and if they won or not. So never do anything that made X, Y or Z lose. As chess is derived a little from battlefield strategy, I suppose, the more games you know by heart, the more you can anticipate what your enemy is going to do and how you can either send him on a wild goose chase (and then attack his flank ) or make hm fall into a trap (and attack from the rear )

Impressive that 10,000...

[mal4mac]

Imagine what he could have done with that brain besides Chess...

Yes, it's the crack cocaine of physicists, Heisenberg's seniors banned him from playing because it was interfering with his research.

[LitNetIsGreat]

...remind me, how does the horsey piece move again?

It's an impressive feat that this young chap has managed. I'm abysmal at chess, but I can understand the effort and mental agility required to succeed at it - not to mention a large dollop of innate talent!

Yes you are correct he had a lot of innate talent. Here he is age 13 taking on Kasparov and drawing (typical mind games and disrespect from Kasparov too. I think after the game he just waked off). In the same tournament I think he beat an ageing Karpov too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjEmquJhSas

[Ecurb]

I read an article about Carlsen a couple of years ago. Apparently, unlike other youthful chess phenoms, he doesn't play against computers (or, at least, didn't back then). He sees chess as more of a "game" than a science.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Just in case anybody was interested, a good 13 minute summary of the entire match can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvmIv...N4_oIF76s6hTwL

[mal4mac]

I read an article about Carlsen a couple of years ago. Apparently, unlike other youthful chess phenoms, he doesn't play against computers...

This makes sense, computers play in a different (and better ) way than humans. If you were a sprinter it would be like training with a cheetah - demoralising, and learning how to run on four legs would interfere with your style.

He sees chess as more of a "game" than a science.

So he uses a dictionary now and again, clever man.

At least he knows his place, being great at chess is like being great at scrabble, or bridge. Should we encourage youngsters to be great at these things? Who is the greater, Carlson or Darwin? As that's no contest, a more interesting questions is: Carlson or the average physics professor?

Chess is something that we should encourage bright youngsters to do when they can't face doing another physics homework question. They should be given the option to relax by playing chess, a video game, or watching Dr Who. (If they point blank refuse to read a novel!) That's all chess is, a possible source of relaxation after doing truly important things. Carlson is about as important as the world tiddlywinks champion, and deserves as much air time.

Being the school science geek I was quite good at chess. But I gave up "serious" chess because the chess club clashed with Star Trek. I don't think it was a wrong choice. (Better to have done even more physics homework though... or read a novel...)

[LitNetIsGreat]

Again it is a question of perspective. To the non-chess fan Carlsen might be of little or no significance, but to the chess enthusiast...

Personally I see chess as a bit of a blend of mathematics and art, not science. A blend of calculation and creativity. You need both to be a good player and a decent memory helps too. You also need lots of positive mental characteristics to make it, such as the ability to learn from your own mistakes (self reflection) resilience, determination, commitment etc. To compare chess to tiddlywinks is disingenuous.

Also there is no justification needed if one wants to pursue chess instead of more perceived 'worthy' causes.

[Lykren]

In regard to the debate regarding the usefulness of chess, I will dredge up the quote by Tarrasch: Chess, like love, like music, has the power to make men happy.

No less and no more. And I say that as someone who can't really be made very happy by chess - but if it works for some people, more power to them.