Chess Tempo Forum

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6187

He claims a lot of things that are illogical based on my understanding.

For example his claim that being intelligent is a disadvantage in chess and that
the reason the Englishman John Nunn never became world champion is that he is too clever for that.

Uri

Yes, but not on the basis that intelligence/iq in itself is bad for chess, rather that it's a distraction. This is going to be my new excuse for sucking at chess.

Of the whole interview I found this the most interesting:

SPIEGEL: For a year now you have been working with Garry Kasparov, who is probably the best chess player of all time. What form does your cooperation take? Kasparov is the teacher, you the pupil?

Carlsen: No. In terms of our playing skills we are not that far apart. There are many things I am better at than he is. And vice versa. Kasparov can calculate more alternatives, whereas my intuition is better. I immediately know how to rate a situation and what plan is necessary. I am clearly superior to him in that respect.

Honest, candid, or arrogant?

Honest.  The purpose of a coach is mainly to help you work on your weaknesses.  The coach doesn't have to be better to be a good coach.  For example in tennis, I don't think there's any professional player who has a coach that could beat the player.  Carlsen is just saying he's better at assessing positions, and Kasparov is better at calculating and looking at a wider range of choices.  A good team.

drahacik: but it isn't just a 'coach' like in tennis, it's Kasparov. The equivalent would have to be that the coach was Federer, Borg, Sampras - and pretty soon after they retired, at that.

Best part of the interview was this:

Carlsen: I get a certain amount of fan mail from younger women.

    SPIEGEL: Do you answer it?

Carlsen: It depends.

    SPIEGEL: On what?

Carlsen: That is private and confidential.

drahacik/marvellosity: They were the two bits I found most interesting/funny too :-)

I didn't read that Kasparov-as-coach quote as arrogant, I think the whole interview showed that he isn't the type of person who finds the need for false modesty, he was just accurately (as far as he was concerned) assessing the strengths/weaknesses between the two of them. I think it's easy to focus too much on his young age and think that comparisons with Kasparov are 'impudent' for someone of his experience, but he's the world #1 for a reason , so it's not like he doesn't have some grounds to find favourable comparisons with a previous world #1, at least in some areas (he never said he was better than Kasparov overall).

Richard.

Yes, I agree with you I think - despite the tone of my previous posts, I wasn't necessarily just slating him. I suppose my basis is that Kasparov has achieved everything there was to achieve in chess, whereas Carlsen has achieved not so much in comparison, despite being #1 at the moment. I'm usually fairly protective of Kasparov's achievements anyway, but if Kramnik had said such a thing I wouldn't have batted an eyelid.

Kasparov will never achieve what Magnus achieved(first in the rating list in Magnus's age).

It is not clear to me that kasparov achieved more.

Uri

Then you have a warped sense of achievement.

In terms of his claims that intelligence gets in the way of great achievement in chess, there is some research that supports a softer version of this idea, namely that high IQ doesn't help that much beyond a basic level. There was a paper published semi recently that looked at school-age chess players and found that IQ was not well correlated with success for older school-age players (it was for younger ones from memory). This isn't to say that high IQ isn't found in good chess players (in fact the group they studied had a very high average IQ), but that the factor that made the difference for the top school-aged players was not IQ but appeared to be other factors such as motivation, at least that was the conclusion of the paper's author(s).

Sorry I don't have the reference, but it should show up in a google scholar search (apologies if I misremembered any of the research outcomes, it was a couple of years since I read the paper).  Of course research based on school-aged kids doesn't necessarily map on to the top elite players (even the ones barely out of school :-) ), but it is at least suggestive that while IQ doesn't hurt, it might not help much (beyond a certain level).

Regards,
Richard.

We always need to qualify what we mean when we use the word "intelligence." And even when we wish to speak of "chess intelligence" we need to specify what we wish to express by the term.

Is someone with a tremendous memory, capable of memorizing extremely long trees intelligent or simply blessed with a strong memory?
Is blazing calculation speed a sign of intelligence? Innate? Trained? A combination?

We should also qualify what Carlsen means when he states that his father is much more intelligent than he is. Is Carlsen referring to "trivial pursuit" intelligence? In other words, a well rounded intellect, capable of drawing on a wide spectrum of references?

Clearly, Carlsen is far ahead of his father when it comes to chess, so Carlsen could just be referring to the fact that he doesn't "know" as many things as his father does, outside the world of chess.

But Carlsen's thoughts on Nunn are very interesting, and shows that he spends a bit of time considering these factors. Though I read it as meaning that Nunn had a trained mind capable of attaining predominance in another area, and that he therefore invested himself in this area, at the expense of what he could have achieved in the field of chess; whereas someone with similar intellectual strengths who applies himself exclusively to chess would achieve predominance in that field.

We need to distinguish between the trained intellect, innate talents and acquired talents, if we wish to speak of the array of "intelligences" required to master chess, and it's also very unlikely that there will be any one player who is equally strong in all areas. Kasparov has spoken of Carlsen's intuition, stating that it is of another sort than his own, and that it compensates for Carlsen's lack of intellectual foundation (acquired chess theory), as it helps Carlsen eliminate possibilities with astonishing accuracy.

The ability to visualize lines isn't necessarily a sign of high intelligence, just as the ability to memorize trees doesn't have to indicate a high intelligence either.

So you'd need to develop a module that contains the many required factors that make up a supreme chess master. Kasparov's incredible work discipline probably accounts for a substantial portion of his module -- where Carlsen is telling us that he is lazy and unwilling to do chess work when he doesn't feel like it. Both approaches have led to substantial results. In Carlsen's case, superior intuition compensates for the lack of memorized trees (though he does seem to have a knack for remembering the most obscure lines, so let's not pretend his mind is blank when it comes to the intellectual element of his chess mind).

To Uri - I've read a few of your posts here, and my impression is that you tend to take a very on/off view of things. It's either/or in your world, when the truth is probably multiscalar and therefore a lot more variegated than first impressions would seem to indicate.

About Kasparov&Carlsen, I first read an opinion of Kramnik regarding that issue, and he told that the main effect would be on general preparation tips, how to work, how to prepare for specific opponents etc, like a general tutor rather than a "chess coach" and that Kasparov's famous "lap top" was a little exaggerated.

Later Kasparov said exactly the same things, that it was mostly important for Carlsen to have an idea of how a top GM works, trains etc.

By the way, I don't believe Carlsen is lazy even in the weakest sense of the word. I bet he studies chess like crazy, just like every super GM does. Those openings don't play themselves.

Just from your synopsis here, this seems to be proving or even suggesting very little. It seems to me that with kids, interest, time spent, effort expended etc. is going to be the important factor.

So it seems obvious that an older kid with average intellect who spends years pursuing the game will be better than an older kid with a quite-a-bit-higher-than-average intellect who only has a passing interest.

The fact that intelligence is probably important is shown in "and found that IQ was not well correlated with success for older school-age players (it was for younger ones from memory)" - well, the youngest kids will be the ones who have just been shown the game and haven't had time to study it at any length - so the more intelligent ones get it better.

The most interesting study point for me is in a sample of kids where the effort expended/time spent is roughly equivalent - what results do we find there regarding intelligence? My money is on the clever dude who spends 1000 hours being stronger than the average dude who spends 1000 hours, in the large majority of cases.

Things Kasparov did for Carlsen.

1. Time management. Carlsen is rarely in time trouble now, but could be in terrible time trouble previously.
2. Opening preparation - deeper and more thorough, according to Carlsen himself.
3. Assessing the various opponents, and planning strategy and tactics based upon that assessment. (Many young players do not put enough effort into this, thinking they'll calculate their way out of trouble against anyone.)

I believe that when Carlsen states he's lazy, he is comparing himself to what, for instance, Kasparov would describe as the required work effort; or the work Kramnik puts into a tournament. Maybe this is the secret behind Carlsen's "comeback kid" reputation. He tends to grow stronger as the tournament progresses, while his opponents begin fading from all the work they put in between games. In the Spiegel interview he makes a point of the fact that he sleeps soundly at night, while his opponents are up fretting.

Honestly, how many 15-20 move forced variations actually occur in chess? This is the second time I've read him give this quote, and I still halfway think he's talking about openings. Note he said MOVE, not ply, and his English is good enough for him to know the difference.

I am not sure that  you are right about the meaning of the word moves

From the fide rules:

"Each move must be made with one hand only."

They do not write
"Each ply" or "Each half move"

Based on the fide rules it seems that it is at least possible to use the word move with the same meaning as ply.

Note that my first language is not english but common sense suggest that magnus meant to plies and that using the word moves is not a mistake but only ambiguous.

Uri

That's the most plausible explanation I've heard.

This is exactly the question the study tried to answer, and the conclusion was IQ was not correlated with performance at the higher level. In other words, in the older kids, the very clever dudes were not doing any better than the clever dudes. Remember most of the dudes were at least 'clever', with a very high average IQ for the group, from memory the average IQ of the group represented the top 2-3% of the population, possibly even higher. I don't recall how well they controlled for motivation/effort in the study, but assuming the very clever dudes were not uniformly more lazy than the clever dudes, this suggests that your money is in jeopardy.

Richard.

Which corresponds well with the saying "Being a genius would be living easy, if it wasn't for all the hard working regular guys." (From Swedish).

I think there's probably a fairly marked difference comparing average dude and clever dude, and clever dude and really clever dude.

Folks,

See these links although one is only an abstract:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/PTO-20030522-000001.html, article asserting success at chess is more dependent on spatial processing abilities than logic and computation.

http://www.nature.com/news/1998/021209/full/news021209-10.html  The board games chess and GO take practice, not intellect, brain scans of players suggest1,2. Intelligence areas appear inactive when people puzzle over game strategy.

Outcome of my "Cognitive benefits" post and subsequent research.

Yes, but what I took away from the article was that while there might be an IQ threshold below which you are unlikely to be 'good' at chess, the difference between 'good' and 'very good' has little (if anything) to do with IQ, in other words above a certain point, as IQ increases, chess ability does not.  The two studies 'was' quotes backs this study's findings up with brain imaging data consistent with the interpretation that performing chess tasks doesn't make much use of raw intellect of the type usually being measured by IQ tests.

Richard.

The question is how do you define intelligence.
Better ability to memorize and better ability to calculate certainly help in chess and I think that they are connected with intelligence.

If Magnus Carlsen has no special ability in these things then it should be easy for another person to beat him in chess(you only need someone with the same talent as magnus in evaluating positions and better memory and better calculation).

Uri

This is what seems likely to me. There's gotta be an intelligence threshold you have to be at to be really good at chess, but beyond that it's diminishing returns.

Q.E.D.
You have - if in a somewhat facile manner - defined precisely what it will take to beat Carlsen.
Though I wonder where, in that B&W world view of yours, you have come up with the notion that Carlsen has no special talent. I think you'll have to chip in that the player who beats him needs to have a few arrows in his quiver.

IQ measures a broad array of intellectual skills/functioins including: memory, vocabulary, thought building, thought completion, reasoning (mathematical and logical), insight, creativity, concrete thinking, abstract thinking, mental organization, mental speed, spatial abilities, sequence arrangement, analagies, coded information, similiarties and differences. 

Skill at the chess board probably requires that one be proficient in at least two of these areas, probably memory and spatial ablities. Strength in other areas may help but be of less use.  Someone with an exceptionoally high IQ scores strong in all the above areas and therefore is likely to find chess a bit boring since for example it does require a great deal of abstract thinking.

Therefore two people might have the same IQ but one could be better at chess than the other because his IQ is bumped up due to strong spatial abilities, while the other individual has strong mathematical reasoning ablitiy.  The player with strong spatial abilities will prevail in a game of chess against the oppoenent with strong mathematical reasoning abilities all else being equal. Yet they would have the same IQ.

László Polgár claimed that "geniuses are made, not born" and although this statement may be controversial, his attempt to prove it has been - well - quite convincing

Garry's Kasparov IQ was estimated (even by some "psychologists") to be a whooping 180, 190, 200 - see www.kids-iq-tests.com/famous-people.html for example - once it was actually tested, he scored 135 or so.
Pretty high, but nothing extraordinary (such a score puts you in about top 1% of all people).

Sorry if those facts are too well known

Hi Vibovit,

I don't find László Polgár's training of his daughters very convincing in terms of the 'geniuses are made, not born' debate.  The problem is lack of control subjects.  If one of his daughters was adopted then he'd have had better experimental design (but still lacking statistical power due to the very low sample size). We still have no idea to what extent his daughter's innate, genetically given talents were important in achieving the outcome his training achieved. If he'd done the same training on another set of children (with possibly less innate talent) they may have been much less effective. My personal opinion is that in chess, geniuses are partly made, partly born :-) ( as in most fields, I don't think raw talent is enough by itself to reach the elite level, so work/effort (and the timing of that effort in the person's life) is still relatively important in chess).

Regards,
Richard.

I think when comparing two adults or two 12 year olds that decide to take up chess, their "talent", "intelligence" or "affinity" or whatever plays an important role in their improvement rates (work/improvement ratios), but I also believe geniuses are mainly made, and the innate talent is a very small factor, if we are talking about a newborn. I have no study to support this (I'm sure some exist though), but I believe an overwhelming majority of what we call "talent" in adults comes from their activities from childhood. In the case of chess, this is not only chess-related activities but activities that involve similar brain functions, starting with the lego set that you present to the 3 year old etc (I don't know if it involves similar brain functions, just made it up as an example). This is only my not so scholarly educated opinion, based on personal observations of kids and people from different backgrounds.

I am very confident though, on that unless you put in an outrageously huge amount of work, even the brightest talent won't suffice to get you into the elite club in pretty much any area, so I agree with Richard on this. In chess, this is usually defined with 4 players: Kasparov, Kramnik, Topalov, Anand. I think Carlsen has yet to be tested through some WC matches to join the club.  

I disagree that Carlsen does not belong to the elite club.

I see nothing special in matches for world championship that is different from normal tournaments and I think that every player who got to the first place in the rating list can be considered as part of the elite club.

Note also that Kramnik lost his match against shirov so he had no right to play against kasparov for the world title and it is not clear that he could be a world champion in case of correct rules.

Kramnik belongs to the elite club because he was also ranked number 1 in the world in 1.1.2008 and this fact is more convincing for me to decide that kramnik belongs to the elite club.

The players who got the first place in the last 10 years are exactly the players that you mentioned and Carlsen.

Kasparov dominated 2000-2005
Topalov april 2006
anand april 2007
kramnik january 2008
anand april 2008
topalov october 2008
carlsen January 2010

Uri

That's a good point, maybe matches shouldn't be the only criteria, but let's not forget that Kramnik and Anand were either 2nd or 3rd chasing Kasparov for such a long time, and today are still playing for the 1st place in tournaments they participate. We're talking about close to 20 years of play at the highest level. Carlsen's rise from the regular top 10 to solid 2800+ performances every tournament is still very fresh, has it even been one year after his amazing domination in that China tournament? If Carlsen continues this performance for 5 years, I'll happily allow him to join the club. At the moment, he's a bright kid, but n-ah. :)

Aside from that (I mean, after partly agreeing with your point), I should mention match preparation and tournament preparation are completely different things, WC matches require an incomparably larger amount of work, a much more challenged psychological condition, physical stamina etc. Karpov has lost like half is body weight (gross exaggeration here, I know) during one his matches with Kasparov, it was months of high level stress. You can imagine it's slightly different from the sweet wine & snacks setting of the current Amber tournament :).

And we're talking about 12~13 hours of daily work sustained for about 6 months. I'm not claiming Carlsen isn't capable of working that hard, or play at his current level in very stressful conditions, but he isn't tested yet, he is pretty new in the scene. He is playing at an elite level currently, but let's wait for a few more years I say. The upcoming candidates tournament will be the biggest challenge of his chess career, and I really can't wait to see what will happen there.

I hope that Boris Gelfand is going to beat Carlsen in the candidates matches.

I read that Gelfand works hard about chess and he did not describe himself as lazy.
Even if Carlsen does not become the world champion I will still consider him as one of the elite players(together with kramnik and anand and topalov)

Remember that topalov did not win his title in a match but in a tournament.

Uri

This also points to the fact that any attempt to directly measure IQ is basically bs, I was tested at about the same level as Kasparov but then I sort've enjoyed doing those types of math and logic puzzles. So I practiced a bunch of them and later tested much higher. I didn't get any smarter, I just got better at doing the problems.

There is no question Kasparov is a super-genius regardless of what a stupid test says.

I wonder if Magnus has photographic memory. It may be that most top level GMs have photographic memory. That's why they are said to be able to recall a lot of positions straight from memory, even simul games (Kasparov is known for that). And that explains the ability to play blindfold chess straight from the head (because they have an image of all 64 squares in their mind already imprinted).

PS: ........I don't think I have photographic memory.  :P

It's interesting to see this post on Magnus. I met him at a recent fundraiser in NYC and the word "Arrogant" fits him from what I saw. It seemed as though the status of his position has gone to his head and he treated people in somewhat of a rude manner. I admire his play and ability but I would say that the fame in the chess world has gone to his head a bit. And it comes out reading that article. Even that way he treated Kasparov and Karpov that night - it just seemed like he thought he was above everyone.

Thanks

Yes, I don't have much expectation from Carlsen in terms of gentleman - like behaviour we're used to see from Anand and sometimes Kramnik, his attitude towards Kosteniuk in the latest WC blitz was a big disappointment for me. Perhaps he's learning more than a few chess tricks from Kasparov!

Yeah, Carlsen was quite ill mannered in that game.

Korchnoi versus Sofia Polgar was even worse.  I think he lost on time in a blitz game, and then she said (as far as I can tell) something to the effect that she was embarrassed to win on time, and he replied, "This is the very first and the very last time you will ever win against me!", before angrily walking away.

Just seeing the responses to this post makes me feel better based on what I described back on the 9/18 post. I have to say I walked away along with a few others, feeling like - who does he think he is. I tried to look at it as him being young and the publicity and having everyone around you all your life tell you you are the best.

I tried to even ask him about how it is leaving his home and does he get homesick - normal things instead of all chess and the comment I got back was "I will not answer questions like that" - that is a actual quote he made to me. I felt about 2" tall at the time but reading the comments here makes me realize it wasn't something I said or something I did. And now I think of it, he did not want to sign the book we had - Karpov and Kasparov both signed and he pushed it away and only when his manager or whoever he was came over and told him he needs to sign stuff did he do it but he looked like he just ate something horrible.

I hate typing comments like this but i just had to get it out of my system....

thanks

thanks for sharing. I guess it was his father / manager, who happens to be much more polite and well mannered than him. He was the one who apologized from Kosteniuk for his son's behavior.

I agree, there's a video of it on youtube somewhere. Kasparov vs. Polgar (I don't know which one) was even worse I think  :). He basically played a piece twice and then lied to the arbiter about it, right in front of her eyes and protests. The whole thing was captured on video too. Pretty shameless.

Then again, maybe you wont make it to the top if you are too gentle, and admit you were beaten.
I played once against judith polgar in a simultan game. I prepared s.th. against her, and had quite an opening advantage, and ended in a late middlegame (early endgame) with the exchange up. Normaly most of us would win such a game, but I didnt.
Though I would have judged the position dead won, nowhere I can lose this, well - she is strong.
After all other games where finished, me and her were the only game left, she could now fully concentrate. Imagine, me being 18 years old playing a pretty girl that happen to be judith (15 or 16 back then), and everyone is watching you. I blundered terribly and lost.

The one who would have won had received a chesscomputer. Because nobody won, nobody drew, it was her decision who shall receive the computer for good play. I felt very happy, certainly she would chose me - but she didnt. She chose the young kid, cause he is so young (12). Well, maybe a motherlike instinct, dont know. But she must have completely forgotten that she almost lost against me - or simply denying it.
That is, what a lot of the top player do, and probably that is what is a side effect of the only way to get to the top. You really need to hate to lose. so much that you do anything to win. Like magnus tried to move the other rook against Alexandra. That is s.th. I would not even think of, but probably that way you rescue some games that you would otherwise lose. Its this winning attitude, that makes them like this. Or are there any "good" losers, who can take it relaxed after they lost? And are they 2600++ rated?
Edit: written by user Munich, not .joe

I think a ruthless "must win" attitude towards chess can help, but, like everything in life, there must be boundaries.  For me, being rude to an opponent is crossing the line, as is, of course, cheating.

I agree with tommyjb. Anand, Kramnik, Aronian and Gelfand have nice demeanours, and all are at the top. The first two also have reached the title AND have reached the no.1 place in ratings. You don't have to be an ass like Kasparov or Topalov to reach the elite level. It might be a little too early to put Carlsen in that category, he has a lot of time to grow up.

By the way, nice story with Polgar. Did you have a chance to record the game, why don't you share it with us?

No, I havnt written it down and I have forgotten about it. I am not even sure about the opening I played, I guess it had been cambridge springs variation (declined queensgambit), but I am not even sure about that. This is almost 2 decades ago...
But I remember she had so dark eyes, it looked quite mysterious. And her ears became reddish. Maybe by realizing she lost this game against a sucker like me, or she could feel the pressure of everybody watching this game (and her), or maybe this simultan thing was quite demanding for her, or she always gets red ears...
If you see her on pictures, she might not look that extraordinary, but if you see her live, you can feel some energy around that person. That is probably that sort of woman, that were misunderstood as witches, and it just happens that she has red hair.
I think, I am not the only one who noticed that. A lot of people (even in the forum) have met her, and I wonder if eventually they too have realized this aura around her. Or maybe it is just our imagination, since women playing chess are not very often to see?

Interested now I looked Judit up in wikipedia, and there is also a short desciption about her:
I thought as much, I would have wondered If I had been the only one getting this impression about her.

no one knows the ultimate truths for sure, like for instance, there could be a god or gods or not, or 99% of the world's population could be under constant hypnosis by the most powerful 1%.  if you believe 100% one way or the other on things like that than most likely there is some good truth and/or reasoning to it but you're still most likely just guessing, whether you realize it or not. 

the important thing is that magnus thinks he's right and that belief is probably part of a system of beliefs that's helping his chess play.  now, if he starts smoking a lot of pot than a bunch of irrational crap like that might get in the way so i hope for his sake he stays away from pot.

I dont know why everyone hates on Carlsen.. I guess old guys don't like seeing the cold-blooded determination of youth. The kid is the best, period. He plays like a computer.. He's kicking butt again in nanjing after a brief performance lapse that was probably due to him becoming the youngest no 1 ever, so I don't blame him. I believe in Carlsen. side note: i don't think a pot habit would hurt carlsen much, might just help him relax when he studies. Let's just hope he doesn't start drinking, now that is damaging to the brain!!!

Hi tngerb,

For me, I personally met him and found him cocky, smug and not a polite person at all. I know from my end, his abilities as a player are not in question, it's more of his attitude and the way he looks at himself. I think a good dose of manners and humility would be a great value to him as he is young and this is not a good way to promote the positives of chess to the world when you attain such a position. Quirks are one thing, bad manners and rude behavior are really not acceptable, especially with the direction his career is taking - he could be a positive icon or just be looked at as an elitist and in the end, turn others off to competitive chess. I can say that everyone I know that met him that night walked away with a view of "who the hell does he think he is".

Just wanted to follow-up as i did not want it viewed that for me it had anything to do with his actual playing ability.

Regards,
Scott

Well if he was rude to you personally I understand but I think it is still somewhat speculation when you try to interpret the intentions/mannerisms/behavior or person like Carlsen. Maybe I just have a secret crush on carlsen, but If a gas station clerk is rude to me I might think "he's a jerk," but if the best chess player of a generation is rude to me I might think, " Oh well,  maybe he had a bad day with chess and people have been bugging him all day. Maybe he doesn't want to be here and would rather be playing chess.. he is well beyond genius and probably lives in his own world and has his good days and bad." I go to chess tournaments and sometimes I chat it up with anyone and other days I talk to no one and just give them cold stares because I've been playing chess nonstop and am tired and only interested in the chess.. I don't know how I seem those days but I doubt it is friendly.. I think we have to be careful when we judge someone. I'd say you can learn more about him from studying his chess than any fan-encounter.. He is fearless, cold, and calculating on the chess board. A tactical genius. And I've never heard any top GMs say anything bad about him.. So he's kind of a jerk after losing a chess game (his life's passion) ehhh I've seen a few interviews with him and he's very polite and respectful in those.. he's probably more rested than usual. Idk.

To me, a rude person is a rude person, regardless of whether they're good at something.  :)

maybe he is not Bad Enough. I  can remember when a certain boxer who shot his mouth off all the time, silly poems against his opponents etc. It was part of the show and he made big money and a big name for himself and great for Boxing. And I remember a certain tennis player who argued with the officials at matches and through temper tantrums, again becoming famous and making lots of money.
Perhaps if Magus shoots his mouth off (I am the greatest) and throws a few temper tantrums the press will think it interesting enough to write stories about him and big money will be offered to see him beat. Maybe it is time we have a "BAD BOY" of chess.
I suspect that at the very elite level of chess that players like Magnus have sacrificrd a lot of his life to get where he is, far more than a passion, more a driving force and purpose in life. I find it hard to really understand such complete dedication but I can imagine anyone who has pushed themselves so hard in only one endevour would have some problems being well rounded and balanced. At such a young age he probably feels most of the world are idiots compared to himself, while he has so much more to learn about real life outside the chess world.

Maybe he views the world like that.. To me chess is an art. One's mindset evolves with their chess, and it seems like a lot of GMs I see have a zen-like peace to them that they have developed over years of striving and sacrifice. For me it's just hard to see any profound artists (except a very rare few that probably have mental disorders) as bad people.. i think of bad people as murderers and rapists, not people who throw themselves into the most beautiful game in the world and provide us with masterpieces..

Art is very rarely capable of reflecting more than just a very small bit of the artist's character. Categorizing "bad" only together with rape, murder or mental disorder goes beyond any definition of oversimplification. Besides, we're not arguing Carlsen is a "bad person," all I get from the posts above is that he is somewhat rude but he's still too young to be put down  together with Kasparov and Topalov, who are great artists in my opinion, but my interpretation of their characters is highly negative.

I don't care about the dude, but Maybe he was angry because you tried to play the subliminal "I'm an adult you need my protection/counsel " game , he's a successful professional and reacted accordingly.

Regards


M

Yeah Topalov does sound like an ass.. not talking to your opponent ever and "forgetting" to shake hands during the last WCH was kind of ridiculous. That kind of behavior is kind of peculiar but he might just be an arrogant jerk and there's a simple explanation. As far as Kasparov, I have studied his games and read his latest book "How life imitates chess." I've kind of followed the guy because he chess is hard to comprehend and brilliant, as opposed to fischer (let's not even start with him :P) whose chess is also brilliant but more simple and strong.. Anyway, Kasparov is now heading a movement to turn Russia around (good for him...and Russia) and for years he has been in the political arena trying to make positive changes.. He's a wise man, ruthless on the chessboard, kind of objective in his view of life too... maybe that rubs off on his personality a little but there isn't ill-intent behind it.. I bet Van Gohg was a jerk.. he sounded like a schizo nutjob and probably had some twisted, dark beliefs and moods. So why do we not remember him as an earless loon? It is because he was an artist and what he gave to mankind is priceless and worth more than any hurt feelings felt by passersby that do not care to understand because his world was so vastly different from their own.......

We do remember him as an earless loon, just a brilliantly creative one...similar things might be said of some chess players (although mostly with ears, rather than without :-) ).

Richard.

Man I can debate all these guys but richard always puts me in my place.. lol

Carlsen wins!! Carlsen wins!!!!!!!!!!!

Hi Panderson,

I don't understand what you mean by "I'm an adult you need my protection/counsel game" - are you saying that I was looking to come across that way? If so, that would be furthest from the truth - no subliminal games - he was just downright rude. The argument that he could have been in a bad mood or had a bad day goes out the window when you see how nice and talkative he was with the younger women and a few of his peers. When you treat us "commoners" one way and than turn your back and treat others who are your chess equals another way, sorry - it's rude, ignorant behavior. We where invited to this event just like the others, to meet them and socialize - I wasn't looking to be the guys best friend. And I can safely say that his actions that night do not place him in a category of one who is a sheltered, Zen like genius. He needs a good dose of humility and I really hope one day he will truly understand that he has to earn the respect that he deserves in the world of chess.

I had multiple instances where I made simple polite attempts to speak to him or ask him a quick question throughout the evening, but in each instance, he acted like he couldn't be bothered. But it's funny how every other person I met who hold titles - Kasparov, Karpov and a number of others where very friendly and spoke to me like a human being. They didn't care what level I was or the fact that I was a nobody, they at least treated me with some polite kindness.

I get the fact that he has devoted his life to chess and he is a chess genius, but that does not give him the right to be stuck up. In the end I completely realize he owes me nothing and I will never come close to his level, but basic manners are easy enough to try and display. I already said I do not judge his chess playing - if he is the best in the world my hat goes off and I will admire his capability and play. If his attitude was consistent throughout the evening with everyone he met, that would be completely understandable. If he didn't want to be there, than he should not have come.

In the end, I cannot nor will not make excuses for people who act like they are above me and act in a disrespectful manner. This was a common statement made by many others who attended the event so I was not the only one who felt that way. I have been fortunate in my life to have had the opportunity to meet many unique, talented, popular personalities that are well known and this was one of the only times I can remember walking away thinking "who the hell does he think he is".

Please remember, I did not start this thread and I never say he is a bad person (nor do I agree with anyone who says that) or I judge him to be that way. If you review what I typed in my original post that you referenced I stated "I tried to look at him being young and the publicity and having everyone around you all your life tell you you are the best").

He is a smart, intelligent gifted young man who most likely needs a course in etiquette. I do agree also with what Tommyjb said. Also, if I ever have the opportunity to meet him again and he comes across completely different and at least treats me like I exist, I will be glad let others know. But I can only go by this one five hour experience - and we all know what they say about making a first impression.   

In closing, there is  a phrase I like to remember "When we are six feet under, we are all of one size".

Ok ... the dude is an ass. Fine. I suppose you'll redirect your admiration to some other chessplayer then.

Regards

It's hard to argue with sra and his "group of friends" since the rest of us weren't there but sra I thought seriously for a bit about what you said and though you sound like a very reasonable man and don't thinking you're lying or stretching the truth BUT you need to do some deeper analysis into peopple's possible intentions and examine some of what you said..

"are you saying that I was looking to come across that way? If so, that would be furthest from the truth - no subliminal games - he was just downright rude" With that statement you are saying that you know with certainty how you come across to other people (which would make you very wise) and understand all of the reasoning behind your actions/thoughts, AND that you can also perform such miracles on complete strangers.

Here is a very real explanation that I thought of which might be just as realistic as your "arrogant jerk" or the "subliminal mind-game theories." From what you wrote it sounds to me loike he was a young man at a party on a quest for puntang and during it he was interrupted often by people decades his senior, whom he had no interest in, but not because of their self-proclaimed commoner status but because they didn't have boobs... or if they did they were much too old and saggy. It seems like when I was that age I was very interested in those things and at times would ignore/disregard anything else.

"They didn't care what level I was or the fact that I was a nobody, they at least treated me with some polite kindness."
-Maybe they were just less horny..

Stop thinking you know what's best for people or that you have any basis to be an authority on mind-reading.. .How do you know that you weren't the 500th person that day that wanted to start a small, innocent friendly chat? Maybe he didn'tt find YOU or your friends' questions interesting or genuine.. or he found others' much more interesting than you and focused his attentions on them. But again.. I HAVE NO IDEA EITHER! It is fun making up these stupid theories though... fun to think.  ::)

Ok, but Carlsen wasn't at a private party with a bunch of his friends.  It was some kind of charity event or chess promotion event where he was probably being paid to appear and was the main attraction and highlight of the event.  He shouldn't just be looking to score, he should be acting like a professional.

But I agree anybody can have one bad day.  We'll see if any more reports like that come out in the future.  So far this is the only bad thing I've heard about Carlsen and you can't judge someone from one day.

Amen to that ^^ Putting aside outrageous behavior it's very tough to judge someone unless you know them personally, for a long time..

I think that sra666's post was pretty reasonable.  It sounds like he was annoyed by someone being rude, and just wanted to post about it.

At the end of the day, even if Carlsen is arrogant, it's not a deal-breaker for me, personally.  I can appreciate someone's chess without liking their personality (e.g., Fischer).

I will close my part to this time consuming subject by first stating that drahacikfm is on target with his assessment.

It's actually quite comical that my personal comment / review of meeting him made for such passionate comments. I guess the reason I posted initially was that I read peoples comments in the thread and wanted to input my own feed back after meeting him. I re-read my initial statement and I think it does not sound horrible or as if I am making a major case against Carlsen. It is interesting that people would read into my statement and try and pull so many theories on how I think or that I may be jumping to conclusions or judge people too quickly. I don't retract any of what I said - even if it was a bit negative or sounds like I had a grudge against the guy because in the end, I don't. I just don't appreciate being treated like that.

I would say he earned my opinion that night. I was way out of my comfort zone that night because of the people that I got to meet and his overall attitude didn't make it any better. After 5 hours in a limited group setting with him, he left a bad taste in my mouth as to how he treats those who are not his peers in the Chess World. I feel I am not being harsh on him or judging him unfairly and I do not believe that it was due to his overall disposition that night as his disposition was not consistent in how he acted with others. On the positive side, I will say that I did enjoy meeting everyone else and ended up having interesting and enjoyable discussions with them.

I would like to thank drahacikfm and Tommyjb for helping to summarize my point.

Best Regards to everyone and now back to some chess,
Scott

the idea It's sort of comical ... The guy is having fun with hot chicks and earning loads of money and someone comes with the "Poor little boy far from home - let daddy give you a pat in the head" line     :D 

Never mind... Just digressing

I'll never meet the man or communicate with him, so it really doesn't matter to me if he is rude or not.
I'm just happy that we can be polite to one another on this forum. 
Yes, back to some Chess

Fierce debates can be civil, but chess is blood and guts.. no avoiding that. So yeah, back to some chess :)