The problem with Magnus Carlsen

is that he is a great chess player

but he lacks some of the basic fundamentals like you want to take control of the center etc.

literally who?

You don't play chess do you normalfag?

>plays one of the world's most popular board games
>thinks he's not a fucking "normalfag"

The problem with the Big Midget is he is socially retarded and throws temper tantrums when he loses.

Well not him, but Magnus Carlsen is the reigning chess champion right now, a fantastic chess player, he is Norwegian, i'd say a genius of chess.

If you come into this CHESS thread then why would you not know of Magnus Carlsen?

You do like chess don't you?

I like that he gets angry when he loses. He treats chess seriously as a competiton.

Magnus himself has to meet expectations of the best chess player in the world currently, he has to meet a reputation of perfection. When he makes a mistake he realizes he did and is angry for he did not meet his and others expectations of himself.

Is this now chess general?

Im saying that Magnus doesn't understand some of the crucial basics of chess

Give me an example, there are also openings such as the pirc defense played by black which wants white to control the center, black purposley gives up the center.

maybe he's just better than you?

Maybe the basics are obsolete and his method should become the standard?

So how come when say, the baddest man on the planet loses a fight. He goes 'fuck it, he was the better man tonight.' But when the best chest player in the world loses, he throws an autistic fit?

Seems a little weird.

Control of the center is not as important as it once thought. Google's AlphaZero program crushed the strongest chess engine StockFish in a 100 game match. AlphaZero never lost a game. If you look over these games, you will see a pattern of AlphaZero giving up the center and material in favor of piece activity. 100s of years of chess theory thrown out the window when it comes to emphasis on controlling the center.

because external factors are taken more seriously in fights. pressure, odds, what they ate that day, split-second decisions that need to be made back and forth.

the guy got a generous timer to decide on his move, and when he does, and it's obviously the wrong one, he has a lot more time to get angry about it.

a fighter can just chalk it to "ahh, fuck, well, i usually win, so it's okay to lose sometimes."

but then you get people like rhonda rousey who lose once and take it so harshly they never are able to recover. so it really depends.

Centre control is important because in many cases it allows your pieces to be more active while your opponents pieces become less active.

The problem is that centre control does not always make your pieces more active and it can be more valuable to give it up in order to take a tactical or material advantage.

Mentions Alphazero which is arguably the greatest chess player that has existed and Alphazero consistently gives up the centre and ends up winning with more active pieces.

Magnus is an amazing chess player and he knows when the break the rules for an advantage

lol Philidor, you haven't heard of Steinitz

>highest rated chess player in the world
>"hey guys i think this guy doesn't quite get the basics"

...

...

If he's consistently beating people who are, then
A) He probably does, and chooses not to utilize these basics.
B) Even if he didn't (unlikely) he has made these basics obsolete by defeating them consistently. If you can win without them against someone who uses them, they aren't crucial.

If he's playing by the rules and winning (and not just 'getting lucky' but winning regularly enough to become a champion) I don't think it's from a lack of understanding.

...

...

...

...

...

I have no idea what this is but I'm curious.

8x8x5
ignore the fact that bishops change colors depending on level, the two can't be connected

This is some of the best bait I've seen in a while, thank you user.

...