Magnus Carlsen – not a child of the computer era
colin mcgourty
December 16, 2011 5:15 pm
After the Tal Memorial in Moscow Magnus Carlsen gave a long interview which has only just been published. It was definitely worth the wait, as it provides a remarkable insight into what makes the Norwegian stand out in the world of chess. He claims to have essentially developed as a player without computers, and that he barely works on the game outside of tournaments. He also gives a detailed and thoughtful account of his cooperation with Garry Kasparov, where it’s clear he doesn’t share what seemed to be Hikaru Nakamura’s view that there was little to be gained but opening knowledge.
Magnus Carlsen talked to Evgeny Atarov of ChessPro for almost an hour, and the resulting interview covers a great deal of topics. As well as the highlights I’ve selected below he also talks, for instance, about the World Championship, poker, his fame in Norway and being accompanied almost everywhere by his father. The photographs of Carlsen at the Tal Memorial used here were also taken by Evgeny Atarov.
Carlsen on his approach to chess
I’m a professional chess player, and if that’s the case then I should do all that I’m capable of to fulfil my potential. I like to win and I strive for the best possible results… At the same time, I still manage to get a lot of enjoyment from playing! During a game I cease to think about the result as I become so enthralled by what’s happening on the board…
In terms of this tournament I recall two games – against Gelfand and Kramnik. I simply loved it when we got such unconventional positions! If every game could turn out as interesting as those I’d just be delighted. But chess, alas, doesn’t only consist of creativity.
And would your attitude to those games have changed if they hadn’t ended as well for you from the point of view of the result?
The result’s always important, of course, but I’m talking about getting pleasure from the game.
Are you talking about abstract pleasure from the game or about the ability to turn the course of the game in your favour?
Above all I like to resolve unconventional tasks at the board. Perhaps that’s why I don’t really like studying the opening – everything starts from the one position.
On working on chess
How much time do you devote to chess?
It’s hard for me to count. When I’m at a tournament chess takes up all my time. At that point I’m 100% focussed on the game. I switch off the television and telephone, I don’t exist for anyone… When I’m at home? If I don’t have a training session and there’s no upcoming tournament then I don’t study chess at all.
Not at all?
Absolutely!
And you don’t in any way maintain your “sporting condition”?
Well, if I want I can look at something that’s taken my interest. Or download fresh games… I don’t know, nothing specific. It’s hard to talk about any targeted work. It might seem strange, but I get a lot of benefit simply from looking at games. I don’t analyse them, I don’t switch on engines, I just scroll through them one by one, looking at new ideas, who plays what…
And that’s being said by the leader of the world rankings!
Well, everyone has their own approach. No-one knows how anyone else spends their time – Anand, Kramnik, Aronian…
On his chess development
Do you think you have a specific chess talent?
I don’t know. Everyone has a lot of different talents. Probably I’ve got something like that, but I can’t be 100% sure. Do you know yourself what it is?
I can only judge in terms of what others say about me. When I was about 12-13 many people said I had a great chess talent, that I’d turn into a great player. At that point I basically wasn’t bothered if I’d become a strong player or not – I simply played and enjoyed it…
In actual fact it’s very difficult to determine who’s more talented and who’s less so. Or who’ll become a genuinely great chess player, and who’ll remain no-one.
Full article here.
That’s the way to thank your collaborators. Contrary to Nakamura, Magnus talks about the good side of things.
Carlsen is an interesting talent and seems genuinely humble if that is possible. He has class, unlike some other student(s)of the Great Gary
Magnus is a confident young man who is not egoistic with a a great chess talent; Naka is a egoistic young man with average chess talent masked in an over-confident demeanor to falsely portray as a genius.. but no one is buying it.. rightly.
To anon ‘ Naka is a egoistic young man with average chess talent’ ????
Egoistic yes – many top chess players are that,but average chess talent? You must be nuts. Perhaps you and I have average chess talent,but players in the top league are all way above average.
Only a average chess talent would say that ‘Kasparov is just about openings’. The other day Vishy said that he was annoyed about Gary’s gamesmanship but underlined that it is his MOVES which made him dangerous. A average chess talent given Naka’s initial training background would reach this far.. Let’s discount his perf for another 6 months till Gary’s supply of moves run out – then he would not be in the top ten; unlike Magnus who seems to go ahead with or without Gary.
I would have liked him to talk about Nakamura’s arrogance. It turns out I’m no longer fan of this guy. To belittle Kasparov as if he, Nakamura, was already championship caliber is downright disrespectful.
Carlsen, on the other hand, (while younger) is much more poise and articulate. I hope Rex Sinquefield ends his own collaboration with Nakamura. The Sain-Louis Chess Club does not need this kind of arrogance, especially being that it too is in its early stages with great success. “He’s convinced other players are better…”, the games he won recently should have been lost. He produced nothing extravagant: Adams had the much better position in a King’s gambit (playing the black side) but because he wasn’t already doing well in the tournament, he lost. Anand had a commanding position in the King’s Indian, only to make what most elite players call a silly mistake. Aronian had the much better position in their game and somehow, he completely gave it away. All three games Nakamura was losing badly.
Take Carlsen, for instance. You get the sense that he is much better prepared, talented and when he wins it isn’t so much because of obvious opponent errors. He won by sheer will and brute force; just as he’s done past 3 or 4 games against blabber mouth Nakamura. I’ve lost all respect for this guy.
Chess is a gentleman’s game without eliminating, as Carlsen puts it, “the great struggle”.
That’s why I admire, Anand, the Polgar sisters, lost respect for Koneru Humpy (never seems to be on good terms with others on the tournament circuits and I challenge you to prove me a picture where she’s all smiles with her opponents). I like Kramnik and though I respect Kasparov’s chess genius, never liked his personalities and thus never studied his games.
And there are so many class acts in the game and no, it ain’t Nakamura who belittles even twitter fans (girls)as if they were his girlfriends. What a jerk!
Naka tries 2.Qh5 against ~2700 indian GM sasikaran because he feels sasikaran is ‘booked up’; How did he come to the conclusion that he is booked up? Naka has that ‘perception’ about people. Tells a lot about his character. Isn’t it? BTW in that game Naka was humbled.. so in spite of Naka ‘booked up’ in the Qh5 line, Sasi knocked him out thru over the board thinking. Naka tries offbeat lines after running it thru the computer; But his opponents are able to refute it OTB.