Carlsen's playing style

[Mats Winther]

Anand says that Carlsen's style is like a computer's. This substantiates my idea that he is a concretistic player, and that's why his style tends to evoke irritation in positional players, since it's hard for logical people to understand the underlying ideas of his moves. I wrote the following article long ago. (But like everything else I have done it seems to evoke little interest in the chess community.) According to my model, Carlsen is a concretistic (pragmatic) player, with strategy as secondary function. Critique is unwelcome!
http://boardgames.zxq.net/playstyle1.htm

M. Winther

[Nick Burrows]

Well Kasparov and others disagree. Stating that he is an intuitive player in the style of Karpov. Obviously his ability to calculate is world class, and he certainly plays the endgame like a computer. For the most part though he plays quickly, and says himself that he nearly always plays the first move he sees, which also points to an intuitive talent.

[Ray Sayers]

Never mind Mozart.

More like The Terminator:

' Listen, and understand. That terminator is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead. '

[Mats Winther]

Well Kasparov and others disagree. Stating that he is an intuitive player in the style of Karpov. Obviously his ability to calculate is world class, and he certainly plays the endgame like a computer. For the most part though he plays quickly, and says himself that he nearly always plays the first move he sees, which also points to an intuitive talent.

No, it undergirds my thesis that Carlsen is a concretist, since he tends to play the most natural move, that is, the move which immediately suggests itself. This is typical of concretists. Positional players, on the other hand, find it hard to play the natural move, except in blitz. They always want to figure the position out on a deeper level.

M. Winther

[MJMcCready]

Carlsen always plays to his strengths, and that is his strength -his strengths

[Ray Sayers]

No, it undergirds my thesis that Carlsen is a concretist, since he tends to play the most natural move, that is, the move which immediately suggests itself. This is typical of concretists. Positional players, on the other hand, find it hard to play the natural move, except in blitz. They always want to figure the position out on a deeper level.

M. Winther

I always felt the opposite was true!

[Mats Winther]

No, it undergirds my thesis that Carlsen is a concretist, since he tends to play the most natural move, that is, the move which immediately suggests itself. This is typical of concretists. Positional players, on the other hand, find it hard to play the natural move, except in blitz. They always want to figure the position out on a deeper level.

M. Winther

I always felt the opposite was true!

Both positional and concretist players belong to "the realistic type" (my term). This means that they are both after the objective truth. Unlike the "visionary type", they are less interested in the visionary and artistic aspect of the game. I discuss the realistic type in my article:

"The latter pair of opposites describes the realistic type since this type strives after the objective truth in every game. The positional player foremostly tries to find the correct plan; the plan that is in accordance with the demands of the position. He disregards the greater part of the concrete variation tree in his search for the correct plan. Furthermore, he principally uses his judgement (not calculation) to cut off sub-trees from the variation tree.

The concretistic player, on the other hand, wants to solve the problems of the position by finding the correct concrete variations. If one encounters a concretistic player one is often struck by his clear-sightedness and technical efficiency. That's why the concretist Kasparov is called "the monster with a thousand eyes"--he sees every variation. The concretist takes a firm grip on the immediate problems of the position and he seldom blunders. He could also be called the technical type. These two types have the character of truth-seekers. In science there is a corresponding division into theoretical physicists and practical lab-physicists."

Thus, concretists and positional players have much in common. They are both "scientists". However, the concretists are the "laboratory physicists" whereas the positional players are the "theoretical physicists".

M. Winther

[Geoff Chandler]

"...and he certainly plays the endgame like a computer."

I don't think he plays anything like a computer in this phase of the game.

A computer will always...always...play what it considers is the best move.
Carlsen is willing to play what a computer may not even consider provided
it carries no risk to himself and sets his opponents problems to solve.

He admitted he set Anand a trap (a problem to solve) in an endgame and Anand failed to solve it.
Computers do not understand the concept of setting problems, they are calculating machines, nothing more.

This can be easily proved if you play a good computer where it has the technically lost endgame.
Very soon the box will realise defence is futile because it is expecting the best replies
and head for the line that prolongs mate the longest. (sulking).

A human defending the same position will try all kinds of tricks and traps till all the snares are exhausted.
Computers do not play like this.

Reading what the good players have said about his style it appears he is a mixture of
Capablanca & Karpov, with a good dose of Fischer in there and a chunk of Lasker.

[Nick Burrows]

Hi Geoff,

I agree with most of what you are saying about the difference between people and machines, my comment was based on watching the WC games with engine analysis available. What was apparent was that Carlsen made several 'sub-optimal' moves in the middlegame, however in the endgame there were many, many positions with 'only moves' to keep the advantage, and he played them all. If you did not know who you were watching, it would not have been obvious that it was a human playing.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Nick,

They called Capa the 'Human Chess Machine' about 50 years before home computers
were just glint in Clive Sinclair's eye.

I don't think I'd like to be compared with playing like a computer.
An uncouth swindling cheapo merchant, yes. A machine no.

Vishy mentioned he failed to get Carlsen out of his comfort zone in the WC match.
I'm guessing this is a double edged complicated affair where Carlsen's talent,
that late middlegame to ending switch is curbed and uneven positions appear.

He is now No.1 in the world and world champion.
He's young and has nothing left in chess to prove. There are no further challenges.
It's a burden carrying the WC crown. Let's see how it goes.

[Roger de Coverly]

I don't think I'd like to be compared with playing like a computer.
An uncouth swindling cheapo merchant, yes. A machine no.

From about the "Fruit" engine onwards, there was a new style of computer engine. The newer ones were much better at positional analysis, in that they could assess a position without deep analysis. This reinforces deep searching, since if you analyse ten moves deep by each player, it helps if you only consider "decent" continuations and can assess the final position correctly. I found it illuminating to watch the Anand-Carlsen games at the chessbomb site, where they had the top four ideas proposed by the resident engine displayed. Where all four moves were different but the same assessment, you could presume the next move wasn't critical. Where the top move was advantage A , the next equal and the last two advantage B, it would be evident that the move was critical.

[Mats Winther]

Hi Geoff,

I agree with most of what you are saying about the difference between people and machines, my comment was based on watching the WC games with engine analysis available. What was apparent was that Carlsen made several 'sub-optimal' moves in the middlegame, however in the endgame there were many, many positions with 'only moves' to keep the advantage, and he played them all. If you did not know who you were watching, it would not have been obvious that it was a human playing.

This penchant of playing sub-optimal moves in the middlegame is what evokes irritation with positional players. Why doesn't he play according to position and follow a deep and clever positional plan, which takes 40 minutes of hard work to find? Instead he plays concretely, and manages to find his way through the variation tree, anyway. It is an impressive capacity. I lose immediately if I don't follow a long-term and sensible plan. But in the endgame Carlsen's concrete play equals exact play. It is true that his style is reminiscent of Lasker's. The fighting element, rather than the visionary and the theoretical element, comes to the fore.

M. Winther

[Keith Arkell]

I think Magnus belongs to that class of players who are born with the gift of 'feel'. This gift can be applied in the middle game or the ending. In the case of, for example, Mickey Adams, the gift is used more in the milddlegame, whereas Carlsen happens to use it more in the ending. Players born with this gift do not need to analyse as much or as deeply as those without it. I believe that Karpov, Ulf Anderrson and Smyslov are also players born with this gift. They have an inbuilt feel for where to put the pieces and where/how to apply the pressure to make things difficult for their opponents.

I understand this because, on a much lower level, I am also this type of player. We are very different from those who treat chess as an academic subject, analysing the opening to death and always analysing the middlegame positions exhaustively, looking for the absolute best move.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Roger,

The few games I watched live I ignored the computers.
We both know that sometimes the 'best move' to play is not the best move to play
and in human v human Chess anything can happen....and it did.
I was more interested in the body language each player was portraying and the time they took.

Glad Keith mention Carlsen has 'the feel' as I believe all the top players have it in some form or another.
The ability, which they often cannot explain, why a certain piece must go to certain square.
You cannot beat 'the feel' sometimes on some days it deserts them and then they play a
lack lustre or bad game. But amongst the greats these days were/are few and far between.

It should not put us ungifted ones off. We can still enjoy the game.
The day a computer develops 'the feel' will be the day computers rule the entire world.

[Mats Winther]

I think Magnus belongs to that class of players who are born with the gift of 'feel'. This gift can be applied in the middle game or the ending. In the case of, for example, Mickey Adams, the gift is used more in the milddlegame, whereas Carlsen happens to use it more in the ending. Players born with this gift do not need to analyse as much or as deeply as those without it. I believe that Karpov, Ulf Anderrson and Smyslov are also players born with this gift. They have an inbuilt feel for where to put the pieces and where/how to apply the pressure to make things difficult for their opponents.

I understand this because, on a much lower level, I am also this type of player. We are very different from those who treat chess as an academic subject, analysing the opening to death and always analysing the middlegame positions exhaustively, looking for the absolute best move.

Don't believe for a minute that he doesn't calculate exhaustively his seemingly planless moves. On the contrary, his style of play demands that he has an answer prepared for every possibility. That's why he steers into dry positions. Otherwise the demand for calculation would become immense.

I would place Karpov and Andersson in the opposite category from Carlsen. They are positional players with a penchant for endgames. From a cursory look at your games I would place you in the positional category, too. You seem to play logical and sound chess. You play according to the demands of the position and won't attempt to make more of it than your intellect can deduce. Thus, the visionary aspect plays a lesser role than logical planning. This game of yours is instructive:

[Event "Copenhagen International Open"] [Site "Lyngby"] [Date "1991.10.20"] [Round "9"] [White "Keith Arkell"] [Black "Vasil Trichkov"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "D17"] [WhiteElo "2455"] [BlackElo "2310"] [PlyCount "69"] [EventDate "1991.??.??"] {(Annot. by M. Winther)} 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 dxc4 5. a4 Bf5 6. Nh4 Bg4 {6... Bc8; 6... e6$5} 7. h3 Bh5 8. g4 Bg6 9. Nxg6 hxg6 10. e3 Qd7 11. Qf3 Na6 12. Bxc4 Nb4 13. Kf1 e6 14. a5 Be7 15. h4 $1 {weakness at f7} Nfd5 16. g5 Nc7 17. Ne4 Nc2 18. Ra2 Nd5 19. b3 Ndb4 20. Ra4 Rd8 (20... Nd5 $1 21. h5 gxh5 22. Rxh5 O-O-O 23. Qxf7 (23. Be2 $14) 23... Ndxe3+ $1) 21. h5 $40 gxh5 22. Rxh5 Rxh5 23. Qxh5 $16 b5 $2 {opens a-file} 24. axb6 axb6 25. Bd2 (25. g6 $1 $18) 25... Nd5 26. Bd3 b5 27. Ra5 Ncb4 28. Be2 Qc7 29. Ra1 Bf8 30. Qh8 Kd7 31. Qg8 Ke8 32. g6 Qe7 33. Bxb4 Nxb4 34. gxf7+ Qxf7 35. Nd6+ $1 (35. Ra7 $3 { is even more elegant}) 1-0

M. Winther