Carlsen - Nakamura

[Mats Winther]

Carlsen's play is praised, but facts are that Nakamura played anti-positional chess. It was very, very bad. I don't like his style of play, which violates the positional laws of chess. Super-GMs should endeavour to play beautiful and sound games.
http://en.chessbase.com/post/gashimov-r ... er-already
/Mats

[Nick Burrows]

Super-GM's should play in the style they believe gives them the best chance of winning the game.

[PeterTurland]

Carlsen's play is praised, but facts are that Nakamura played anti-positional chess. It was very, very bad. I don't like his style of play, which violates the positional laws of chess. Super-GMs should endeavour to play beautiful and sound games.
http://en.chessbase.com/post/gashimov-r ... er-already
/Mats

I think we should elect Carlsen, as boss of the UN.

[Carl Hibbard]

It's a 'headgame' now for Nakamura nothing more.

[Nick Thomas]

Carlsen's play is praised, but facts are that Nakamura played anti-positional chess. It was very, very bad. I don't like his style of play, which violates the positional laws of chess. Super-GMs should endeavour to play beautiful and sound games.
http://en.chessbase.com/post/gashimov-r ... er-already
/Mats

Oh dear. Super GMs should play in the style which made them Super GM s in the first place or better still in any style they see fit. Oh dear.

[Jonathan Rogers]

I would add a further point to Mats - even if some of Naka's play was anti-positional, eg playing ...f5, he did it for a reason (to stop White gaining space with g4, I should think) and it would have seemed to him to be the lesser evil. It is possible, when being outplayed, to be forced into playing ugly looking moves! Why don't you just give the credit to Carlsen, if smooth, classical chess appeals to you so much?

[Mats Winther]

One must have a credo in chess and in life as a whole. To argue that anything goes, as long as one improves the score and makes more money, etc., is characteristic of the depraved modern era, when people have lost their belief in all higher ideals and traditions and only believe in self-promotion. Petrosian tells of how he devoted much time to studying some unknown historical master (I don't reminisce who) only to figure out his credo in chess, because this subject matter interested him very much. Due to the fact that Petrosian himself held very strong beliefs, his oeuvre in chess is vastly more interesting than Nakamura's, regardless of how successful Nakamura is. To merely have a strong technical ability leaves nothing to posterity. After all, it's the idealists who have had an impact, players such as Nimzowitch, Steinitz, etc., who upheld strong views and not merely played for bettering the score and increasing their income. Steinitz deliberately opted for the most cramped positions only to prove his tenet that defensive chess is equally adequate as attacking chess, and to investigate the properties of defensive chess.
/Mats

[Andrew Camp]

One must have a credo in chess and in life as a whole. To argue that anything goes, as long as one improves the score and makes more money, etc., is characteristic of the depraved modern era, when people have lost their belief in all higher ideals and traditions and only believe in self-promotion. Petrosian tells of how he devoted much time to studying some unknown historical master (I don't reminisce who) only to figure out his credo in chess, because this subject matter interested him very much. Due to the fact that Petrosian himself held very strong beliefs, his oeuvre in chess is vastly more interesting than Nakamura's, regardless of how successful Nakamura is. To merely have a strong technical ability leaves nothing to posterity. After all, it's the idealists who have had an impact, players such as Nimzowitch, Steinitz, etc., who upheld strong views and not merely played for bettering the score and increasing their income. Steinitz deliberately opted for the most cramped positions only to prove his tenet that defensive chess is equally adequate as attacking chess, and to investigate the properties of defensive chess.
/Mats

[Marcus Misson]

One must have a credo in chess and in life as a whole. To argue that anything goes, as long as one improves the score and makes more money, etc., is characteristic of the depraved modern era, when people have lost their belief in all higher ideals and traditions and only believe in self-promotion.
/Mats

Why?
Can we have some more chess please?
(In the 2nd thread tonight)