They shouldn't be compared and there's a reason for that, magnus's style is highly inspired by kasparov. For instance, being late to a chess match and when you do arrive, you arrange your pieces
Its a person's own habit. Its part of their personality. Such a dumb thing to say that one is inspired to do certain thing. Can't two people have similar habits. You know both of them are genius in this field so their traits can match. These kinds of habits cannot be inspired. In world there is highter percentage of followers. They follow some unique personalities. Even the followers can only copy dressing style, diet, artstyle, cooking style, etc but cannot copy such habits. But one thing is to be noted that magnus memory is very good, and sometimes he sounds rude. But people who have unique personality don't have good memory, and they never sound rude. But people are made up of number of characteristics so may be magnus have all the qualities.
@@buneter It was not a joke. He meant to say that comparison should be done between equal opponents. It is wrong to compare two person in which one is inspired by other.
Placing chess pieces in the center of the squares is a feature of the overly conscientious personality, those who worship symmetry. The compulsive behavior and attention to detail fosters intelligence. But Magnus is not OCPD because he posseses a secondary trait that balances his thinking, so his ability to view the game microscopically and with a wide angle simultaneously gives him a great advantage. A gift.
@@potirde Yes, OCD and a severe level of OCPD reflect some autistic features: but neither Kasparov nor Carlsen are autistic or suffer an axis II disordrer: they are too functional...but certainly a little overly conscientious (aka perfectionism/workaholism). I should know, being one.
2:31 Dam, Magnus is 13 years old, playing the World Chess Champion, and he's just looking at some other game, not even thinking about his own game. That's a true Chess Grand Master right there.
Especially because he's old enough to have had his childhood with the apex of analog technology (90s-early 2000s, starting from the 60s) but was too young to have had the exposure of the current world through the digital world and YT as we know it from 2005 onwards. Sure there was the old media but information wasn't as instant as it is now.
That was an incredibly informative breakdown of the game for someone who understands the game at a basic level and is fascinated by its matches at a higher one.
But isn’t this video showing that Magnus has an edge ? When he was 13, I’m pretty sure we didn’t have stockfish and all the other tools available. So he was able to match the greatest by pure skill and intellect, at 13. He may have more tools at his disposition now, but he clearly didn’t back then.
Except that he has the time advantage, so it really doesn't show that he has an edge on equal footing. It just shows that the two players are of similar skill. To really say either of them is better than the other you would not only need them to have the same time available. Also, a player may be better at white or black. To really show if one player has the edge over the other you would need at least two games, with each player playing each color pieces, and without a time imbalance. (Even if the imbalance here was the fault of Kasparov)
He may have a slight time advantage but you should also consider the fact that the experience gap Kasparov had at the time is greater than Magnus. So can't we consider this an equal match between the two of them considering tge time and experience both of them had?
time advantage is given on purpose most of the time. These masterminds know that their brain works differently with the pressure of showing up late.@@kg4wwn
@@macin6931 Uh, no. It's actually bad. Makes no sense at all in some places. Just one of many examples at 4:40 : "Kasparov attacks Carlsen's back line, moving his rook to e1 and offering a trade". Offering a trade??? He captured a piece and Magnus has no choice but to take back. Another really bad example at 4:05 : "They trade pieces back and forth and Carlsen wins the exchange coming out a piece ahead". No such trades were made in the video at that time - not even any moves were made. Also, "wins the exchange" means that a knight/bishop was traded for a rook, and a "piece" usually means a bishop/knight (although sometimes it can refer to a rook). But, in fact, Magnus only won a pawn here. Sorry, but this is very bad terminology in a very bad commentary.
It’s a tale as old as time! The new learn from the old’s mistakes with the added advantage of the natural progression of educational opportunities. Technology has given magnus access to the best mentors and game footage from across the globe since he was a child. It’s a beautiful thing.
Appreciate the video, I just subscribed. For future videos, it's kind of hard to follow the game visually when the chessboard is zooming in and out. Would papreciate it if it just stayed in the corner.
it ruquires a lot of inteligence, for iexample i got better at computer games around 18 because i sterted to be able to think forward, the fact that he tied with him at the age 13 is amazing and i dont even play chess, i know the rules and played few times, but when i watch the pro matches i cant even comperhend whats goin on
i like how theres like no commentary and when there its not even fully correct lmfao. lemme actually try to explain this: disclaimer: was too lazy to use an engine to check some lines 1. 1:47 this is the semislav, not the qgd. qgd is 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 2. the point of e3 (2:00) is to develop the other bishop. sure, it defends the d4 pawn, but thats not the main idea 3. 2:11 white may play f3, which is a common theme in many d4 openings. white tries to break through with e4 at some point (most likely when white has castled) 4. 2:20 technically its not a pin... its just attacking the knight on c3 and developing 5. 2:27 its not really an attack... i believe that kasparov just wants to give carlsen an iqp, or he can just play re8 next 6. 2:47 white has an iqp but the rule is that if you have an iqp, try to attack. black is massively undeveloped here, so white should be slightly better (not checked with engine btw) 7. 3:12 not only is black attacking h2, but mostly it is to trade the dsb if white plays bg3. black wants to trade minor pieces to weaken the iqp. btw, nothing is "precarious" about white's kingside. how tf will black get the queen to h2? the bishop must go BEHIND the queen to mate 8. 3:42 apparently kasparov isn't blundering his bishop!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i thought world champions always blunder their bishops (sarcasm lmfao) 9. 4:02 notice that cxd5 bxd6 qxd6 rxd6 re8 kh7 rc1 just wins the bishop 10. 4:06 im not actually sure why qxc6 doesnt work... maybe nxd4 qxa8 bb7 qa7 qd5 or smth? 11. 4:35 kasparov comes out with a small advantage????? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 white is literally up a pawn hello anyone?????? doubled pawns dont play too big of a role because white shouldn't really be playing on the kingside anyways due to the fact that both black and white have the same number of pawns on that side 12. 4:46 no, theyre not extremely close to the endgame. theyre in the endgame. they were in the endgame from hxg4 13. 4:51 the commentator makes it seem like the pawn advantage is a big deal, but the opposite colored bishops make it a draw (for anyone who wants to know, it is actually possible to draw a b vs b + p + p endgame (although im not too sure on the specifics on that. if the b + p + p side has connected pawns, its probably a win. otherwise a draw (i think)) 14. 4:55 "handing out checks to each other left and right" literally theres only 1 check stop capping lmfao. also its kind of hard to not be playing "extremely accurate moves" because theres probably like 10 moves that end in a draw for both sides... 15. 5:04 to be more specific, carlsen wants to put the bishop on b6 (or just free from the pin in general) 16. 5:05 two pawns... WHERE??????? 17. 5:17 a draw was imminent since the queen trade
As a chess instructor, I use this game to illustrate good opening principles and chess notation. I can also say that I've been in the same room at different times as both of these men.
computers changed everything in the mid 90s. The ability to easily study 1000s of games gives a huge advantage, this on top of AI that can easily beat Magnus and teaches you the best moves. A much bigger part of chess now is memorization rather than creativity than it was for kasparov or fischer.
It is really amazing game from Carlsen, but I think at this time. Kasparov barely have meet younger like Carlsen was here. And he was for sure think this game will be a peace of cake. Kasparov was only playing those top players around the world and was not compete in those open tournament like Carlsen doing. But I truly now Kasparov is 1 of the biggest legend ever playing chess without a doubt.
Do you think if Kasparov has played in this era of chess engines he could not be the best? Magnus and Gary are two great players in different eras. But I have to give credit to Gary because he played in the time when there was no advanced chess engines to analyze games. He is still my goat.
This was in 2004, back when most if not all home-available chess engines were hundreds of elo points weaker than Kasparov. Realistically, when they played this match, Kasparov had access to far better engines to practice against than Magnus, who was only 13 years old.
Kasparov is 59 not 54. You said the clocks were ticking down even though Magnus had not yet made a move. If they were ticking then Magnus would be loosing time not Kasparov.
@@kz-jo6bd This has been the modus operandi for MC. The reasoning behind it is simple: "chess is about making clever moves - not about who can keep appointments".
The fact a 13 year old could even get to a draw with Kasparov is amazing but lets not forget a draw is a win for black. Kasparov won, but it really sets the spotlight on how talented Magnus was, and just how much potential he had at that time.
"In 2009, Magnus hired Kasparov as a coach. During their sessions, they played many training games. According to Magnus himself, he won the majority of those, although he never revealed a specific score." The cool thing about chess is that players only get better as they get older; unlike physical competitions. So its a good way to know that our current champions are really all time champions. We dont really have to spend time theorizing about players in their hypothetical primes. Players only get better and better over time.
That is not true at all, the older a person gets the worse he plays. Exactly like muscles the brains starts to decay. You can see that clearly in chess statistics. That is why some GMs resign at their peak.
fax, you can't say there's any competition between kasparov and carlson when tied as only a kid, grampa kasparov had 80 years to prepare to beat this child and he failed
That's right, there were two other games, one played on the same day and one the day before. Kasparov played as white in both of those games and won. The openings were the King's Indian Defense and the English. Kasparov was famous for the King's Indian. I'm not sure if that was the best choice for young Carlsen
Magnus vs Kasparov is like MJ vs Lebron. The modern player is obviously better but if you want to value the achievements of the older player you can definitely make an argument for it.
MJ vs Kobe probably works better since MJ helped Kobe learn a couple of things and basically "passing the torch" just like how Kasparov did with Magnus
I have seen both MJ and Lebron play. A lot. I grew up in Chicago and watched a ton of the Bulls championship seasons. I've seen Lebron play a lot as well. He is a great player undoubtedly. But to suggest that the modern player is better is absolutely laughable. MJ would average 50 points a game in today's game. Players like Barkley have said as much. There is no comparison. And it isn't close, either. Lebron is of course great, but in one of MJ's first games at Madison Square Garden, he got a standing ovation from NY fans at the end of the game, b/c the whole crowd was like "holy shit, I've never seen anybody do THAT." MJ is the GOAT. I'm not even a huge MJ fan, I know he was kind of an a-hole a lot of the time. I don't give people a free pass to treat people badly just b/c they're great at a sport. So this isn't really a biased account from a Bulls or MJ fan, I don't like MJ as much as I used to after seeing "The Last Dance". But as a basketball player MJ was way better than Lebron. I think Kobe might have been better than Lebron as well, honestly.
BTW, Kasparov play Carlsen 4 times with 3 of the games was during this tournament - 2004 Keykjavik Rapid. The first game between them occured during the 16 player round robin tournament. Kasparov defeated Carlson in round 10 in only 21 moves. Kasparov came in 2nd with a score of 12/15 and Carlsen finished 15th with a score of 4/15. The game in the video is their 2nd game which occured during the 1st game of the 1st round of the 16 player knockout tournament. During the round they played two rapid games with a 25+5 time control. Kasparov won 1.5 to 0.5. Kasparov won the knockout tournament. BTW, if the score is tied after two games, a sudden death blitz game (5 min + 3 sec) would have been played. Their 4th game was in 2020 during the Champions Showdown Chess 9LX. 57-year old Kasparov made a cameo appearance and played as White in a 55-move draw against Carlsen. So lifetime score - Kasparov +2-0=2 // Carlsen +0-2=2
The sheer amount of digital tools and endless practice channels the latest generation of elite Chess players have access to give them a huge advantage of the greats of old.
