Here’s The Key To Magnus Carlsen’s Success As A Chess Grandmaster
Randy Olson, Contributor
Jun. 9, 2014, 8:59 AM
For the fifth installment of my series of posts analyzing a data set of over 650,000 chess tournament games ranging back to the 15th century, I wanted to focus in on Magnus Carlsen and try to understand what makes him such an exceptional chess player.
In November 2013, Magnus Carlsen soundly defeated the reigning World Chess Champion, Viswanathan Anand, and added “World Chess Champion” to his wardrobe of prestigious titles that he’s earned in the past decade of playing chess. Many seem to think that it’s Carlsen’s ability to wear his opponents down and win games that’s been the key to his success lately, but a recent analysis of his games since 2001 seems to suggest otherwise.
Anand vs. Carlsen in the 2013 World Chess Championship
Magnus Carlsen’s meteoric rise to the top started like many of the other chess prodigies. He appeared on the scene in the early 2000s as an ambitious young grandmaster, quickly rising to the ranks of the elite (2750+ Elo rating) within half a decade.
Viswanathan Anand, Vladimir Kramnik, and Veselin Topalov all followed similar trajectories in the 1990s, but eventually stagnated in the sub-2800 territory under the shadow of Garry Kasparov. In 2009, Carlsen seemed to be suffering the fate of the many prodigies before him. Then in 2010, Carlsen made an incredible move: After winning a flurry of chess tournaments, he surpassed Kasparov’s Elo rating and never stopped growing from there. At this rate, Carlsen seems poised to be the first ever chess player to break a 2900 Elo rating.
What has been the key to Carlsen’s success? Below, I charted Carlsen’s win, loss, and draw rates since 2001. Surprisingly, Carlsen doesn’t seem to be winning more games today than he did in 2001. Instead, it appears the key to his success is taking games that he used to consistently lose — especially games as Black — and instead forcing them into a draw.
Interestingly, this trend mimics the evolution of chess game outcomes since 1850: Every year, more games are ending in draws rather than conclusive wins. It seems that the ideal modern grandmaster is better at forcing a draw to prevent a loss than checkmating their opponent.
Nakamura has the natural talent. Carlsen is a Soviet machine built by Kasparov. Without Kasparov, Carlsen would never be world champion.
Carlsen jettisoned Kasparov early because of Kasparov’s abrasive and egotistical ways — Nakamura is talented but soft – I bet he is busy eating cake right now
Stop negging about Nakamura! Nakamura is a great guy and chess player, but still subtop in the Super-GM’s League.
Stop negging about the great Kasparov: it’s disrespectfull! And start showing some respect to Carlsen achievements. It doesn’t matter how he does it, what he does or doesn’t off the board nor with whom he does it: he DOES it AT the board. And off the board Carlsen is just a great guy.
If yet you want to do so, you can start analyzing the life of the great Fischer…OFF the board. See what you come up with. And Kasparov’s war against Putin and in the early days off board with Karpov and FIDE.
In this article it’s about statistics considering Carlsen. The way Carlsen has achieved his all high rating, is also the problem he faces for reaching the 2900 ELO: he is expected (by ELO formula) to win more games because of his high rating. But he achieved it by drawing more games! And now he’s so far ahead in ELO, that (almost) every draw loses ELO points. Here is the ‘brake’ for Carlsens machine: draws and winnings.
It feels unfair to me because fristly a player who rarely loses should somehow be rewarded. Secondly, at this level where humans are at their top abilities with a deep understanding of positions, strategy and tactics of this great game, it’s just very difficult to outplay an opponent who doesn’t blunders. In logical words: it’s just way more difficult to win a chess game when the game is frequently (in perspective) played to a certain perfection by both sides (by Super GM’s), then it is when play is full of ‘flaws’ or lacking ‘quality’ moves (lower ELO). There is a lot more of improvement for a 1800 ELO, then for a Super GM. The latter plays in at least 80% a top 3 move(engine), against the 45% of an ELO 2300.
This is why prodigies have a comet rise to the top: understanding the game deeply, having personal qualities (memory, analyzing speed, etc.) and making lots of TOP 3 moves which result in draws and (at first) lots of winnings. At low ELO the effect will be like a comet.
But at top level it’s very difficult to keep rising, which is normal because the game is being played to a higher perfection.
Just think about it: how does ELO works?! Considering that, it’s just huge what Kapsarov did in his era, and what Carlsen has achieved so far.
The only way Carlsen will pass the 2900 ELO barrier is by playing his tournaments consistingly. He will then eventually profit from off days (less consistancy) of his opponents, therefor winning more games and resulting in improvement of his ELO.
It’s the only way ’cause a draw is a loss’ for the Best Player Ever. And Carlsen-critics should be objective about the game and what it takes. Not if it’s your fellow country man, not if he has hurt your grandmother or because he’s not interested in geology like you are. Neither if you like his attacking/defending play or not. With Carlsen at the board there IS play and attractive things happen!
I bet most of those critics couldn’t even bake an omelet…
AMEN to that 🙂