Anand has the bigger serve, and Carlsen is more of the baseline, persistent player. Carlsen in particular just has an indomitable will to win. He aims for quiet positions where nothing seems to be going on and says, 'Well, nothing's going on, but you're going to lose.
I follow tennis (but not chess that closely), but that caricature of both players seems very suspect lol. Wasn't that the quote from some financier who dabbled in chess? The quotation itself seems overtly flashy and rather contrived imo, again I don't follow chess that much and don't have too much knowledge, but it seems sort of off.
I think it's a good analogy for non-chess players.
Anand is a preparation monster, and most people are expecting him to reach midgames in good or at least equal positions to Carlsen, who is regarded as pretty lazy with his openings. Carlsen has a reputation for grinding out games into wins that other grandmasters would agree to a draw in.
I don't think that's quite a fair characterisation - just that it's not his main strength.
Carlsen joked in New in Chess recently that he was happy just to reach an equal position as White when he played against Kramnik :>
Anand has the bigger serve, and Carlsen is more of the baseline, persistent player. Carlsen in particular just has an indomitable will to win. He aims for quiet positions where nothing seems to be going on and says, 'Well, nothing's going on, but you're going to lose.
I follow tennis (but not chess that closely), but that caricature of both players seems very suspect lol. Wasn't that the quote from some financier who dabbled in chess? The quotation itself seems overtly flashy and rather contrived imo, again I don't follow chess that much and don't have too much knowledge, but it seems sort of off.
I think it's a good analogy for non-chess players.
Anand is a preparation monster, and most people are expecting him to reach midgames in good or at least equal positions to Carlsen, who is regarded as pretty lazy with his openings. Carlsen has a reputation for grinding out games into wins that other grandmasters would agree to a draw in.
I suppose so, but as it fits into tennis, the serve is a weapon, not an indication of how well you prepared for the match. But I guess he means that in the sense of "anand opens very well"--->has a good serve. It's just...he's taking preparation in chess, and comparing it to specific strokes in tennis, I dunno. Tennis obviously takes its preparation against the strategy of the opponent too, it's just an imperfect analogy (like almost all analogies) in the first place I suppose. I mean, I guess it makes sense and I get what you mean, but I think it's a rather superficial connection.
Anand has the bigger serve, and Carlsen is more of the baseline, persistent player. Carlsen in particular just has an indomitable will to win. He aims for quiet positions where nothing seems to be going on and says, 'Well, nothing's going on, but you're going to lose.
I follow tennis (but not chess that closely), but that caricature of both players seems very suspect lol. Wasn't that the quote from some financier who dabbled in chess? The quotation itself seems overtly flashy and rather contrived imo, again I don't follow chess that much and don't have too much knowledge, but it seems sort of off.
I think it's a good analogy for non-chess players.
Anand is a preparation monster, and most people are expecting him to reach midgames in good or at least equal positions to Carlsen, who is regarded as pretty lazy with his openings. Carlsen has a reputation for grinding out games into wins that other grandmasters would agree to a draw in.
I suppose so, but as it fits into tennis, the serve is a weapon, not an indication of how well you prepared for the match. But I guess he means that in the sense of "anand opens very well"--->has a good serve. It's just...he's taking preparation in chess, and comparing it to specific strokes in tennis, I dunno. Tennis obviously takes its preparation against the strategy of the opponent too, it's just an imperfect analogy (like almost all analogies) in the first place I suppose. I mean, I guess it makes sense and I get what you mean, but I think it's a rather superficial connection.
You are just taking a simple analogy way too far. No analogy is perfect, you are talking about diferent things after all, there are bound to be diferences, you may as well disregard any of them. It's just a quick way for someone to grasp the concept that a player will get an advantage from the opening.
Anand has the bigger serve, and Carlsen is more of the baseline, persistent player. Carlsen in particular just has an indomitable will to win. He aims for quiet positions where nothing seems to be going on and says, 'Well, nothing's going on, but you're going to lose.
I follow tennis (but not chess that closely), but that caricature of both players seems very suspect lol. Wasn't that the quote from some financier who dabbled in chess? The quotation itself seems overtly flashy and rather contrived imo, again I don't follow chess that much and don't have too much knowledge, but it seems sort of off.
I think it's a good analogy for non-chess players.
Anand is a preparation monster, and most people are expecting him to reach midgames in good or at least equal positions to Carlsen, who is regarded as pretty lazy with his openings. Carlsen has a reputation for grinding out games into wins that other grandmasters would agree to a draw in.
I suppose so, but as it fits into tennis, the serve is a weapon, not an indication of how well you prepared for the match. But I guess he means that in the sense of "anand opens very well"--->has a good serve. It's just...he's taking preparation in chess, and comparing it to specific strokes in tennis, I dunno. Tennis obviously takes its preparation against the strategy of the opponent too, it's just an imperfect analogy (like almost all analogies) in the first place I suppose. I mean, I guess it makes sense and I get what you mean, but I think it's a rather superficial connection.
You are just taking a simple analogy way too far. No analogy is perfect, you are talking about diferent things after all, there are bound to be diferences, you may as well disregard any of them. It's just a quick way for someone to grasp the concept that a player will get an advantage from the opening.
No that's exactly what I'm saying. I still don't like it though w/e lol
EPT
