Remix.run Logo
saucymew 5 hours ago

It feels like the cohort GM player pool is mentally cooked against Magnus.

Youngsters like Lazavik during the Speed Chess Championship or Sindarov in Freestyle were the most recent convincing wins against Magnus, but the historical mental edge that Magnus comes into each game after beating the brakes out of everyone is hard to overcome.

Magnus' time will come! But not today.

somenameforme 19 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Chess ability seems distributed in a power law, rather than any sort of a normal distribution. There are repeatedly, throughout history, players that are just much better than everybody else, including the 2nd best player in the world. Lasker, for instance, was world champion for 26 consecutive years while also regularly dominating tournaments during that period as well. Kasparov was #1 for 21 years, and so on.

I'd go further to say I think this is true in many things. For instance if you're into wrestling, you know the name of Alexander Karelin [1] who ended his career with a record of 887 wins and 2 losses (both losses by a single point and both highly controversial). He was winning olympic gold, repeatedly, not only without a single defeat but without his opponents even scoring a single point against him. His ears tell the story - 889 world class matches, and he doesn't even have cauliflower ear.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Karelin

epolanski 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't think it's merely mental albeit it seems like even nervous Carlsen is cooler than his very focused opponents (see game 3 vs Fabiano where caruana had a completely winning position after carlsens blunder).

Carlsen has spent the core of his career mastering two aspects historically underlooked aspects of the game.

The first is the endgame, and there isn't much to say there. He's by far the best end game player by far and it's not even close.

The second are drawish locked positions where most GMs can't but see a draw. Carlsen realized that in order for it to be a draw his opponents still have to play perfect and he focused a lot on accumulating small but convincing advantages in those kind of games.

Another thing that should not be overlook: mental strength, like you point out.

somenameforme 12 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

They had a heart rate monitor at one of the freestyle events which physically affirms what you're saying here. Carlsen's heart rate was barely above resting while his opponents were invariably like they were running a marathon. Even when he was losing, he remained calmer than when his opponents were in normal positions.

I think that should be a normal part of chess competition. It provides some really interesting metadata for spectators. To some degree it also emphasizes the importance of something people don't normally associate with chess - physical conditioning. When your heart is pounding for hours and the cortisol flowing, you literally get physically exhausted.

fernandopj an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

IMHO a huge aspect of Carlsen mental strength isn't just the focused, at-the-game part, but we just see him enjoying Chess in many angles: not only he plays all styles, he streams relaxed, he plays Lichess and Chess.com; Chess is not only his job and passion, but it seems that he's also able to relax while engaging with it.

The only top-athlete that I see do the same is Max Verstappen, who is know to play competitive racing-sims online even hours before a real F1 race.

dwd 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Carlsen has always had a tenacity that allows him to come back from positions other players would give up on thinking to conserve effort to fight another day. Mental strength and stamina to stay in the fight has always been something that made him who he is.

You also can't underestimate physical stamina. Kasparov in his 5-3 result against Karpov in 1984-85 was eventually halted due to Karpov's exhaustion and losing 18kg over the match period.

pinkmuffinere an hour ago | parent [-]

> losing 18kg over the match period.

woah that's crazy, I was not aware of this. That's like 36 weeks of aggressive weight loss.

edit: Looks like it lasted 5 months (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Chess_Championship_1984%...).

hyperbovine an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Same exact thing happened in tennis. There was a whole "lost generation" of amazingly talented players who just basically shat the bed whenever they stepped onto the court with Djokovic, Federer, or Nadal. It wasn't until much younger players like Alcaraz and Sinner came on the scene, who weren't quite as overpowered by the aura of the Big 3, that the playing field finally leveled. (And now they themeselves are turning into those guys for everyone else, haha.)

p1esk 41 minutes ago | parent [-]

Or maybe the “lost generation” was simply not as good as Djokovic, Federer, or Nadal.

nilslindemann an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Magnus' time will come! But not today.

Hasn't Magnus' time already come, and isn't it still Magnus' time? He is #1 on all three lists[1] and so long that I have forgotten when he was not.

[1]: https://2700chess.com/

bee_rider an hour ago | parent [-]

I think they mean his time to be dethroned.

FreakLegion 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Are you referring to the odd individual game? Magnus beat Lazavik pretty badly in the SCC and knocked Sindarov out of the Freestyle final.

saucymew 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Individual games.

The ones that specifically come to mind are Lazavik vs. Carlsen, Speed Chess Championship 2025 Semi-Final, Round 3, and Sindarov vs. Carlsen, Freestyle Chess Grand Slam Finals 2025 in South Africa, Round 1 of the Group Stage Finals.

make3 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

or maybe he's just very good?

rybosworld 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Agree you don't have to overcomplicate it. Magnus is a generational talent.

datsci_est_2015 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I would almost say “generational” is underselling it. Gretzky might be the only competitor that’s even comparable in terms of dominance.

dwd 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Sir Donald Bradman would like a word...

system2 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Brain ages. He will eventually decline just like any human being. Let's hope by then he will have the wisdom to smile when that happens.

make3 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Ageism also just one of these shitty unproven biases, like sexism, which is self-realizing by applying pressure to people who fall out of the mold even slightly.

He's 30 something, not 90.

epolanski 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's not unproven, there's ample literature and research on the fact.

Besides, the age pool of chess itself confirms it.

There's a single player in his 50s in the top 50 of chess and not a single 60+ in the top 100.

Also, even carlsen himself says he's no longer as good as he was years before and his mind isn't as strong.

IMTDb 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Regarding sexism; most tournaments in Chess (including the world championship) are fully open and are thus gender netral: anyone can participate regardless of sex/gender and will compete on equal footing.

Women only categories have been created to give women visibility because they mostly were not able to reach advanced levels in the open format.

Some women choose to compete with men (Judit Polgár being a somewhat recent example) but most go straight to the women only tournaments to have a shot.

The men vs women « bias » is not unproven, they litterally had to create entire categories of competiton to account for it.

kaonwarb 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Cognition certainly declines with age at the population level. See e.g. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4906299/.

make3 4 hours ago | parent [-]

yes but he's 30 not 90, and knowledge and experience continues to accumulate through life, which can certainly compensate

DustinEchoes 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The decline starts in your early thirties, and those who are pushing their cognition to its limit are the first to notice.

elevation 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If the skill you need to select for is tactical combinatorics, then Chess dominance as a function of age would seem to support the premise of ageism.

What ageism ignores is that outside of chess, prescience outperforms other measures of productivity.

4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
hikkerl 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Can you provide at least three (3) peer-reviewed studies to support this?

bsder 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Ageism also just one of these shitty unproven biases

You might be right, if we were talking about anything except chess.

Chess, unlike everything else, has a clear ranking system and lots of records for people to analyze. And unfortunately, the record is very clear: chess ability decreases after a certain age.

However, the decrease is more likely due to stamina than mental decline. Chess tournaments take a long time, and stamina definitely decreases with age. However, pro athletes demonstrate that you can probably go until around your early 40s before it becomes a real issue.

Having said that, it will be interesting to see how this generation does in the blitz formats as they age. Those will be less dependent upon stamina and a better measure of mental acuity for chess.