is it possible for 2400s, 2300s players to be tactically stronger then Magnus Carlsen, not overall stronger, but in terms of tactics

take someone like Emory Tate, a brilliant tactician, is he stronger in terms of tactics then Magnus

No

Magnus Carlsen is a 2600 player whose results over the years can be attributed to one thing: physical fitness. He is a world-class athlete; his opposition, by and large, is composed of fat nerds who lack the stamina to reliably play the endgame. Sounds loony, yes, but expert opinions affirm my theory: link #1, link #2, link #3.

But don't interpret this post as an attempt to belittle Carlsen's accomplishments. It is well known that chessplayers are benefited by dense deposits of adipose tissue, wherein they can store opening variations and middlegame strategy. That Carlsen is both strong and skinny is evidential of incredible talent. Grischuk is another example, but his physique is better tailored to marathons -- he'd surely be #1 in the world at G/1440 chess.

Chess is 99.99% tactics, nah.

Magnus just beats you with tactics on move 65 instead of 35

Can we just get an emory tate containment thread already? Or just ban this moron?

Take this Tate crap back to ICC.

When you specify the question to 2300 or 2400, the answer is no. If you would leave it at "weaker" without specifying, the answer would be yes. There are definitely players above 2700 who are better at pure tactics than Magnus. There is a reason as to why his playing style is what it is.. That is not to say of course that tactics is his "weakness". It's still at a super incredible level, just not "divine" as some of his skills are.

Kinda by definition, in this context "weaker" = "every other chess player on the planet".

I agree and was thinking the same. Curious if you have an opinion as to who, specifically, is currently the best player in the world at "pure tactics". Which of the fiftyish 2700+ players out there really are better tactically than Magnus? Also, if Carlsen isn't #1, where does he rank? #2? 5?

I really can't assess 2700+ play well enough to have an opinion, but if you have one I'd love to hear it.

of course, but, he did specify "2300/2400" in his OP

good question as always I agree, it is really hard to assess this. A lot would depend on our definition of tactics - for example, I believe that Mamedyarov is a better tactician on a good day than Carlsen, but he sometimes makes incredible tactical blunders which Carlsen doesn't ever make. So his tactical "peak" is, IMO, higher, but his bottom is much lower too. So how do we rank them? Not an easy question.

If we would only look at "on a good day" factor and wouldn't factor in consistency, I believe that Mamedyarov, Nakamura and Jobava are better than Carlsen at pure tactical ability. Yes, Jobava. He is an absolute tactical beast. When you are 2713 ELO but have positional understanding of an average GM, that tells something about your tactical ability

Then there are a bunch of players that are probably evenish or maybe slightly worse (again, if only looking at pure tactical ability), for example Topalov, Aronian, Svidler. I am sure I am forgetting someone

JOBAVA!

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1268811
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1315913

(N.B., these games are exact reproductions of Jobava's home prep.)

YKW, how 'bout the opposite question: Of those who are 2700 and higher, who has the widest gap in the negative between FIDE rating and pure tactical ability? If the answer is "Carlsen by default because he's like 2900", pick someone else.

so your saying these players might be better tactically then magnus

but magnus has the greater positional understanding, which makes him the best player in the world...

You make it sound like it somehow lessens his achievements or am I reading this wrong?

no...but what is really the difference between having alot of tactical understanding and positional understanding

Jobava's chess humblebrag.

I have nightmares about that game anytime I get even close to that position in the Caro :-).