for example

how is someone like levon aronian really strong at complex middlegames and complicated posistions but isn't as strong as someone like Magnus in simple posistions

it just doesn't make sense


Aronian is known for playing complicated rich middlegames

and Carlsen is known to have a unprecedented grasp of simple posistions

Levon should be the best since he has a high rating in complicated posistions and that should translate into him being super amazing at simple posistions

Imperfect players are what make the game seem inconsistent.

I'll hazard the guess that Carlsen is currently better also at complicated positions than Aronian.

And even if he wasn't, i don't see any inconsistency. Let's assume there are two players, Complian and Simplesen. Complian plays better in complicated positions than Simplesen, while Simplesen beats Complian at the simple ones. Still, Complian will make less inaccuracies in simple positions than in complicated ones, just not to the same extent as Simplesen.
Now let's draw the line between position types such that there are exactly 50% of simple ones and 50% complicated ones. Simplesen scores 75% in the former, Complian 60% in the latter. Simplesen wins around 2/3 of the games, giving him a 100 ELO edge.

Where is the problem?

I think it might just be down to Carlsen having superior tactical abilities (meaning he can calculate deep lines and really precisely) while in complex positions this is often not possible and you have to relay more on intuition, knowledge and positional proves - so it just takes different abilities to play well in complex and play well in simple positions that creates the 'paradox'.

Alas we're all limited in time and motivation to improve, so a player can or strives to become either a Complian or a Simplesen, but usually can't be both. Middlegame and endgame skills don't translate into each other. That's the same as in poker where pure TAGs are bad at medium-high blinds and pure LAGs are bad at low ones, while developing a flexible style requires more effort.

And of course it goes without saying that there is not a binary dichotomy between "complicated" and "simple" positions. Different positions have varying levels of complexity, along a spectrum.

what im asking is, evident by results and stuff..... magnus is stronger then aronian

but why doesn't aronian adopt magnus style of play, wouldn't he get the same results as magnus gets

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/14...parov-1306877/

that was a dumb thread, i agree...

Do you agree that your threads on chess.com are dumb too?

• the problem with chess is its inconsistency
  
• what does levon do wrong
  
• would it be a good idea to keep the game complicated against magnus
  
• does carlsen have the most conservative style
  
• who has a deeper chess understanding: carlsen or aronian
  
• would you say you have stronger openings then magnus
  
• why are carlsen chess perceived to be boring
  
• why dont top gms play magnus style

And that's just a sampling from the past week.

my apologies to scottrf

superking500: i thought you were another user... my apologies

scottrf: Don't worry. No need to make a thread.

superking500: ill turn it into a chess thead......
question- if castling was banned..wouldn't that open entirely new theory

dang, that's what i did wrong all those years. I will just adopt Magnus' style and get his results.

i hear he just plays safe positions why everyone plays risky, which is why he wins

if other GM adapt his style they would succeed as well

But then Magnus will adopt Houdini style.

If other poster adapt your style all threads succeed sucking

Asking the same question in a slightly different format, just because you didn't like the initial responses, doesn't warrant a new thread. If you want to continue discussing this Carlsen "style" issue, do it in this thread. Whether or not other posters wish to engage in the discussion is their choice.

Maybe what's really going on is an oversimplification of Carlsen's style. For instance, Anand recently said that people make the mistake of thinking Carlsen isn't strong at openings. Anand admitted that Carlsen is strong at openings, but it's just that he's a generalist in that area, not a specialist.

If players (e.g., Anand, Aronian, etc) really "knew" what Carlsen's style actually was, then maybe they'd beat him or at least learn how to stop him. And, if we as fans knew exactly what Carlsen's style was (not just oversimplifying), then we should be able to execute his style, too. Anand says that Carlsen is really good at everything, which seems to be a lot easier said than done.

Anand interview - bit about Carlsen's style:

"I was of course delighted to get any aggressive position. But people have to understand that the one thing Magnus Carlsen specializes in is getting the position he likes, which is the driest dust, if you like slightly boring, technical positions. And he's very good at it. The last game I played a dynamic opening, he simply refused to let me have it.
[...]
Of course I would love to have played aggressive chess and drawn him out, but the point is how do you draw him out? He's made a career out of imposing his style of play, and he managed to do this very well. I think the reason he was able to deflect my attempts was because he's got so many resources. He's a very versatile, very diverse player. So you know, you block him in one area, he immediately shifts to the next, you block him there, he shifts somewhere else. He's got a lot of resources."

I read carlsen made 15 straight houdini moves in a couple matches. he would be flagged a cheater on online chess sites. how the hell do you adopt that style? just cause you see something doesnt mean you have the capabilities to replicate.

play long games, and make good move and good move, ldo.

"Why don't people just adopt Carlsen's style" is one of the most bizarre questions, wrapped in so many layers of misunderstanding.

Someone actually asked the same thing about Isildur a few years ago...as though there's no such thing as talent and you can infer everything someone calculates and thus MIGHT do from seeing some totally bald results-only data from what they've done in a limited sample of previous situations.

You can't just score 100 points in the NBA by "adapting Wilt Chamberlain's style." You'd have to be a 7'1" superhuman athlete with ridiculously long arms and high shoulders to even begin. Similarly, you can't just "adapt Magnus's style" unless you have a savant-level calculating ability and near-eidetic memory. Let alone his endurance, and the years he's spent honing that natural talent into the specific form in which it functions.

Never knew Wilt had high shoulders. Russell must have had low elbows.

If you understand anything about basketball and the physiology required, you'd know that high shoulders are an important factor in standing reach.

Ralph Sampson, for example, was listed at 7'4" but had extremely low shoulders which made him slightly less effective then his height would've suggested.

OP is gone to another forum. There must be some place thats receptive for this eye opening material.

Carebear forum, redlight is on his way

negreanu thinks one cant adobt someone elses style and be the best.

some play strong hu poker, some sh, super short, fr, live, tournament, this or that form.

simple or not position, the stronger player wins, just that style isnt just a liking but one is for a reason or the other also a bit stronger there, it likely being how ones brain is.

carlsen is creative in simple positions, it being intuitive, understanding. other than that he could just play it and count his strenght to bring the point home, just that without creativity, it could not produce anything.

it then being like a no imagination no optimal play of poker where one plays it solid but thats all, looking like a good player but not really. about kramnik kasparov said he was more creative compared to most strong players who just moved the pieces, and we know how that is in a poker game. also about karpovs ability to sense the defensive moves kasparov said the same. and capablanca had the sense for good simple moves with little need for calculations. anand among others also is fast as so ,, and in calculations just maybe ,, but generally. some fischer had the will power of magnus, to win. kasparovs style used enormous work and thinking.

carlsen can play in a way that produces opponent problems and then just sits back and waits the opponent to make a mistake. one could try using that in a game of poker, and not play in a too predictable way. but what its all mostly about, is the subtle understanding that one more or less has. all these things are about the style. finding ones style isnt something one can find but something one prefers to do, one being the style, and it fits to one in every way. but it might bring some good to focus more on optimal or problems producing, mistake inducing way of playing. or then just play ones understanding.