Top athletes have a history of having mental breakdowns as they realize they've aged and no longer can dominate as they once had. Famously, Mike Tyson bit Evander Holyfield's ear off during a match, but there are other examples like Serena Williams' berating of the umpire during her loss to Naomi Osaka. It's always a bit sad / pathetic to see adults lose their cool when losing to a child.
What a ridiculously ignorant take. Magnus is far and away still the greatest chess player in the world. The gap between him and everyone else has narrowed, but its still a significant cap. Compared to Hans, they're not even in the same universe in terms of chess talent.
The issue isn't his belief. It's that he's throwing a tantrum and has ruined two Chess tournaments (so far). He's free to believe whatever he likes, but to resign in a match in a tournament is not fair to all the other players.
The top 8 players in the tournament get invited to the next tournament. Hans Niemann got a free point from the game Carlsen resigned. That impacts the standings for all the other players. It’s hard to see how they’re not impacted.
In addition to that one, very concrete impact, the situation may also have subtle effects. Players may be going into matches against Hans being down a point when they would have been tied, changing the psychology of their play style. Similarly, Hans may play more confidently being up a point. Even spending a single second thinking about the situation is an unnecessary impact forced on the other players by Magnus. Pretty unsportsmanlike.
The only thing is, I don't think Magnus is losing to anyone else at a disproportionate rate. The only pattern I saw identified is Hans winning at a disproportionate rate when the match was streamed live. Or am I wrong?
Hans beat Magnus once at the Sinquefield Cup, and technically here though it was Magnus resigning. Meanwhile at the Crypto Cup which was the last time they played before this Hans got trounced by Magnus. Keep in mind based on their ratings Hans had a 5% chance of beating Magnus while playing black, unlikely but not a particularly shocking upset.
> Fully deserved, after a performance that showed great resilience, determination, and quality. As for me, I am happy to (barely) be younger than the second and third place finishers combined
GP is wrong because Magnus won this tournament – but he did lose to Pragg three times along the way. But I don't think you can say you are "losing well" when you congratulate the silver medalist while holding gold.
You're wrong because, what flex? Pragg is 17 and Alireza Firouzja (the third place finisher) is 19. His comment reads more as a hat tip to two young rising stars than anything else.
What ruins tournaments is inviting a guy who plays at 2900 level with little security measures and barely at GM level once those are introduced (happened at Sinquefield cup). It doesn't help has cheated in the past and plays his best chess consistently when there is live broadcast going on.
Magnus isn't yet feeling his age chess wise either. He wins most tournaments he enters, including demolishing 4-0 a guy who won the Candidates twice in a row (the most important tournament in chess for every player who isn't currently a world champion) and he is league above others rating wise.
being the top chess grandmaster is no guarantee of sanity.
to take the most famous 3, Fischer, Kasparov and Carlsen:
- Fischer was always a bit of a paranoid arsehole, but he went completely off the rails after he retired. I won't go into specifics, but it's a quite interesting read
- Kasparov has never seemed the world's most sane man, but then he's from a radically different culture
- Carlsen is as far as I know quite sane, but from watching his streams I never really got the impression that he was particularly level-headed, or even just a pleasant person. take for example this whole debacle; even if he is right, which he may well be, he hasn't been exactly mature or sportsmanlike in dealing with it
if you have the singularity of mind to get to such a high level in anything - especially a solo sport like chess - I would speculate that there's a high chance of other things being missing. even if there isn't, the environment of fame and power once you get there seems pretty harsh on the mind
Fischer was a reasonable, intelligent person. His manners got a lot milder once he got old.
Kasparov is probably the most mature of them all. He got into politics in the worst possible country and somehow survived, which tells me that he knows how to negotiate with people who are hostile towards him and he still beats super GMs to this day.
Magnus likes to joke around claiming that he is the best, but overall he is/was the nice kid of chess, always kind and respectful towards everyone. And even humble and level headed when he loses. This whole cheating scandal revealed a face of him that the world had never seen before.
Fischer was a raving paranoid anti-semite who couldn't maintain a human relationship of any variety for practically his entire life. intelligent, yes. reasonable, no.
Kasparov I don't know too much about, but I know he's taken some very odd stances and positions over the years, and as far as I know concluded that he wasn't cut out for politics because he (in more or less words) lacked the social skills
Magnus is actually the best, so is it really a joke if he says it? but that's not really what I'm talking about. I've watched his streams, and it's always seemed like just below the surface is a cocky, dismissive guy that doesn't suffer fools gladly
> it's always seemed like just below the surface is a cocky, dismissive guy that doesn't suffer fools gladly
If this is how he feels and he suppresses it 'just below the surface', isn't that good enough? If he naturally feels that way but tries not to act on it, and to top it off, actually is the best, is dismissing things that deserve to be dismissed, and is dealing with fools, then I would say that is an admirable trait.
I am not here to decide whether Magnus is a good or admirable person or not. I am simply attempting to observe the mental states of the people at the top level of chess. I would say Magnus is not out of the ordinary for what he is, which is a top-level sportsman, but compared to a regular person, he's probably a little odd. as is Kasparov and as was Fischer especially.
however, with these three being the most famous, perhaps they are a skewed sample. on the other hand, that skewedness is part of the data because, by being famous, the mental impact on them is and was probably larger.
My point was more that it is not odd at all to be that way if you actually right about it (are the best, etc). Plus the fact that he is trying to suppress it shows that he knows it is the right thing to not be a dick. These things combined make your asserting that he somehow out-of-bounds statistically (personality wise) invalid, in my view.
as the top chess player, you're allowed to say and do and be things that others aren't. your defence of him is evidence of this. your judgment is rarely questioned. you're allowed to think of yourself as the best. people don't mind - even expect - a level of aloofness. however, his behaviour is different from the average person's. whether that is correct or not isn't the point. whether there is justification for that is not the point. justifications in fact make the point further.
also, it's not just his streams, he's also dealt with this whole cheating mess pretty immaturely, and I'm sure I could easily pull 3 other examples of odd behaviour out of google
You argument is tautological 'they cannot act average because they are exceptional'. You cannot separate one from the other -- either put an 'average' person in their position and judge how they react to it (in which case Magnus would be a good example), or say that people who are seen as exceptional could never have been 'average'.
It seems to me you are arguing for the latter, which makes your whole argument pointless. Am I mistaken?
EDIT -- To clarify: your argument is tautological because any example that is brought up will be someone who has become famous and idolized, and thus negated by your 'a normal person wouldn't act like that' retort. It is impossible to hold up a non-famous chess genius because we can't know who they are.
Failing to come up with any statement while making awkward allegations in this manner is hardly cool, I think. Especially in the position Magnus is in.
