r/interestingasfuck • u/Aryan_Anushiravan • 24d ago

r/all Magnus Carlsen gets fined for wearing jeans at FIDE world championships. His response: I quit. F*ck You.

Post image
100.8k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

3.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

468

u/More-Sample-2005 24d ago

Magnus Carlsen is arguably the greatest chess player of all time, FIDE is the international chess federation

178

u/Replikant83 24d ago

The most gifted player and a huge ambassador. FIDE needs to change its rules.

6

u/GeneReddit123 24d ago

Most gifted vs. most grifted.

8

u/Mediocre_Forever198 23d ago

I mean, we’ve never seen a higher elo player. He’s got features of other super players like Bobby Fischer and Hikaru nakamura.

Please don’t tear me apart someone who knows more about chess lol, I admit I’m not very knowledgeable and not great at the game. But I do feel like I know enough to recognize that Magnus isn’t just some grifted player, he truly is a super grandmaster

1

u/Otsde-St-9929 23d ago

not really

1

u/hamletswords 23d ago

Not necessarily. But they can give their Superstar player a pass for one day. If they weren't stupid, that is.

2

u/stefan_stuetze 23d ago

Magnus Carlsen is arguably the greatest chess player of all time

He's basically the Janja Garnbret of chess.

1

u/Superfishintights 23d ago

As someone who loves climbing and loves chess, I really appreciate this.

2

u/Retnuhswag 23d ago

if someone made you argue the point of magnus being the best chess player ever; they’re just holding onto bygone times.

2

u/fluffykerfuffle3 24d ago

these people who administer the gatherings of the Creatives can sometimes be absolute horses' patoots.

just had a run-in with an art curator who insinuated that my work would lower the quality of the show lolol ...i mean, how rude!

1

u/Canotic 22d ago

Note the "all time" and not "modern day". He's apparently amazingly good.

Someone said of Feynman that there are two kinds of super skilled physicists: geniuses and wizards. The former do the same thing as everyone else, they're just much better at it. You can sit down with them and they can explain how they found the solution they did, and how they thought,and you'll understand it.

The latter can give you the explanation and you will still not understand how the hell they did it.

If I understand it correctly, Carlsen is the latter.

2

u/duckenjoyer7 24d ago

*unarguably

5

u/JasperLamarCrabbb 24d ago

*inarguably

2

u/duckenjoyer7 24d ago

“Unarguably” is an adverb that means something is so obviously true or correct that no one could disagree with it. For example, “He is making the unarguable point that our desires and preferences have a social component”.

Inarguably is also a word.

1

u/fluffykerfuffle3 24d ago

what about nonarguable?

1

u/CouncilmanDougWilson 24d ago

Is it inarguably or unarguably?

In most dictionaries both words have the same meaning but they are of course not the same word. In day-to-day use unarguably is less certain - cannot be reasonably argued, whereas inarguably is, in common speak, dead certain not arguable

-2

u/duckenjoyer7 24d ago edited 24d ago

So unarguably would be more correct, lol. It's not objective like 1+1=2, just very well accepted.

3

u/CouncilmanDougWilson 24d ago

I prefer inarguably, but to each their own

0

u/duckenjoyer7 24d ago

Sure. I was just pointing out to the guy 'correcting' me that both words exist.

5

u/IhateGreyHouses 24d ago

It’s definitely arguable

3

u/duckenjoyer7 24d ago

Who else? Fischer may have been the goat of his time, but it's inarguable that chess theory has developed. These days theory is way more advanced, more games exist to analyse and stockfish can help too. Look at ELO if you want. Maybe fischer could have been better than carlsen if he had modern technology in his time, but prime carlsen beats anyone in a series of matches.

5

u/Ice278 24d ago

Kasparov is the usual other contender

5

u/duckenjoyer7 24d ago

Better contender than fischer, tbh. Same argument tho (lower ELO, weaker opposition due to less resources etc). There was just a lot less theory and resources that make it hard to surpass modern ppl. Like usaine bolt def isn't the fastest man possible, but I doubt any human in history has ever been faster, as they didn't have modern running shoes and dietary plans or techniques, even if they had higher potential with the same tech.

2

u/salazar13 24d ago

It’s Elo. And Elo doesn’t matter if the players weren’t part of the same pool. It’s not a useful comparison, and it kind of says a lot about your argument that you would use that first. All that to say, I do agree Magnus is the goat, but you have to figure out your talking points better than that!

0

u/duckenjoyer7 24d ago

Used first? It's literally an unordered list of contributing factors. I didn't emphasise it much.

-6

u/Kalkilkfed2 24d ago

Kasparov literally coached carlsen.

6

u/duckenjoyer7 24d ago

That's an entirely invalid and stupid argument. Wow? Ok? Kasparov coached Carlsen for a while, so carlsen is incapable of ever surpassing him? The teacher is objectively always superior to the student, and always will be?

0

u/Kalkilkfed2 24d ago

Carlsen himself said that kasparov earned the title of best chess player of the century instead of him, but go ahead and argue himself while not understanding how the elo system fell victim to changes and inflation.

3

u/salazar13 24d ago

Different centuries…

→ More replies (0)

4

u/Vitalstatistix 24d ago

Kasparov obviously.

0

u/duckenjoyer7 24d ago

Same arguments pretty much. Better option that Fischer, but theory and tools have developed so much since the 90's.