3 ms·

While Karpov's opinion is debatable of course (although the man knows a thing or two about the subject), I frankly can't see how this analogy is applicable here

by V-2 4y ago

While Karpov's opinion is debatable of course (although the man knows a thing or two about the subject), I frankly can't see how this analogy is applicable here? If anything, Carlsen's WC matches fell definitely on the short side (which is one of the reasons why 2 of them were only decided on rapid tiebreaks, which is kind of ridiculous in and of itself; not saying it's Carlsen's "fault", but still). And all but the last one - where Nepo self-destructed anyway - were 12 games long. Back in the dya of Kasparov vs. Karpov a WC match was at least 24 games long - so for example Carlsen's both wins against Anand in 2013 and then 2014 combined were only as long as a single match before his era. And the (in)famous aborted match of 1984-85 lasted for 48 games. The struggle used to be much greater. How does the analogy with Jordan fit here exactly?

why-el 4y ago
Both Jordan and Carlsen won championships. Many of Jordan's games were very tight, down to the last second. I can find another player who won more handsomely, that does not negate Jordan's achievements. That's the analogy.
- V-2 4y ago
  As I'm not a basketball fan, I can't really comment on how Michael Jordan compares against other greats of the sport in terms of level of dominance, longevity, sportsmanship etc. This being said, I don't think anyone NEGATES Carlsen's achievements though. Certainly noone in the thread. So this looks like a textbook strawman to me
  - why-el 4y ago
    You used the word "GOAT", I gave you an example of another GOAT, showing that your argument that Carlsen is "not one of the goats" does not hold water because "he did not beat people convincingly" (itself quite a bizarre statement, the objective is to win, and Michael Jordan is one of GOATs because he won so many championships, and Karpov's argument can be made against him to, if you know the games played). This is not a straw-man, I don't think we have the same definition of that. Besides that one quote from Karpov, you cannot find anyone else making that point, so you used one quote for a a pretty substantial statement. If it was an opinion held by many, I might entertain it a bit, but it's just very wrong.

by V-2 4y ago

why-el 4y ago

Both Jordan and Carlsen won championships. Many of Jordan's games were very tight, down to the last second. I can find another player who won more handsomely, that does not negate Jordan's achievements. That's the analogy.

V-2 4y ago
As I'm not a basketball fan, I can't really comment on how Michael Jordan compares against other greats of the sport in terms of level of dominance, longevity, sportsmanship etc. This being said, I don't think anyone NEGATES Carlsen's achievements though. Certainly noone in the thread. So this looks like a textbook strawman to me
- why-el 4y ago
  You used the word "GOAT", I gave you an example of another GOAT, showing that your argument that Carlsen is "not one of the goats" does not hold water because "he did not beat people convincingly" (itself quite a bizarre statement, the objective is to win, and Michael Jordan is one of GOATs because he won so many championships, and Karpov's argument can be made against him to, if you know the games played). This is not a straw-man, I don't think we have the same definition of that. Besides that one quote from Karpov, you cannot find anyone else making that point, so you used one quote for a a pretty substantial statement. If it was an opinion held by many, I might entertain it a bit, but it's just very wrong.