The curse of being born in Smartphones’ generation :3

It's like being a contender in the Jordan age, but this is arguably worse because of Carlson's longevity.

or maybe he's just very good?

Are you referring to the odd individual game? Magnus beat Lazavik pretty badly in the SCC and knocked Sindarov out of the Freestyle final.

I don't think it's merely mental albeit it seems like even nervous Carlsen is cooler than his very focused opponents (see game 3 vs Fabiano where caruana had a completely winning position after carlsens blunder).

Carlsen has spent the core of his career mastering two aspects historically underlooked aspects of the game.

The first is the endgame, and there isn't much to say there. He's by far the best end game player by far and it's not even close.

The second are drawish locked positions where most GMs can't but see a draw. Carlsen realized that in order for it to be a draw his opponents still have to play perfect and he focused a lot on accumulating small but convincing advantages in those kind of games.

Another thing that should not be overlook: mental strength, like you point out.

> Magnus' time will come! But not today.

Hasn't Magnus' time already come, and isn't it still Magnus' time? He is #1 on all three lists[1] and so long that I have forgotten when he was not.

[1]: https://2700chess.com/

Same exact thing happened in tennis. There was a whole "lost generation" of amazingly talented players who just basically shat the bed whenever they stepped onto the court with Djokovic, Federer, or Nadal. It wasn't until much younger players like Alcaraz and Sinner came on the scene, who weren't quite as overpowered by the aura of the Big 3, that the playing field finally leveled. (And now they themeselves are turning into those guys for everyone else, haha.)

Chess ability seems distributed in a power law, rather than any sort of a normal distribution. There are repeatedly, throughout history, players that are just much better than everybody else, including the 2nd best player in the world. Lasker, for instance, was world champion for 26 consecutive years while also regularly dominating tournaments during that period as well. Kasparov was #1 for 21 years, and so on.

I'd go further to say I think this is true in many things. For instance if you're into wrestling, you know the name of Alexander Karelin [1] who ended his career with a record of 887 wins and 2 losses (both losses by a single point and both highly controversial). He was winning olympic gold, repeatedly, not only without a single defeat but without his opponents even scoring a single point against him. His ears tell the story - 889 world class matches, and he doesn't even have cauliflower ear.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Karelin

We often think of chess as something you "learn" how to do. But players like Magnus are evidence that there's really some neurological "muscle" for chess which some people just have naturally more of than others. The way in which Magnus has just so obviously been so much better than every other player in the world for over 15 years now, to the point of becoming bored and refusing to continue competing in the classical World Championships, speaks volumes.

Magnus it often feels like opponents aren't just playing the position, they're playing the idea of Magnus

I’d love to see a classical (or rapid/blitz) tournament where the players don’t know who they’re playing.

Separate rooms, arbiters make the moves for the opponent.

I think we’d see some interesting results.

This is great, thank you for sharing.

When I clicked one of the game, the initial position is wrong. I clicked another game and it was wrong as well. Am i wrong?

What are the rules of castling in chess, and why is there castling in chess 960!?

I somewhat remeber reading that this format is about playing against book opening, and I thought there is no castling.

Magnus does a castling from king d1 rook h1 which I didn't even know its an allowed move! https://lichess.org/broadcast/fide-freestyle-chess-world-cha...

Candidates prep and also the entire Freestyle chess experiment has been a bit of a mess. Here's what he told chess.com[0]:

A few months ago I was invited to the first leg of the 2026 Freestyle Tour with the same format and prize fund. I let everyone know that I'd be playing there.

Just a few days ago I received news that there will be no year-long tour for Freestyle. The format for the only event to be held will be only three days and only rapid formats. Instead of the tour that was planned, Freestyle has joined forces with FIDE and are now calling it a World Championship. I think it might hold the record for most rushed arrangement for a World Championship title in history.

I truly enjoyed the first event in Weissenhaus in 2025, and it's a shame that the classical length format wasn't continued. Furthermore, this all feels like a hastily arranged tournament with less than 1/3rd the prize fund it originally had, and now it's attached to FIDE, which isn't a positive development in my opinion.

Despite many phone calls and messages from the organizer, I have decided to decline my slot in this event. I have an important tournament in the end of March/April to focus on, and that is where my attention will be.

[0] https://www.chess.com/news/view/freestyle-chess-fide-world-c...

It's a very short, 3 day event: You have Fabi sitting right there in second place, and I don't think anyone is more focused on the candidates than he is.

Hikaru is getting older too, and it shows: I don't think he has a freestyle edge at all.

Hikaru is either in a slump or his skill is starting to age: hasn't won Titled Tuesday since November, hasn't won Freestyle Friday this year, came last in Speed Chess Championship, etc.

We'll see how well he does in Candidates this year to see if he's still a top contender. Although I do believe this is his last chance to fight for the world title.

I think it's because he has a young child too. But I don't think there's an edge.

> Hikaru Nakamura, the 2022 Fischer Random World Champion, declined his invitation to the event, citing the changes in the format, rushed arrangement, reduced prize fund, and his focus on the upcoming Candidates Tournament 2026. He said he had been invited to the first leg of the 2026 Freestyle Tour, with the same format and prize fund as the 2025 tour; however, a few days before the announcement of the world championship, he was informed there would be no year-long tour. Instead, only a three-day event with rapid time controls would be held, and it would be called a World Championship. He called it a "hastily arranged tournament with less than 1/3rd the prize fund it originally had", and lamented that the classical length format from the first event in 2025 wasn't continued.

I'd expect them to have a larger edge in chess960 because humans can't prep openings like in regular chess.

That's hard to answer because the advantage is essentially infinitely large. Engines never lose or draw against unassisted humans. Any modern chess engine, if it plays 100 games against any human (even magnus), will have a record of 100 wins, 0 draws, and 0 losses. This is true both in standard chess and Chess960.

    * 100 games, to have some statistical relevance.
    * One move per day, so that being tired is no disadvantage (engine can ponder all day).
    * Human has access to endgame tablebases and opening databases, like the engine.
    * Human can make notes and has a software like Chess Position Trainer, which can min max, like the engine.

Engines have a significantly bigger edge in frc. Humans generally know enough about openings to minimize mistakes for the first 10 or so moves (such that computers playing humans generally are trained to make a couple highly dubious moves to get far away from theory in the opening). engines on the other hand don't go based on theory and are just as capable in 960 as they are in regular chess.

Kasparov remained the n.1 player until his retirement at 42, we can likely expect no less from Magnus

Is there really a decline with age when it comes to chess? I’m not sure he will really decline until he reaches his retirement age.

> Is it impressive to be winning at 35?

No. Multiple world champions have been older than that.

Context helps. A lot of really strong players are 12 years old.

Anand reached world #1 ranking at 38, managed to win a world championship and defend the title for a decade in his late 40s, and remains in #13 in his 50s right now.

Magnus is in uncharted territory here. We won't really know the answer to this question for quite some time.

You... should watch him stream. That'll pretty much answer your questions. Age is far less relevant to chess compared to keeping up with the current "meta" (in gamer parlance).

Magnus' longevity has more to do with his willingness to continue competing than his actual skill. He's been pretty vocal about his issues with FIDE so I can see a world where he stops participating in FIDE events to focus on non-FIDE events that he enjoys more. He's already withdrawn from the Candidates which qualifies you for the World Championship.

> the stress of training and competing at that level must get old after a while.

The stress of elite competition clearly has a shelf life, but Magnus is not overly old. Cognitive performance typically hits a plateau at 35 years old and begins a sustained decline after 45 years old.

The current youth wave of GMs is likely a function of compressed training efficiency. Modern players reach the 10,000 hours threshold much earlier because they had greater access to better training material and had better practice.

Like Lasker, Carlsen will still play with 60+.

On average players start declining in their mid to late thirties, just about the age of Magnus (and Hikaru). But even with that decline, it's not like they simply can't play anymore. Drag Kasparov out of retirement and he's still going to be an extremely strong player, even in his 60s.

And a lot probably comes with environmental rather than physical issues. Staying at the highest level in chess requires never-ending opening preparation and study. This same is about the time that kings of the game have made their dominance clear to the point that there's just nothing more to achieve, start having families, and so on. It's going to be very difficult to maintain motivation.

The rise of freestyle chess could viably see players extending their dominance for much longer, because there's currently believed to be no realistic way to do impactful opening prep in that game.

George Sheldrick wrote an important program at the age of 75. He chose not to follow a chess career as a young man, but he could have.

The most devastating fact of life is that physical (and mental) performance drops off at around mid 30s. Hakuho, by far the greatest sumo wrestler in history, retired at 38 when he should have retired years earlier.

I think the question is different for the typical chess player compared to those at the very top. And at the very top we don't have that much data... going back to Fischer, he had a short career and disappeared by 32, but not really for lack of ability. For Karpov, his reign lasted about 10 years from age 24-34, but even after that he was in the top 3 or top 5 for another 15 years until he retired in his 50s. Kasparov reigned for 20 years, retiring at the top at age 41, and is maybe most impressive for defeating his same-generation rival Karpov while also holding the newcomers of Kramnik and Anand at bay. With Kasparov gone those two battled at the top for another 10ish years into their late 30s and mid-40s respectively (and I'd give the edge to the older Anand) before Magnus won the championship in 2013 and has been dominating for 13 years since. So to summarize, I don't think it's that "impressive" to still be winning at 35, he can probably keep winning for quite some time to come. He probably won't surpass his peak ELO though.

I wouldn't be surprised if Carlsen remains competitive for another decade, especially in formats that rely more on intuition and less on memorizing massive opening prep

He relinquished the world champion title because he thought defending it was boring (and not paying well). So one can say he is already past his peak. Chess is a mental game after all. But it will take many years before his rating drops noticeably though.

Most players actually peak in strength around age 35 [1].

But Carlsen has been number one for more time than any player for him, safe Kasparov [2]:

- Kasparov 255 months at number 1

- Carlsen 188

- Karpov 102

- Fischer 54

Bonus nuance: Carlsen has the longest unbroken run of 174 consecutive rating lists

[1]: https://en.chessbase.com/post/the-age-related-decline-in-che...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FIDE_chess_world_numbe...

Magnus peak rating was on 2014.

But he lost motivation afterwards, so that was not necessarily his peak, maybe he just yoloed a little after that. In his own words he's way past his peak. In recent interview he said his bullet no increment (most taxing on reflex/fast calculation) peak was around 7 years ago. I would assume his prime physical form came after his rating peak, because classical chess rewards deep study and consistency, and he admits all motivation was gone once there were basically no challengers and he distanced himself too much of the pack after Caruana also peaked hard.

But regardless, safe to assume his peak was 10-7 years ago. Still good enough to surpass current gen easily.

Originally Freestyle Chess referred to something else entirely, namely “anything goes” online chess: https://en.chessbase.com/post/scintillating-che-in-the-pal-c...

You were allowed to use engines, opening books and tablebases. You were allowed to play in teams (GMs were part of some). You were even allowed to bribe your opponents into losing! But it died out fairly quickly and now the name has been reused to mean Chess960.

I wouldn't say it's "boring" (hence the downvotes, I imagine) - but this does seem like an interesting idea, to let the players choose their positions. Does such a style exist?

I think that pretty much ruins the whole point of Fischer Random. The point is to not be able to open prep at all, and have to deal with a wide variety of opening possibilities. Too many to reasonable predict and prepare for past the first few moves.

With being able to place your own pieces, you can much easily dictate your opening beforehand. And I have little to no doubt top players would converge towards certain optimal placements. And then you'd be back to playing the same positions over and over, just like standard chess. Which is what Fischer Random attempts to stray from.

Also, on a more subjective note, quite the crazy opinion to call this format "boring". I haven't looked at these games yet, but the 2022 World Championship had some absolute crazy games. With crazy openings and positions that you just never get in standard chess.

Thanks for the direct link.

That game they're in at 5:00:00 was great.

The title has always been about winning a specific match under specific conditions, not necessarily about who's 1 on rating at that exact moment

I dunno, I think this says more about FIDE and the championship title than the state of the game.

Online chess is huge, streaming is huge. You do have these big personalities in the game, and an often unfortunate amount of drama.

People wrote chess off after Deep Blue, but the game is really going from strength to strength right now. It's just that classical isn't the focus.

I think the household names are perfectly able to start their own league and deprecate FIDE. Maybe they are already? This is a situation where the org needs the players more than the players need the org.

I think it was F1 auto racing that recently (10 or so) years ago went through a revolution that changed the rules (for fans, in that case) that dramatically increased the viewership of the sport, mainly because the previous owner was so out of touch with the times.

Freestyle is great! My main OTB buddy and I have largely switched and it's completely changed our games. Much more fun!

There are currently no active women players ranked within the top 100 overall.

There are no men prizes/tournament. But there are women tournaments and prizes.

Like a lot of men dominated spaces, even when we know ability is not a definying factor, culture is.

Many male domianted spaces are pretty antagonistic to women, making separate prize pools, tournaments and events allows for women to play in spaces where they are the mayority. Normalise their participation and open the door to better performance on the mixed queue.

you know why.

To encourage female participation and representation. Most people think it would be good for chess long-term to have a larger female player base.

it's not "mens" prize btw, usually the tournaments are "women" and "open"

There are "Open" (anyone can enter) and "Women" (only women can enter) events.

If you did not have the "Women" category, then you would see only men play in these events as there are no active women in the top 100.

Anything using your brain is good for it. "Too late" for what exactly?

Any hobby where you learn stuff is beneficial for the brain at any age. The trick is that you have to enjoy it enough to keep doing it.

(chess, music, languages, programming, etc)

(edit - also physical hobbies benefit the brain in the same way: lifting, skating, karate, whatever)

It's never too late to improve your brain although there can be this false thinking that the brain needs "intellectual" hobbies to be healthy.

Yo give the most benefit, you should mix in hobbies like chess with things that stimulate your whole body and cause your brain to coordinate multiple systems at once. Something like dance is highly beneficial because you're not only listening to music, you're coordinating your movements, balance, emotions. If it's a social dance even better. You're coordinating your social skills as well.

I don't practice what I preach but I think social dance is the number one way to keep your brain healthy as well as your body if you're trying to be efficient.

My understanding is that different types of exercises for your brain (chess, learning an instrument, etc) won't help prevent a decline, but that it might give you some tools to deal with it.

I'm a firm believer that taking on something new every decade or so of life is an entirely good thing. I've watched so many people stop living in their 30s, 40s, and 50s. My heroes are people who keep doing what they love into their 80s and 90s, and keep finding new challenges along the way.

It’s really hard to get known positions in most of the 960 openings. I think there are general themes for development for the format as well as some positions where you can get instantly mated, and there’s a lot of energy to avoiding that.

I will inject my own opinion: it’s exhausting to watch this format at a high level. You need to be working as hard as the players to understand their plans and it’s not cozy vs standard chess