[sourcepluck]

> He's effectively mastered classical chess

Have you heard of Stockfish? Makes Magnus look like a child. Stockfish and the other engines arguably keep getting better too, and in the engine tournaments like TCEC they continue to discover crazy new lines. E.g.

https://inv.nadeko.net/watch?v=4HQZSMZz_MY

That's Stockfish playing black in the Ruy Lopez, and the game is effectively over after 18 moves, against an engine rated 3692. Magnus' highest rating was 2882. Ratings aren't really sensibly comparable like that between humans and engines, but I'm trying to put it in a way that chess bros will understand.

The point being - neither Magnus nor the top engines who are leagues above him have "mastered classical chess". So your comment is very ignorant of the realities of chess.

Magnus is incredible, and dominated human chess, and I have immensely enjoyed following his games, for the record. Human chess and engine chess are both wonderful in their own ways.

[sevg]

What a strange reply. You're getting downvoted because winning the WCC 10 times in a row means by any reasonable definition that Magnus has indeed "effectively mastered classical chess".

If for argument's sake we entertain the point you were making, there'd still be no motivation for Magnus to continue in the WCC because it'd still be against humans and not engines.

[sourcepluck]

Commenting about voting is considered poor form in the rules here, so if you could refrain from spouting your opinions as if they were verified facts, that'd be lovely, cheers.

Carlsen won the WCC 5 times. Where you get 10 from, I don't know. Perhaps your opinion on these matters is just another ill-informed hot take, but we'll never know for sure.

No, that is a totally nonsensical definition for anyone who's serious about games. I presume Carlsen would agree, to be honest, as someone who takes games seriously.

Dominating human chess =/= "mastering" chess. Mastering implies "completing", "finishing", "solving". Sure, he's arguably the greatest human chess "master" who ever lived, and I love his games (as I said), but the man isn't infallible, and in fact is roughly as far from Stockfish as I am from him.

Which is nuts, how good Stockfish is, when Carlsen is so good. But he's not undefeatable - the top players have beaten him (on occasion). Even the mighty Stockfish suffers the occasional defeat from lc0!

So this sort of youtube-chess-bro level of discussion is garbage, and I frankly couldn't care less what sorts of "votes" come in. The fact you bring that up says more about you than me, dear netizen.

[NickC25]

>Where you get 10 from, I don't know

5 times, yes. 10 from is the fact that he held the title of "undisputed world champion" for a decade.

[sevg]

I think perhaps you need to take a break from your screen :)

You complained that I'm presenting my opinions as facts, and then you proceed to do exactly the same with your opinions ;) We're just having a discussion! Chill :)

OK, I meant 5 in a row, but I stand by my point. Your tone suggests I'm wasting my breath though, but that's fine.

"ill-informed hot take", "this sort of youtube-chess-bro level of discussion is garbage", questioning whether I'm "serious about games". Whatever your opinion is about "poor form", I imagine attacking someone's character or intelligence would also fit into that category :)