Chess theory has a new Renaissance due to neutral networks and we will see newer GM's adapting to it.
Chess theory has a new Renaissance due to neutral networks and we will see newer GM's adapting to it.
He narrowly lost an online banter blitz match. This is not blitz, since also you have to talk while playing, which does not seem to suit Carlsen's personality.
In classical, you can often "almost lose", except that Carlsen does not "actually lose", as exemplified by his ongoing record non-loss streak.
Are you forgetting about Hikaru Nakamura?
He can't be 50-100 points higher than himself. Hikaru is #1.
I stopped watching those as almost every tournament ends in armagedon. Its a statement of the incredible skills top players poses, but its incredibly boring to watch draw after draw.
Quicker time controls are more dynamic and allow to play subpar move to throw off your opponent. Often you can see some crazy attacks.
Right now he's spending a lot of time promoting chess24 with banter blitz, hanging around on lichess playing 100 games bullet matches, commenting on chess24 and other things that would profoundly ruin anyone else's concentration.
So, no big deal if he very occasionally loses (online!) games.
It reminds me of the tennis player John McEnroe, win or lose we remember him for his outbursts, he made a lot of advertising money because of that.
In short, Carlsen was probably beaten, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility that he was just winning at a different game (exposure or money).
Current crop of GMs benefited greatly from short feedback loops by using computers, but they still operate in explored problem space.