
Magnus Carlsen – “I am chaotic and lazy” (2010) - radovanb
http://en.chessbase.com/post/magnus-carlsen-on-his-che-career
======
eddotman
The brevity and bluntness in his responses is pretty amusing. I'm surprised he
so candidly rates his own abilities and the abilities of his peers - I feel
like many people would dodge those questions in public interviews.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
> _I 'm surprised he so candidly rates his own abilities and the abilities of
> his peers_ //

In chess though you have a ranking, you have past games to compare. It would
be silly for him to say "oh, I'm not that good" as there's a measured value
which [possibly incorrectly] says he's the world number one. Similarly he
spends a lot of his time assessing his opponents, their games, their
characters.

I found it interesting that he said Kasparov can judge which opening a player
will play taking in to account their mood. It would be nice to test that claim
some how.

~~~
V-2
There's also rating inflation, though, which makes cross-era comparisons
flawed.

And besides, many players have their nemesis. Sheer numbers don't reflect
that.

Eg. Anand used to be one of the strongest players in the world, but
overshadowed, some say intimidated, by Kasparov before the latter retired.

Given Anand's rating, he performed quite poorly against Kasparov.

~~~
CSMastermind
Are you aware of any attempt to compare cross generationally based on game
trees? Find game positions that both players have faced and see who made the
better move?

~~~
V-2
Yes,

[http://en.chessbase.com/post/computers-choose-who-was-the-
st...](http://en.chessbase.com/post/computers-choose-who-was-the-strongest-
player-)

I remember there was a heated debate as for whether or not Crafty was a strong
enough engine for the task.

I don't have all the links at hand, but it shouldn't be difficult to find
various parts of this discussion.

[http://en.chessbase.com/post/using-che-engines-to-
estimate-h...](http://en.chessbase.com/post/using-che-engines-to-estimate-
human-skill)

Authors of the research argued that contrary to what common sense implies,
even if it Crafty _is_ weaker than some evaluated players could have been,
results are still legit.

Of course this approach doesn't give full justice to players - while some
might have strived for winning by perfect play, others could deliberately play
inferior moves just to create complications and provoke their opponents into
making mistakes _worse than their own_ , by getting them into time trouble,
making them uneasy etc. (eg. Tal was famous for that).

A game - oversimplifying a bit - is won by the player who made less mistakes
than the opponent, not by the one who made less mistakes on an absolute scale.
So both strategies are valid as far as sport is concerned.

------
kizer
I think there's a great analogy for why he cares so little about his
intelligence: do you think Michael Jordan sat around admiring his build, his
height, etc? In a competitive environment, it's best to accept that some of
your abilities are fixed, so you can focus on training what can be bettered.

~~~
gargantian
That's not a good analogy. For all I know after a day's training Jordan sat
around admiring his build and height.

I think reverse Dunning-Kruger is much more likely in Magnus's case.

~~~
mmanfrin
Actually I think what you're referencing is still Dunning-Kruger: "Conversely,
highly skilled individuals tend to underestimate their relative competence,
erroneously assuming that tasks which are easy for them are also easy for
others." (from wiki)

~~~
rithmoflife
More specifically, it's the Downing effect: "One of the main effects of
illusory superiority in IQ is the Downing effect. This describes the tendency
of people with a below average IQ to overestimate their IQ, and of people with
an above average IQ to underestimate their IQ." (also from wiki)

------
CurtMonash
I don't find his disclaimers about his intelligence persuasive. He's obviously
a pretty smart guy; at least, he was quite the smart kid.

That said, I had monumentally high IQ scores as a little kid, and they are
surely vastly lower in adulthood. So I'm not very eager to be retested either.
;)

~~~
V-2
Being smart is one thing, but does intelligence account for his chess
accomplishments?

The urban legend of Kasparov's IQ being in the 190 range is still purported,
but once he was actually examined (an initiative of "Der Spiegel" magazine) it
turned out his IQ was 135 or so.

This is highly intelligent, of course, but that's like 1 in 100 or 1 in 150,
so people with higher IQ are still dime a dozen.

Personally I'm of an opinion that IQ doesn't mean much - it's a "dexterous
fingers" thing. You surely need dexterous fingers to become an accomplished
neurosurgeon or a violinist, but this trait is pointless by itself, and 1 in a
1000 level of dexterity is good enough, so you don't gain anything by going
beyond that.

~~~
fenomas
> Personally I'm of an opinion that IQ doesn't mean much

Opinions certainly vary there! My first "real" programming job interview began
with an IQ test, and passing it was basically what got me an offer. The
company owner scored the test in front of me, and said "Not bad.. five points
above the minimum I'd consider hiring for a developer position."

~~~
BrianEatWorld
Did you find that work environment to have been positively affected by the
owner's strict standards for IQ?

I ask because I tend to agree with the OP. IQ tests assign points based on
specific types of questions, which I'd argue aren't valuable in all
circumstances. I think the point Magnus was making is that he doesn't think IQ
is directly relevant to Chess, despite any correlation between those with high
IQs and those who have been successful at the game.

I have worked with plenty of people with high IQs in academics and I can't
imagine trying to work with them in an office. If anything, the job to which
you are referring would have me worried due to such such strict adherence to
an objective score that can fluctuate over time. Isn't five points right
around the normal confidence interval for IQ tests?

~~~
fenomas
It's a great question, but I can't answer it because I declined the offer. ;)
My impression of the office was that it was being run like a fiefdom, and not
a fiefdom I wanted to join - the IQ test was one of several things that gave
me that idea. He seemed to have a lot of smart people in the office, but I
can't imagine who was talking to the customers. (And if it was anyone I met,
including the owner, then I can't imagine how they _kept_ any customers..)

------
tbrake
He briefly talks about Kasparov here as they were training together at the
time. They later broke up.

I wonder if some of the conflict they felt was was really Magnus's more
organic, natural approach clashing with Kasparov's more like systematic and
rigid type of training, which he no doubt inherited from Botvinnik. This isn't
to say Magnus doesn't work hard at his game but on a chess approach scale of,
say, Capablanca to Botvinnik, he would very much tilt towards the former.

edit: Actually he specifically talks about that; somehow I skipped it upon
first reading.

~~~
netvarun
This past two weeks, I have been reading Kasparov's "Life Imitates Chess" and
your comment certainly rings true. He spends a fair number of pages discussing
about Botvinnik's rigid and systematic training system and how that helped
instill a strong work ethic in him. There is also a section on Casablanca and
how his laziness cost him his crown to Alekhine, who was Botvinnik's
predecessor.

If history serves right, I am predicting Carlsen will lose the throne to
Caruana in 2016!

~~~
jc123
At this point in time, it is probably more for Carlsen to lose than to Caruana
winning. If Carlsen feels good, he will train a lot; hopefully it will be an
exciting match.

------
dont_be_mean
Sometimes you wonder.

 _I was not particularly interested; I was bad and soon stopped again._

 _I don’t know why I learnt all the countries of the world off by heart,
including their capitals and populations. Chess was probably just another
pastime._

 _I’m not a disciplined thinker. Organisation is not my thing; I am chaotic
and tend to be lazy. My trainer recognised that and as a rule allowed me to
practise whatever I felt like at the time._

 _When I was 13, my parents took me out of school for a year. They travelled
around the world with me and my sisters, and on the way they taught us. That
was fantastic, much more effective than sitting in school._

~~~
marvin
What are you saying? That defining one's identity by the intensity, quantity
and quality of the work that one does, might not the best way to live a life
and be really good at something?

;)

------
mhomde
I think there might be a correlation between being lazy and being creative.
I've seen this pattern in many other greats (and in my not so great self :)

Aaron Sorkin talks about procrastinating a lot between writing sessions. Lots
of painters and artists procrastinate as well.

I think its a matter of digestion, your mind is focused on a "task" and
churning in the background, but you don't actively work on it except when you
"feel like it". I saw some scientific article to this affect that the downtime
is actually very valuable for the brain to form creative thought.

~~~
smacktoward
There's a good quote from one of the German generals involved in the plot to
kill Hitler, Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_von_Hammerstein-
Equord](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_von_Hammerstein-Equord)), on that
subject:

 _I divide my officers into four groups. There are clever, diligent, stupid,
and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever
and diligent -- their place is the General Staff. The next lot are stupid and
lazy -- they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine
duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest
leadership duties, because he possesses the intellectual clarity and the
composure necessary for difficult decisions. One must beware of anyone who is
stupid and diligent -- he must not be entrusted with any responsibility
because he will always cause only mischief._

~~~
siglesias
How did this work out for him?

~~~
FatalLogic
He warned against the rise of Hitler, actively conspired against the Nazis at
great personal risk, and helped Jews avoid deportation or arrest. He died of
natural causes in 1943.

You could say that he tried to do the right thing.

------
sayemm
Interesting how he says that extremely high IQ may even be a disadvantage:

 _And that’s precisely what would be terrible. Of course it is important for a
chess player to be able to concentrate well, but being too intelligent can
also be a burden. It can get in your way. I am convinced that the reason the
Englishman John Nunn never became world champion is that he is too clever for
that. At the age of 15, Nunn started studying mathematics in Oxford; he was
the youngest student in the last 500 years, and at 23 he did a PhD in
algebraic topology. He has so incredibly much in his head. Simply too much.
His enormous powers of understanding and his constant thirst for knowledge
distracted him from chess... Right. I am a totally normal guy. My father is
considerably more intelligent than I am._

And that his big shtick is his focus, intuition, and domain expertise - not
his IQ:

 _No. In terms of our playing skills we are not that far apart. There are many
things I am better at than he is. And vice versa. Kasparov can calculate more
alternatives, whereas my intuition is better. I immediately know how to rate a
situation and what plan is necessary. I am clearly superior to him in that
respect._

~~~
mcv
I find it odd and funny that he considers a career in mathematics a
distraction. He later says there's more in life than chess, but in this quote
he doesn't seem to realize that.

I doubt I'd want to be world champion if it required giving up all those
"distractions".

~~~
philh
Sounds to me like he's speaking descriptively, not normatively. He doesn't say
that Nunn _shouldn 't_ have gone down the path that he did; just that Nunn
_could_ have been world champion, if that had been all he'd focused on.

------
lukeholder
My favourite quote: "I listen to music on the Internet, but don't download any
songs. It's all totally legal. Many people may find that boring, but I think
it is important."

~~~
nemo1618
I like how he cited "a silly rap song" by Lil Jon as an example of "gloomy
music."

------
jonny_eh
I'd love to see Carlsen play a modern game like Hearthstone or Magic. Even
just to hear his thoughts on them.

~~~
adamnemecek
I would guess that he'd feel like there is too much chance. The issue with a
game like Magic is that you can play perfectly and still lose. And I say this
as someone who loves the game.

EDIT: I read further and it seems like he enjoys poker. So I guess it's
possible that he'd enjoy MTG.

~~~
jonny_eh
I suspect you're right. But for people who can't dedicate all their time to a
game, the randomness in some games (like poker and MTG) can level the playing
field. It allows a lesser player to win from time to time, but good players
will win more often.

To me, this is more "fun". With chess, it's just brutal. Unless both players
are evenly matched, it's a steamrolling. No fun for either player. At the top
tiers though, I can see it being very interesting. But then again, I find
watching top players play Hearthstone to also be very interesting. Especially
when you consider the meta-strategizing of picking certain cards for their
decks.

~~~
benolds
Interesting coincidence - I bumped into a game design article earlier today
about balancing luck and skill in games.
[http://gamedevelopment.tutsplus.com/articles/when-i-win-
its-...](http://gamedevelopment.tutsplus.com/articles/when-i-win-its-skill-
when-you-win-its-luck--gamedev-322)

The article discusses how different players prefer different ratios of luck vs
skill, so making the most "fun" game in this regard really depends on who your
target audience is. Similar to your thoughts on randomness. :)

~~~
hellbanner
David Sirlin has a lot of great articles on designing competitive games:
[http://www.sirlin.net/article-archive/](http://www.sirlin.net/article-
archive/)

------
KhalilK
_When I am feeling good, I train a lot. When I feel bad, I don’t bother._

I can definitely relate to that when it comes to my studies, too bad it's not
yielding any good results.

------
wavesandwind
I'm currently reading a fascinating book on world-class performance, "The Art
of Learning" by Josh Waizkind, a chess and martial arts champion. It gives
some really great insights into the world-class players' psychology. Highly
recommended!

~~~
V-2
Yeah, Waitzkin is a good read. I've got this book, too.

I first heard about him when I got Chessmaster, which came with his video
tutorials. And these were the best I've ever seen, in terms of insightfulness
and pedagogical skills.

------
jc123
His quote was "tend to be lazy". When he feels good he trains a lot. No amount
of brilliant talent, that is lazy, is sufficient to be world champion in any
endeavor. There's too much competition from the others who want to be
champion.

------
amelius
I wonder what his 4 letter personality type is.

