"When I am feeling good, I train a lot. When I feel bad, I don’t bother. I don’t enjoy working to a timetable. Systematic learning would kill me."
I really like this approach. I find learning how to write software works the same way for me. I tried learning using a schedule, but it never worked for me. It is nice to know there is a chess grandmaster that has the same approach.
"feeling good" seems a bit generic here. I doubt he means the same thing as inspiration. The competitive nature of chess and the fact that it is a "game", is usually enough to motivate someone to work harder after winning a few games (ie warcraft). Where as in writing and writing software there are more mental blocks and success and gratifications are generally slower, and also harder to get back on track if you start "feeling bad". So I think discipline is more important in activities that takes longer to feel gratified.
I'd think what Magnus says he does is more of the exception rather than the norm. Most chess grandmasters, like successful writers, are extremely disciplined, so I believe following a schedule definitely helps. I wouldn't be surprised if in a few years, Magnus wouldn't rather prefer a timetable. Just my two cents.
I would guess that his "secret" is that he loves the game of chess. I like both chess and Go but realized my limitations (I did poorly in the US Chess Open in 1976, and I never broke the Shodan level in Go) a long time ago; I still play both games, but I prefer to study "famous" games since I am just good enough to appreciate other people's great games.
There are a few misconceptions about Carlsen in your comment.
The most obvious is that he is not the World Chess Champion, but world #1 - the difference being that you have to defeat the previous champion in an extended match in order to claim the title.
Second, both Carlsen and Kasparov think that Carlsen is stronger and weaker than Kasparov in certain areas. What they have mentioned to the public before is that Carlsen has a better intuitive sense of a position, while Kasparov has greater facilities of calculation. What they both agree on, it seems, is that Carlsen, in large part due to the aid of computers, has reached such a high level of ascendancy in chess at a significantly younger age than Kasparov was able.
Finally, as he plainly states in the article, Carlsen is trying not to be crazy, by living as normal a life as he can and not becoming obsessed with the game to an unhealthy degree.
Aside in relation to a response to your post, since I don't feel like posting twice: It is insanely difficult, if not impossible, to say that Carlsen would beat Kasparov - especially now that Carlsen has been using Kasparov's advise on openings against other opponents, we observers cannot tell what recent innovations have, in fact, been his original work and not that of Kasparov. Another point to consider is that, even with the amount of rating inflation there has been over the past several years, Carlsen's 2813 rating does not come close to Kasparov's maximum of 2851. Finally, Kasparov was uncontested at the top for nearly two decades, whereas Carlsen is still having troubles overcoming some other top grandmasters (specifically Kramnik of late). Unilaterally saying that Carlsen would be Kasparov in a match is, realistically, a rather uninformed opinion.
But there are many more misconceptions in your comment.
First, Kasparov became world #1 when he was 20 and then world champ when he was 22. Second, there has been ratings deflation among the top players over the past few years. When Kasparov hit his peak rating there were several others over 2800. Third, Kasparov was not uncontested. All of his victories over Karpov were by extremely narrow margins, as was his victory over Anand. He then LOST the title to Kramnik in 2000.
First, there is an intrinsic problem with just using a person's age in years when talking about chess is that, with individuals reaching such heights at younger and younger ages, 20 going on 21 and just turned 19 becomes a huge difference in age. For instance, look at how the list of youngest grandmasters is now tabulated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_grandmasters#R...). Carlsen reached the world #1 something like 18 months before Kasparov - this is a large difference on these scales.
Second, rating inflation is a continuing trend. According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methods_for_comparing_top_chess...), "the average of the top 100 active player rose from 2644 in July 2000 to 2689 in January 2010, a 45 point increase." As such, we can presume that Carlsen's rating is also about 45 points inflated, and thus closer to a 2770 compared to Kasparov's 2853 - an enormous difference at that level of play. Moreover, there have never been several others over 2800. In fact, only 5 have ever surpassed that mark, and Kasparov was the first - followed by Kramnik about the time he beat Kasparov for the championship, followed by Anand, Topalov, and Carlsen. It is a highly elite club that few, even with inflation, will ever join.
Finally, of course the contests were close - that is the nature of chess. The position begins drawn, and only through tiny blunders on the part of one player does the position become unbalanced to the point of being won for one player or the other. I suppose what I mean, to be more precise, is that it is often the opinion of those within the chess community that Kasparov was, equivocally, the best chess player during the two decades beginning with his ascension to the Championship until his retirement from the game.
You are right that Carlsen would probably win, but not because he is "better". I remember Kasparov himself commented on this issue recently, saying something like since he doesn't already plays competitive chess, his intuition is not that sharp, while Carlsen is more in shape.
Overall, I consider Kasparov to be the best chess player ever, while Carlsen has a potential to be at least as good as Kasparov was in his best years. Overall, I am happy that those two came together.
Kasparov isn't all that far removed, time-wise, from when he was playing 2800+ chess. If he got back into training himself for competitive chess again, I am quite sure that he'd be a formidable player...but for how long, I am not sure.
I wouldn't automatically come to that conclusion. Based on the article, he admits that Kasparov is better at opening and better at calculating alternatives. Two very important aspects of the game.
I really like this approach. I find learning how to write software works the same way for me. I tried learning using a schedule, but it never worked for me. It is nice to know there is a chess grandmaster that has the same approach.