Body: <p>I recently found out about Caruana's performance in the Sinquefield Cup - 2014. I only started watching chess recently. I was convinced that Carlsen is head and shoulders over everyone else when I started watching two months back. Now I've realized anyone above 2750 is very dangerous. Recently I came to know about Caruana's performance in 2014 and I am wondering why he was not able to maintain that level of performance .</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-08-28T09:23:32.760Z
Comments.Text: It is possible for anyone to have a string of great games now and then, playing above one's normal strength in these. In Caruana's case, this simply means "to beat everybody, including Magnus", since he's already one of the best players in the world. But Caruana is not as good as Magnus yet, so maintaining a level of play where he consistently one-ups Magnus is not feasible at this stage. And that is exactly what is needed to keep up Caruana's 2014 performance from Sinquefield Cup.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Scounged
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-08-28T09:41:41.390Z
Comments.Text: @Scounged Is the difference in between the two players due to natural talent or hard work or something else ? Carlsen was very reluctant to praise Caruana when he was playing like that in that Sinquefield Cup.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Saikat
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-08-28T10:56:06.753Z
Comments.Text: @Scounged Another way to look at it is to see how strong players are when they hit their top form. Magnus clearly has the best average, as is shown by his higher rating, but Caruana's top is clearly higher than Magnus' as shown by this tournament rating performance.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Halvard
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-08-28T12:45:28.227Z
Comments.Text: @Halvard Exactly. This is what I wanted to say. Any other players who's best is better than Magnus' best ? Nakamura, MvL or Ding Liren perhaps ?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Saikat
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-08-28T15:14:27.727Z
Comments.Text: @Halvard The notion that Caruana's top is higher than Magnus' top based on one tournament is ludicrous. It is like saying that Karpov's best was better than Kasparov's best simply because of Linares 1994. Remember, that in 2009 Carlsen had a 3002 performance in Nanjing when he was 18 years old. Caruana was 22 in 2014 and had a 3100-ish performance. But his opponents were higher rated. Is this due to rating inflation or better players in St. Louis in 2014? There are so many factors here in play, that it is ridiculous to make the claim that you seem to have made.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Scounged
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-08-28T16:29:06.817Z
Comments.Text: @Scounged It all depends on how you define a top.  Highest peak rating, best tournament performance, longest streak of victories, best quality of play compared to Komodo?  To me, all of these could very well be used to define what a top is.  Since tournaments are what they mostly play, the highest tournament rating performance ever by a huge margin could certainly be considered a top.  Definitely not ridiculous.  How would you define a top/peak, by the way?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Halvard
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-08-28T16:37:13.770Z
Comments.Text: @user230452 To answer your question if someone else´s best is better than Magnus´ best, if we go by tournament rating performances of the other top players now, there is none.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Halvard
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-08-28T20:21:55.487Z
Comments.Text: @Halvard I would most likely come to the conclusion that top/peak performance is very subjective. How on earth are you supposed to objectively compare a completely dominating performance against world-class competition vs. a completely dominating performance against world-class competition? Take Caruana in Sinquefield 2014: 7 wins, undefeated, 10 rounds vs. Carlsen in Tata Steel 2013: 7 wins, undefeated, 13 rounds. What counts higher? Ratio of wins, or longer streak of being undefeated? Or diversity of opponents? How can we determine what the most objectively correct metric should be?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Scounged
Tags: <psychology>
Title: Why wasn't Caruana able to maintain the level he played in Sinquefield Cup - 2014 ?
ThreadText: # Why wasn't Caruana able to maintain the level he played in Sinquefield Cup - 2014 ?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2016-08-28)
  
  I recently found out about Caruana's performance in the Sinquefield Cup - 2014. I only started watching chess recently. I was convinced that Carlsen is head and shoulders over everyone else when I started watching two months back. Now I've realized anyone above 2750 is very dangerous. Recently I came to know about Caruana's performance in 2014 and I am wondering why he was not able to maintain that level of performance .
  
  **Tags:** psychology
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: It is possible for anyone to have a string of great games now and then, playing above one's normal strength in these. In Caruana's case, this simply means "to beat everybody, including Magnus", since he's already one of the best players in the world. But Caruana is not as good as Magnus yet, so maintaining a level of play where he consistently one-ups Magnus is not feasible at this stage. And that is exactly what is needed to keep up Caruana's 2014 performance from Sinquefield Cup.  
  > **username_0**: @username_1 Is the difference in between the two players due to natural talent or hard work or something else ? Carlsen was very reluctant to praise Caruana when he was playing like that in that Sinquefield Cup.  
  > **username_2**: @username_1 Another way to look at it is to see how strong players are when they hit their top form. Magnus clearly has the best average, as is shown by his higher rating, but Caruana's top is clearly higher than Magnus' as shown by this tournament rating performance.  
  > **username_0**: @username_2 Exactly. This is what I wanted to say. Any other players who's best is better than Magnus' best ? Nakamura, MvL or Ding Liren perhaps ?  
  > **username_1**: @username_2 The notion that Caruana's top is higher than Magnus' top based on one tournament is ludicrous. It is like saying that Karpov's best was better than Kasparov's best simply because of Linares 1994. Remember, that in 2009 Carlsen had a 3002 performance in Nanjing when he was 18 years old. Caruana was 22 in 2014 and had a 3100-ish performance. But his opponents were higher rated. Is this due to rating inflation or better players in St. Louis in 2014? There are so many factors here in play, that it is ridiculous to make the claim that you seem to have made.  
  > **username_2**: @username_1 It all depends on how you define a top.  Highest peak rating, best tournament performance, longest streak of victories, best quality of play compared to Komodo?  To me, all of these could very well be used to define what a top is.  Since tournaments are what they mostly play, the highest tournament rating performance ever by a huge margin could certainly be considered a top.  Definitely not ridiculous.  How would you define a top/peak, by the way?  
  > **username_2**: @user230452 To answer your question if someone else´s best is better than Magnus´ best, if we go by tournament rating performances of the other top players now, there is none.  
  > **username_1**: @username_2 I would most likely come to the conclusion that top/peak performance is very subjective. How on earth are you supposed to objectively compare a completely dominating performance against world-class competition vs. a completely dominating performance against world-class competition? Take Caruana in Sinquefield 2014: 7 wins, undefeated, 10 rounds vs. Carlsen in Tata Steel 2013: 7 wins, undefeated, 13 rounds. What counts higher? Ratio of wins, or longer streak of being undefeated? Or diversity of opponents? How can we determine what the most objectively correct metric should be?  
  
  ---
  
  ## 0 answers
  
  