> The talk of psychology is redundant. Never heard of the phrase "squeezing blood from stone" because well there is no blood in stones. The phrase is "squeezing water from stone" and has been used tons of times in the past to describe other chess players as well.

"You can't squeeze blood from stone" is a common and very old phrase. Dates from 1788 according to https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/you-cant-get-blood-out-o...

> a game that is simply put not as interesting anymore.

Chess is actually experiencing a revival, despite the ascendancy of chess engines. Chess channels on YouTube are quite active, and of course the Netflix show gave the game a good bump in popularity.

> Carlsen is known for his ability to beat his opponents at chess. Has nothing to do with mental fortitude. You can be the most mentally tough person on earth and it won't enable you to see tactics better.

What are you talking about man? Mental preparation if one of the key ingredients when preparing for chess tournaments. In recent interview Topalov said about Carlsen [0], that "after the seventh hour his brain works at almost the same level as in the second hour. Very many people are capable of playing decently for three, four or five hours, but in the 6th-7th hour almost everyone crashes. He, however, plays very evenly. That’s his main advantage over the rest"

[0] https://chess24.com/en/read/news/topalov-carlsen-should-give...

> Never heard of the phrase "squeezing blood from stone" because well there is no blood in stones.

That's the point. You can't squeeze blood from a stone because there isn't any, i.e. it's fruitless to try because you'll always fail.

As for "mental toughness" and "chess ability," the idea is that you need both. You could have world-class abilities, but they won't won't help you to win championships if you turn into a quivering pile of nerves at the thought of playing a game in public, for example. Carlsen seems better able to hold his nerve over long periods, allowing him to use his superior chess ability consistently, whereas other players may become exhausted, upset, or distracted more easily.

The correct version of the idiom is definitely the one with blood not water. The first attested use in english is a couple of hundreds years old.

You'll find it here in the end of the first paragraph of the Evening LII chapter: https://archive.org/details/wintereveningso01knoxgoog/page/n...

The point isn’t that mental fortitude enables you to see tactics better. The point is that it enables you to keep seeing tactics at close to peak performance in adverse conditions. That’s the whole point being made here — in a match against an identically skilled opponent, Magnus can just win by outlasting the other player.

> Carlsen is known for his ability to beat his opponents at chess. Has nothing to do with mental fortitude.

You're choosing to ignore the entire argument instead of addressing it. When you say "ability to beat his opponent at chess" that includes the mental fortitude (also emotional stability, ability to perform consistently over long matches etc) The point is that after game 6 Ian's performance was far below his actual chess ability. So we look to psychology to explain that difference. Saying stuff like "he performed at that level so that's his ability" doesn't get anyone anywhere.

At the highest competitive level the psychology of the player takes a major role in his performance.