< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 29 OF 29 ·
|Jan-30-06|| ||notyetagm: <refutor> The strong GMs, the 2600 rated GMs, usually have ICC ratings over 3000. You would expect an FM/IM to have a blitz rating of 2200-2400 ICC.|
My point is that a GM with a 2200 ICC rating is relatively weak.
|Jan-30-06|| ||RisingChamp: There is no direct connection. Some GMs are simply weak at blitz, and this does not mean they are not good players. Others may simply be better at OTB play. I see no necessary conncection between blitz rating on internet and OTB strength except that a GM is likely to better in both than an IM and an Im than an FM etc.|
|Jan-31-06|| ||babakova: Of course there is a connection. We discussed how the GM title has lost its former value and status. The GMs of 1959 were probably all great at blitz, back then all grandmasters were contenders for the world championship.|
|Jan-31-06|| ||Bobak Zahmat: What are we talking about guys? Let's just enjoy together of the beauty to see GM in action on the Internet!|
|Jan-31-06|| ||RisingChamp: There are more GMs who are weak at blitz, because there are more GMs as an absolute number. When the are only 16 GMs, obviously it is unlikely that any of them would be significantly weak at blitz. Add another 900 players and even if they are very strong GM calibre players I daresay a few of them will be weak. (I agree the title has been devalued, and something ought to be done abt it, but this particular statistic is not the evidence)|
|Jan-31-06|| ||KingG: Botvinnik said he never played blitz, so i doubt he was very strong at it in relation to other GMs(or even some IMs). It doesn't say anything about his OTB strength.|
|Jan-31-06|| ||refutor: so <risingchamp> what about a guy like smyslov? who is weak now but had fabulous results years ago? would you revoke his GM status because he's not 2650?|
|Jan-31-06|| ||plang: The problem with the number of grandmasters is related to ratings inflation. a 2700 player now is equivalent to a 2600 player a generation ago. This could have been avoided with a better designed system.|
|Jan-31-06|| ||notyetagm: <RisingChamp: There are more GMs who are weak at blitz, because there are more GMs as an absolute number.>|
That was my point exactly. If GMs were required to have a 2700 rating, then there wouldn't be any GMs on ICC with 2200 blitz ratings.
And of course these skills (OTB and blitz) are related. If you have an OTB rating of 1600 and are playing 3200 blitz on ICC, then you are computer cheater.
|Jan-31-06|| ||CowardlyKnight: That's ridiculous, blitz and classical are two very different skills. One can be a blitz god and not do so well in classical, and vice versa. Just look at IM Nezhmetdinov for crying out loud. But maybe you're right, he was probably being sent computer analysis from the future via satellite when he was wiping the floor with world champions in blitz.|
Kasparov said that Botvinnik would never had become world champion if they had used the FIDE time controls in his time. And if you want to compare blitz skills to evaluate someone's chess skills than would have to say that Alekhine was a bum compared to Capablanca.
|Jan-31-06|| ||babakova: Botvinnik didnt like speed chess, had he practised it more he would probably have been good. The best blitzplayers in the world are the ones who are best at slow chess, coincidence? I think not.|
|Jan-31-06|| ||Gypsy: <Kasparov said that Botvinnik would never had become world champion if they had used the FIDE time controls in his time.> I think that was not about blitz no blitz, but about analyses of adjourned games.|
|Feb-01-06|| ||RisingChamp: There was this guy called Genrikh Chepukaitis who was 2300 buy used to wipe the floor with Tal at blitz. And <refutor> when did I suggest that Smyslov for example should have his title revoked. The best idea IMO is that someone who enters the worlds top 20 should be granted the title permanently and noone else can be GM.|
|Feb-01-06|| ||alexmagnus: Well, I know one player who is surely not a cheater but who has a blitz rating (on Playchess) which is 800 pts higher than his OTB rating (1500 and 2300). So, they ARE different.|
|Feb-01-06|| ||alexmagnus: Same thing reversed - a player with 2000 ELO and 1400 blitz.|
|Feb-01-06|| ||alexmagnus: <someone who enters top 20....> I think, top 100 is enough to stop the "title inflation"|
|Feb-01-06|| ||RisingChamp: Though <cowardly knight> Nezhmetdinov has beaten most of the best players in classical chess as well so thats not the best example. He couldnt be a GM because they didnt let him leave Russia. The game Polugaevsky v. Nezhmetdinov in Sochi is one of the best games of all time so if you think he was good only at blitz play that game over.|
|Feb-01-06|| ||CowardlyKnight: I don't think it's a good idea to say that only the top 100 people can be GMs. That's unfair to people who are skilled but don't devote their lives to chess. Perhaps the rating for the GM title is too low, I don't know enough about this ratings inflation business to have an educated opinion on that, but you also have to take into account that in today's world it is a lot easier acquire skills in chess and because of this the average skills of chess players is substantially higher and so logically there should be more GMs.|
I think it was Capablanca that said that an idiot could become a chess master, well, with all the resources we have nowadays this is more true today than ever.
By the way, saying the GM title has been devaluated because some GMs have low ratings in blitz at the ICC is the most ridiculous arguement ever.
|Feb-01-06|| ||CowardlyKnight: <RisingChamp> I never said he wasn't a good classical player, in fact I think he was brilliant and it pisses me off he didn't become a GM. The point was that he was exceptionally strong, perhaps the best, at blitz but his power at classical wasn't even near some of the people that didn't stand a chance against him in blitz. I used him to illustrate my point that blitz and classical are very different skills and that you can't judge one's power in classical chess by their ability in blitz (as someone did this injustice some posts back).|
|Feb-01-06|| ||babakova: <I don't think it's a good idea to say that only the top 100 people can be GMs. That's unfair to people who are skilled but don't devote their lives to chess.> I thought the idea to have titles was to reward prominence? It being so relatively easy to become a grandmaster today as opposed to some 40 years ago has watered the title to the extreme. All this leads to is more titles to distinguish great players from good players, for example super grandmaster. This makes one wonder what the next step is. The GM title should be for people who are the best of the best in the world, I dont see how this is unfair to other players. Today Veselin Topalov and for instance the swedish player Stellan Brynell (2493) are both GM:s, that just dont sound right.|
|Feb-01-06|| ||CowardlyKnight: <babakova><Today Veselin Topalov and for instance the swedish player Stellan Brynell (2493) are both GM:s, that just dont sound right.> Since the begining of competitive chess there have been masters that stand above all masters. Since there ever was a GM there have been GMs that were exceptionally stronger than others. |
You can't possibly think that comparing that GM with the best player in the world at the moment is supposed to play down his skills.
|Feb-01-06|| ||babakova: Yes, some GM:s were "exceptionally stronger" than their peers even in the cradle of GM-ship. For instance Capablanca was superior to Marshall. But that is not the point. The gap between to grandmasters and low rated grandmasters is growing and growing, both ratingwise and just sheer number of players who get the title.|
<You can't possibly think that comparing that GM with the best player in the world at the moment is supposed to play down his skills.> It does not need to be Topalov. Take anyone in the top 30 and let him/her play a 10 game match against one of the 2500 rated grandmasters, the outcome is without a doubt even before a single move has been executed. Yet they have the same title?! It does not make sense.
|Feb-01-06|| ||vspatel: That's why they have super grandmasters. Super grandmasters are above 2700 but after few years super grandmasters might be over 2800 only.|
|Feb-01-06|| ||babakova: <vspatel> That is what I think is silly. Why not just keep the original title for the best of the best?|
|Feb-06-06|| ||Bobak Zahmat: <vspatel> I don't think so. Maybe a few players will be able to cross the magic line of 2800, but all the Super Grandmasters. It is impossible. I think in five years we have 4/5 players with ELO rating beyond 2800. The possible Candidates are: Topalov, Anand, Karjakin & Carlsen (Who knows? Also KASPAROV!)|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 29 OF 29 ·