< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 9 ·
|Nov-21-06|| ||keypusher: <TIMER> <sneaky> <euripides>|
Isn't there a bad error on Sonas' Fischer-Spassky page? It should be 12.5/20 for Fischer and 7.5/20 for Spassky, correct? I assume Sonas doesn't want to count the forfeit.
Unless this is just another example of Sonas trying to keep The Man down. :-)
|Nov-21-06|| ||thegoodanarchist: <Stellar King> yes, I read the article and enjoyed it.|
As for ratings, they are supposed to be a predictive tool as well as an approximation of playing strength. So when the results are closer than predicted by the ratings, the performance ratings reflect the deviation of the actual results from the expected results. And if the outcome is close enough, then the weaker player has a better performance rating because he was playing someone stronger than himself.
In other words, winning by itself isn't enough to show that the stronger player outperformed the weaker one. The <margin> of victory has to be big enough.
I don't know if this helps anyone or not...
|Nov-21-06|| ||TIMER: <keypusher> You are right, and that should keep Fischer's chessmetrics performance rating above Spassky in this case! But the point that the rating performances in matches is relatively higher for relatively lower rated players still needs to be addressed, as seen in other example like Kasparov-Karpov too.|
<thegoodanarchist> Player A beating Player B in a match suggests that player A played better than Player B and should be estimated as a higher rating than Player B, certainly not lower.
|Nov-21-06|| ||who: Other matches where the winner ends up with a lower performance rating are Lasker-Janowski I http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/Sing..., Korchnoi-Karpov I http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/Sing..., Karpov-Kasparov IV http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/Sing..., and Karpov-Kasparov V http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/Sing....|
|Nov-21-06|| ||thegoodanarchist: <TIMER> As I failed to explain clearly, it isn't that straightforward.|
The issue of who won the match is not the only issue - there is also the margin of victory and strength of opposition.
So yeah, player A beat player B, but player B was playing against stronger opposition than A was. Player A didn't "live up to his reputation" so to speak, and based on the results of the match, the performance rating reflects it.
|Nov-22-06|| ||who: I emailed Jeff Sonas and this is what he said.
<It comes from the fact that the "strength of opposition" is based on their
rating coming into the event, rather than calculated after the fact. If
you do a "simultaneous" performance calculation (like in my description
of the formulas) then it would adjust the strength of opposition to match
their results in the match and you would indeed never see what you're
Quoting (here was my email address):
- Hi Jeff,
- Great site. I noticed something weird about your rating scheme. The
- example of this is pretty self explanatory. In Spassky-Fischer WC match
- Spassky has a higher performance rating than does Fischer!! This is also
- true of one of the Karpov Kasparov matches. I don't know how to search for
- matches on your site, but anyway that's the general gist of it.
|Nov-22-06|| ||whatthefat: <TIMER>, <who>|
I already addressed this "problem" with chessmetrics here: Alekhine-Euwe World Championship Match (1935)
|Nov-28-06|| ||Archives: Hey fellow kibitzers,
I was just browsing TradeMe (our version of Ebay) and I saw a book called "Fischer vs Spassky: Chess Match of the Century" by Gligoric (1972).
Does anyone own this book? What is it like? It is quite cheap so I think will buy it.
|Nov-28-06|| ||RookFile: I own it. Good book. Good analysis and interesting stories. Buy it.|
|Nov-28-06|| ||Billy Ray Valentine: Archives: It is not a perfect book (sometimes he'll say something like "Q-KB1 leaves black with a winning attack due to mounting pressure on the KB file" and not go into any lines), but it is really good. I agree with RookFile's comments. I go back to it quite often. I bought it for $1 used, so it was definitely worth it for me... The book also annotates all previous games between Fischer and Spassky.|
|Mar-23-07|| ||e4Newman: i don't understand
what kind of order are these games in?
i keep getting confused because i select #5 and it's actually round 11 or something
|Mar-27-07|| ||e4Newman: i see that i can use the crosstable above the list of games|
|May-18-07|| ||Brown: <chessgames.com> Where is the Alekhine Defense, Game #13?|
It's considered one of the greatest games ever...
|Jun-22-07|| ||Udit Narayan: This is a good picture, which was on the cover of Time Magazine (July 31, 1972): http://www.bobby-fischer.net/time_c...|
I have never seen this before and thought it was interesting so I am posting it here.
|Dec-01-07|| ||tpstar: 1000 = Beer|
2000 = Ale
3000 = Your Page
4000 = Favorite Player
5000 = Favorite Tournament
6000 = Favorite Match
Reykjavik 1972 will forever stand as the one title match that truly captivated the outside world. The chess cognescenti were naturally transfixed by Fischer's spectacular success leading up to the final, while people who didn't follow the game before enjoyed the battle of contrasts: explosive Challenger versus experienced Champion, Ugly American versus Staunch Soviet, fierce loner versus team player. Given Spassky's fine career, it is astounding to consider that he only won three games in this match: Game 1's 29 ... Bxh2!? surprise, the Game 2 forfeit, and the trapped Queen in Game 11. Meanwhile Fischer's definite superiority, combined with the fantastic run-up, combined to create a vast Fischer Mystique which persists to this day.
One great feature of this match was the sweeping variety of their opening play. Fischer displayed amazing versatility in his defences - NID, Benoni, Alekhine's, QGD, Pirc - besides his trusty Sicilian (where Spassky would be well prepared). But to pull out 1. c4 *four* times (3 QGD, 1 English) in such a crucial match must have befuddled Spassky and his seconds to no end since RJF was a committed 1. e4 disciple. There are two illustrative Ruy Lopez games (Closed & Exchange) plus several fighting Sicilians, which leads to the second notable characteristic: the outstanding fighting spirit of both players. I appreciate how they reached theoretical draws, at which point they split the point, versus other WC matches where the fun stops way early (Dot Dot Dot). After building such a commanding lead, Fischer probably played more conservatively in the second half of the match (who can say), but still their draws were entertaining and instructive. I believe Spassky didn't get enough credit for trying so hard while playing from behind and eventually losing.
This match helped publicize chess tremendously (consider the Fischer Boom), despite Fischer's impossible nature during the actual event followed by his immediate seclusion. Thus Fischer (and Kasparov) will always be forgiven for their flaws and failures since they made such sincere attempts to promote the game and improve the chess world for others.
|Dec-02-07|| ||Chess Classics: Congrats on 7K <tp>. However...|
<Thus Fischer...will always be forgiven for [his] flaws...> The jury's still out on this one. The rabid anti-semitism is a little too much for me. With that said, on a purely chess basis, he's probably my favorite player.
|Dec-02-07|| ||Joshka: <tpstar> Yes just 3 games!!, and one of them was a forfeit!!...amazing how some authors try to claim...'The match was really very close"....LOL......he really only lost just 2 games, and one of them was the Bxh2 game, so really Bobby could have easily had a draw if he wasn't so impatient to make something happen. So that leaves just one game, the trapped queen game, where Boris outplayed Bobby. But still, Boris had to put up with so much of Bobby's rudeness, it's amazing that the match even took place.|
|Jan-29-08|| ||amadeus: Opening Analysis (Rybka 2.3.2a, 17plies)
<After move 15>
White Spassky: 6 x 5 [=0] / avg.eval: -0.05 (standard deviation: 0.43)
White Fischer: 6 x 1 [=2] / avg.eval: +0.12 (sd.:0.17)
<After move 20>
White Spassky: 5 x 5 [=1] / avg.eval: -0.11 (sd.:0.68)
White Fischer: 6 x 3 [=0] / avg.eval: +0.23 (sd.:0.60)
After move 15:
White Spassky: 4 x 4 [=3]
White Fischer: 6 x 1 [=2]
After move 20:
White Spassky: 5 x 5 [=1]
White Fischer: 5 x 3 [=1]
Spassky's largest advantages: games 11 and 15
Fischer's largest advantages: games 7, 8, 13 and 21
|Feb-29-08|| ||Knight13: Of all of these games I find Spassky vs Fischer, 1972 most interesting.|
|Apr-15-08|| ||Vollmer: Nice comfortable draw , however Spassky needs wins . This game reminds me of Kasparov as Black being a pawn down but reaching a completely drawn position (and I am sure laughing to himself) . The endgame here is quite instructive .|
|Apr-29-08|| ||zoat22: what makes jeff sonas's chessmetrics scores and ratings so important? They are complete nonsense, and mean nothing|
|Apr-30-08|| ||square dance: gee, thanks for more idiotic commentary, zoat.|
|Apr-30-08|| ||zoat22: <square dance> oh, i forgot... <square dance> likes things which are completely irrelevant... tell me, how many top players would really believe all the statistics posted on chessmetrics, and how many of them have even heard of it?|
|May-01-08|| ||RookFile: Always remember that Geza Maroczy was stronger than Petrosian.... according to chessmetrics.|
|May-01-08|| ||whatthefat: <RookFile>
Do you really feel like starting that one again?
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 9 ·