< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 190 OF 192 ·
|Mar-12-09|| ||amadeus: <keypusher: But where he really falls short is in the percentage of moves that are better than average GM moves.>|
According to Charles Sullivan, "The 'average grandmaster move' includes all moves I have analyzed. Of the 617446 moves analyzed, 541209 (about 88%) are moves of the world champions (plus Morphy)."
In other words, even if Morphy was young, had not much experience, and played faster than his opponents, his =score indicates that he was on the same level of the life-time record of the World Champions -- according to the engines.
|Mar-13-09|| ||amadeus: <alexmagnus>, a very good point, and most probably correct -- I don't know if the "complexity" thing can help with that. The stats are one thing, and their interpretation are a very different fish.|
Anyway, as far as engines are concerned, I think we should respect Morphy's play. He was certainly not one of the '2100' players that Nunn has written about. And I believe that he could be much more than an average GM today -- but that's just my opinion.
Sorry for my poor English.
|Mar-13-09|| ||alexmagnus: Actually, if one traces Elo back to 1910s (Arpad Elo once did! - and published 5-year averages), one arrives at much higher ratings than Nunn's 2100 estimate. That's actually one more ground to believe in no inflation. Elo put Süchting's best 5-year average at 2450.|
|Mar-13-09|| ||alexmagnus: Morphy by the way was put at 2690 in the same calculations (as I say, best 5-year average, not best rating).|
|Mar-13-09|| ||nimh: Putting openin theory aside, on average, Morphy's moves are definitely stronger than is needed to maintain a tpr of 2100, but I'd never believe he would have been able to get a GM ranking today.|
|Mar-13-09|| ||SatelliteDan: Morphy was much stronger than 2100. All you really have to do is see how far one calculated,. What time era you are in is secondary.. no?|
|Mar-13-09|| ||alexmagnus: Well,Nunn didn't say Morphy was 2100,he said Süchting was ;)|
|Mar-13-09|| ||SatelliteDan: Do computers beat you because it understands?.. no. It calculates.. yes?|
|Mar-13-09|| ||alexmagnus: Actually it calculates <and> understands. Imagine some savant who is able to calculate 35 moves ahead but knows <nothing> about how to evaluate a position. He would play really badly unless there is a forced mate in under 35 moves for either side.|
Note, the evaluation function in computers is random (a pawn is always set at 1.00, but the relation of positional factors towards the pawn varies from game to game). Also, some computers are programmed for learning effect. I.e., it memorizes its mistakes and avoids the then. Now, is human understanding not basically the same? Evaluating a position and if your judgment went wrong reviding your algorithm?
|Mar-13-09|| ||amadeus: <Nice cherry-picking. Overall Truechess rates Morphy 15th measured by best one year, two year or three year period. He can't be measured over longer periods, obviously. Why does Morphy rate so poorly?>|
Among other possible reasons, because, in a sense, this is cherry-picking. Kasparov, Smyslov, Lasker, Botvinnik and all the other players have dozens of two-years tables, one year, three years etc. It's easier to pick a very good one. Morphy does not have this privilege.
And it's easy to prove that procedure to be unfair to him. You need only to ask for worst years, worst two years etc. If you do so, now it will be unfair to the other players, and Morphy appears on the top of the chart. Go to http://www.truechess.com/web/champs..., and, eg, click on "Percent Better Than Normal Score Per Move" (it will turn red). Now Morphy will be the last player to make first appearance. And he comes in second for 2 years and 3 years periods. (but, of course, this has no real meaning)
|Mar-13-09|| ||SatelliteDan: "It" calculates. "It" doesn't think. "It" uses brute force. "It" don't have or need emotion. "It" beats the best humans. But "It" can't feel the glory of a win.|
|Mar-13-09|| ||alexmagnus: <Satellite> Emotion is not needed for thinking. Thinking is an emotionless process.|
|Mar-13-09|| ||unsound: <Thinking is an emotionless process> Is that really your experience? If so, you scare me. Your first sentence makes sense, though.|
|Mar-13-09|| ||SatelliteDan: As I previous said.. "It don't have or need emotion".|
|Mar-13-09|| ||alexmagnus: <unsound> Making decision between two seemingly equal alternatives requires emotion. But thinking itself is a very rational thing. It's a cold thing, without any emotions. One doesn't experience something while thinking except that the brain works on full power... And I don't see anything scary in it. Emotions are reserved for things which are impossible to solve by thinking.|
|Mar-13-09|| ||keypusher: <Morphy does not have this privilege.>|
Morphy does not have this "privilege" because he quit. When we rate him, we rate him on what he actually did. There is nothing else to rate him on.
Why is this so hard to understand?
|Mar-13-09|| ||popski: <Morphy does not have this "privilege" because he quit. When we rate him, we rate him on what he actually did...>|
Heh, who are YOU? Are you at least as good as robot Ribka? No?! Hmm, and you feel competent to rate Morphy? Come on man, have some dignity...
|Mar-13-09|| ||amadeus: There is nothing hard to understand. I have simply pointed out a possible statistical flaw in the "best year" (or worst year) approach.|
As I have pointed out earlier that "average GM move" does not refer to a random GM, but (mostly) to an average World Champion move -- and that there is no shame in a = score. (it only shows that his 'life-time' record is on the same level of the world champions':)
And that if we compare Morphy's record to the record of all world champions when they were of the same age (20-22), he is on equal foot too -- according to the engines.
I have nothing else to add to this conversation. But thanks for your time.
|Mar-13-09|| ||unsound: <alexmagnus> You're defining "thought" a lot more narrowly and compartmentally than I would. But a discussion of the nature of human consciousness is probably superfluous when figuring out how strong Morphy was. That's very interesting what you wrote about Elo extending his ratings back--where did you read that?|
|Mar-13-09|| ||alexmagnus: <That's very interesting what you wrote about Elo extending his ratings back--where did you read that?> Elo did in in his book "The Ratings Of Chess Players". The rating list itself is to find here: http://www.anusha.com/eloslist.htm|
|Mar-14-09|| ||frogbert: <if one traces Elo back to 1910s (Arpad Elo once did! - and published 5-year averages), one arrives at much higher ratings than Nunn's 2100 estimate. That's actually one more reason to believe in no inflation. Elo put Süchting's best 5-year average at 2450.>|
alexmagnus, how can you possibly argue that retroactively calculated ratings "prove" (or suggest) anything at all about inflation (or not) in the actually fide-rated games 1970 to present?
let's start with the basic question (discussed at length in my player page a couple of times, btw) - what do <you> mean with "inflation"?
note also, that technically one doesn't "trace elo back" to some point - one has to start at some point way back and then calculate ratings going forward. but i guess you knew.
[another issue, not too relevant but still, is that <the data> used by elo and sonas (and others who have retroactively calculated ratings) are extremely limited compared to the present day reality, and the concept of a "rated game" and an unrated one didn't exist in the old days, of course. :o)]
|Mar-14-09|| ||alexmagnus: <let's start with the basic question (discussed at length in my player page a couple of times, btw) - what do <you> mean with "inflation"?>|
Inflation? Ratings becoming incomparble. In terms of <expected score>, which - if the inflation exists - is higher for the earlier player against a later one than his Elo rating would predict. Note, when referring to a hypothetical match between two players of different eras, I assume both have no time for preparation, i.e. everything both have is their respective knowledge at the moment the ratings are taken. I also assume that the later player doesn't know who his opponent is.
|Mar-14-09|| ||frogbert: <Inflation? Ratings becoming incomparble. In terms of <expected score>, which - if the inflation exists - is higher for the earlier player against a later one than his Elo rating would predict.>|
so, actual "practical chess skills" is your measure - higher rating <number> without better "practical chess skills" equals inflation. then, let's return to my question:
<alexmagnus, how can you possibly argue that retroactively calculated ratings "prove" (or suggest) anything at all about inflation (or not) in the actually fide-rated games 1970 to present?>
depending on the method used and the average level one defines, but also the selection of games one uses to produce "ratings" for games played 100 years ago, one can end up with pretty much anything, in my opinion.
how can the more or less arbitrary choices one does in such retrospective rating calculations, say anything useful about what <actually has happened> from 1970 and until now, with a given set of rating rules and rating rule modifications, etc. etc. ?
i must add that i don't know the exact method elo used when "going back in time", but i don't find that too relevant. much more relevant are the various changes to the "complete environment" of rating calculations in fide over the roughly 40 years the system has existed.
|Mar-14-09|| ||alexmagnus: The rules were changes several tims, but I think the only thing influened by those rules was the dynamics of the rating. For example, maing the K-factor bigger makes the winner win more points, but the loser loses more... In the end it equalizes - those who win against the loser get less points and those who lose against the winner lose less. So, on average, the ratings remain the same. The differences remain same too.The only thing which changes is dynamics..|
|Mar-14-09|| ||alexmagnus: <The differences remain same too.> Here I of course meant in longterm calculations, i.e. at the point where ratings more or less stabilize.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 190 OF 192 ·