regarding "adjusting for inflation", which some people think is a one-way thing - that you always adjust down - this might be "interesting".

if we would use fide's rating numbers and sonas' (chessmetrics) technique for adjusting two adjacent rating lists, then this would've been the result for the january 2009 and the april 2009 lists.

we're starting out with the january 2009 list. the top 20 ratings in that list were these:

2723
2723
2724
2725
2726
2733
2733
2739
2745
2750
2751
2751
2759
2760
2761
2771
2776
2779
2791
2796

based on the rating data currently present on the fide site, it seems like the top 20 ratings on the april list will be these:

2725
2726
2727
2728
2730
2733
2738
2745
2746
2747
2748
2751
2751
2753
2754
2756
2759
2770
2783
2812

sonas' method is simply to take the average of number #3 to #20 in the previous and the new list, and then adjust <every rating number> in the latest list up or down according to the diff in average.

the average in january 2009 was 2746,06 while it seems to become 2743,72 in april. hence, sonas would say that there was a <deflation> of a little more than 2,3 points between those two lists. hence he would've adjusted <everyone> in the april list <up 2 points>.

hence, instead of an april list of

1 topalov 2812
2 anand 2783
3 carlsen 2770

a list <corrected for inflation/deflation> would yield

1 topalov 2814
2 anand 2785
3 carlsen 2772

I have been watching the Amber blindfold tournament. I learned that in Amber they actually have boards (although empty) to look at. That makes blindfold games much easier by a mile IMO.

Blindfold chess today is mostly for fun. However, I think almost all the top masters of the 19th century until the 1930s depended partially on professional fees from simultaneous blindfold chess exhibitions without sight of board and men. They had to take blindfold chess very seriously as part of their income depended on it. Since it was their livelihood, and they did it regularly, these pre-WW2 masters would probably be super strong in blindfold chess by today's standards. Including Paul Morphy by the way.

If we were to get the strongest blindfold players in history, I would bet on Alekhine; he was regularly playing blindfold chess in a professional capacity until the end of his career, without sight of board and men. His experience in playing blindfold chess was an order of magnitude greater than today's top GMs.

mimicking the way you argue regarding opening theory and all other advances & changes in modern chess, i guess we could give today's top gms 3 months of intensive blindfold training - and they'd match "the strongest blindfold player in history", right? or was that changed to 2-3 years of training in the latest estimates?

:o)

<They didn't have to calculate much, just keep the position in their head and calculate at the "critical" moments (f.x. to announce checkmate in x moves). - alexmagnus>

You are probably being ironic <frogbert>, but if you are asking a serious question, you could well be correct.

<lengthy arguments about "historical players" versus modern players are mostly futile, imho.>

There are many like you who think so; and certainly, since time machines are not available, masters from different eras would never meet. It's like comparing Newton and Einstein. However, other chess pundits don't think it's futile. So in this case, it's really a matter of opinion. <amadeus> betting on a disguised moustached Morphy beating Grischuk for example may sound futile to you, but for me, it brought a smile, and thoughts of, hey if <amadeus> is right, GM Grischuk would never know what hit him. (",)

<the huge increase in professional (or semi-professional) players over the years.>

The chess players of the former Soviet Union and its former satellite countries (Eastern European block) were supported by the state (either directly or via state-sponsored tournaments); which in my mind makes them professional players, who could concentrate on chess and nothing else much, without worrying where to get an income to buy their daily bread. And it's probably why Soviet masters began to grow in strength starting in the 1920s very quickly; and have totally dominated the chessworld until the 1990s. In this context, Paul Keres before WW2 would have been a chess professional in the present-day sense; he would play in tournaments for the prize money. Post WW2, Keres remained a chess professional in the sense that he was supported by the Soviet state.

We are still living in the post-Soviet aftermath: we still see chessplayers like Kramnik, Topalov, Morozevich, Leko, Shirov, etc.. who were trained in the Eastern European block chess system. The strongest products of this very professional Soviet - Eastern European system were Kasparov and Karpov; and so were World Champions Botvinnik, Smyslov, Tal, Petrosian, Spassky; and near champions Bronstein and Korchnoi. These players in their prime IMO are a match for any other top player from any era in chess history.

I actually once <played> two blindfold games simultaneously. The opponents were of course extremely weak (I myself am 1500, my opponents were one absolute beginner and one 900). I won both games, but I bet any 1200 would trash me (if he sees the board and I play blind).

By the way, I can help you think of a way to create a system wherein you can be the blindfold Chess World Champion of the world.

Not everybody whose opinion differs from yours is a troll!

You asked for a definition of a troll did you not? Is increasing the brain volume acceptable to you?

Troll = Someone who has 800 cc of brain volume in his skull = <alexmagnus>

Begins his posts with:

<I am not a troll. I am not a troll. I am not a troll.>

Fills the middle of his posts with:

<What is the dictionary definition of a troll? What is the dictionary definition of a troll? What is the dictionary definition of a troll?>

And

<Here are my credentials, look how smart I am. Here are my credentials, look how smart I am. Here are my credentials, look how smart I am.>

Ends his posts with:

<;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)>

What can I say but: