< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 40 OF 48 ·
|Oct-10-11|| ||frogbert: < inflation is for real perhaps you want to deny that>|
anandrulez, nobody agrees about what "inflation" is. in a <relative> system like the rating system, the concept is pretty much meaningless: ratings can't be used to compare chess strength more than maximum 5-10 years apart in any near-meaningful way; i'd set the cut-off closer to 5 years rather than 10. thinking that one can "adjust for inflation" and thereby increase the scope for which players' skills can be compared using ratings, is imho the final evidence of utter confusion wrt (chess) ratings.
equally bad (or worse?): most people don't understand how to use ratings to compare <current> elite players. so why bother discussing "inflation"?
maybe i'll spend some time to get some real <info> up on my site some day. not that it will change anything, though ...
|Oct-10-11|| ||kia0708: Anand with just 1 win ... this is a big, big surprise for me. (Vallejo aka "Da Patza" has for some forum members, has 3 wins ! Good for him.)|
|Oct-10-11|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <Interbond: visayanbraindoctor When comparing games from the past and present do you think it's fair to compare games with 2.5h/40, stop analyze and play next day to modern FIDE time limits?>|
Yes if you are talking about middlegames. Most chess games are decided in the middlegame. Indeed, they had longer time controls in the past. However, they had to start playing over the board much earlier because novelties then occurred earlier too. Nowadays, many GMs begin OTB analysis at move 15 to 20; they simply follow a previously played game in under 15 minutes before that. I think this is what Grischuk refers to when he said in an interview that today's players actually have a time advantage over past players. (I may have misinterpreted this interview of course, correct me if I am wrong.)
Regarding endings, I would agree that today's top GM endings are worse than past endings because adjournments have disappeared.
But that is only one factor why GMs today seem to be playing poorer quality endings. Even with adjournments, notice that after just about 5 moves after adjournment, the past chess players had to start playing over the board once more. Regarding players being more tired today by the time they get to endings, it often happened in the past that a player had to play not only one, but several adjourned games in a single day. That must have been tiring too.
The fact that there are no adjournments today IMO does not fully explain the relatively poor end game quality that we are seeing nowadays. The other main reason IMO is that today's chess masters probably have stopped studying endings as much as past masters did.
|Oct-10-11|| ||goodevans: Anand and Paco will be playing for the "wooden spoon" tomorrow. Anand has white but Paco only needs a draw.|
My money's on a win for Anand, but I'm hoping that Paco survives. He has played some adventurous chess this tourney (more than can be said for Anand) and deserves to avoid last place.
|Oct-10-11|| ||karban: Let's to be honest most of decisive classical games at top level are decided by time trouble - for example today - two out of three. |
The most funny thing is that when games are entering into the most 'friendly', for spectators(amateurs), part of the game(endgame), they are often decide by blunders. So maybe today players aren't weaker but have simply less time in the endgame.
But well, nobody can win a game if his opponent didn't a mistake, even very top players, that's it.
|Oct-10-11|| ||karban: Back to tournament it is possinle that 4 players will be tied for first tomorrow. Nakamura and Aronian are obliged to take risks but Carlsen and Ivanchuk have to watch out each other, too.|
|Oct-10-11|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <karban> There might be a way to resolve the main reasons for today's poorer endgame quality. There are many top players of course that were active both in the era of adjournments and in the era when adjournments disappeared. This includes Karpov and Kasparov, Anand, Gelfand, and Ivanchuk; perhaps even Kramnik, Topalov, Shirov, Kamsky, etc. So any one could peruse through their endgames in the 1980s and early 1990s when adjournments were still around, and compare them to their endgames in the 2000s when adjournments have disappeared. |
If these endgames suddenly deteriorated in the era without adjournments, I think we can safely conclude that <today players aren't weaker but have simply less time in the endgame>. If they played their endgames as well in the adjournment and post-adjournment eras, then it would indicate that today's newer GMs may not be studying their endgames as well as past masters.
|Oct-10-11|| ||14DogKnight: Naka, did you really think the Spanish arbiter would be honest with you when you're playing a Spaniard? Did you not notice his wink at Vallejo when you got up?|
|Oct-10-11|| ||kia0708: who plays tomorrow ??|
|Oct-10-11|| ||14DogKnight: It's too bad Naka wasn't playing against David Navara or Alexander Moiseenko. They would have informed him of the situation when he got up. Paco is not of their ilk.|
|Oct-10-11|| ||Jambow: <Does any one honestly believe that the 1971 Fischer with a mere 2780 Elo rating would get crunched by today's 2800s? Give that Fischer a computer and chess opening database, and I have no doubt he will become World Champion today in short order.>|
Couldn't agree more, while I think it would be difficult to give a precise measure of how much rating increase is due to inflation I think generally we can get a pretty good grasp of about where it is.
I also think the play has improved to some degree and many more players are playing so the talent pool is a lot broader, however a bit shallower post Kasparov.
That being said the only way to get an objective measure would be to input games into engines and see who was more precise and examine a plethora of games which would be a rather involved task. At the end of the day that too will not be perfect but probably better than any other method. So rating inflation is real and hard not to see imho.
|Oct-10-11|| ||moronovich: <Jambow> Recently I read that Anand said he was not shure that the masters of yesteryear were less strong than those of today - so he seems to suport your conclusion.|
|Oct-10-11|| ||frogbert: <Does any one honestly believe that the 1971 Fischer with a mere 2780 Elo rating would get crunched by today's 2800s?>|
vbd, why would anyone generally think that someone rated 2780 would "get crunched" by someone rated 2800? they're rated the same.
anyway, i'm totally convinced that kramnik, anand, carlsen and aronian all have equal or better chess skills compared to fischer in 1972. period. and that's not based on ratings at all.
btw, you can't give fischer modern equipment, teach him current theory or any other such nonsense. fischer is dead. he stopped playing serious chess in 1972. his chess skills of 1972 are what they were. nothing more. nothing less.
|Oct-10-11|| ||scormus: <last posts> I always feel it's pointless to try and compare the greats of the past with those of today. Times change, society changes, economies change, technology changes. Was Zatopek a better runner than Nurmi, or better than Haile? Would Dempsey have beaten Ali, or Holyfield? Was Bradman better than Tendulkar, or Larwood quicker than Akhtar?|
Fisher at his prime outperformed his peers to a greater extent than any player since, but does that mean anything? If he had a weakness it was his go it alone style, can you imagine him believing he needed Fritz to help his game? But what if he'd been born in the 80's instead of the 40's? Perhaps then nobody would have heard of him.
|Oct-10-11|| ||Jambow: <vbd, why would anyone generally think that someone rated 2780 would "get crunched" by someone rated 2800? they're rated the same.>|
I took that to mean players in the 2800's not exactly 2800 so perhaps Magnus with his peak of 2826 vs Fischer with 2780 peak. Now would Magnus really perform 46 elo higher than Fischer at his peak? I doubt he would even have come out ahead in a match up and I think that was VBD's point.
On another note a 2780 vs 2800 are nearly equal and yes you wouldn't expect the 2780 to get crushed.
<moronovich> Thanks I'm in good company Anand comes of as very objective and honest and knows a thing or two about chess.
|Oct-10-11|| ||Maatalkko: I don't think any kibitzer here is truly qualified to judge the playing strength of Fischer versus modern players, except perhaps <GM Keene>. We are all so much weaker than those players that we really can't assess the thought process behind their moves in any reasonable way. |
FWIW, I think Fischer was better. During his epic win streak many of the games he played became known as all-time classics; bishop and knight vs Taimanov, the Alekhine against Spassky, the QGD against Spassky, and others. Chess moves and chess games are always the "tip of the iceberg". What we see is a small fraction of what was calculated and what was understood. I think that to accumulate so many amazing wins in such short time, Fischer's "iceberg" must have been incredible.
I discussed old versus new with a friend of mine who's a 2350 player. His opinion was that (for example) Anand 2011 is not necessarily a stronger middlegame and endgame player than Karpov 1982. Karpov is fiddlesticks today, but he doesn't even try anymore; he remained near the top of the world until he semi-retired in his late 40's. Ivanchuk and Gelfand are doing well today, and Lasker held his own in the 1930's.
I think Morphy was the first player who truly rocked at chess. Botvinnik himself said that little had been learned about open games since his time. Morphy was quantum leaps above his contemporaries; I'm not sure Steinitz could have beaten him 30 years later, and maybe not even Lasker. Similarly, Anand would stomp Spassky, but Fischer was quantum leaps ahead so again I'm not sure.
|Oct-10-11|| ||ray keene: its my belief that kasparov is the strongest player of all time-fischer is number 2-thanks for the nice comment!|
|Oct-10-11|| ||nimh: To overcome time control issues while trying to measure players of dirrerent eras there are two ways:|
1) Clock simuls. Compare the giver's thinking time to the total time of his adversaries. Compare his elo performance to his rating. This should give a vague idea how much relative time deficit affects performance elo-wise.
2) Compare the absolute level of play of similarlily rated players in games played at various time controls, given the difficulty of positions and the practicality is about the same. For example take a handful games from each time group: bullet 1+1; blitz 5+5; rapid 25+10; standard control 90min per 40 moves + 30s and put results on a chart. I'd expect a loghartihmic correlation; the longer TC-s, the less increase in strength.
So, as long as we're restricted to games not containing adjournaments, it's pretty easy.
But if the samples include adjournments, one could use penalty time additions, 1 or 2hrs for example.
I believe Fischer's level of play in both his 6-0 matches would be adequate to perform consistently 2800+ TPR even in today's elite tournaments.
Zatopek and Haile obviously were better runners than Nurmi on absolute yardstick, and their relative strength is a matter of speculation, methodology of comparison and personal taste. But that's not what's important. Chess, unlike athletic events, has suffered from the fact that relative comparisons using ratings have become possible only quite recently and there's still no systematic attempt nor scientifically 100% trustable way to measure chess strength directly from moves played. This is why computer-aided attempts to get an objective yardstick exist.
People like to compare and speculate becasue they are curious creatures. It's not poitnless at all, quite contrary; the very curiousness eventually paves the way to greater knowledge.
|Oct-10-11|| ||nimh: I wouldn't trust mr. Keene on this matter. :) No one really. Humans are too weak, inconsistent and biased.|
|Oct-10-11|| ||bravado1: Fischer was a great player, but his games are nevertheless logical and possible to follow for others. What's going on today, with all these anti-positional moves, anti-intuitive sacs and incredibly deep combinations, let alone seemingly alogical, yet profound openings is beyond the scope of a good, but still raised in the past player. Fischer would have had to study a great deal to be equal with the contemporary 2700, and even more so to reach 2800.|
|Oct-10-11|| ||rapidcitychess: <nimh>
So if your statement is true, should we not believe you? ;)
|Oct-10-11|| ||twinlark: How patronising. You get someone with a calculator and they feel qualified to dump on GMs.|
|Oct-10-11|| ||nimh: <So if your statement is true, should we not believe you? ;)>|
It depends on a person.
I wouldn't claim anything about the strength of past chess players, if not backed up by computer analysis.
You decide if you want to believe. :)
|Oct-10-11|| ||rogge: <if not backed up by computer analysis>|
Computer analysis is useless as well. No one can objectively compare absolute playing strength, with or without the help of <calculators>. Everyone's entitled to an opinion, though, but that isn't very interesting imho.
|Oct-10-11|| ||tacticalmonster: <bravado> Not true. Only Kasparov and Karpov can stand head-and-shoulder to Fischer. The rest of the world still have some catch up to do.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 40 OF 48 ·