|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 188 OF 194 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jun-22-12 | | AVRO38: <Lambda:Wonders whether 1981-Korchnoi or either Bogoljubow could beat 1992-Karpov> 1981 Korchnoi, probably.
Bogoljubov, definitely!
Do you think Short could win two super-tournaments ahead of Capablanca and one ahead of Lasker? Do you think Short could win 2 FIDE Championship matches against Euwe? do you think Short could win 2 USSR Championships? do you think Short could have a Chessmetrics World #1 ranking? This was Bogoljubov's resume when he challenged Alekhine. What exactly was Short's resume? Finishing dead last at Linares 1992? If you're so impressed by the Short of 1992, take a look at the standings of Linares 1992 for a good laugh and reality check: Game Collection: Linares 1992 |
 |
| Jun-22-12 | | Lambda: Do you think he genuinely doesn't get that Short was a far stronger match-player than tournament-competitor, or is it all part of the trolling? It's a subtle enough point that I can imagine someone missing it quite easily. |
|
Jun-22-12
 | | alexmagnus: <Lambda> This just shows how bad chessmetrics is. Chessmetrics <doesn't> change according to the newest performances - in fact, you may lose rating points with a good performance there - or other way around. For an example of such a change (bad performance increasing rating) look at Kasparov's performance in Kasparov-Magerramov 1979 (?) and the CM rating change after that match. |
|
| Jun-22-12 | | Lambda: <Chessmetrics <doesn't> change according to the newest performances> Yes it does. It just does so in a complex way, to try to produce the best predictions in the normal situations it cares about the most. It's not surprising for this to produce some strange results around the margins. It's not perfect, but it's better than a childishly simple system someone just thought up and didn't meaningfully design or calibrate. |
|
Jun-22-12
 | | SetNoEscapeOn: For myself, "weakest challenger" reads a lot like "weakest London Philharmonic Assistant Principal Violinist" or something along those lines. The statement trips over its own heels in a slightly comical way. Of course there is another side to things here: The Beast From Baku. It's almost as if Short had the honor of being "the guy who Kasparov was going to crush that year." |
|
| Jun-22-12 | | Petrosianic: It's hard to rag on Gelfand's playing strength too much, when he actually did hold the World Champion to a draw. That's more than Korchnoi, Tarrasch, or Tchigorin did. |
|
Jun-22-12
 | | Bobwhoosta: <Petrosianic>
I think it would be harder to hold the World Champion to a draw were he playing for a win... |
|
| Jun-23-12 | | AVRO38: <Petrosianic:It's hard to rag on Gelfand's playing strength too much, when he actually did hold the World Champion to a draw. That's more than Korchnoi, Tarrasch, or Tchigorin did.> Another ignorant comment by <Petrosianic>. 99.99% of his posts are factually wrong. Last time I checked the final score of Anand-Gelfand 2012 was 8.5-7.5. But let's assume that he's taking about the regulation match and not the tie-breaks. Then he's still wrong because Chigorin drew the regulation match in 1892 (10-10 after 20 games) and only lost the tie-breaks. |
|
| Jun-23-12 | | Lambda: <Of course there is another side to things here: The Beast From Baku. It's almost as if Short had the honor of being "the guy who Kasparov was going to crush that year."> Chessmetrics thinks that holding Kasparov-1993 to only a 6-1 victory is a very good performance, giving it a creditable 2778 performance rating, which is actually a little better than it gives Anand in 1995, since it's not rating Kasparov as highly by then. It's also higher than the ratings it gives to, for instance, Capablanca in 1927, Bronstein and Smyslov in drawing with Botvinnik, Spassky even when he <won> the title, both Kramnik and Leko in their match... In fact, the only WC matches (prior to 2005) for which it rates both winning and losing performances better are Fischer-Spassky, Karpov-Korchnoi-1978, and every Karpov-Kasparov match. |
|
Jun-23-12
 | | Eggman: <<It's almost as if Short had the honor of being "the guy who Kasparov was going to crush that year.">> Short is unique in that of all the men who have contested a world championship match since the FIDE era, Short is the only one who never came close to winning the title (here I refer to what boxing pundits call the "linear championship", and thus I am excluding Timman and Kamsky). This is not a bad distinction, of course, and in any event I've always felt that Short was denied a fair chance at another title shot (which admittedly would have meant scoring another upset) by the obscene shenanigans in his 1994 match with Kamsky, and by the subsequent collapse of the candidates system. |
|
Jun-23-12
| | SetNoEscapeOn: <Lambda: <Of course there is another side to things here: The Beast From Baku. It's almost as if Short had the honor of being "the guy who Kasparov was going to crush that year.">
Chessmetrics thinks that holding Kasparov-1993 to only a 6-1 victory is a very good performance, giving it a creditable 2778 performance rating, which is actually a little better than it gives Anand in 1995, since it's not rating Kasparov as highly by then. > This supports what I'm saying. He wasn't weak at all, but got crushed anyway. I don't think anybody had a significant chance to dethrone Kasparov in 1993. |
|
Jun-23-12
| | SetNoEscapeOn: At the same time, I'm not convinced that Short was the weakest challenger in a relative sense either The game had changed. Kasparov could not have toyed with Short the way Alekhine appeared to with Bogo. |
|
Jun-23-12
| | Eggman: <<The game had changed. Kasparov could not have toyed with Short the way Alekhine appeared to with Bogo.>> But if the candidates system had existed in Bogoljubow's time, would he have ever challenged Alekhine in the first place? |
|
| Jun-23-12 | | Lambda: Well, in terms of the ability to attack and find interesting ideas, the Kasparov-Short match was a fascinating and pretty equal fight. The real difference was their ability in defence and in pushing home an advantage. When Kasparov got the advantage, he won. When Short got the advantage, it usually wasn't enough, or something went wrong. I think you could quite reasonably describe the games thus: 1) Short has the better of it, loses on time due to misreading his clock.
2) Short has slightly the better of it, draw.
3) Kasparov has the better of it, wins.
4) Kasparov has the better of it, wins.
5) Equal.
6) Short has the better of it, draw.
7) Kasparov has the better of it, wins.
8) Short has the better of it, but misses the win.
9) Kasparov has the better of it, wins.
10) Short has the better of it, but misses the win.
11) Short has the better of it, draw.
12) Equal.
13) Equal.
14) Equal.
15) Kasparov has the better of it, wins.
16) Short has the better of it, wins.
17) Short has a little the better of it, draw.
18) Equal.
19) Kasparov has the better of it, doesn't seem to want to chase the win.
20) Equal. |
|
| Jun-23-12 | | Lambda: <But if the candidates system had existed in Bogoljubow's time, would he have ever challenged Alekhine in the first place?> It would be possible for him to win a candidates cycle for a 1929 match, particularly if it used a "candidates tournament" format. But in a match-based candidates system, Capablanca would be a big favourite. |
|
| Jun-23-12 | | Petrosianic: Even in a tournament, I wouldn't give much for Bogo's chances. He was a great Bunny Smasher, and won at least one major tournament ahead of Capablanca. But that was a mixed tournament. A Candidates Tournament would have only the cream of the crop. I don't see Bogo winning one of those. He might easily have won an Interzonal, though, for what that's worth. |
|
| Jun-23-12 | | Petrosianic: <This supports what I'm saying. He wasn't weak at all, but got crushed anyway. I don't think anybody had a significant chance to dethrone Kasparov in 1993.> Maybe not, but they might have made it closer. Karpov and Kasparov had just played four Best of 24 matches, and every one of them went the distance. Short comes along next and loses by 5 points. It does seem a major comedown from the last 4. Maybe Karpov would have lost too, but probably not by 5 points. Especially since he had the greatest tournament performance anyone ever had in 1994. |
|
| Jun-23-12 | | Lambda: Karpov would have undoubtedly done better. But that's style-clash for you. Karpov's style was difficult for Kasparov to beat convincingly. But Short was primarily a tactician. Tacticians can achieve great victories over strong opponents, but when they meet someone who can withstand their tactical abilities, (like Kasparov), they have big problems. |
|
| Jun-23-12 | | King Death: < Eggman: <<The game had changed. Kasparov could not have toyed with Short the way Alekhine appeared to with Bogo.>>
But if the candidates system had existed in Bogoljubow's time, would he have ever challenged Alekhine in the first place?> In my opinion there's no single answer to your question. One way to give it a shot is to use 3 separate incarnations of the Bogo monster, let's say 1925 1929 and 1933. Next the candidates will be a tournament. In 1925, Lasker's about to retire permamently (or he figured he would anyway) so he doesn't take part in the candidates tournament. This leaves us with Alekhine, Spielmann, Nimzowitsch, Vidmar, Marshall, Tartakower probably the young Euwe and Rubinstein along with Bogolyubov. I like Alekhine as the challenger but in 1926 he didn't even manage to win Semmering (2nd to Spielmann) or Dresden (2nd to Nimzo). In fairness though scoring 7-2 at Dresden would be enough to win most of the time. Bogo might win but there'd be other times where his overoptimism costs him and he finishes way out of it. In 1929 you'd have Capablanca and everybody else from 1925. By then Euwe would probably be in the picture too, but Flohr and Kashdan would have to be a year or two away. It isn't clear to me that Bogo would win in this field, or even could. Spielmann and Nimzo were playing some of their best chess at the time, then there's Capa to be reckoned with. Now for 1933. Capablanca might decide to return to chess for this (he was in the middle of break for those that don't remember) so if JRC accepts his invite you have: Capa, Flohr, Sultan Khan, Kashdan, Euwe for a start. In this field I'd give Bogolyubov slightly more of a chance of winning than any of the posters on this topic. By then he was 44 and in decline. |
|
| Jun-23-12 | | AVRO38: <Petrosianic:Even in a tournament, I wouldn't give much for Bogo's chances..A Candidates Tournament would have only the cream of the crop. I don't see Bogo winning one of those.> Need more proof that <Petrosianic> is a moron whose posts are always factually wrong? Let's see, a Candidates Tournament takes place the year before a title match and includes the world's best players (except of course the World Champion). So, did such a tournament exist in 1928? Hey, what do you know, there actually was a super-tournament in 1928, held in Bad Kissingen. Let's look at the standings: 1. Bogoljubov - 8/11
2. Capablanca - 7/11
3. Euwe - 6.5/11
4. Rubinstein - 6.5/11
5. Nimzowitsch - 6/11
6. Reti - 5.5/11
7. Tartakower - 5/11
8. Marshall - 5/11
9. Yates - 5/11
10. Spielmann - 4.5/11
11. Tarrasch - 4/11
12. Mieses - 3/11
With the exception of the World Champion and Vidmar, the entire Chessmetrics Top 10 is represented in the tournament. Once again <Petrosianic> is proven to be a total idiot who doesn't know anything about chess history. This is the guy that said Chigorin earned the right to play Steinitz in 1889 by winning the New York 1889 tournament. Of course we all know that the Steinitz-Chigorin 1889 match was held BEFORE the New York 1889 tournament! <Petrosianic> is a complete buffoon! |
|
| Jun-23-12 | | King Death: <Petrosianic> isn't the buffoon or know nothing about chess history here, it doesn't take much to figure out who is though. A block on <AVRO38> would sure be nice and might even contribute to chess learning on this very good site. Just like I did with a couple of others, I tried taking <AVRO>'s magic button down but the flow of garbage is too much for an average person like me. |
|
Jun-23-12
| | alexmagnus: <Lambda> The question is if short-term term predictive power is something a rating system really has to be opotimized at. Think of an extreme case: perfect short-term prediction. Then the ratings would go up and down like (future) TPRs and be so volatile that they'd have no value at all. |
|
| Jun-23-12 | | Lambda: <The question is if short-term term predictive power is something a rating system really has to be opotimized at. Think of an extreme case: perfect short-term prediction. Then the ratings would go up and down like (future) TPRs and be so volatile that they'd have no value at all.> Such ratings would have plenty of value to someone who wanted to predict the results of the next tournament. What sort of ratings you want really depends on what sort of attributes you're interested in. Different ways of rating people measure different things. But if you want to know how strong someone is at a particular moment, how well you'd normally predict them to do from their past results seems a pretty good thing to measure. |
|
| Jun-23-12 | | King Death: If I were a bookie, TPRs as a method would be great but there's no such thing as absolute predictive value. Just look at the pitching form every day for major league baseball. It's a general guide, nothing more. |
|
| Jun-23-12 | | AVRO38: <King Death:Petrosianic isn't the buffoon or know nothing about chess history here> Apparently he is, as I pointed out in my post. Funny how you make no attempt to criticize my post because you know I'm right. Trying to support the loser of a debate (Petrosianic) by insulting the winner (AVRO38) just makes you look like a fool. Either my post is correct, which means <Petrosianic> is a complete moron, or my post is wrong, which it obviously isn't. You can't agree with my post and at the same time say <Petrosianic> isn't a complete moron. |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 188 OF 194 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
