< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 111 OF 111 ·
|Jan-31-13|| ||Eggman: <<you're just being perverse. good luck finding anyone else who thinks that maroczy, pillsbury and tarrasch were better than lasker.>>|
I didn't imply that these players were better than Lasker, only that they were #1 contenders. Historically, the champion tends to have a tough time when facing the best of the challengers. I don't think Lasker could have manhandled Maroczy, Pillsbury or Tarrasch (in their primes) the way he did Marshall and Janowski.
|Jan-31-13|| ||blazerdoodle: We have what we have, and it's a shame they could so easily avoid and dodge, for whatever reasons they gave. Lasker was always doing something else? ... and we wind up with who we got as our champions. But the champions hold that spot. We need to fix the system, because I’d like to know if other guys had a respectful chance to take out Lasker, and were denied it. Sure, it happened. It wasn’t “right.” It wasn’t fair. But this stuff is confusing, because the reasons at the time are lost in time. I read ten conflicting versions, and man, I wouldn’t know who to trust with half this info flow, but I read it anyway because I love it. It's not quite as bad as the tourdefrance, is it? Can we summarily wipe out every Title because of all these problems?|
|Jan-31-13|| ||blazerdoodle: So, a skating accident, and then - no match.|
|Jan-31-13|| ||FSR: According to Chessmetrics, Lasker was the No. 1 player in the world for 292 different months (24.3 years) between 1890 and 1926. http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/... That is of course longer than any other player in history. http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail... However, the only reason it's that <short> is that Chessmetrics penalizes players heavily for inactivity. Lasker often would not play for long periods, so he would plummet down CM's ratings list or even fall off it altogether.|
Tarrasch's highest rank was No. 2, which he held for 111 months (9.3 years). http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/.... That must surely be one of the longest periods of time that anyone's ever been No. 2, making Tarrasch something like the <Waiting for a Girl Like You> of chess history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waitin... I assume that most of that time he was second to Lasker, although there is a spell in 1906-07 where he was second behind Maróczy. (No doubt that was in one of Lasker's periods of dormancy; when he did play, he was almost invincible. Between 1892 and 1924 inclusive, Lasker finished outright 1st in 12 out of 15 tournaments, equal 1st in one, equal 2nd in one, and equal 3rd at Hastings 1895 after almost dying of typhoid fever.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emanue...
|Jan-31-13|| ||eternaloptimist: Carlsen was very impressive in this tournament, & he was the only player to get through this tournament unscathed w/o a loss!! Anand's win over Aronian was amazing, & it looks like his days of being dominated by Aronian are over with...at least for the time being.|
|Feb-04-13|| ||Big Pawn: Carlsen is rated almost 100 points higher than Anand. He's better. He is dominating in tournaments and Anand is not. Carlsen is clearly in a league of his own.|
He's very close to 2900(!) while everyone else is still dreaming of the day they can break 2800 (except for kramnik, aronian, topa etc..)
He is very, very impressive. The "title" of world champion becomes cheap and meaningless when we can simply SEE Carlsen's results - and rating which speaks for itself.
|Feb-04-13|| ||diceman: <Big Pawn:Carlsen is clearly in a league of his own.>|
He's about where Kasparov was a decade ago.
|Feb-04-13|| ||MTuraga: <Big Pawn: Carlsen is rated almost 100 points higher than Anand. He's better. He is dominating in tournaments and Anand is not. Carlsen is clearly in a league of his own.>|
Strangely enough Carlsen draws his games when facing Anand. The latest Tata tournament also resulted in draws when they both faced each other.
So a FIDE rating of 100 points in not sufficient to win against Anand although it ranks Carlsen as #1 player in the world. Something spooky about ratings and superiority.
|Feb-04-13|| ||MTuraga: Classical games: Viswanathan Anand beat Magnus Carlsen 6 to 2, with 19 draws. Data from chessgames website. Who is better?|
|Feb-04-13|| ||csmath: <Classical games: Viswanathan Anand beat Magnus Carlsen 6 to 2, with 19 draws. Data from chessgames website. Who is better?>|
Right now? Carlsen. Since all but one win of Anand against Carlsen are when Carlsen was a teenager.
|Feb-04-13|| ||IndigoViolet: If we only include games after 1914 (when Alekhine was 22, practically a teenager), Alekhine beats Capa and Lasker 8 to 6 with 34 draws.|
|Feb-04-13|| ||keypusher: <IndigoViolet: If we only include games after 1914 (when Alekhine was 22, practically a teenager), Alekhine beats Capa and Lasker 8 to 6 with 34 draws.>|
If we only include games played before 1927 (when Lasker was 58, practically a sexagenarian), Alekhine loses to Capa and Lasker zero to seven with six draws.
|Feb-04-13|| ||Blunderdome: If we only include Kramnik vs Carlsen, 2011, Carlsen and Anand have never played!|
|Feb-04-13|| ||keypusher: <Blunderdome: If we only include Kramnik vs Carlsen, 2011, Carlsen and Anand have never played!>|
There <is> a reductio ad absurdum to end all reductio ad absurdums. :-)
|Feb-04-13|| ||MTuraga: <csmath: Right now? Carlsen. Since all but one win of Anand against Carlsen are when Carlsen was a teenager.>|
So a teenager meets Anand is an excuse? I would say Anand is 20 years older than Carlsen, so what? It can be argued that Anand at age 20 would have crushed Carlsen but Carlsen at that age is only able to draw against Anand at age 40 plus. We can always twist the argument to suit our bias which is not the point. Objectively it cannot be said that Carlsen is superior whether you take current results or entire career results between the two.
Right now in 2013 they played just one game in Tata Steel and it was drawn in 23. So at least they are equal right now despite the ratings.
From 2011 onwards they played 9 games in classic format and 8 were drawn and only 1 was won by Carlsen. How does that make Carlsen superior when 8 out of 9 games were drawn when he is ranked #1 in the world? The #1 player is 100 points above Anand and he draws most of his games with Anand whose age is 40 plus! So much for ratings.
Is it that Anand is boring because of his draws and Carlsen is interesting because of his 8 draws against Anand? 1/9 wins makes him superior? They are equal at most irrespective of the ratings. FIDE ratings can be earned by winning against players who are not at their peak. Carlsen wins against weaker opposition and when it comes to Anand it is generally a draw even now.
How did Carlsen earn his rating of 2800? The arrival of Garry Kasparov in 2009 as his coach enabled Carlsen's finest tournament performance to date, and one of the best tournament results in the history of chess. Carlsen eclipsed a stellar field consisting of Topalov, Peter Leko, Dmitry Jakovenko, Teimour Radjabov and Wang Yue to win clear first prize with 8/10 at the category XXI Pearl Spring Chess Tournament (2009). Carlsen's performance rating for the tournament was a record 3002 and lifted his FIDE rating in the November 2009 list to 2801, which made him only the fifth player to surpass 2800, and easily the youngest. LOOK at the players he defeated to earn that 2800 rating!!!! It tells the real story behind Carlsen's rating.
|Feb-04-13|| ||keypusher: <So a teenager meets Anand is an excuse? I would say Anand is 20 years older than Carlsen, so what? It can be argued that Anand at age 20 would have crushed Carlsen but Carlsen at that age is only able to draw against Anand at age 40 plus.>|
Anand at age 20 was ranked around 60th in the world, so in current terms he would be rated about 200 points below Carlsen.
|Feb-04-13|| ||MTuraga: < keypusher:> Congratulations for finding holes in my argument. I could get rating from 2000 onwards from FIDE website and in year 2000 Anand is ranked no.2 in the world.|
By the way you seem to completely miss the point. Carlsen draws most of his games against Anand even now when he is #1. Any views how that makes him superior and what has rating got to do with his results against Anand?
|Feb-04-13|| ||keypusher: Look, MTuraga, I don't mean to be rude, but your recent posts are a mixture of straw men and silliness. If I wanted to poke all the holes that were there to be poked in them I would be busy indeed. |
Carlsen is superior to Anand right now because he has much better results. When they play in a tournament he generally finishes ahead of Anand. He does better against common opponents. None of this is complicated or difficult to understand.
Of course most games between them are drawn. That's the way it is at the very top. Carlsen mostly draws against Kramnik too. He's also superior to Kramnik right now, though by less of a margin than over Anand.
|Feb-04-13|| ||JPi: Carlsen is particulary impressive because he rarely won from a better opening preparation, like here Anand did it against Aronian (By the way one of the most beautiful game of the tournament).
<The arrival of Garry Kasparov in 2009 as his coach enabled Carlsen's finest tournament performance to date, and one of the best tournament results in the history of chess.> No doubt if you add the hard worker Kasparov's opening datta to Carlsen games, the later will be able to realize another 3000 Elo performance. Actually he just enjoys the game and wins all major tournaments he plays.|
|Feb-04-13|| ||IndigoViolet: Many years ago, I saw a reader's letter that was published in the <BCM> in, I think, 1927, after Alekhine had won the title. I can't recall the wording but the gist of it was that, whereas Lasker and Capablanca had long had a settled approach to chess, Alekhine hadn't yet fundamentally decided how chess should be played, even though he was now world champion! |
Hyperbolic, to be sure, but the idea has always stuck in my mind, especially when looking at Alekhine's chess between, say, 1921 and 1927. It's sometimes as if he's fighting himself as much as his opponent. Problem is, the longer and the harder one studies, the risk is becoming more not less conflicted. No wonder he reacted so contemptuously to the notion, attributed to both Lasker and Capa, that chess was becoming played out and needed to be made more complicated!
|Feb-04-13|| ||LIFE Master AJ: <Lamda> Your list is flawed, Topalov was FIDE World Champ ... however briefly.|
|Feb-04-13|| ||LIFE Master AJ: See Veselin Topalov for a bio and details of his career.|
|Feb-12-13|| ||LIFE Master AJ: Since a couple of top GM's (here - in this event) could only manage +3, Carlsen's +7 puts him in a class by himself. (And his rating shows it!) |
Aronian probably confirmed his spot as the World #2 with his fine performance.
|Feb-27-13|| ||chesssalamander: No, I think Levon is still #3.|
|Nov-23-13|| ||schweigzwang: Nice to revisit the discussion on this page.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 111 OF 111 ·