< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 28 OF 31 ·
|Jan-16-12|| ||JoergWalter: <ughaibu: Capablanca's eight years without a loss has less to do with his style than it has to do with his opposition.>|
Sorry guys, you lost me. I need a slow and lucid explanation for this statement.
|Jan-16-12|| ||TheFocus: <joergWalter> I think he is trying to say that Capablanca played weaker opposition that Lasker did.|
|Jan-16-12|| ||JoergWalter: <TheFocus>
does that mean he would have lost with his particular style against stronger opposition? Happy bs, imo.
|Jan-16-12|| ||TheFocus: I agree with you.
When Capablanca played strong opposition, I think he came off pretty well, too.
|Jan-16-12|| ||keypusher: <TheFocus: <joergWalter> I think he is trying to say that Capablanca played weaker opposition that Lasker did.>|
And what I am saying is (compared to modern masters) all opposition 80-90 years ago was weak. Nunn looked at the Carlsbad 1911 supertournament some time back, in which almost all the leading masters besides Lasker and Capablanca participated. Nunn concluded that an average master at Carlsbad would be about a 2100 in modern terms. This text has been posted before.
<[Watson: Here Nunn shows that openings weren't a problem in this tournament for the older players (who specialised in a few systems). Then he points out the generous time-limits in Karlsbad. Having eliminated those factors, he gives three reasons for his the weak play of the Karlsbad group:]
"The first was a tendency to make serious oversights. It is quite clear that the Karlsbad players were far more prone to severe errors than contemporary players. Even the leading players made fairly frequent blunders. Rubinstein, for example, who was then at virtually the peak of his career (1912 was his best year) failed to win with a clear extra rook against Tartakower ... He also allowed a knight fork of king and rook in an ending against Kostic..."
"The second problem area was an inclination to adopt totally the wrong plan...[examples follow]..."
"The third main problem area was that of endgame play...[horrendous examples of elementary blown endgames follow]..."
[Watson: In the course of research for a book, I made a lengthy look at endgames from a comparable period and found similar butchery, including some terrible blunders by top players such Lasker. The endgame skills of the great masters - excepting Rubinstein - are much exaggerated in books, for the reasons that Nunn gives, i.e, the understandable selection of a very small set of games for reasons of instruction and beauty.] >
Link doesn't work anymore, unfortunately.
|Jan-16-12|| ||keypusher: Here is a working link. You have to scroll down to Watson's discussion of Nunn's chess puzzle book.|
More excerpt. Here Watson is quoting Nunn:
<The method I chose to examine the games was a two-step process. I reasoned that a good way to eliminate differences resulting from 80 years' advance in chess theory was only to look for really serious errors - if you blunder a piece, it doesn't matter whether you understand Nimzowitsch's pawn-chain theories or not."
[Watson: Notice this important step. I'm always hearing (and reading) that "If the players of yesteryear could only catch up with opening theory, they'd be as good or better than today's players". The funny thing is that the many years (usually decades) of study that modern players put into opening theory should not only count towards their strength, but that study and practice contributes vastly to their understanding of the middlegame and even some endgames. The silly idea that you can just 'catch up' in opening theory ignores the vast undertaking that this would involve, especially to absorb the vast number of openings and opening variations necessary to a complete chess education. Nunn removes this factor from the equation, to the enormous detriment of the modern masters' strength assessment! Surely this will roughly equalise things? Let him continue: ]
"To analyse almost 800 games from scratch by hand would take years, so first I used the automatic analysis feature of Fritz 5 to look at the games without human intervention. It was set in 'blundercheck' mode, which fitted in with my objective of looking for serious errors. Then I examined 'by hand' all the points raised by Fritz to decide whether they were genuine blunders or products of Fritz's imagination.
I had no particular preconceptions about what the results of this search would be. Like most contemporary grandmasters, I was familiar with all the standard textbook examples from the early part of the century, but I had never before undertaken a systematic examination of a large number of old games. I was quite surprised by the results. To summarize, the old players were much worse than I expected. The blunders thrown up by Fritz were so awful that I looked at a considerable number of complete games 'by hand', wondering if the Fritz results really reflected the general standard of play. They did. By comparison, the Fritz search on the 1993 Biel Interzonal revealed relatively little; many of the points raised had already been examined in the players' own notes in Informator and elsewhere. I had originally intended to have the Karlsbad and Biel positions side-by-side in this chapter, but the results were so lopsided that I decided to concentrate on Karlsbad here. Some of the more interesting Biel positions may be found scattered throughout the rest of the book. >
Nunn then looks at Suechting, who finished in the middle of the pack:
<In order to be more specific about Karlsbad, take one player: Hugo Süchting (1874-1916). At Karlsbad he scored 11.5/13.5 or 'minus 2', as they say these days - a perfectly respectable score. Having played over all his games at Karlsbad I think that I can confidently state that his playing strength was not greater than Elo 2100 (BCF 187) - and that was on a good day and with a following wind.>
|Jan-16-12|| ||keypusher: If I told you a modern super-GM had gone eight years without losing a game, you'd be impressed. If I told you he did it against opposition with an average strength below 2200, I imagine you would be a good deal less impressed.|
|Jan-16-12|| ||nimh: <Having played over all his games at Karlsbad I think that I can confidently state that his playing strength was not greater than Elo 2100 (BCF 187) - and that was on a good day and with a following wind.>|
I wish he had explained the basis of his 'confident statement'. Nunn didn't make any comparison to modern players. It seems like he just took it out of the air...
I think he underestimated Süchting's strength. His rating throughout 1911 was above 2550, which puts him within 300-point bracket with the top-rated player. It would imply that at that time leading masters were only equal to 2400-rated modern players. 2200-2300 seems more plausible.
As for Capa and Lasker runs, it would be interesting to calculate and compare their chessmetrics TPRs.
|Jan-16-12|| ||TheFocus: <keypusher> Thank you for that.|
|Jan-16-12|| ||keypusher: <I think he underestimated Süchting's strength. His rating throughout 1911 was above 2550, which puts him within 300-point bracket with the top-rated player. It would imply that at that time leading masters were only equal to 2400-rated modern players.>|
Well, again, neither Lasker nor Capablanca was at Carlsbad, but I suspect Nunn would agree with a 2400 rating for leading masters there. A further excerpt: <
[Watson: You have to get the book to see these examples of Süchting's horrendous mistakes and misunderstandings. Nunn also has talks about more positions, and then includes a section of 30 Karlsbad "puzzles", representing all of the players. The positional mistakes by the top players are particularly telling.]
"Returning then to the question as to how Süchting scored 11.5 points, the answer is simply that the other players were not much better. If we assume Süchting as 2100, then his score implies an average rating for the tournament of 2129 - it would not even be assigned a category today. Based on the above, readers will not be surprised when I say that my general impression of the play at Karlsbad was quite poor...">
I've already examples of blunders by some of the leading players there.
|Jan-16-12|| ||harrylime: Lasker arranged and fixed and avoided .. that's how it was .. He was a genius, but he became lazy and arrogant in his chess.. and his legacy is diminished becuase of this.And he avoided. Big time. |
Pillsbury was just a genius at chess.. advanced chess and was a character too exploding with charisma.. Pillsbury died waaaayy too young..
|Jan-16-12|| ||King Death: <ughaibu: Capablanca's eight years without a loss has less to do with his style than it has to do with his opposition. Over approximately the same period Lasker went undefeated for seven years, against generally stronger opponents, and nobody claims that Lasker had a simple style, was the unbeatable Prussian, or any similar crap.>|
The result of the Tarrasch match wasn't a surprise. Lasker had already beaten him 8-3 with 15 draws 8 years before. In the Berlin tournament you had Tarrasch who was 2 years older by then plus Schlechter who was half dead of starvation. Lasker's performance at St. Petersburg was great but there's no reason to get carried away here.
|Jan-16-12|| ||TheFocus: <harrylime> Stop talking crap about Lasker "ducking" anyone.|
Lasker feared no one!
Not Tarrasch! Not Pillsbury! Not Rubinstein!
But if you wanted to challenge Lasker, you better raise the money or you should just crawl back under your rock.
Lasker - The King of Chess!
|Jan-16-12|| ||King Death: <TheFocus> It was Tarrasch who got in a bad ice skating accident when a match looked to be set with Lasker. I have no clue what this <harrylime> is blatting on about. If you haven't tried explaining to this fool about Rubinstein I think I already mentioned what happened in that case.|
|Jan-16-12|| ||nimh: <but I suspect Nunn would agree with a 2400 rating for leading masters there.> |
I cannot agree with that assessment, both Rubinstein and Schlechter were less than 100 pts off Lasker according to the January 1911 list.
But you have seen my study which estimates Lasker's play in 1892-96 between 2400-2500 modern equivalent. and if we take into consideration Lasker's pragmatic approach and 15-20 years of develeopment...
|Jan-16-12|| ||harrylime: Lasker ducked and dived. History proves this. The great players who never gotta a shot at the title in the 1900's proves this.. his dance around Capa until that forlorn title match in 21' proves this..|
A Janowski and past it tarrasch are not exactly proof of dominance .. just corruption.
|Jan-16-12|| ||TheFocus: <King Death> <TheFocus> <It was Tarrasch who got in a bad ice skating accident when a match looked to be set with Lasker.>|
<I have no clue what this <harrylime> is blatting on about. If you haven't tried explaining to this fool about Rubinstein I think I already mentioned what happened in that case.>
He won't listen to anyone but himself.
|Jan-16-12|| ||harrylime: Lasker was a dodger .. and that's that.|
|Jan-16-12|| ||TheFocus: So, you don't think he transcended chess, like you claim Fischer did?|
|Jan-16-12|| ||harrylime: Anyway this is Pillsbury's page..
Lasker hid and cowered .. Pillsbury was there ..
Let you chessgames regulars re invent history on this site !
|Jan-16-12|| ||TheFocus: <harry> Your crap is boring.|
|Jan-16-12|| ||Petrosianic: I'll say. Lasker's charisma outweighs these petty criticisms. He transceded chess, mathematics, and even baseball.|
|Jan-16-12|| ||harrylime: I'll say your post should be on the Lasker page ?|
|Jan-16-12|| ||TheFocus: <baseball>
Lasker was head baseball coach and math professor at Columbia University, and taught a young Jose Capablanca how to improve his swing.
In an article in <Lasker's Chesss Magazine>, he wrote, "When I first met Senor Capablanca, he was a pudgy, acne-faced youth from Havana. He had a lot of enthusiasm for baseball and a little bit of talent for chess. I used to make him run extra laps around the ballfield whenever he lost to me at blitz chess, which was fairly often. Later, he improved quite a bit in chess and achieved a lot of fame."
|Jan-16-12|| ||harrylime: Lasker was and is a chess titan and genius. Tho he did indeed outstay his welcome thru avoiding the best challengers lol |
These are Harry Nelson Pillsbury's pages tho..
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 28 OF 31 ·