|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1648 OF 1810 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Feb-09-12
 | | alexmagnus: <River>, do you even read my posts? Don't confuse strength with greatness. |
 |
| Feb-09-12 | | shach matov: <You seriously believe Anand or Aronian would beat the Fischer of 1971?> You have to be kidding me! With all the advances in all areas of chess and of coarse especially in the opening, I would be surprised if Fischer would be able to even win a couple of games - most of the games would be decided right in the opening, and the rest, at this level, is merely technique. How is Fischer supposed to compete against the bet current talent who is equipped with the modern theory? Fischer would obviously lose the matches, the only question is whether he would be able to win at least a couple of games... |
|
| Feb-09-12 | | shach matov: <River: I'm just waiting for you to be the first one to crown Carlsen or Aronian (whoever does it first), as "The Greatest Of All Time"> What in the world does this even have to do with our argument? I mean if you lose an argument, why cant you at least do it gracefully without going into bizarre claims which have absolutely nothing to do with the issue in question? And where did you see me say that the highest rated is the <Greatest Of All Time>? I never said that, so apologize for your mistake or admit that you're lying... if you're man enough for that ;] |
|
| Feb-09-12 | | shach matov: <alexmagnus: <River>, do you even read my posts?> <River> usually doesn't read the posts of people he argues with, instead he constantly thinks of how to post something that looks like it refutes something which his opponent never even said. You can be arguing with him about the <strength> of a player, and he will post something like "That player was the most talented in the world and everybody knows it. So you're wrong". That's not his post but it displays his method of argumentation: answer something - anything - as long as it sounds like it refutes your opponents argument, doesn't matter if it makes no sense ;] |
|
| Feb-09-12 | | Riverbeast: <I would be surprised if Fischer would be able to even win a couple of games - most of the games would be decided right in the opening, and the rest, at this level, is merely technique> He He
Good one
I'll take this as comedy, and call it a day....
Until next time....
I'll talk to you once Carlsen or Aronian or someone else goes over 2851 FIDE...I'll be expecting the best comedy of all....When I get to hear from your own mouth - keyboard - that they are better chessplayers than Kasparov ever was |
|
| Feb-09-12 | | shach matov: I don't understand what Kasparov has to do with our argument? Although I do know your methods: if you lose an argument then just change the subject and start talking about Carlsen or Kasparov or their grandmothers. Nobody is fooled here: the issue at hand was the fact that the current players have much greater knowledge than the older ones and this is reflected in the higher ratings, inflation plays a very small part compared to the actual increase in the knowledge of layers. This was the argument and you lost it ;] |
|
| Feb-09-12 | | Riverbeast: <schach matov> Try to keep up, okay? You are arguing that there has been negligible rating inflation over the decades and generations....That a 2785 FIDE player in 1972 is basically the same in strength as a 2785 FIDE player in 1992, and basically the same in strength as a 2785 FIDE player in 2012 This is what makes you so sure Aronian or Anand today would crush the Fischer of 1972, right? Because their 2012 ratings are higher....They have superior 'knowledge' So by the same argument, Carlsen or Aronian, once they go over 2851 FIDE, are better players than Kasparov ever was...Right? I'm just quoting you...Before you try to settle an argument with me, perhaps you should try to settle it with yourself |
|
| Feb-09-12 | | Lambda: <Chess knowledge is an integral part of the chess player while a better racket is merely an external aid due to advancements in technology.> The _amount_ of chess knowledge a chess player has may be an integral part of them. But _how modern_ that chess knowledge is is a function of the time in which they live; it's that external aid. A match between a player with 2010s chess knowledge and a player with 1970s chess knowledge is impossible, so it's a bit silly to consider such things. If Fischer were to play Carlsen, then inevitably either Fischer would be equipped with 2010s knowledge, or Carlsen would only have 1970s knowledge. That's the only sensible way to imagine it. |
|
Feb-09-12
| | alexmagnus: Well, we consider <the moves played on board in their games> to estimate strength. Of course such a match would be impossible, but it's less hypothetical that all those "what if Fischer had modern knowledge" theories. When analyzing the games, we don't ask "what if", we just look at the moves. And if the moves are objectively worse, it doesn't matter if it is due to a blunders or due to worse knowledge - they <are> worse. |
|
| Feb-09-12 | | Lambda: <And if the moves are objectively worse, it doesn't matter if it is due to a blunders or due to worse knowledge - they <are> worse.> If you don't even care why an effect is occurring, why bother measuring it in the first place? |
|
| Feb-09-12 | | Riverbeast: And to answer your last question <alexmagnus>: <And why are you discrediting Macieja's evidence (both computer analysis and the theoretical model)? Just because it doesn't fit your world view?> It can't just be MY world view....
I would think anybody who has looked at the GAMES of Staunton, would know that he was not playing at a sub-2000 ELO level, or anywhere close to that low That's why I said Macieja's conclusion was absurd |
|
Feb-09-12
| | alexmagnus: Well, the original discussion was regarding rating inflation - with respect to quality of games. So why bother with the reasons for a differing quality if all we need is to determine whether it differs at all? The question was if 2700 from different eras is comparable in terms of objective quality of games, not if "if it is comparable, find an excuse for the older player". I find that excuse-searching anyway insulting to older players. It's a normal way of life that the development progresses, in any field. There is nothing insulting in saying old players played weaker - as long as one keeps in mind that hey played the strongest that could be played in their era (which they obviously did). |
|
Feb-09-12
| | alexmagnus: Well, <River>, Macieja looked at just that, the GAMES of Staunton. With an engine and a method showing correlation between Elo and engine results. Getting a 1899 rating for Staunton's games against Saint-Amant and a 1940 rating for all major matches played by Staunton. |
|
| Feb-09-12 | | Lambda: I think the question would be something like "is there a difference between two 2700 players from different eras, and if so, what is it?" If the answer is "the newer one is inherently a less skilled player, but plays moves to the same level of overall quality as the older one because he has higher-quality theoretical knowledge to draw on", then the question of "does inflation exist" depends on how you define inflation... |
|
| Feb-09-12 | | Riverbeast: <Macieja looked at just that, the GAMES of Staunton. With an engine and a method showing correlation between Elo and engine results. Getting a 1899 rating for Staunton's games against Saint-Amant and a 1940 rating for all major matches played by Staunton> Amazing...What can I say?
Meanwhile, this whole discussion makes me think of what I hear from almost every older GM....By older I mean 60+ years old They say most of these new GMs are just TERRIBLE in the endgame ;-) |
|
Feb-09-12
 | | Honza Cervenka: There is significant inflation in elo rating and it has nothing to do with any superior knowledge of today's top players in comparison to top players from times ten or twenty or thirty years ago. In fact, elo rating, as it is constructed, is nothing more or less than an indicator of probable result in current competition (tournament, match or individual game) based on recent past results of individual participating players. I can see two causes of this trend. The first and probably main cause is the fast growth of set of rated chessplayers and number of rated games and events, which come into running calculation. The influx of new players of very different abilities and rated games played by them has basically the same effect, which was used by a certain infamous Grob expert to skyrocket his USCF rating over 2700 level in mid 1990s. The rating of relatively better players tend to rise steadily, which applies for all levels. The second cause, which produces the inflation of ratings in top tier, is appearence and growth of number of exclusive "super-tournaments", where only players with rating over (or at least not much below) 2700 or even 2750 are invited. As the system produces more and more new 2700 players, who quite often significantly differ in their real strenght, ratings of those best among them, who are stable participants there, are rising steadily even more. To use these ratings for comparison in time spanning decades is just misleading. |
|
Feb-09-12
| | alexmagnus: <Honza> I heard this arguments for thousands of times, yet they are all just as easily counterable: F.x. the "closed pool inflation" occurs only if there are many games within the pool <within one rating period>, which is never the case. Also, games against unrated players are not rated in FIDE ratings (to my knowledge, with the exception of round robins - but those are rare and unrated players get rated with their result). Also, have you any objective refutation (either mathematical or computer-wise) of Macieja's paper? |
|
Feb-09-12
| | alexmagnus: Btw, in recent months the number of 2700s declined - the record number of them on a live list was 49, now it's 43 and shortly it was even down to 40. |
|
| Feb-09-12 | | King Death: < alexmagnus: Btw, in recent months the number of 2700s declined - the record number of them on a live list was 49, now it's 43 and shortly it was even down to 40.> This is just fluctuation but there's one trend I've noticed in looking at Top 100 lists through the last few years, the lowest players on them have slowly been going up. On the January 2012 list 2650 doesn't even make it! |
|
Feb-09-12
| | alexmagnus: We'll see. At least Macieja makes a testible prediction in his paper (regarding the future growth of the number of 2200+ players). |
|
| Feb-09-12 | | shach matov: <River: This is what makes you so sure Aronian or Anand today would crush the Fischer of 1972, right? Because their 2012 ratings are higher....They have superior 'knowledge'> You're doing the same thing again: not reading my post properly and simply responding to save face in a lost argument. Obviously I am not arguing the stupid argument you suggest and you know that. I repeated about 20 times that Fischer would lose to Aronian and Annad because of the advancements in chess theory and opening in articular... and after I repeat that 20 times you still ask me if I think they would beat him because they are rated higher? You hate to lose arguments don't you? ;] <You are arguing that there has been negligible rating inflation over the decades and generations....That a 2785 FIDE player in 1972 is basically the same in strength as a 2785> That's again compete wrong since I clearly stated my opinion that I believe there is possibly a 1 point per year inflation. Again read the posts first before responding. <So by the same argument, Carlsen or Aronian, once they go over 2851 FIDE, are better players than Kasparov ever was...Right?> First of all stop fantasizing about things that never happened yet and may never happen at all. But if they do go over 2851 it would be because of small inflation in addition to advancement of chess theory - their knowledge would be greater then their predecessors' exactly the same way as it is with Fischer relative to the current players. |
|
| Feb-09-12 | | Nemesistic: Shach, so when the day arrives in the near future when Carlsen (More than likely) surpasses Kasparovs 2851 rating, would you say he was then a stronger player than GK? Not in terms of achievements, just strength? |
|
Feb-09-12
| | alexmagnus: @Nemesistic:
don't know how to <shach>, to me getting slightly over 2851 would be equalling GK's strength, to surpass is about 2880 would be needed (rating differences below 30 points are negligible to determine who is stronger - no matter if in the same era or in different ones. That's my opinion.). |
|
Feb-09-12
 | | harrylime: I could'nt be bothered to sift thru all this ratings inflation stuff.. Jeez.. Just to say, it's the people who are denying inflation exists who are in denial. Not the other way around. It's so obvious it's laughable. There are players rated 2650 plus now who are not fit to lick Spassky's white squared bishop, and would be destroyed by the Boris of the 60's.. yet they are rated above the former world champion. LOL |
|
| Feb-09-12 | | drnooo: the real test of ability between the top level gms is prety simple: random chess, where all opening theory is rendered nil. Bronstein and Benko were advocating it as a game even before Fischer.
Actually had Fischer wanted he could have pursued matches with the best players for matches in the early seventies , or even later, there would have been plenty of backing and money to watch such matches. |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1648 OF 1810 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
