< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1649 OF 1813 ·
|Feb-09-12|| ||shach matov: <Nemesistic: Not in terms of achievements, just strength?>|
I am of the same basic opinion as <alexmagnus> regarding this question although we differ in that I do think that there is some inflation. Considering a small amount of inflation - say approximately 20 points - Magnus would have to reach approximately 2870 (in the next 4-7 years) and stay there for at least 5-6 months - if that happens then definitely he would reach the strength of Garry when the latter was 2851 and would surpassed him if he gets to 2880+.
Maybe it's a bit primitive but to keep things simple I just add 1 point of inflation per year to the actual rating; while the rest of the rating increase with time I consider to be due to the actual increase in the strength of the players due to the advancements in chess theory which we simply can not ignore.
|Feb-09-12|| ||shach matov: Although as has been mentioned already we have to differentiate <greatness> from <strength>: Anand, Carlsen, Aronian are definitely stronger than Fischer was in 71, as their ratings suggest, (whether that's due mostly to opening theory is irrelevant) but in case of Carlsen and Aronian in particular we can't say that they are greater than Fisher since they haven't even won the wc title yet nor dominated for any substantial period of time.|
|Feb-09-12|| ||TheFocus: <Anand, Carlsen, Aronian are definitely stronger than Fischer was in 71, as their ratings suggest>|
Absolutely ridiculous statement. None of these three could tote Bobby's score-sheets.
|Feb-09-12|| ||shach matov: You're confusing the idea of strength and greatness. I guess you missed our discussion here where we defined strength in terms of the actual results of the possible games between the players: I don't think it's a news to anybody that if Fischer plays against the best current players he would lose many games already in the opening simply because of the monstrous difference in the opening preparation - how is he supposed to compete against 40 years of advancements in opening theory? Answer: he can't and he will lose a match against any of the top current players. So my definition of strength is in terms of "who would win", not who is greater in terms of the relative achievements against contemporaries.|
|Feb-09-12|| ||harrylime: < shach matov: You're confusing the idea of strength and greatness. I guess you missed our discussion here where we defined strength in terms of the actual results of the possible games between the players: I don't think it's a news to anybody that if Fischer plays against the best current players he would lose many games already in the opening simply because of the monstrous difference in the opening preparation - how is he supposed to compete against 40 years of advancements in opening theory? Answer: he can't and he will lose a match against any of the top current players. So my definition of strength is in terms of "who would win", not who is greater in terms of the relative achievements against contemporaries. >|
Are you reading my posts ??! lol
I repeat .. Place a lap top and unlimitless supplies of cigars and whisky under steinitz's nose in a plush hotel just now, and being brought back from the dead, he would wreak havoc in todays chessworld..
Give a 19 year Fischer a lap top and access to all known openings and games ect ect.. and it just gets scary.
It's you who has a problem dealing with 'time' .. not me. It's you who has a problem dealing with time and it's inflationary impact and effects upon the chess rating system .. Not me ! ( but maybe you're happy lolling in Gazza's world)
The Fischer of the late 60's and early 70's would in todays' inflated ratings be pushing if not 3000 ..
The Spassky of '67 today would be over 2850..
The Botvinnik of 48' would be over 2900
The Capa of 11' would be over 3000 ..
|Feb-09-12|| ||harrylime: < TheFocus: <Anand, Carlsen, Aronian are definitely stronger than Fischer was in 71, as their ratings suggest>
Absolutely ridiculous statement. None of these three could tote Bobby's score-sheets.>|
Absolutely on the money..
Fischer would eat these players alive.
|Feb-09-12|| ||nimh: Half a year ago I wrote this:
<Before we can reach consensus on who was the best chess player ever, we first must find the definition of the best ever.
There are three dimensions.
1) Absolute playing strength. Most recent players have the advantage. In the course of time, chess knowledge accumulates, training methods evolve, and the increase of the number of people who pick up chess leads to the bigger level of talent among top level players. Obviously Carlsen is the best ever in this category.
2) Influence on the game and subsequent generations of players. The less developed a field, the easier to create new ideas, something unpredecented and longstanding. Here past players had the advantage. I don't think it's ever possible to surpass Steinitz in this behalf.
3) The dominance over the contemporaries. Naturally, the smaller the pool of active players, the easier it is to dominate. Hence again chess players of the past had more opportunities, although, not so distinctly as in the case of the previous two points above. Names to be included in this category: Morphy, Steinitz, Fischer (vertically); Lasker, Kasparov (horizontally).
It's extremely important that one is able to tell each distinct category apart, and not to confuse them whilst discussing the matter. Unfortunately, I've seen too many times kibitzers unable to get these elementary facts correct.>
Looks like the idea of strength applies to 1) and greatness to 2) and 3).
|Feb-09-12|| ||shach matov: <Give a 19 year Fischer a lap top and access to all known openings and games ect ect>|
This has already been addressed many times and has been shown to be a scenario which is impossible to prove in real life.
One reason for this is that Fisher hated with passion the advancement of the opening theory back then in the early 70's when it was kids play compared to the current state of the theory. He was not able to cope with it on many levels and in particular psychologically. He said it himself: I don't like chess anymore because of all the opening theory.
How can you simply suppose that he would be able to cope with the completely insane modern theory when he wasn't even able to cope with the theory of the 70's? Indeed one of the reasons why he stopped playing was because of this very reason. Why do you think he was the one who invented fischerrandom? It was not a coincidence, he was disgusted with the fact that players who are "weaker" than him can beat him simply because they memorized more opening lines and the fisherrandom was his way of avoiding his dislike of the wast amount of memorization required to lay chess already back then in the 70's.
Therefore you can't simply say give Fischer a laptop and he will kick everybody's butt - it's absolutely not as simply and as primitive as that. We can't say for sure how he would cope with the modern theory, and indeed there's a case to be made that he would not be able to cope with it, as shown above.
|Feb-09-12|| ||harrylime: That 19 year old Fischer had an insatiable appetite .. Gargantuan.. He learnt Russian to study their literature FFS.. He breathed chess 24/7.. He was a monster. |
You telling me there are unknown variables as to leasing a lap top to a 19 year old Fischer lol lol lol
<Schach> .. I like you.. But here we will have to disagree.
|Feb-09-12|| ||shach matov: <The Fischer of the late 60's and early 70's would in todays' inflated ratings be pushing if not 3000 ..>|
I am glad you're continuing the idiocy even though there were about 20 people here who already refuted this silly claim. You do realize that 3000 strength is equivalent to some of the best current computers? You do realize that you're claiming that Fischer of the 70's with his miniscule opening knowledge (compared to the current theory) would be able to compete with the best computers on their level?
What your claim basically means is that even-though Fischer would come out of almost every opening against Rybka with a major disadvantage, he would still be able to outplay Rybka in tactical battles and win many games. This is not even worthy to be considered as a joke ;]
|Feb-09-12|| ||harrylime: And yes.. the current ratings system pis*es on the past from a great height. |
Morphy was unbeatable in the 1850's.. took on every living thing.. sometimes at odds .. what rating would he be now ??!
What rating would a young Lasker be? cutting a swathe thru the chess world and enhancing middle game and opening theory in such a way ?!
Capablanca ? what player has stood aloof and above his contempories for such a period of time ? 1911 - 1927 What rating would you give a young Capa of 1913 ?
I could go on..
The ratings system is chronically infested with inflation and chronically biased towards now..
|Feb-09-12|| ||shach matov: <19 year old Fischer... 3000> |
Well again that kind of rating is basically Houdini and Rybka territory. But if so, then how is it possible for the Fischer/Rybka of your fantasies to have a -2 life-time score against Geller?... How can Rybka lose to Geller so many games? Was Geller rated 3100 then? Hmmmm dilemma dilemma
|Feb-09-12|| ||Nemesistic: Harry, If the Spassky of 67 would today be over 2850, then that'd mean he was a stronger player than Carlsen or Anand is today!!! |
Do you really believe that the Spassky of 67 would beat ANY of todays 2750+ players???
And i do believe in inflation, but you're going overboard with these 3000+ rating comparisons
|Feb-09-12|| ||harrylime: < shach matov >
As I say . I like you. But you are unaware of the monster that Fischer was..
Fischer was chess. He breathed 24/7 for chess.. Relentless .. any access to chess he utilized. so a lap top would've been Manna from heaven for a 19 year old Fischer.. A gift from the Gods. And jeez, would he have used it ! lol ..
|Feb-09-12|| ||harrylime: <Nemesistic:.
Yes. I do. Spassky is a wunderkind and a natural genius. The Spassky of 67' had it all. Had everything.. and today would be 2850 plus.. And that's that.
|Feb-09-12|| ||shach matov: <And yes.. the current ratings system pis*es on the past from a great height.>|
What you're once again completely ignoring are the advancements in chess knowledge throughout history: Capa was a major talent but his knowledge compared to the modern players is hopelessly low; and this is reflected in the higher ratings of the modern player. This is not very hard to understand, but if you try maybe you'll get it.
The same applies to Fischer or any other old master: even if we consider only the advancements in the opening, it would mean that against modern top players in almost every game he would be facing a hopeless lost position out of the opening, and no amount of talent would save him against someone like Anand since winning a won position requires only precision and good technique which all top modern players have. This is what the increased rating of the modern players reflects in addition to the relatively small amount of inflation.
|Feb-09-12|| ||Nemesistic: Harry, you've got to quit this Fischer love-fest you've got going on.. Thats why you're getting ridiclued mate.|
I answered you in your forum anyway..
And no way Spassky 67 could beat today's elite, not a chance..
|Feb-09-12|| ||AlphaMale: <Spassky 67> would be a good name for a drink.|
|Feb-09-12|| ||harrylime: <Nemesistic: Harry, you've got to quit this Fischer love-fest you've got going on.. Thats why you're getting ridiclued mate.
I answered you in your forum anyway..
And no way Spassky 67 could beat today's elite, not a chance..>
Mate .. You're wrong.
As for being ridiculed ? Do I give a monkeys ?! lol ..
You're missing something here big time .. Honestly..
|Feb-09-12|| ||harrylime: Boris Spassky was, I repeat was and is, a chess Wunderkind.. A natural genius. This wunderkind became a world champion in an era of great players.. |
Pleeez do not underestimate the Spassky of 67 ..
|Feb-09-12|| ||Riverbeast: <And yes.. the current ratings system pis*es on the past from a great height.>|
This is why I can't help but laugh, when I read about how everybody is waiting breathlessly for Carlsen to go over 2851 FIDE
As if that actually proves anything
But you wait and see....As soon as it happens, everytime the media mentions Carlsen's name, they will all accompany it with 'the highest rated player of all time'
The implication, of course (especially to just about every non-chessplayer who reads it, who has no clue about rating inflation), is that Carlsen is the strongest player of all time
<Morphy was unbeatable in the 1850's.. took on every living thing.. sometimes at odds .. what rating would he be now ??!>
Somebody on cg.com claimed that a retroactive rating analysis (maybe it was Macieja's ??) put Morphy at around 2100 ELO today
|Feb-09-12|| ||King Death: <riverbeast> Wasn't that post you're talking about where a great player of the past was "2100" according to Nunn regarding players in Karlsbad 1911? Or was there another bunch of nonsense on that?|
|Feb-09-12|| ||Honza Cervenka: < 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?>
Well, I have read that paper (http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/p...) and it doesn’t impress me at all. Of course, I have no mathematical or computer-wise refutation of it but I don’t think it is necessary here. I think that there are plenty of apparent methodological problems with whole approach used by Macieja, Regan and Haworth. Used measurement of intra-game quality (i.e. analysis by Rybka 3 to fixed reported depth 13 ply) is heavily biased towards today’s players who are using exactly this program or other engines for opening preparation which goes quite often to the 30th move, if not deeper, and so it is no wonder that their indicators of quality, which are based on differences in evaluations between Rybka’s top choice and the move played in the game, are on average better than the same indicators of those guys, who were forced to use their heads only. I don’t want to repeat here a common knowledge that Rybka’s evals, especially if calculating in short horizon, can be often utterly misleading too. In the paper there are also some quite interesting details, which seem to be a bit in contradiction with paper’s rather categorical conclusions. For example, so called Intrinsic Performance Rating calculated by authors for 1979 Montreal tournament (mere 15th category of FIDE with average elo 2622 – even Czech championship could be stronger today) was 2588, that is significantly higher than IPR of 18th cat. Linares 1993 (elo=2676, IPR=2522) or Linares 1994 (elo=2685, IPR=2517). Another quite interesting point apparent from figure 2 was the fact that tournaments in period 1971-1984 and in lesser extent tournaments from 1985-1999 had far lower values of average error in later phases of play after move forty (adjournments apparently mattered) despite the lower average ratings of tournaments then played in comparison to 2000-2009 and 2010+. So much for superiority of current players over their predecessors from 1970s and 1980s I can say. But the main problem with whole argument made by Macieja et al in my view is that nothing in their work proves any causality between alleged rise of quality of play measured by IPR (still a bit debateable issue) and the rise of elo ratings, which are (I feel that I am starting to repeat myself) constructed primarily for indication of relative strength of a player in comparison to others at the moment and his/her momentary position in the world ranking. Ratings are produced by results of games, not by quality of games. And as Claude Bloodgood’s bright example demonstrated quite instructively, even rating 2700 must not always be a mark of super grandmaster quality.
|Feb-09-12|| ||Riverbeast: <King Death> It was mentioned on the Morphy page some time ago|
I tried to dig up the actual chart, but the link is broken
But this guy was claiming that based on Rybka's evaluation of the moves(maybe this WAS Macieja?), Steinitz and Morphy made less 'correct' moves than a 2150 ELO today
This is a snippet of the conversation I was able to find
< don't follow: Steinitz' percentage of "correct" moves in your chart is 57.92%, Morphy's is 55.49% (compared to a modern 2150 player's 63%+).>
<<You saying Morphy and Steinitz made worse moves than 2150 players today!!!??? That they're not even master (2200+) strengh!?>>
|Feb-09-12|| ||King Death: <riverbeast> Assuming for the moment that Morphy and Steinitz are ~2150 using this method, what about players like you and me? If we were to have our play evaluated should we expect to be something like 1500-1700 in spite of both being master level?|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1649 OF 1813 ·