< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 204 OF 217 ·
|Jan-22-12|| ||Shams: <Antiochus> Would you mind just uploading those games, instead of cluttering Karpov's player page with PGN? Thanks.|
|Jan-23-12|| ||Antiochus: <Shams>
I'll try to do this, but you might have better luck because I'm being limited for not being a full member.
Please, follow the link below
All games from this high-rated event
are absent of chessgames database. Thank You.
|Jan-23-12|| ||Shams: <Antiochus> The PGN upload utility is open to all members, premium and not-yet-premium alike. It could not be easier to use, just cut and paste!|
PGN Upload Utility
Thanks for uploading new games into the db, and for helping keep the player pages free for comments.
|Jan-25-12|| ||Antiochus: <Shams>Have you ever heard of Galileo and Francis Bacon?
You know what's Empiricism?
So do not jump to conclusions, if you may not prove them.
|Feb-17-12|| ||Antiochus: "At 40 years old, the brain is not like before."
|Feb-18-12|| ||rilkefan: <"At 40 years old, the brain is not like before.">|
I don't have any sense of that yet in my case, but of course I don't have a way to measure myself independently like a GM does.
|Feb-18-12|| ||twinlark: At 40 years old, nothing is like before.|
|Feb-18-12|| ||King Death: < rilkefan: <"At 40 years old, the brain is not like before.">
I don't have any sense of that yet in my case, but of course I don't have a way to measure myself independently like a GM does.>|
I just wish I could remember what my brain was like at 40, a few months down the road my 50s will be nothing but a memory.
|Feb-18-12|| ||alexmagnus: <"At 40 years old, the brain is not like before."
Said probably after losing to Short (as I said - if someone in an advanced age loses/has a bad result, he is too quick on blaming his age for this). I wonder if he would still subscribe to these words at 43, when winning Linares 1994.
|Mar-13-12|| ||laurenttizano: I still pick karpov as my favorite,capablanca next,carlsen is magnus...next destination (Philippines!0-1)|
|Mar-15-12|| ||Dr. Yes: Karpov in a private moment is said to have remarked, "Winning the WCC in 1975, was never so easy again."|
|Mar-17-12|| ||Bobby Fiske: Spending Saturday afternoon with Karpov:
He is playing 1st board in the Bundesliga today at 1400 CET (1 hour from now).
Is there enough strength left in the old champ (currently Elo 2617) to beat GM Jobava Elo 2712?
LINK: http://bundesliga.liveschach.net/ (click on Karpovs name to get the game)
|Mar-23-12|| ||ketchuplover: According to a feature at chessbase.com the current 40th ranked player is playing as well as Karpov did in the 1970s.|
|Mar-23-12|| ||King Death: < ketchuplover: According to a feature at chessbase.com the current 40th ranked player is playing as well as Karpov did in the 1970s.>|
Can we translate that as "Any of the top 40 players today would have the great record that Karpov did as world champion"?
|Mar-24-12|| ||solskytz: no - but this is not the point...
it's about a point of view
I don't think that there's a rating inflation - pushing yourself up to the standard of play that gets you even the Candidate Master title, at FIDE 2200, is hard as hell - try it and you'll see...
So who's a master today, let's say an FM, has gained a very respectful title; the guy knows a lot and sees a lot. I'm not convinced that he knows or sees less than anyone else who was called 'master' throughout the ages.
Same goes for the higher titles and levels.
So - do the top 40 today play as well as, or better than Karpov in the 1970?
The phenomenal master of the endgame, or subtle manoeuvering, or positional shades and nuances?
The one who crushes the opposition slowly but surely, with deadly precision?
The guy whose grip won't be relaxed? Who pushes to realization every minutest advantage and never for his life lets go of it?
The guy who was precise as a machine, and even Kasparov couldn't better him, except by a hair, for so many long years?
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Of course, it doesn't mean that the top 40 today all play in his style or use his ways of squeezing their points out of their opponents... but are they really as good or better? Could it be?
- - - - - - - - - - - -
But why not look at it this way - why not say...
Karpov was a legendary, amazing, totally phenomenal player, who was the fear of the 1970s after Bobby Fischer gracefully (or less so) left the stage
Even today, with all of the global progress in the understanding of chess - with training methods no longer kept secret, with chessplayers communicating easily all over the world, exchanging games and ideas also rapidly over the internet, with books and resources so readily available for the ambitious chess trainee - not to mention chess software, engines and databases... and theory generally better known, of all phases of the game, and with the population of serious competitors (tournament level players, or candidate masters and up, or masters, or GMs - look at it any way you want, the picture is quite the same) growing exponentially every decade, every year - even today, over thirty years later, only forty people in the entire world can match or improve upon the play of this legendary chess wizard of the past - Mr. Anatoly Karpov, the twelfth world champion!
|Mar-24-12|| ||edwitten: About all these comparing players and rating inflation debate:|
1) Of course players today are better than decades ago. I'm not surprised that number 40 plays better chess than Karpov in the 70s.
For the same reasons an average physics Phd today knows more than Isaac Newton did.
Does it means that it's better/smarter than Newton, on of the best minds of all times?
Of course not.
2) Rating is not an absolute measure of strength, like times in running competitions.
It's always relative to other players.
So yes, there is rating inflation and you can't compare ratings between different decades.
Today Carlsen can keep a 2800+ raing scoring +2 or +3 in supertournaments, because he plays 2700+ and some 2800+ opponents.
When Fischer was 2780 the second was 2660. How could he jump to 2800? He had to virtually win every game.
|Mar-24-12|| ||solskytz: Fischer got to 2780 or 2785 because he WAS that much better. Put Carlsen in a 2680 tourney - and it's possible to calculate which result he needs in order to stay at 2835. |
Rating is a system that shows in how good or bad shape you are.
There is an argument also for deflation in FIDE ratings.
Many new people enter the lists on every update. How do they enter?
They play a number of rated games. If they make 50% or less, their new rating matches their performance. Let's suppose that you're 'worth' 2100. You play a tournament and scored 3 out of 9 against 2230 opposition - your new rating will be 2100 more or less. Same if you did 4.5 out of 9 against 2100 opposition.
BUT - many of these people will score better than 50%. For example, you could score 6 out of 9 against 1970 opposition - still an approximately 2100 performance. However, according to FIDE's rating rules, you'll enter the system at around 2007. Many people enter the system with ratings that are too low in that way - I guess that it's just so it will be possible to protect against inflation...
however - now you're a 2007 rated player who's actually worth 2100. What will you do? You'll start robbing other players (hence, the system), from their scores until you make 2100, which is your level.
Until you actually reach that number, win, draw, or lose, every opponent who plays you gets whatever change they would get against a 'real' 2007 (or whatever number you reach along the way) while actually facing a 2100.
So - is there actual rating deflation?
food for thought...
|Mar-24-12|| ||solskytz: If there is actual rating deflation, it would mean that more than 40 people have mastered the necessary skill and ability to match Karpov on even terms (at least), when transferred to the 1970s (although I can imagine other very interesting activities that one would like to engage in if transferred into that decade... it would be a marvel!)|
|Mar-24-12|| ||SimonWebbsTiger: if it has interest, a pluck of Karpov ratings:
1st January 1971: 2540
1st July 1972: 2630
1st May 1974: 2700 (Korchnoi had 2670 and Spassky 2640)
|Mar-24-12|| ||alexmagnus: <Does it means that it's better/smarter than Newton, on of the best minds of all times? >|
A better physicist is someone who can explain more. And here the modern student clearly wins. A smarter physicist is someone who can come up with more own ideas - and here Newton wins.
Better and greater are two different things. Don't mix them up.
|Mar-25-12|| ||Olavi: Well the Chessbase feature was based on a 13 ply search. It's debatable whether such an 'analysis' indicates anything at all, it certainly doesn't indicate whether a player manages to steer a game into a direction, which suits his/her particular talent. One can easily win lots of games (more) while playing 'worse' by this 'criterion'.|
|Mar-25-12|| ||twinlark: 13 ply is wholly inadequate depth at which to analyse GM play. You need at least 18 ply, preferably more to get anything like reasonable results.|
13 ply is the starting point within a couple of seconds for modern engines, and at that level is good only for blunder checks.
|Mar-26-12|| ||alexmagnus: Well, wasn't recently a study published suggesting that the search depth doesn't affect the results too much?|
|Mar-26-12|| ||alexmagnus: The result of the game analysis (with a sufficiently large game pool), that is.|
|Mar-26-12|| ||twinlark: Think about it. This is saying that the first few seconds of an engine analysis will ultimately be sufficient to accurately describe GM play to several decimal places. When we watch live games, we know how inaccurate engines can be even if they run for a few minutes. |
I'd be interesting in seeing this article, as it sounds like so much horse's patootie.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 204 OF 217 ·