|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1872 OF 1872 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
| Nov-20-09 |
| MrMelad: <Hmm.. shouldn't mathematicians focus on problems where a <solution exists>?> No, a mathematician should direct his energies to areas where a solution doesn't not (yet) exist :) <<me: BUT - I suggest averaging the distance in rating points from all 2-10 players.>alex: That would affect some abnormalities. You now, Kasparov was ahead of Karpov and Karpov ahad of everyone else. With my method, Karpov is still placed highly (#3). With your method he actually comes quite low because of the big gap to Kasparov.> That's the point, first you should win your own age group, then you should rule over a complete generation and then another generation and so on... If we keep the highest average wouldn't Karpov had all the time to get one good score before Kaspy hatched from the cocoon? |
 |
Nov-20-09
 |
| Bradah: <That's the point, first you should win your own age group, then you should rule over a complete generation and then another generation and so on... If we keep the highest average wouldn't Karpov had all the time to get one good score before Kaspy hatched from the cocoon?> If your statement is true, then explain why he opted out of the Wjcc.:O) |
|
Nov-20-09
 |
| alexmagnus: <Is it better to dominate a weaker players, than to be less better against stronger players?> #10 is not really weak. I know, the choice 10 is somewhat subjective but it is not too far down to say about "weak players" and not too far up to make cases like Karpov in Kasparov's time look bad. <That's the point, first you should win your own age group, then you should rule over a complete generation and then another generation and so on... > Well, what if the Karpov-Kasparov-like situation arises with <both> players being on their peak? We have a "duopoly", in which the weaker player is clearly weaker than the stronger one yet even more clearly stronger than everybody else. Shouldn't he be considered dominating despite having one dominator above him? Imagine such a hypothetic top-10 list 1.Player1 3100
2.Player2 2900
3-10. same as today's players 3-10.
Now, player2 is 200 ponts behind player1, which lets his average distance to other top players strogly sink. Yet if not for player1 he'd be very dominating (in my system he would place behind Kasparov and Fischer, yet ahead of Karpov). |
|
| Nov-20-09 |
| MrMelad: What statement Bradah? my statements are usually true and solid :) What I mean is that if by definition, being a great player is being ahead of your times, than it exclude Karpov from gaining "points" from his second best achievements, what do we care about the loser? How can a loser become the greatest ever, after loosing, no less... My method puts Karpov in his place, and he had his ten years of reign to break all the records he could, my method includes those years, so if he did poorly that's not the method problem and it also shows mathematically a possible debatable issue (!!) that Karpov wasn't #1 at the time the discussed ratings were measured :) |
|
| Nov-20-09 |
| MrMelad: Assuming ratings inflate your scenario doesn't suggest #2 in the list to be the second best player ever, because he is a loser, compared to Steinitz for example, which actually won :) |
|
Nov-20-09
|
| alexmagnus: <How can a loser become the greatest ever, after loosing, no less... > He won't become greatest ever on my list, since the one who is ahead of him has a higher distance to #10 :). A #2 player can well be greater than a #1 player of a different time (I think, most people would call Karpov in Kasparov's time a greater player than Topalov at his peak....). |
|
Nov-20-09
|
| alexmagnus: Or, in other words, Karpov didn't become worse just because Kasparov emerged :) |
|
| Nov-20-09 |
| MrMelad: <He won't become greatest ever on my list, since the one who is ahead of him has a higher distance to #10> Than name your list "the list of the greatest player and other players" instead of "the list of the greatest players" :) <I think, most people would call Karpov in Kasparov's time a greater player than Topalov at his peak> If someone consider Topalov more great than Kasparov he has to be a fan boy like slomarko :) |
|
Nov-20-09
|
| alexmagnus: <Assuming ratings inflate your scenario doesn't suggest #2 in the list to be the second best player ever, because he is a loser, compared to Steinitz for example, which actually won :)> In my scenario all ratings except the first two are the same as today, so inflation has nothing to do with it. |
|
Nov-20-09
 |
| Rolfo: < Magnus will be playing the Championship Match in Africa against Tipsy,> The Rumble in the Jungle II :) |
|
Nov-20-09
|
| alexmagnus: <Mrmelad> My list is supposed to measure domination, not greatness. One can dominate without being #1, just in this case #1 dominates stronger. |
|
| Nov-20-09 |
| MrMelad: I have to disagree. Further more I decided to exclude players rated #2 from my list from here on. In order to be considered a member in the first place you have to become #1 and be rated on times you were #1. Number of entries is also a good factor.. Maybe I'll devise a formula. 1/e^(-1/N) * Average where N is number of entries. This way if you have a really big number of entries your average gets a boost :) |
|
Nov-20-09
 |
| HeMateMe: The next Candidates tournament:
As things currently stand, the winner of the 2009 World Cup will gain entry to the 8-player Candidates tournament that will decide a challenger for the winner of the Anand v Topalov WCC title match in April next year. The other players in the candidates tournament will be: The 1st (Aronian) and 2nd (currently Radjabov) finishers in the Grand Prix
The loser of the WCC match between Anand and Topalov
The 2 highest rated players not otherwise qualified (currently Carlsen and Kramnik)
The loser of the 2009 challenger match (Kamsky)
A wild-card nominated by the organisers (must be 2700 Elo+) Pretty shrewd how they put in that last 'wild card' possibility. It ensures that Carlsen will be in the tournament, to avoid the possibility of him missing if he is not rated number one or two in the world, based on the above criteria. Such a tournament without Magnus is a non-event. I kind of wish they were using elimination matches, instead of a candidates tournament. But I suppose one should be happy there is any sponsorship/money at all. |
|
Nov-20-09
 |
| zarg: <alexmagnus: <Is it better to dominate weaker players, than to be less better against stronger players?> #10 is not really weak. I know, the choice 10 is somewhat subjective but it is not too far down to say about "weak players" and not too far up to make cases like Karpov in Kasparov's time look bad.> My point was not about #10 being weak, it was that #10 is not some constant in the Universe. This reminds me of renormalization, we have an ill-defined property that diverge. No problem, we fix this annoying behaviour by recalibration ... yup subtracting  should do the trick! That's not what you are doing, but comparing distance-to-10 across different periods of time, might tell more about the 2-10th, than about <the one>. |
|
| Nov-20-09 |
| MrMelad: <zarg: but comparing distance-to-10 across different periods of time, might tell more about the 2-10th, than about <the one>> Of course, it would say how much he is really one of a kind, didn't copy cat others, was really invent-full, advanced chess, very likely very popular and etc. |
|
Nov-20-09
|
| alexmagnus: <I have to disagree. Further more I decided to exclude players rated #2 from my list from here on.> Hehe, then the list would be short. Since the invention of the Elo system, only 5 players were clear first on an official list (Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov Topalov, Anand). < comparing distance-to-10 across different periods of time, might tell more about the 2-10th, than about <the one>> Why? It tells absolutely nothing about #10 (as his "rating" is always 0). |
|
Nov-20-09
|
| alexmagnus: Also, zarg... My list is quite close to the perceived domination. Many subjective rankings are very resmbling of my list. The only "anomaly" in the list is Kamsky who somehow got into it despite being ranked #5. |
|
Nov-20-09
 |
| SetNoEscapeOn: <alexmagnus: <I have to disagree. Further more I decided to exclude players rated #2 from my list from here on.>
Hehe, then the list would be short.>
As one would expect it to be, when discussing the subject of dominance. I think your concept is interesting, but to me that kind of thing could be useful as a measure of how "elite" players are, or something to that effect. I don't think it makes much sense to discuss the level of "dominance" of Peter Leko compared to that of Boris Gelfand. I think the simple truth is that neither player is dominant at all. If there are players around who you can't even beat, you can't called dominant. |
|
Nov-20-09
|
| alexmagnus: <SNEO> So in my example with #1 being 3100, #2 being 2900 and the rest as today you wouldn't say #2 is dominant? Hm... |
|
Nov-20-09
|
| alexmagnus: <I don't think it makes much sense to discuss the level of "dominance" of Peter Leko compared to that of Boris Gelfand.> Well, neither of them is included on my list. I intentionally restricted the all-time list to 20 players, as I'm aware that it loses its sense when comparing players outside of a certain top-range. |
|
Nov-20-09
|
| alexmagnus: <neither of them is included on my list.> Self-correcting: Gelfand is. In January 1991 he was rated 60 points above the #10 (himself being #3) which brought him a 12th place on my list. |
|
| Nov-20-09 |
| MrMelad: < So in my example with #1 being 3100, #2 being 2900 and the rest as today you wouldn't say #2 is dominant? > Not necessarily, imagine a situation, its the eighties, Bird (Larry) and Magic are playing for the NBA, and Bird never wins a single championship. What a lousy eighties for Bird, ha? According to your method we should have considered him great regardless of how many championships he got which kinda void the whole thing.. If you play for #2 you have no pressure, no one takes you as seriously, nobody care how you fare against others except for #1, the really great thing is to actually win otherwise we are talking of a runner up that did his best... |
|
| Nov-20-09 |
| MrMelad: Just emphasizing Carlsen's #1 spot :) |
|
| Nov-20-09 |
| SakoTRG22: I would like to see Magnus Carlsen filling up the void left by Bobby Fischer and to continue his legacy (Fischer) for another 15 or possibly 20 more years to come. Why Chess Oscar? He (Oscar) has nothing to do with Chess. He was just a librarian's not so famous Uncle. Why not Chess Fritz or Chess Rybka?:o( |
|
| Nov-20-09 |
| Matt Tsjakk: Reading an old interview with Carlsen from 2004 (http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail...) I found this, on his training regimen: Q: How often do you practice chess?
A:: That is almost impossible to measure. It can get quite intense when I prepare for and during tournaments. When I am at home and I am not participating in any tournaments, my training is very unsystematically. Tnings have changed with Kasparov I guess, but he still seems to prefer a playful approach. Probably a good idea. It´s a nice interview, btw, for those that have not read it. He was very eloquent it seems, from an early age. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1872 OF 1872 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
