< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2129 OF 2129 ·
|Aug-14-16|| ||gokusano: In my opinion, Morphy could have become a GM with a strength at par or even better with today's elite GM's. The lack of strong oppositions in his time prevented him achieving such condition. His talent was not develop in maximmum because of this. He could have been if today's strong computer program were available during his time.|
|Aug-14-16|| ||Sally Simpson: Hi unferth,
That is a good guide and I have seen it before.
I agree it could be updated with Carlsen and his top 10 pals using a super-duper Carlos Fandango computer.
It may throw up some unexpected results due to the number of games the lads play these days.
For instance on the 15 year chart Carlsen from 2005-2014 has had 448 decisive games.
(I think. This site has all the blitz,blindfold etc mixed in with the classical games. Why have they done that. I may be out by a few either way.)
This is a lot more than any other player mentioned on that 15 year table. But it probably should balance out.
The fact the linked players played adjournments so 'theoretically' should have less errors in the ending (stressing theoretically') does not come into because the range was taken from 16-40 moves.
But it does need updated with modern players and kit.
I vote Alerkupp take up the the task, he seems to have a lot of time on his hands. I think he is in prison.
|Aug-15-16|| ||todicav23: <unferth: I've always found this to be persuasive:|
According to this study, Fischer is clearly the best player ever in terms of pure chess strength.
This is not surprising since he studied chess harder than anyone else and he was the greatest fighter the chess world has ever seen. He faced the biggest obstacles in his way to become world champion. He showed extremely impressive results. He reached a level of play still unmatched by any other players.
Let's not forget that Fischer played in the "golden era" of chess, facing players like Botvinnik, Smyslov, Tal, Petrosian, Spassky, Korchnoi, Bronstein, Geller (I almost forgot about him). After 1970 not many great players appeared, except Karpov and Kasparov. That's why Korchnoi played for the world title at 50 and we won strong tournaments in his sixties. Smyslov played in the candidates at 62. Tal won the World Blitz Championship at 52 (ahead of Karpov and Kasparov).
For instance Tal (past his prime) had very decent results against Karpov and Kasparov:
Anatoly Karpov: +1 −3 =11
Garry Kasparov: +0 −1 =19
Korchnoi at 47 lost a very close match with Karpov (who was at his peak probably). Around 1970 Korchnoi clearly said that nothing can be done against Fischer.
Karpov and Kasparov had teams working for them. Kasparov especially took advantage of this. He was a great attacker and tactician but his main strength was the openings. That's how he beat Karpov. If you remove the opening phase from the picture, Kasparov was not stronger than Karpov. I really think Karpov was unlucky in his matches with Kasparov.
Kasparov was not an amazing player in matches. He barely beat Karpov and he lost to Kramnik and Deep Blue. That's because for a match both players are very well prepared and Kasparov's advantage in openings is not that big. I would probably give Kasparov (at his best) against Fischer (at his best) 30-35% chances to win a match.
|Aug-15-16|| ||perfidious: Surprising to me how great the variance is for Anand between the sets of results: when one accounts for only his decisive games, he stacks up very well vis-à-vis the historical greats, but tails off to middle of the pack across the board when one includes the drawn games--not that there is anything wrong with that position in this august company.|
|Aug-16-16|| ||HeMateMe: I'm surprised that Tal had 20 games against Kaspy, if that above number is correct. was Tal even active or qualified to play in the big events that Kasparov was in? I wouldn't think his rating would be high enough after 1985. Could some of those 20 games be blitz or rapid chess? Only one loss is amazing, though. GK was a monster.|
|Aug-16-16|| ||perfidious: <HMM> Inter alia, they played the World Cup, plus there were some Soviet finals in Kasparov's early career (1978-79, perhaps others).|
|Aug-16-16|| ||todicav23: Sorry, this is the real score against Karpov and Kasparov (from Wikipedia):|
Anatoly Karpov: +0 −1 =19
Garry Kasparov: +1 −3 =11
|Aug-16-16|| ||AylerKupp: <<Sally Simpson> I vote Alerkupp take up the task, he seems to have a lot of time on his hands. I think he is in prison.>|
Thanks for the vote of confidence. To update my status, yes, I am currently in prison with a lot of time on my hands. I was released from a mental institution several months ago because, I assume, the doctors felt that after several years of strong medication and shock therapy, I was no longer a threat to myself and others. But, just to hedge their bets, I've been placed in solitary confinement, and the lights are always off. Sort of the ultimate Ignore List. The only light I have is from my old, slow computer, which I use to compose posts like this one. And unfortunately my data disk crashed and it's contents are (hopefully) being recovered as we speak.
I have also seen http://www.truechess.com/web/champs... as well as http://en.chessbase.com/news/2006/w... and several other papers from what I refer to as the "Gang of Four", the other two being Ken Regan and Guy Haworth. But my opinions and findings are off-topic for this page so, if you're interested, please follow this link: Computer (kibitz #119).
|Aug-16-16|| ||perfidious: <AK> Dang, and Ah thought <mah> iggy list was that there thing called perdition (aint it perdishun? Thass what it sounds lahke!).|
Sounds lahke yew drew the short straw, friend. Hang tuff.
|Aug-16-16|| ||kingfu: Lasker was Champion for 27 years and brought Chess into the Modern Era. We all have our favorites but Nakamura whiffed on that one.|
Lasker beat Steinitz to be Champion. Steinitz was great. If you look at his games there are lots of King's Gambits and Vienna games. Fun games from a bygone era.
The last Lasker - Steinitz match was Ruy Lopez and Queen's Gambit Declined. Welcome to the Modern World of hardcore analysis from BOTH sides of the board. And over 100 years before Stockfish.
|Aug-16-16|| ||gokusano: Naka's aim is to be regarded as the greatest american champion. But considering his age, he may not be able to duplicate bobby's feat, world champion at age 29. At the rate he is going, his greatest achievement so far is the solitary win against the world champion. After that win is a dismal performance in sinquefield. But I'm just being skeptical.|
|Aug-16-16|| ||unferth: Nakamura's 28 now, so he's definitely not going to be world champ at 29. I'll be quite surprised if he ever is, as there are three younger and stronger players already, and several more younger guys coming up on him fast. not sure he has the temperament to accomplish it anyway.|
|Aug-16-16|| ||todicav23: <gokusano: Naka's aim is to be regarded as the greatest american champion. But considering his age, he may not be able to duplicate bobby's feat, world champion at age 29. At the rate he is going, his greatest achievement so far is the solitary win against the world champion. After that win is a dismal performance in sinquefield. But I'm just being skeptical.>|
In order to be regarded as the greatest American player he needs to be able to beat:
Mamedyarov or Grischuk: 6-0
Aronian or Caruana: 6-0
Kramnik or Anand: 6.5-2.5
|Aug-16-16|| ||Petrosianic: Fischer and Steinitz were American world champions, while Caruana is the highest rated American player. Nakamura may become world champion some day, but the odds of him being head and shoulders above those three are slim.|
|Aug-16-16|| ||Petrosianic: Mind you, to be regarded as the greatest American champion, he wouldn't necessarily have to be world champion at 29. If he became world champion, and held it longer than Fischer's 1 year and 10 months, he would exceed him in that regard. But Nakamura will probably never have the dominance that Fischer and Steinitz did, and it's doubtful that it's even possible for anyone to have that kind of dominance in the computer era.|
|Aug-16-16|| ||unferth: I find it hard to imagine Nakamura will ever be world #1, let alone head and shoulders above the field. Caruana and MVL are younger and stronger; Carlsen of course is younger and far stronger; So, Giri, and Liren are all much younger and nearly as strong. it would take truly unusual late development on his part and/or a whole bunch of declines & stunted progress to give him any kind of shot IMO.|
|Aug-17-16|| ||perfidious: Korchnoi pulled off the feat to become clearcut number two after being a perennial top ten resident--well within that group for many years, at that, but that was a tall order for even a character possessing the iron will of Viktor the Terrible.|
|Aug-17-16|| ||kingfu: Fischer was the progenitor of the Sicilian Defense. |
Yes, Virginia, the Sicilian Defense was played before Fischer.
Big difference: He turned it into a winning weapon with black. Now almost everyone plays the Sicilian. But, with computers, the Sicilian has been analyzed quite a bit!
perfidious, glad to see you back to normal. How was The Ozarks?
|Aug-17-16|| ||unferth: <perfidious> Korchnoi's rise was somewhat wind-aided by the retirement of Fischer, as was Anand's by the departure of Kasparov. maybe Nakamura's moment will come if Carlsen decides he's ready for a full-time life of models and coke.|
|Aug-17-16|| ||john barleycorn: <unferth: <perfidious> Korchnoi's rise was somewhat wind-aided by the retirement of Fischer,...> |
not in 1974. And after Fischer's retirement everybody moved up a place (minimum).
Anand's case is arguable, imo.
Nakamura lacks the spirit of Fischer to be a numero uno even when Carlsen retires.
|Aug-17-16|| ||Olavi: I don't think Anand improved after Kasparov's departure; they had been very even with Kramnik for over ten years and he played one particular match better. Korchnoi got clearly stronger, but possibly that would have happened in any case?|
|Aug-17-16|| ||todicav23: <Olavi: I don't think Anand improved after Kasparov's departure; they had been very even with Kramnik for over ten years and he played one particular match better. Korchnoi got clearly stronger, but possibly that would have happened in any case?>|
My theory is that the competition got weaker after 1972. That's why Korchnoi appeared to be stronger than before.
Keres died in 1975 I think. Fischer and Botvinnik stopped playing. Petrosian, Spassky, Tal, Smyslov, Bronstein, Geller, Larsen were past their prime. Mecking got seriously ill. Except Karpov and Kasparov later, no other very strong player emerged in the 70's and 80's.
Of course that probably Korchnoi was able to improve his play as a result of playing Karpov. So maybe the competition got weaker while Korchnoi became slightly stronger.
|Aug-17-16|| ||Petrosianic: <And after Fischer's retirement everybody moved up a place (minimum).>|
No, they didn't. The pecking order was totally shaken. Before 1972, you could confidently argue that the best players in the world (in no particular order), were Spassky, Petrosian, Fischer and Larsen. After 1972 (well, 1974 at least), none of them were serious contenders for the top spot, it was Karpov or Korchnoi, that's it.
|Aug-20-16|| ||todicav23: Comparing the chess strength of some players based on computer analysis:|
|Aug-22-16|| ||HeMateMe: Doesn't young Donald Trump, far left, bear a striking resemblance to Bobby Fischer?|
The eldest of the three Trump brothers, standing, was an alcoholic and died in 1981. All that glitters is not gold.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2129 OF 2129 ·