|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 114 OF 115 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Jun-03-21
 | | harrylime: The standard of chess at the top of chess is not changing ... SO LEAVE THAT HARD ON behind lol lol
The elo inflated ratings is changing tho .. |
|
Jun-03-21
 | | Diademas: Someone is badmouthing Fischer back at the Café <Harry>.
You better go attend to it. |
|
| Jun-03-21 | | LameJokes: Hi <Sokrates>,
Thanks for your input. It’s always a joy to read your insightful observations. Yeah, I can understand living the life of out of suitcase. The break in such case is a welcome change. Curiously, I once read Leinier Domínguez Pérez took sabbatical of three years. When he returned, his chess playing skills were at a new high. That could be another reason :-) |
|
| Jun-03-21 | | LameJokes: Emmanuel Lasker was the world champion, when Spanish flue became prevalent in 1918. The global population being 1.65 billion. In contrast, Carlsen won 2018 match when the same stood at 7.59 billion. This makes his effort four times more credible:-) |
|
Jun-03-21
| | Diademas: In addition; Lasker was champion at a time when almost all the top tier were men originating from Central or Eastern Europe.
Today the sport is global, with top players coming from places like China, India, Iran and what <MissScarlet> would call "our North American colonies". |
|
Jun-03-21
 | | keypusher: <MissScarlett: It would probably be quicker to list the world champions whose titles haven't been devalued.> Well, of course Lasker, Capa and Alekhine were top players long before the 1920s. (IIRC the chessmetrics top ten lists at the beginning of WWI and the end of the 20s are almost identical, though I'm too lazy to check.) The 1920s dearth may have prolonged their time at the top, but they'd still be all-time greats without it. (Lasker played all of three tournaments and one match in the 20s, remember.) |
|
Jun-03-21
| | harrylime: Yooooooooose can reverse it
ALL THOSE CHESS PLAYERS IN THE 40's 50's and 60's who were garbage But now WOULD BE A GRAND CHESS MASTER |
|
Jun-03-21
| | harrylime: Again .. and itz blitz i know , but er
Naka's qg7 against Saint Mag is proper proper coooooool !! lol lol lol |
|
Jun-03-21
| | harrylime: The worrying thing on this chess site is that I posted Nakamura as being the greatest American chess player of all time and no fooooker disputed it !!! lol lol lol lol |
|
| Jun-03-21 | | Absentee: <harrylime: Yooooooooose can reverse it ALL THOSE CHESS PLAYERS IN THE 40's 50's and 60's who were garbage But now WOULD BE A GRAND CHESS MASTER> Who would those be? |
|
Jun-03-21
 | | perfidious: Not to mention that Lasker retired after Moscow 1925, the last of the three tournaments noted by <keypusher>, apparently for good and all. |
|
| Jun-03-21 | | nok: <Todaze GM's would be yesterdaze IM's
DISCUSS>
Totally. GMs used to score at least 30% against the top. Today? Make that 10% |
|
Jun-03-21
| | keypusher: <harrylime: The worrying thing on this chess site is that I posted Nakamura as being the greatest American chess player of all time and no fooooker disputed it !!!> I was going to say that was because no one read your post, but I stand corrected. <harrylime: Todaze GM's would be yesterdaze IM's> Fact check: Mostly true (depending on the definition of <yesterdaze>), because there are lots more players with the GM title now than in, say, 1960. |
|
Jun-03-21
| | perfidious: Did not read the post by <harryslime>, nor do I intend to, but anyone who believes Nakamura is the greatest American player ever is a lunatic. |
|
| Jun-03-21 | | parmetd: But are we not comparing apples and oranges to some degree?
Back then:
1. norms expired
2. norm tournaments were more rare
3. you didn't get automatic titles from any event
4. you couldn't score double norms
5. Preparation was more difficult and very different as were adjournment / endgames which often favored whoever could afford a second.
6. You needed to cross 2500 on an actual rating list not a live rating (and those lists were published less frequently).
7. Travel was more difficult and more expensive
8. Prize funds were generally less lavish and thus making a living as a professional player only was quit a bit more difficult (until Fischer changed that really).
9. Today's players really benefit not just from computers and databases but being able to stand on the shoulders of the giants who came before them.And that's just off the top of my head.
So while it is in my mind pretty likely that many GMs today would have more trouble getting the GM title 70 years ago - it is not clear that the reasoning would necessarily follow that they are actually less strong. They're a product of their time and place and when you change that they may still have ended up as a top 100 player just not with such an easy route to a title that often had little to do with strength depending on context. Many strong players of the hey day were obvious GM strength but were never afforded opportunities to earn norms. |
|
Jun-04-21
| | perfidious: Some remarks on the post by <parmetd>: While I do not recall when the practice ended, norms for GM/IM had to be made within three years, else the first such norm vanished into thin air. Even here in USA, aspiring GMs found it impossible to obtain the title without leaving for Europe; Tarjan travelled to Yugoslavia for a time to get the norms needed. On the point of 'automatic titles', this was not quite the case; scoring two-thirds of the possible points in a Zonal was good for IM, and one would imagine this was how many players from the Canadian, Asian and African zones have historically gotten theirs, though obviously the Asian zone became far tougher from the 1990s onwards. Never heard of a 'double norm'; perhaps someone could enlighten me on this. On preparation: news travelled far more slowly and a Gligoric-Fischer KID from 1970 comes to mind, in which Gliga was afraid of an improvement in published analysis by his great opponent, but Fischer had not yet seen the game, an unthinkable occurrence nowadays. More than across the years I have stated the view that one must have endgame knowledge going in--no more boning up on BCE and having one's second(s) do the dirty work whilst grabbing a spot of rest. Botvinnik-Fischer could have gone rather differently post-2000 than it did in 1962. Not sure when the rating requirement entered the reckoning, but all one needed to do was make the requisite norms, back in the day, for the title. |
|
Jun-04-21
 | | chancho: This tournament was cancelled last year due to the pandemic, but it's on this year: https://grandchesstour.org/news-pre... |
|
| Jun-04-21 | | parmetd: <perfidious> Not just Tarjan but people like Michael Brooks as well. Anyways, < Never heard of a 'double norm'; perhaps someone could enlighten me on this> A double norm is where a person makes the necessary performance rating in round 9 to make their norm but again makes the necessary performance rating by either a round 11 or 13 calculation. So say it is round 9 and you have a performance rating of 2600 with right mix of foreigners, GMs etc then you have a GM norm. If by round 11, you also have a 2600 rating then you have scored a second GM norm. This rule was introduced sometime in the 90s to account for long tournaments like Olympiad to account for consistency and energy levels. It can work in reverse where you score a norm in 11 and 13 but did not make the 9 cut off. For example, you had a bad start going 0/3 and by round 9 you are 6/9 which places you at 2580 performance rating missing the norm. But you continue going 4/4 making the round 11 and 13 norms - you get two GM norms. Larry Cohen was banned as an arbiter after Ben Finegold convinced Larry to submit round results for Finegold in a different order than it happened so he would get the necessary performance rating for one of the round cut offs (unsure of the details so don't know which rounds got switched). |
|
Jun-04-21
| | perfidious: Most interesting; so that is how Finegold finally wangled his GM title? |
|
| Jun-04-21 | | Olavi: About this double norm thing I'd like to hear more. I was a semi-professional back then (with one GM norm, so I think I knew the rules) and this is the first time I have heard about it. What I do know is that the possibility of scoring a 9 round GM/IM norm in a 11 or 13 round tournament was introduced - many such norms were achieved at Olympiads. (I think it only applied to Olympiads and some other team tournaments, to avoid people having to sit out their last games in order not to endanger their norm, thereby harming their team.) It had to be the first 9 rounds obviously. A famous example before the rule was introduced is Nunn - van der Sterren, last round 1988 Thessaloniki Olympiad, where Paul was closing in on a GM norm, but blundered in the endgame and only drew. No norm. Finegold's case can easily be fitted into this. |
|
| Jun-04-21 | | Olavi: That means that it still "makes sense" to keep the performance rating for the last rounds, because then you have scored a longer norm, which helps towards the required 24 games, naturally. |
|
| Jun-05-21 | | parmetd: Well no because they were caught by FIDE as Ben Finegold bragged about it on his blog. I think Ben's final GM norm was one of Susan Polgar's Spice cups. The double norm rules were something Ben was using to fake a norm he didn't make by taking for example his 10th round win and switching it with his 9th round loss, it would appear he made a GM norm from a tournament where both those games were played by submitting the rounds out of order. |
|
| Jun-12-21 | | RookFile: <Messiah: The average rating was 2773.5 > Sure. They are the best active players in the world, aside from Carlsen, of course. Were there some fascinating new ideas developed in the opening? Someting that made this tournament memorable? Zurich 1953 this was not. |
|
Jun-15-21
 | | Ron: Earlier in this thread I expressed skepticism about the practicality of online tournaments: <A problem is the time zone difference. There is a twelve hour time difference between Florida and China for example. It might mean that the games in a round cannot be played simultaneously, and players would not have equal breaks between rounds. It worked with Fischer because he was in the same time zone as Cuba's.> Well, since we now have examples of online tournaments, let it be noted that I was shown to be wrong. And the more I think about it, its a good thing that I was wrong. |
|
| Jun-16-21 | | fabelhaft: Grischuk alone had a plus score against the top four, and he even scored +2 against them. Winner Nepo didn?t reach a plus against the top six, but +3 against the bottom two was enough. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 114 OF 115 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
