|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 81 OF 99 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Sep-20-12 | | Conrad93: Hmph!Your view! |
|
| Sep-20-12 | | rapidcitychess: <Conrad>
That's actually the first time you have made me laugh. Thanks. :) |
|
| Sep-20-12 | | brankat: <rapidcitychess> You actually dare to have a view? :-) <petrosianic> I was only joking about Bobby being "underrated". According to our new "kibitzer", who came here to learn, almost every player in chess history has been an overrated patzer. Except Fischer, of course. |
|
| Sep-20-12 | | rapidcitychess: <brankat>
I'm audacious that way. And sometimes my spelling is artrocious. :) |
|
| Sep-20-12 | | RookFile: <Petrosianic: Actually, he was probably over-rated. Remember that officially he kept his 2780 rating even though he was only playing at 2640 strength in 1992. He was still officially 2780 in 2007. > The flaw in this argument is Boris Spassky himself. It is well known that for years, Spassky didn't really try too hard and made numerous draws. He showed that laziness that was present at several points in his career. As a result, his rating went down. However, when Spassky tried, his strength was much, much higher. It's not reasonable to think that a former champion of the world, highly motivated (how many times do you get a rematch against Bobby Fischer in your life?) only had a strength of 2550. I don't know what Spassky's strength was in 1992, but it seems unreasonable to base it simply on his FIDE rating at the time. A good approximation was his 5.5 to 4.5 loss to Judith Polgar, who was probably 2640 herself in those days. So, it may have been Spassky who was the 2640 strength player - and if Fischer is winning 10 wins to 5 over 2640, you can make a guess as to what his strength was. |
|
| Sep-20-12 | | Everett: Actually, there is some evidence to support that Spassky lost to Fischer (as opposed to Fischer winning, for I think Spassky's poor play had a lot to do with the result) BECAUSE of his "support" from the Soviet contingent. Too many cooks spoil the broth, and it is likely that Spassky and Boleslavsky working together on their own would have produced a more balanced Spassky than the one with all the stars and no "team." Both Spassky and Petrosian suffered at the hands of their "help," forgetting TNs and questioning their own intuition and abilities that got them to the top in the first place. |
|
| Sep-20-12 | | TheFocus: I wonder what <Conrad>'s rating is? Maybe he is over-rated? Or even under-rated?
Which is it, <Conrad>? |
|
| Sep-20-12 | | TheFocus: And before you ask, sometimes I have been over-rated, sometimes under-rated. Nowadays, I would just say I am rated. |
|
| Sep-20-12 | | Everett: <rookfile> it is convenient to take ratings at face value, until they don't work for one's argument and then they need to be qualified. The match in '92 was great fun, but only a little bit of great chess. Many players stronger than us seem to agree with that. I think it is best to leave it at that. |
|
| Sep-20-12 | | brankat: True, the match was fun. But it was mostly about money. Five mill.. |
|
| Sep-20-12 | | Gypsy: <Too many cooks spoil the broth, and it is likely that Spassky and Boleslavsky working together on their own would have produced a more balanced Spassky than the one with all the stars and no "team."> That is possible, unfortunately, great Isaac Boleslavsky was already dead. (Anyway, you probably meant Igor Bondarevsky.) |
|
| Sep-20-12 | | RookFile: Everett, it's fair to say that Spassky was stronger than 2640 when he was champ in 1969. So, my labeling him as about 2640 in 1992 is more reasonable than either saying he was 2700 in 1992 or 2550 in 1992. There were no doubts about Judith Polgar's rating in 1993, and Spassky basically played her even, losing narrowly. |
|
Sep-21-12
 | | alexmagnus: You cannot decide upon a rating by one match though... Otherwise we'd have to give some 2900 to Kramnik :). |
|
| Sep-21-12 | | Petrosianic: One match? These days they do it by PARTIAL events. How many times have you seen a Chessbase article talking about how so-and-so has a 3100 performance rating after 5 rounds!! Attention spans are notoriously short these days. |
|
| Sep-21-12 | | Everett: Thank you <Gypsy>, As you noted, I did indeed mean Igor Bondarevsky. A similar example would be sending the NBA champions to represent the US at the Olympics. There would never be anything near an upset because the team is much stronger than nearly any group of all-stars who haven't played together for too much. It takes time and trust to create a good team. |
|
| Sep-21-12 | | brankat: < How many times have you seen a Chessbase article talking about how so-and-so has a 3100 performance rating after 5 rounds!!> Pretty soon it will be after every round. |
|
Sep-21-12
 | | perfidious: This would most likely happen if one of the So-bots did an article on their horse-can you imagine? What are the great man's latest words, hot off the press, after he extends his unbeaten string against pampered goldfish to 26 years and 769 games by drawing all ten games at Linares, gaining the massive sum of one rating point? Which young singer is warm for his form, basking in the sunlight that only great genius can bestow upon the world? There's no such thing as rating inflation-so say certain people in the chess world-but that single point gained boosts Wes to 2897, twentieth in the latest FIDE rankings. The possibilities are beyond a fool like myself to imagine; I'll leave them to people who really know how to conjure up stories. |
|
| Sep-21-12 | | RookFile: So, you've got two Spassky matches - Polgar and Fischer - that provide a reasonable basis for saying Spassky was perhaps 2630 in strength in '92 and '93. The 2640 Polgar narrowly beat him, and Fischer decisively beat him. My guess is that Fischer himself was 2700 in '92, down from his 2785. |
|
| Sep-21-12 | | Conrad93: My rating? My rating is not a reflection of my skill as any player in my club will tell you. With inflation, psychology, and motivation as a factor, you cannot possibly have a black and white view of strength in such a way. |
|
| Sep-21-12 | | micartouse: The rule of thumb with chess ratings is that all players are underrated. It's easy to produce overwhelming evidence for this simply by taking a poll of a random sample of rated players. To find a player's true rating, add 200 points to whatever they have earned over the board. |
|
| Sep-21-12 | | Conrad93: That's not at all true. I recently played against someone in my rating range and they got completely outclassed. |
|
| Sep-22-12 | | Everett: <micartouse> that's funny! |
|
| Sep-22-12 | | SimonWebbsTiger: @ <conrad>
<That's not at all true. I recently played against someone in my rating range and they got completely outclassed.> I bet you stole your 3 year old sister's candy, too |
|
Sep-22-12
| | perfidious: <Simon> What <Conrad> forgot to mention is that it was someone else who outclassed his opponent, not his good self. Lovely stuff. |
|
Sep-22-12
 | | harrylime: <Petrosianic: Yeah, but by that criteria, Bisguier is stronger than Fischer now, and of course to Capa also. I always thought Arthur was underrated. > 1 Bisguier
2 Fischer
3 Morphy
4 Pillsbury
5 Reshevsky
6 Fine
7 Nakamura
8 Benko
9 Browne
10 Bryne |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 81 OF 99 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
