|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 15 OF 57 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
May-22-09
 | | alexmagnus: My first winning <miniature> against a blitz 1700 player: [Event "Wertungspartie, 5m + 0s"]
[Site "Großer Spielsaal"]
[Date "2009.05.23"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Ernest de Vroome"]
[Black "Kampfgeist"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "1702"]
[BlackElo "1373"]
[PlyCount "42"]
[EventDate "2009.05.23"]
[TimeControl "300"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. Qe2 b5 6. Bb3 Bc5 7. a4 Bb7 8. c3 O-O 9. O-O d6 10. Rd1 Qe7 11. d4 exd4 12. cxd4 Bb6 13. d5 Na5 14. Bc2 Nxd5 15. axb5 Rfe8 16. Bd2 axb5 17. Qd3 Nf6 18. Bg5 Bxe4 19. Qxe4 Qxe4 20. Bxe4 Nxe4 21. Nc3 Nxf2 0-1 |
|
Jun-19-09
| | alexmagnus: June 21st: Rapid tournament in the Jewish Museum Berlin. Participants (list may grow bigger as the registration is "permanent"): http://www.berlinerschachverband.de... |
|
Jun-21-09
| | alexmagnus: I finished 191st (163-204th on points). |
|
Jun-21-09
| | alexmagnus: With 4/9:
1:Loss vs 1900
2:Loss vs 1600
3:Win vs 1250
4:Win vs 1700
5:Loss vs 1850
6:Win vs 1700
7:Loss vs 1850
8:Loss vs 1700
9: Win vs 1550.
In the eighth round I was short of scoring my first draw ever in a non-blitz game, but in a dead drawn bishop endgame (going to offr draw some 2-3 moves later) I made a 1-move-blunder. Curiously the 4th round win was much more convincing than the one in the third round. |
|
Jun-22-09
| | alexmagnus: 
click for larger view - final position of my last blitz game (I was black). |
|
Jun-22-09
| | alexmagnus: http://cliptank.com/PeopleofInfluen... |
|
| Jul-20-09 | | Karpova: <alexmagnus>
Where did you find the gamescores of the European Youth Team Championship in Pardubice? |
|
| Jul-20-09 | | angslo: <alexmagnus: Holy hyperplane, can't you all stop it? Sometimes this forum turns into a crazy house. Am I the only sane person here or was the definition of sanity changed in recent hours?:) And, <anglso>, you clearly violate posting guidelines> look, buddy, i don't have any interest and time for all this drama so , i will appreciate that you keep away from referring me . that way it will be easy for me not to get in these conversations - i have some other important and interesting things going on in my life and i really have no interest in spending time chatting with friends like you here at cg.com. I wish i was not referred to in the first place so that i would have no need to refute the lies spread about me. you take care , alexmagnus and i hope it will be end of it - there won't be any more need for me to post , hopefully. have a nice day, alex |
|
Jul-20-09
| | alexmagnus: <Karpova> Both games I posted were broadcasted live on the official page. |
|
| Jul-21-09 | | Karpova: <alexmagnus>
Thanks, I looked a bit around and found it. |
|
Jul-27-09
| | alexmagnus: Now Jeff Sonas brough an article on rating inflation. But what's somwhat "unusual": he uses #100 as the calibrator. But how would he explain the fact that the rating of #1 almost doesn't change? Or the gap between #1 and #100 falls. That is, this gap (#1 vs #100) is not as constant as his #100 vs #500 comparison. Dosn inflation not affect the very top?:) By this definition of inflation, all #1 players of 2000s era except Kasparov are the weakest #1 players in history of Elo system. Indeed, Sonas says ratings inflated by 130 points since the onset of inflation in 1985. That would give a "rectified" rating of 2683 to Topalov - the lowest actual #1 Elo ever was 2695 (Karpov on the list which followed Fischer's retirement). And the list which followed Kasparov's retirement would give a "rectified" rating for #1 player even somwehere in 2650 area. I doubt this is the case. Yes, there become more 2700+ players. But the top ratings almost never change. In the entire history of the system, there were only two holders of a record Elo (Fischer and Kasparov) though there were much more #1's. It were 17 years between Fischer's last and Kasparov's first record. Kasparov's last record holds for 10 years already and is not even close to being beaten. What's even funnier: if <this> is how Sonas defines inflation, then his own Chessmetrics system is inflationary too. By the same criterion. Also, that (Sonas' inflation definition) would mean there is inflation of results in <any> sport. Still nobody speaks about "second inflation", "meter deflation", or "kilogram inflation". |
|
Jul-27-09
| | alexmagnus: And before someone comes with doping argument in other sports: then there must be a massive "inflation" in the doping industry, which is even less probable. |
|
Jul-27-09
| | alexmagnus: Also, there comes my argument that no player was doubtlessly not on his peak at the time of his highest rating. Finally, Sonas suggest the starting ratings to get lower than starting performance. But why? Why are, in his opinion, players at the start overrated? |
|
Jul-27-09
| | alexmagnus: Slight correction: the lowest #1 rating ever was 2690 (Karpov, January 1977). Here the overview:
Ratings of top 3 before 1985, if the 130 pts inflation were correct: 1970 Jan: 2850, 2800, 2800
1971 Jan: 2870, 2820, 2820
1971 Jul: 2890, 2820, 2800
1972 Jul: 2915, 2790, 2775
1973 Jul: 2910, 2790, 2790
1974 May: 2910, 2830, 2800
1975 Jan: 2910, 2835, 2785
1976 Jan: 2825, 2800, 2765
1977 Jan: 2820, 2775, 2775
1978 Jan: 2855, 2795, 2760
1979 Jan: 2835, 2825, 2770
1980 Jan: 2855, 2835, 2825
1981 Jul: 2820, 2780, 2780
1982 Jan: 2830, 2785, 2775
1982 Jul: 2830, 2805, 2765
1983 Jan: 2840, 2820, 2775
1983 Jul: 2840, 2820, 2775
1984 Jan: 2840, 2830, 2765
1984 Jul: 2845, 2835, 2780
1985 Jan: 2845, 2835, 2780
Note, most #2 players would be rated higher than modern #1's... |
|
Jul-27-09
| | alexmagnus: OK and now the "calibrated lists" by Sonas' last article, getting th #100 rating as a calibrator, i.e. keeping the #100 rating constant. Top5 from each list (I rounded current #100 to 2640 whn comparing to lists from the tim when ratings were calculated in 5-steps). To avoid "too long posts", one post per decade: 1971 Jan: 2920, 2850, 2830, 2820, 2800
1972 Jan: 2950, 2825, 2810, 2810, 2805
1973 Jan: 2940, 2820, 2820, 2815, 2810
1974 Jan: 2930, 2850, 2820, 2800, 2795
1975 Jan: 2930, 2855, 2815, 2795, 2795
1976 Jan: 2845, 2820, 2785, 2785, 2780
1977 Jan: 2835, 2790, 2790, 2780, 2770
1978 Jan: 2865, 2805, 2770, 2770, 2770
1979 Jan: 2845, 2835, 2780, 2780, 2765
1980 Jan: 2865, 2845, 2835, 2795, 2775
Not the extreme amount of players above 2800, specially in the first years. Doesn't look realistic, not really consistent with Sonas' assumption of ratings of #X having to remain equal... |
|
Jul-27-09
| | alexmagnus: Continuation:
1981 Jan: 2835, 2795, 2795, 2780, 2780
1982 Jan: 2865, 2800, 2790, 2785, 2775
1983 Jan: 2860, 2840, 2795, 2785, 2775
1984 Jan: 2860, 2850, 2785, 2785, 2780
1985 Jan: 2855, 2845, 2790, 2780, 2775
1986 Jan: 2855, 2835, 2780, 2780, 2780
1987 Jan: 2860, 2830, 2770, 2770, 2750
1988 Jan: 2870, 2835, 2795, 2765, 2760
1989 Jan: 2885, 2860, 2760, 2750, 2750
1990 Jan: 2900, 2830, 2780, 2765, 2745
Look at the decline of #5 with the alleged start of the inflation... |
|
Jul-27-09
| | alexmagnus: Continuation:
1990 Jul: 2900, 2830, 2780, 2780, 2760
1991 Jan: 2895, 2820, 2795, 2790, 2745
1991 Jul: 2860, 2825, 2820, 2770, 2755
1992 Jan: 2865, 2810, 2805, 2770, 2755
1992 Jul: 2870, 2800, 2795, 2790, 2780
1993 Jan: 2880, 2800, 2785, 2785, 2765
1993 Jul: 2890, 2835, 2800, 2785, 2780
1994 Jan: 2890, 2815, 2790, 2790, 2785
1994 Jul: 2880, 2845, 2805, 2790, 2785
1995 Jan: 2870, 2830, 2780, 2780, 2780
1995 Jul: 2855, 2835, 2800, 2795, 2790
1996 Jan: 2835, 2835, 2830, 2795, 2795
1996 Jul: 2845, 2835, 2825, 2810, 2810
1997 Jan: 2855, 2825, 2820, 2800, 2800
1997 Jul: 2890, 2840, 2835, 2815, 2815
1998 Jan: 2880, 2845, 2825, 2795, 2795
1998 Jul: 2865, 2845, 2830, 2780, 2775
1999 Jan: 2866, 2835, 2805, 2780, 2777
1999 Jul: 2901, 2821, 2810, 2808, 2784
2000 Jan: 2905, 2823, 2812, 2805, 2802
2000 Jul: 2896, 2817, 2809, 2803, 2802
Notable is the July 1996 list, with six players over 2800 by this method. |
|
Jul-27-09
| | alexmagnus: Continuation:
2000 Oct: 2897, 2822, 2820, 2802, 2796
2001 Jan: 2895, 2836, 2818, 2792, 2791
2001 Apr: 2873, 2848, 2840, 2796, 2795
2001 Jul: 2881, 2845, 2840, 2787, 2782
2001 Oct: 2884, 2855, 2816, 2788, 2785
2002 Jan: 2883, 2854, 2802, 2787, 2787
2002 Apr: 2881, 2852, 2795, 2788, 2787
2002 Jul: 2879, 2848, 2796, 2793, 2786
2002 Oct: 2876, 2849, 2795, 2795, 2793
2003 Jan: 2890, 2852, 2796, 2786, 2779
2003 Apr: 2871, 2830, 2805, 2787, 2776
2003 Jul: 2865, 2820, 2809, 2774, 2770
2003 Oct: 2866, 2813, 2802, 2775, 2773
2004 Jan: 2866, 2812, 2801, 2782, 2771
2004 Apr: 2852, 2809, 2799, 2776, 2772
2004 Jul: 2847, 2812, 2800, 2773, 2771
2004 Oct: 2843, 2811, 2790, 2788, 2787
2005 Jan: 2839, 2821, 2792, 2789, 2784
2005 Apr: 2838, 2811, 2804, 2789, 2779
2005 Oct: 2838, 2814, 2814, 2789, 2778
To be continued... |
|
Jul-27-09
| | alexmagnus: A littl mistake, the last numbers in the penultimate post belong to July 2005 2005 Oct: 2837, 2813, 2807, 2776, 2773
2006 Jan: 2835, 2824, 2815, 2788, 2775
2006 Apr: 2829, 2828, 2781, 2768, 2763
2006 Jul: 2835, 2801, 2783, 2765, 2764
2006 Oct: 2834, 2800, 2771, 2771, 2768
2007 Jan: 2805, 2801, 2787, 2776, 2772
2007 Apr: 2805, 2791, 2791, 2778, 2776
2007 Jul: 2809, 2787, 2787, 2779, 2775
2007 Oct: 2815, 2801, 2799, 2783, 2769
2008 Jan: 2813, 2813, 2794, 2779, 2777
2008 Apr: 2816, 2801, 2787, 2780, 2778
2008 Jul: 2808, 2798, 2798, 2791, 2787
2008 Oct: 2803, 2795, 2794, 2794, 2791
2009 Jan: 2803, 2798, 2786, 2783, 2778
2009 Apr: 2818, 2789, 2776, 2765, 2762
2009 Jul: 2813, 2788, 2772, 2768, 2760 |
|
Jul-27-09
| | alexmagnus: So, by Sonas' definition we live in the times of the fewest super-players (let's call 2800+ in this "system" so), namely 1 such player. Here some more statistics from this "system": Worst #1: 2803 (Oct 2008, Jan 2009)
Best #1: 2950 (Jan 1972)
Worst #2: 2787 (Jul 2007)
Best #2: 2860 (Jan 1989)
Worst #3: 2760 (Jan 1989)
Best #3: 2840 (Apr 2001, Jul 2001)
Worst #4: 2750 (Jan 1989)
Best #4: 2820 (Jan 1971)
Worst #5: 2745 (Jan 1990, Jan 1991)
Best #5: 2815 (Jul 1997).
So There is no time-related bias (though I don't thin Topalov+Anand 2008-09 is the worst #1 ever) . Funny is that the January 1989 list is responsible for two "worst" and one "best" player. <But> Sonas' definition of inflation has one problem: it relies on assumption that chess strength will always be distributed this way. If all top-100 players play at the same level, suddenly we get a list consisting of "worst" players only ;) |
|
Jul-27-09
| | alexmagnus: #1 spot seems to be a kind of an anomaly. While in the other numbers the best-worst difference is between 70 and 80 points, in #1 case it's 147 pts... |
|
Sep-01-09
| | alexmagnus: The rating of number 100 is 2643 now, i.e. by that senseless method we have this lists's top-5 at 2811, 2786, 2771, 2770, 2770.
That makes Anand the new worst number 2. If that kind of adjusting for inflation were correct, that is. It isn't correct, I cannot believe chess gets worse and worse :) |
|
Sep-01-09
| | alexmagnus: As for number 20: 2717-2719-2723-2725-2717 was the earlier pattern. <frogbert> once asked if it will go up to 2725 again. It almost did. Now he has 2722. |
|
Sep-01-09
| | alexmagnus: So, now the pseudo-adjusted list looks like this:
Worst #1: 2803 (Oct 2008, Jan 2009)
Best #1: 2950 (Jan 1972)
Worst #2: 2786 (Sept 2009)
Best #2: 2860 (Jan 1989)
Worst #3: 2760 (Jan 1989)
Best #3: 2840 (Apr 2001, Jul 2001)
Worst #4: 2750 (Jan 1989)
Best #4: 2820 (Jan 1971)
Worst #5: 2745 (Jan 1990, Jan 1991)
Best #5: 2815 (Jul 1997). |
|
Sep-06-09
| | alexmagnus: Haha, talking about late peakers:
http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/Play... Those who believe in Chessmetrics as "flawless comparer" have to acknowledge the existence of a player who peaked at the age of 74.... |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 15 OF 57 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
