|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 23 OF 57 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Nov-01-09
 | | alexmagnus: Continuation of the memory champs tracing.
The score of the world champion in those 7 disciplines which were there in 1993 (now there are 10 disciplines), in modern standards: 1993: 2452
1994: 2918
1995: 3940
1996: 3825
1997: 4450
1998: 3926*
1999: 4320
2000: 4192
2001: 4411
2002: 4795
2003: 4582
2004: 5183
2005: 4448
2006: 5041
2007: 4782
2008: 5185.
*: in 1998 the overall winner didn't participate in one of the disciplines, for that discipline the score of the winner of that discipline was taken. You clearly see the tendency to above. And that with an absolute measure! |
|
Nov-02-09
| | alexmagnus: <1993: 2452>
That makes 350 pts per discipline. Heh, <that> it what it took to world championship in 1993? Wow, looks like people's memory capacity rose dramatically in last years. I mean, that is what it takes to 350 points in each of those 7 disciplines: 1)Memorizing a 1400-digit binary number in 30 minutes 2)Memorizing a 131-digit (decimal) number in 5 minutes 3)Memorizing 455 cards in an hour
4)Memorizing a 770-digit number in an hour
5)Scoring 70 in the "Names & Faces" competition
6)Memorizing 88 random words in 15 minutes
7)Memorizing a deck of cards in 86.7 seconds.
Each of these is of course an impressive feat, but I'm surprised it was enough for a world champion in 1993. Today I doubt one can even win a regional memory competition with these results... |
|
Nov-02-09
| | alexmagnus: Some other disciplines for a 350 result:
350 binary digits in 5 minutes
scoring 35 in the quick version of "names and faces"
35 random words in 5 minutes
117 cards in 10 minutes
280 digits in 15 minutes
88 abstract images in 15 minutes
32 fictional dates in 5 minutes
first 25 digits of a 100-digit number heard with 1 digit per second. |
|
| Nov-02-09 | | zarg: <alexmagnus: I ignore nobody and I never understood why some people have full ignore lists...> The purpose of the ignore function is to lower the number of false positives. It's a noise filter, which helps us in finding the information of interest. <Why ignore?>
Some people don't enjoy wasting their time on off-topic noise and using ignore, helps them to increase their own signal level as well. If a high-traffic forum degenerate into mainly noise, lots of valuable contributors will leave it, and stop posting their on-topic contributions. In the end, you are left with babble. Do you read <every> forum at <cg.com>? If not, why don't you? Would it be fine by you if <cg.com> switched to one single big forum? If so, why don't you suggest in the premium member forum a merge of the Carlsen, Nakamura and So page as a start, to improve your own browsing experience? <Even the worst users give some useful information sometimes> Those who can't resist feeding spammers and trolls, better use ignore to improve their own topicality level. There is a rule of thumb for a well functioning forum: "For every off-topic post you make, you should make at least 10 on-topic posts". I will await your next 100 on-topic posts... :) |
|
| Nov-02-09 | | Thorski: Good post, zarg.
However, I personally don't care whether people stay on topic, as long as they're interesting, intelligent and articulate. Some of my favorite kibitzers here only rarely contribute to on-topic discussions at the themed rooms. This is a social community more than anything, and I, for one, come here for the people and the discourse, not chess-related information. There are better sites for that. |
|
Nov-02-09
| | alexmagnus: <I will await your next 100 on-topic posts... :)>
I guess I overfullfilled that 10:1 proportion in my first months of the membership. Indeed, it's only about a year since I got involved in off-topic debates at all. At some point I simply couldn't resist, especially when it came to topics of my interest (rating discussions was probably the most "outshining" type of off-topic discussions I actively participated in here. I like playing with numbers, often just for "game"'s sake, without any practical use.) |
|
| Nov-22-09 | | Dimitrije Mandic: Great song! |
|
Nov-24-09
| | alexmagnus: <amadeus> How did you calculate it? As far as I remember, chessmetrics has no formula for an expected score. And using FIDE's formula on chessmetrics lists would be unjustified. |
|
| Nov-24-09 | | amadeus: <using FIDE's formula on chessmetrics lists would be unjustified> You are correct, of course. I was going to use only lists from FIDE, but in the end I made the calculatons to everything, because I (was lazy and I) didn't thought it would be too different, and I was curious about the outcome. I am going to use Sonas' linear formula now though. Performance Rating = Average Opponents' Rating + [(PctScore - 0.50) * 850] . I thought that he used 800, but with 850 the difference may be greater that I previously thought. Well, I have a couple of things to do now (help my other sister with a paper), but I'll come to that later. A linear formula like that should be easy to deal with, it won't take that much time :) |
|
| Nov-24-09 | | amadeus: Well, it was worth the time do the work properly, there were some big differences -- e.g.: Capablanca. Please delete my first post, in order to avoid future confusion. I have calculated the expected score of all players against the top 10 (themselves included) through the time. I have used chessmetrics January top 100 lists for years between 1885 and 1970, and FIDE January from 1971 onwards. Two exceptions: I have not included Chessmetrics Jan 1921, because Lasker and Alekhine were not featured in there. And I have used Nov 2009 for Jan 2010 - for obvious reasons. Best results:
1 . Emanuel Lasker 69,0%
2 . Bobby Fischer 68,0%
3 . Garry Kasparov 67,6%
4 . José Capablanca 66,9%
5 . Mikhail Botvinnik 65,9%
6 . Alexander Alekhine 65,0%
7 . Wilhelm Steinitz 63,7%
8 . Anatoly Karpov 62,7%
9 . Siegbert Tarrasch 60,6%
10 . Johannes Zukertort 60,4%
11 . Géza Maróczy 60,3%
12 . Harry Pillsbury 58,9%
13 . Vladimir Kramnik 58,3%
14 . Viktor Korchnoi 58,1%
15 . Mikhail Tal 58,1%
16 . Frank Marshall 57,2%
17 . Joseph Blackburne 57,1%
18 . Akiba Rubinstein 57,1%
19 . Max Euwe 56,8%
20 . Viswanathan Anand 56,6%
21 . Veselin Topalov 56,1%
22 . Efim Bogoljubow 56,1%
23 . Isidor Gunsberg 55,9%
24 . Aron Nimzowitsch 55,6%
25 . Vassily Smyslov 55,4%
26 . Miguel Najdorf 55,3%
27 . Carl Schlechter 54,9%
28 . Samuel Reshevsky 54,9%
29 . Boris Spassky 54,9%
30 . Tigran Petrosian 54,7%
31 . David Bronstein 54,7%
32 . Dawid Janowsky 54,7%
33 . Mikhail Chigorin 54,6%
34 . Salo Flohr 54,5%
35 . Magnus Carlsen 54,3%
36 . Paul Keres 54,1%
37 . Reuben Fine 53,9%
38 . Isaac Kashdan 53,8%
39 . Vassily Ivanchuk 53,0%
40 . Boris Gelfand 52,9%
41 . Jan Timman 52,7%
42 . Lajos Portisch 52,0%
43 . Miksa Weiss 52,0%
44 . Levon Aronian 51,9%
45 . Oldrich Duras 51,4%
46 . Gideon Ståhlberg 51,2%
47 . Curt Von Bardeleben 51,2%
48 . Peter Svidler 51,0%
49 . Ljubomir Ljubojevic 51,0%
50 . Szymon Winawer 51,0%
51 . Gata Kamsky 51,0%
52 . Leonid Stein 50,9%
53 . Alexei Shirov 50,9%
54 . Alexander Kotov 50,8%
55 . Efim Geller 50,7%
56 . Richard Teichmann 50,7%
57 . Bent Larsen 50,6%
58 . George Mackenzie 50,6%
59 . Alexander Morozevich 50,4%
60 . Andrei Sokolov 50,4%
60 . Artur Yusupov 50,4%
62 . Samuel Lipschütz 50,3%
63 . Henrique Mecking 50,3%
64 . Amos Burn 50,2%
65 . James Mason 50,2%
66 . Shakhriyar Mamedyarov 50,1%
67 . Milan Vidmar Sr 50,1%
68 . Peter Leko 49,9%
69 . Rafael Vaganian 49,9%
70 . Robert Hübner 49,9%
71 . Isaak Boleslavsky 49,8%
72 . Lev Polugaevsky 49,8%
73 . Svetozar Gligoric 49,7%
74 . Mark Taimanov 49,6%
75 . Ulf Andersson 49,6%
76 . Berthold Englisch 49,3%
77 . Michael Adams 49,3%
78 . Vladimir Makogonov 49,2%
79 . Andor Lilienthal 49,0%
80 . Boris Kostic 49,0%
81 . Nigel Short 48,9%
82 . Paul Lipke 48,8%
83 . Teimour Radjabov 48,8%
84 . Saviely Tartakower 48,7%
85 . Dmitry Jakovenko 48,6%
86 . Ernst Grünfeld 48,6%
87 . Rudolf Spielmann 48,6%
88 . Alexander Beliavsky 48,4%
89 . Erich Eliskases 48,3%
90 . Vlastimil Hort 48,1%
91 . Carl Walbrodt 48,0%
91 . Gyula Makovets 48,0%
93 . Ratmir Kholmov 47,8%
94 . Rezsö Charousek 47,7%
95 . Valery Salov 47,7%
96 . László Szabó 47,6%
97 . Mir Sultan Khan 47,6%
98 . Ruslan Ponomariov 47,5%
99 . Jonathan Speelman 47,5%
100 . Gösta Stoltz 47,4%
Fischer and Kasparov are really impressive. |
|
| Nov-24-09 | | amadeus: PS: I guess all the players listed were in the top 10 at the time of their peaks, so you can easily find how they would score against the other players in the top 10 by taking 5% and multiplying it by 10/9. |
|
Nov-24-09
| | alexmagnus: I don't quite understand what moment are the scores calculated for. Are those <peak> expected scores? |
|
| Nov-24-09 | | amadeus: <Are those <peak> expected scores?> Yes. (i) I calculated the expect score against the Top 10 for all players* in each year list**. e.g: FIDE November 2009: Topalov: 55,6%
Carlsen: 54,3%
Anand: 52,5%
Aronian: 51,9%
Kramnik: 50,2%
Gelfand: 47,5%
Leko: 47,3%
Morozevich: 47,1%
Radjabov: 46,8%
Gashimov: 46,8%
etc.
(ii) The peak is the best Expected Score against the top 10 of a player during his entire career. For Carlsen, e.g., is the one above. For Anand, is the one I calculated from January 1999 list. Kramnik's is from January 2002. (*) ok, not all players, only the top 100... I only use top 100 lists. (**) the lists published by FIDE in January (or Chessmetrics January Lists). the example above, November, is one of the two exceptions I mentioned before; I'll replace it by FIDE's January 2010 list in the future. |
|
Dec-19-09
| | alexmagnus: Continuation of bizarre appearances on rating lists: actually current German darabase includes such a case too - 2 years old, two tournmanets, 786 rating based on 8 games (scored 3.5/8). But considering the fact one of the tournaments is an U12 competition, I think we have again a birthyear "falsified" by 10 years. |
|
| Dec-21-09 | | Nightranger: Awesome! You finally came up with an answer. Now it will stop haunting me. Congrats! |
|
Dec-21-09
| | alexmagnus: Thx ;) |
|
| Dec-22-09 | | MrMelad: alex, +100 for solving #38! You are absolutely great! |
|
Dec-24-09
| | alexmagnus: A curiosum from chessmetrics: a player whose <best TPR> was a 0/10 score: http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/Play... And I'm sure he is not the only one ;) |
|
Dec-24-09
| | alexmagnus: Actually that best TPR was his only one:
http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/Play... I wonder how he then got a rating that is higher than this TPR. This looks impossible even in Chessmetrics, where generally a higher rating that highest TPR is possible. |
|
Dec-24-09
| | alexmagnus: Did the rating go up during the "simultaneous calculation"? |
|
Dec-24-09
| | alexmagnus: I don't get it... Were only pre-1850 lists calculated on simultaneous basis or all lists? |
|
Jan-01-10
| | alexmagnus: Happy New Year everyone! |
|
Jan-01-10
 | | chancho: Happy New Year <Alexmagnus>. |
|
Jan-05-10
 | | jessicafischerqueen: Hello <Alex> and happy new year from me too- I was just goofing around on the Magnus Carlsen page so please don't get mad at my response to your post, which I actually happen to agree with. However, while there, I just now read some of the posts above mine and good lord they are still fighting with/over/about Frogbert after all these years? I would have thought people would just grow tired of that as a topic? On a rare serious note <Alex> it is precisely that one topic of argument that keeps a lot of members from even looking at the <Magnus Carlsen page> let alone posting there. I think it's too bad really- there are so many productive, informative, and interesting posts about Magnus that a lot of people don't even read because they've just given up on going to his page altogether. |
|
Jan-07-10
| | alexmagnus: <This> player is 90 years old: http://ratings.fide.com/id.phtml?ev...
So much for decline when aging.... |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 23 OF 57 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
