|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 25 OF 285 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Oct-03-06
 | | lostemperor: <keypusher> the Divinsky-Keene analysis uses the criteria: highest peak rating
top tournament results
top match results
years at the top
etc
resulting in:
<1 kasparov
2 karpov
3 kramnik
4 botvinnik
5 smyslov
6 fischer
7 lasker
8 capablanca>
As we take the ranking of Kramnik as example: Divinsky-Keene put Kramnik behind Kasparov and Karpov but before Fischer among others! I put Kramnik behind Capablanca and Fischer but before Kasparov! This difference with my analysis on top players rankings is completely logical since I used different criteria. I use peakrating and natural talent as sometimes extensively described in chessliterature as criteria. Also I try not to look so much at years at the top. If so I don't see how any criteria could have someone other than Steinitz for objective reasons as number one since he outranked the numbers two of his time much more than say Kasparov does. Btw. I'm not in anyway suggesting my analysis of rankings of the the elite should have the authority as the Divinsky-Keene research obviously has. What is striking is that the extensive Divinsky-Keene analysis of 19830 games between the elite, reaches almost the same stunning conclusion on Kramnik's ranking as my modest analysis (respectively 3 and 4)! We also don't differ much on Smyslov if I may add (respectively 5 and 7)! |
|
| Oct-03-06 | | slomarko: the category natural talent is highly subjective. and putting kramnik on 3rd place is just absurb. he cant be before kasparov by any possible objective criteria. and by the way <lostemperor> staying on top for many years is the hardest thing to achive in chess. |
|
Oct-03-06
 | | keypusher: <lostemperor: <keypusher> the Divinsky-Keene analysis uses the criteria: highest peak rating
top tournament results
top match results
years at the top
etc >
Thanks. I still don't quite understand why Alekhine ranks so low. I suppose I could buy the book and find out! <I put Kramnik behind Capablanca and Fischer but before Kasparov!> Why do you put Kramnik ahead of Kasparov? Is it that you think his natural talent is so much greater? Didn't they have similar training? |
|
Oct-03-06
| | lostemperor: <keypusher: I still don't quite understand why Alekhine ranks so low. I suppose I could buy the book and find out!> that's the whole point I guess! :) I have about 5 clear reasons why I put Kramnik ahead of Kasparov. This is summed up at September 30. I can also find good reasons to rate Kasparov over Kramnik, no doubt! As far as kasparov and Kramnik is concerned, one can easily find reasons to rank the one over the other since they are both great! In case, in my opinion, two players may "claim" one spot, I am incline to choose the one less obvious. I think that is Kramnik. Btw. why should Divinsky-Keene rate Kramnik over Fischer and Capablanca? That is not very obvious also to say the least, but done for different reasons mentioned. I've just looked up the old Keene Divinsky list (without the names of present day players) and find I have about the same rank order for: 17. Bronstein 18. Alekhine 22. Reshevsky 28. Timman 29. Larsen 45. Mecking! Not bad for an amateur like me since I did not analyse 19,830 games! :) But 42. Euwe 44. Rubinstein 47. Steinitz is just understandable for me. Just to show you there more than one criterion. I stick to what I used. |
|
Oct-03-06
| | lostemperor: The answer of something I raised yesterday. The player who, in his carreer, has beaten Petrosian, Spassky, Fischer and kasparov (not yet in the best player's list) is Ratmir Kholmov. Though beating Petrosian, Spassky, Fischer and Kasparov is no guarantee to get in the top 40 best players list ever! (; |
|
| Oct-03-06 | | slomarko: <As far as kasparov and Kramnik is concerned, one can easily find reasons to rank the one over the other since they are both great!> no. one can easily find reasons to rank kasparov above kramnik. to rank kramnik above kasparov one needs to be biased. |
|
Oct-03-06
| | keypusher: <lost emperor> Thanks, I went back and read your posts from 9/30. Very interesting. You ask about Kasparov's early match record -- I don't think he played any before he was 20, but it's notable that he beat Beliavsky, Korchnoi and Smyslov while he was 20 (1983-early 1984). |
|
| Oct-03-06 | | positionalgenius: <lostemperor>I've got the answer.All the WCCs in group A lost or drew their first title defense.All the champs in group B sucessfully defended their title. |
|
Oct-04-06
| | lostemperor: On the question regarding the World Chess Championship matches: below you see the fourteen socalled classical world champions divided into two groups WC Group A:
<Capablanca, Euwe, Botvinnik, Smyslov, Tal, Spassky, Fischer, Kramnik>. WC Group B:
<Steinitz, Lasker, Alekhine, Petrosian, Karpov, Kasparov>. Q: What is the one common factor, the world champions of group A share, what does not count for the World Champions of group B, and vice versa, in their world chess championship matches? Clue: if Kramnik manages to win the match with Topalov he will move from group A to group B! You have given the correct answer <positionalgenius>! Something easily to overlook. All the world champions of group A never actually won a title match as defending/reigning champions! (A 12-12 or 7-7 score is of course a tied match.) These world champions are:
Capablanca, Euwe, Botvinnik, Smyslov, Tal, Spassky, Fischer and Kramnik. Pretty incredible isn't!!? |
|
| Oct-05-06 | | positionalgenius: <lostemperor>It took me awhile but I got it.Yes its incredible... |
|
Oct-05-06
| | lostemperor: You can also say the World Champions of group A: Capablanca, Euwe, Botvinnik, Smyslov, Tal, Spassky, Fischer and Kramnik, ONLY won title matches as challengers, never as champions. Whereas Steinitz, Lasker, Alekhine, Petrosian, Karpov, Kasparov also won title matches as defending champions! |
|
Oct-06-06
| | lostemperor: I don't have to be biased towards Kramnik. His carreer record against Kasparov speaks for itself. So is Kramniks record against almost any other top player. Maybe Kasparov was biased towards Kramnik when he praised him to the extreme. As it turned out, he was right. |
|
Oct-06-06
| | lostemperor: <keypusher> so there is really no comparison material between Kasparov and Kramnik concerning matchplay before their 20th birthday since Kasparov did not play a match yet. Korchnoi and Smyslov were already 53 and 63 years old, when they lost to Kasparov, but still candidates semi- and finalist! Kasparov did have a hard time against Karpov during the titlematch in 1984. Karpov leading 4-0 after nine games. You can look at Fischer's mini-matches in the candidates' tournaments of 1959 and 1962. Even Fischer could not beat the top candidates yet. Though I wouldn't say Fischer was much less than the top in 1962. Fischer challenged Botvinnik, the world champion, to a match giving him a 2 point headstart. Possibly Fischer could have won that match although 51 year old Botvinnik would probably have won the return match! |
|
| Oct-06-06 | | percyblakeney: <so there is really no comparison material between Kasparov and Kramnik concerning matchplay before their 20th birthday since Kasparov did not play a match yet> Kasparov did win 4-1 in the Candidates Quarter Final against Beliavsky before his 20th birthday. |
|
Oct-06-06
| | keypusher: Thanks, <percy>. Beliavsky was in his early 30s when he played Kasparov, correct? <lost emeperor> You're right that Korchnoi and Smyslov were pretty old. But even at the age of 53 Korchnoi was still a very formidable player, as he showed against Portisch in the quarterfinals. Smyslov was strong too, of course, but benefitted from a favorable roll of the roulette wheel against Huebner and a relatively weak semifinal opponent, Ribli. |
|
| Oct-06-06 | | percyblakeney: <the Divinsky-Keene analysis uses the criteria: highest peak rating
top tournament results
top match results
years at the top
etc>
I find it a bit strange that they end up with Kramnik so far ahead of Lasker... Lasker's best tournament results were much better than Kramnik's (like winning London 1899 with a margin of 4½ points, and going +12 in New York 1924), had at least 25 years more as a top player, had match results like 8-0 against both Marshall and Janowski and 10-2 against Steinitz, while Kramnik this far has one single match win of importance... |
|
| Oct-06-06 | | percyblakeney: <Beliavsky was in his early 30s when he played Kasparov, correct?> He was 29, and Chessmetrics have him ranked as number 3 in the world when the match was played. |
|
Oct-06-06
| | keypusher: <percy> had no idea Beliavsky was that strong then. Kasparov put everyone (except Karpov) in the shade! Agree with you re Lasker (to say nothing of my favorite Old Bolshevik). Keene and Divinsky's method must be biased somewhere -- maybe they give you extra points if your name starts with K? |
|
Oct-06-06
| | lostemperor: <percyblakeney> you happen to have the new Keene-Divinsky list? I agree age should not matter much since Korchnoi an Smyslov made it to the semi- and final of the candidates. Beliavsky and Kasparov btw. were teammates from the USSR young masters group, for what that's worth. <maybe they give you extra points if your name starts with K?> LOL! |
|
| Oct-06-06 | | percyblakeney: <lostemperor> Nope, I don't have it... |
|
Oct-06-06
| | lostemperor: Okay, before I delete my list of greatest chess geniuses from my bio, I will copy it here as reference so we know what was discussed last week. I will delete it because I do not want to explain why I rank what I ranked, a month from now again. You can read back the reasons for my analysis. I have also taken account opinions of world champions and grandmasters about each other, in chess literature and interviews in magazines like New in Chess. The list of 36 (+4) greatest chess geniuses ever (revised): 1. Capablanca
2. Fischer
3. Morphy
3* Philidor
4. Kramnik
5. Kasparov
6. Karpov
7. Smyslov
8. Tal
8* Carlsen
9. Anand
10. Rubinstein
11. Petrosian
12. Topalov
13. Spassky
14. Steinitz
15. Lasker
16. Botvinnik
16. Alekhine
18. Kamsky
19. Ivanchuk
20. Korchnoi
21. Bronstein
22. Reshevsky
23. Leko
24. Adams
25. Pillsbury
26. Polgar
27. Euwe
28. Short
29. Sultan Khan
30. Larsen
31. Schlechter
32. Anderssen
33. Timman
34. Keres
35. Aronian
36. Kholmov
37. Miles
38. Mecking
39. Browne Walter
40. Granda Zuniga
* estimate strength
The last four geniuses being a matter of taste.
If it was the greatest champions list however, it must be: 1. Steinitz, 2. Lasker, 3. Kasparov, 4. Karpov, 5. Botvinnik. What is striking is that, if I compare it with the Keene-Divinsky list of greatest players (an analysis of 19,830 games!), I find that on the players who are generally accepted as being the "bests"; Fischer, Kasparov, Karpov, Capablanca, Botvinnik and Lasker we have some significant differences. For instance I give relative higher rankings to Capablanca and Fischer than Kasparov and Karpov. These differences are completely logical since I used different criteria than Divinsky-Keene. Even more stunning is that with players who are more prone to discussions I pretty much reach identical conclussions as Divinsky-Keene! Take the surprising rankings of 3. Kramnik; 5. Smyslov (from the new Keene-Divinsky list) Or from their old list (without having inserted new players yet) 10. Petrosian 17. Bronstein 18. Alekhine 22. Reshevsky 28. Timman 29. Larsen. But 42. Euwe 44. Rubinstein 47. Steinitz on the Keene-Divinsky list make no sense to me. These three players all have an incredible record. Steinitz was way ahead of the numbers two of his time than say Kasparov! |
|
Oct-06-06
| | lostemperor: Kramnik is long past his prime I think (but still a very strong player able to beat the bests), while Topalov seems still able to become stronger. |
|
Oct-06-06
| | lostemperor: I found this link here at cg.com from Lifemaster A.J Goldsby http://www.geocities.com/lifemaster.... An amusing read. |
|
Oct-06-06
| | keypusher: <lost emperor> thanks for pointing that out...amusing indeed. |
|
Oct-07-06
| | lostemperor: Come to think of it I think I should put Lasker in the top 10, like the last time I made a list. The reason that I didn't is because I think I should not put Lasker ahead of Steinitz, his great predecessor, from whom he has "learned" so much. But this should count also for other players in the list. (Lasker literally used Steinitz own manuscripts to beat him in the second match; Steinitz being to proud to deviate) Also because Fischer called Lasker a coffee house player. Lasker games seem to contain a lot of luck. But this is exactly his genius, deliberately going into inferior positions to get the position off balance and win! |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 25 OF 285 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
