11269 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Kramnik in fact won more classical games against Topalov in their match. Topalov was given one game because the FIDE stooges followed danilov's attempt to change the course of the match (topalov was lost 2 games and drew 2 at the time of the drama and demands to change the terms) by trying to change the conditions agreed prior to the match and Kramnik refused.
The recent matches are too short I agree there.
But I have very little reason to think that Leko was not playing chess as well as Kramnik during thier match. Nor do I think Gelfand was not playing chess as well as Anand at the time of their match. I think the actual games they played in the match is in fact a much better indicator than a few rating points. If Anand Beats Carlsen in this match I will indeed think he is playing better chess than Carlsen.
Consider this. Assume best play is a draw. What if draws were not counted in ratings at all. Rating points were only won or lost after decisive games. Would this change the ratings? I think it would.
At high levels where it is very hard to get a win it might even be more accurate. Think of an exagerated example of tic tac toe. If draws constantly dragged down your rating even though you played perfectly it would be a bad system. Thats the problem with ratings. Playing perfect chess and getting a draw can drag down your rating.
Matches essentially deal with that. They throw out the draws. They are the time tested way of determining who plays the best chess. And I think they are in many ways superior to ratings.
1) In general a higher rated player is better than a lower rated player (there will always be some special cases like when Kramnik returned after illness in 2006 and was much stronger than his rating), but just like the higher rated and better player doesn't win every tournament he plays, he doesn't win every match he plays either.
2) That Leko played as well as Kramnik in 2004 and that Gelfand played as well as Anand in 2012 I don't think anyone disagrees with. It's just impossible to conclude anything from that except that the players involved were around the same level in these events. But looking at all the games played against all opponents in all events makes it possible to draw some conclusions about their relative playing strength.
Shirov won against Kramnik in 1998. Then Kramnik was given the match against Kasparov and won it. Did that make him better than Shirov, or better than Anand? It certainly made him better than Kasparov in one event, but what exactly does that mean?
3) If #1 Carlsen keeps winning 2/3 of the events he is playing, but then loses a short match against #11 Karjakin, who loses against #2-10, does that make Karjakin better than #2-10 or better than Carlsen? Hardly, it would just be a question of the simple fact that no one ever has won every event they play, and that they can't be evaluated by one event against one player.
I numbered your post to address the points you raise in somewhat of an organized fashion.
1) Sure I agree "in general" the ratings do a pretty good job. I am not better than Carlsen and the ratings are a good way to draw that conclusion.
But at the highest levels when we are looking at less than a 100 point difference I think a long match is better. I gave reasons why I believe this in my earlier post. I would be interested in what you, or others, think of those reasons.
Again the match should be longer than 12 games. Does it need to be 24 games? I am not sure. The Kramnik Shirov match was only 10 games. But even after that short match I wouldn't say Kramnik was a better chess player at that time.
How long after that time would it take before I might say Kramnik is now better? Well that would depend on many factors (including how long hte match was, how lopsided it was and some other issues) but suffice it to say that right after Kramnik lost that match I would not be inclined to say "Oh look Kramnik (2790) is rated 80 points higher than Shirov (2710) therefore he must be better."
Yes I wish it were a longer match but even the short 10 game match would keep me from making that claim.
2) I think the matches are evidence that Leko was as good of a chessplayer as Kramnik and Gelfand was as good as Anand - at least at the time of the match. Again I think the actual match was better evidence of this than looking at minor differences in their rating.
3) Short matches, say under 10 games, have no real significance. That line by the way is a very fuzzy one. The longer the match the more significant. If Karjakin beats Carlsen in a 20+ game match by a large margin I do think that would be better evidence of the each players strength (at that time) than a comparison of their ratings.
Bottom line is the rating system has problems. Substantial matches are another indicator of relative chess strength that tends to fill in the holes left by the rating system. Chess (especially the wcc cycle) needs more substantial matches.
To me the difference between two players separated by close to 100 points is quite big. It's 95 between Anand and Short, and 83 between Kramnik and Almasi. If #8 Anand played a match against #65 Short and lost my only conclusion would be that Short was better than Anand in that event. But should he be ranked higher than #8 in the world even if he consistently lost against #55 and #60? Or should Anand be ranked below #65 even if he kept winning against #10 and #12?
As I see it the rating list does a rather good job of ranking players. In many cases it is of course more or less impossible to say that this player is significantly better than that player based on a few Elo points, but if a player stays 40-50 points ahead of someone else for a long period of time I would say that he is the better player of the two.
There is no question kasparov
If Anand beats Carlsen then Anand is better than anyone
was that a joke? Carlsen is a good player compared to ther other players around him. Cappalaca lasker Alkeine oand mve of the otheres would take him out. kasparov was better by far
Kasparov is currently worse as he is retired, but they are both very strong players
true, but when Anand faced Kasparov it was in the decline of his career
who is best Anand or Kasparov?
question such as this are akin to asking: which color is the bestthere is no best
It's a bit of a difference between saying that for example Carlsen is the best player today and saying that blue is the best colour though.
What was the score in their match? I think Kasparov won 21 to 3, wasn't it?
They're different players - theres no answer
only kramnik who is an amazing player managed to defeat kasparov in the world championships. Of course there was karpov and such, but Kramnik just took the title. kasparov would defeat anand now in a match if he wanted to. of course he'd have to study for a year but he could do it. I don't know why he gave up chess for politics!
ESCAPE A CABALLO
by RomyGer 3 minutes ago
What should Black play here, and why?
by rooperi 11 minutes ago
Daily Puzzle 12/1/13-Beautiful Mate in 4
by Warrior200 11 minutes ago
Chess Is Garbage, Here Are My Own Openings
by manspider29 17 minutes ago
12/12/2013 - Polugaevsky - Szilayi, Moscow 1960
by Alenwor 21 minutes ago
The Ultimate Test of Engine Fanatics
by winnersp 22 minutes ago
by Fixing_A_Hole 24 minutes ago
12/11/2013 - Topalov-Kramnik, Dortmund 1996
by deepak21071974 29 minutes ago
Borislav Ivanov is BACK!
by Irontiger 30 minutes ago
I thought this was funny...
by ivandh 31 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!