Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Bobby Fischer's Rating


  • 3 weeks ago · Quote · #81

    fabelhaft

    "Carlsen would not beat any of the pre computer world champions"

    Going by all the threads I have read on this subject over the years I think the common opinion is that the playing level has decreased a lot over time, i.e. the amateurs of the 1850s played on a much higher level than Rubinstein et al who played on a much higher level than Carlsen etc. I don't find it particularly logical to assume that players who today have all the advantages of training since childhood, professionalisation, databases, engines, coaches, tournament circuits, all the classics in chess literature, all the games of the last hundred years etc still would play on a lower level than players with all the disadvantages these differences mean, but that's just what people think for some reason.

  • 3 weeks ago · Quote · #82

    Scottrf

    People would argue Carl Lewis was faster than Bolt if their times werent recorded.

  • 3 weeks ago · Quote · #83

    JGambit

    scottrf is correct

  • 3 weeks ago · Quote · #84

    Charetter115

    chesster3145 wrote:

    rigamagician1959 wrote:

    Carlsen would not beat any of the pre computer world champions. My point is merely the galloping inflation in the rating system. Its become useless. 

    But inflation is caused by a general increase in the amount of chess knowledge. So, what we're trying to compare is the amount of intrinsic skill that these players had. But how do we do that?

    Many people argue that it's how much ahead of your contemporaries you are. Fischer dominated his contemporaries, which is why he is held in such high esteem.


Back to Top

Post your reply: