14878 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!
rating is strength based and its is very clear that you strength decreases if you do not practice. Look at botvinnik, he essentially used the first match as a training match then came back to win revenge matchs.
rating is strength based and its is very clear that you strength decreases if you do not practice.
Yes, and a rating system where all players keep their ratings would let players like Fischer and Kasparov keep their ratings "forever", and it just isn't possible that Fischer would have been playing 2780 chess around year 2005.
Some years of inactivity will usually make a player lose strength, even if Lasker seems to be an exception. It's hard to see him as #12 when he won S:t Petersburg 1914. Chessmetrics ranks him behind players like Tartakower and Teichmann at the time. But such things are unusual, and today a player can't take a longer break and return at the same level (as for example Kamsky showed).
Actually ratings - in any of the various systems, including online - have nothing at all to do with "strength." They ONLY measure results. The ratings don't know if you fought a GM tooth and nail and blundered in the ending or if you lost your Queen in ten moves, a loss is a loss.
It is one of those assumptions that seems to be common sense that ratings would decline with inactivity, but it is not only unproven, logic dictates that each individual reacts differently and would "lose strength" at a different rate. Fischer had two periods of inactivity in his prime, but returned stronger each time. Lasker also recovered from inactivity well, with the possible exception of his match with Capablanca, and his worst match performance was against Schlecter in 1910 in the period of Lasker's highest activity.
Go back to the turn of the century and see the ratings Chessmetics awards to player who were strong masters, but nowhere near 2500-2600 players. Their backward inflation amounts to hundreds of points with many of those players.
It should also be noted that Dr. Elo himself did a retroactive figuring of the ratings, without any phony reverse inflation, and found that Capablanca was the highest before Fischer, although Lasker, Alekhine, and Botvinnik were close. This was in the mid-1970s, before Karpov showed his true strength, so those five were the only ones Elo thought had touched 2700 - IF there had been his system in place when they played.
The other lesser masters, especially in the older times, came nowhere near the numbers Chessmetrics awards them.
But you can decide for yourself. Pick out a few of the players CM rates as 2600 players a century or more ago, and play over their games. There is a lot more difference than opening theory between them and those with that rating today, IMO.
there is also a difference in accuracy,.. but this is just an refinement in the game. every sport has been refined over time. players are stronger etc. You have to consider results . Lasker is amazing to me for that reason, he understood the mental game really well an would play the person as well as the board. Lasker matters is a great book!.
Bronstein, Kortchnoi, Ivanchuk are all amazing players that have won multiple tournaments but never the big one. (although i think kortchnoi was robbed via politcal pressure)
Certainly Keres, Bronstein, and Korchnoi were all disadvantaged by Soviet machinations. The pressures on them were a violation of basic human rights, completely unfair, and surely affected their performances.
But unfortunately, there is no way to know exactly what might have happened with a level playing field.
Ivanchuk has been his own worst enemy, perhaps it is the pressure, maybe he just isn't a "match" player due to his unique approach. His play and ideas mark him as a candidate for greatest of all time - if not for that failing.
Help with opening repertoire
by JohnStormcrow a few minutes ago
London Chess Classic - Super 16 Rapid 2013
by Scottrf a few minutes ago
Is there a young chess player who can equel Magnus?
by aronchuck a few minutes ago
Cannot log in to chess.com email .. Need Help !
by TheGrobe a few minutes ago
How do I go about studying the middlegame
by timepass12345 4 minutes ago
12/11/2013 - Topalov-Kramnik, Dortmund 1996
by Ocky 5 minutes ago
Borislav Ivanov is Back! (AGAIN!!)
by TheGrobe 6 minutes ago
12/12/2013 - Polugaevsky - Szilayi, Moscow 1960
by Ocky 8 minutes ago
The Ultimate Test of Engine Fanatics
by upen2002 10 minutes ago
Good players automatically suspected of cheating?
by TurboFish 10 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!