Go for it JMB, I'm done. But I will add that Carlsen loses more than once every 3 years so shouldn't be number 1. Maybe we should have the first few spots blank.
How is Levon Aronian number 2 in the worl if most notable games show him losing?
Sort:
manfredmann wrote:
macer75 wrote:
manfredmann wrote:
harryz wrote:
manfredmann wrote:
You said Aronian is not #2 in the world.
i wasnt saying it literally, i was only saying that #2 in the world should not be considered to be at the #2 level if they lose to other top grandmasters
Wrong again! ALL GMs lose games - Carlsen, Kasparov, Karpov, Capablanca, Alekhine, you name them, they lost games. There is this thing called the ELO rating system. You should look it up and generally get more educated about these things before making outrageous statements such as your post.
The main idea of what Harry is saying makes sense, if not the details. He's saying that the second-highest ranked player in the world is not necessarily the second best player in the world. Would you say that Aronian is clearly a better player than Anand, for instance?
Yes, indeed, Aronian currently outperforms Anand by 38 ELO points. The ELO system counts ALL rated games, not just the few Aronian losses that you have cherry picked for your trolling argument.
First of all: look at my username, and you'll see that I'm not Harryz. My argument is not that Aronian loses too many games to be considered #2 in the world.
Second: Bobby Fischer has a peak FIDE rating of 2785. Aronian's current rating is 2813. So is Aronian outperforming Fisher at his prime by 28 ELO points? And if your argument is no, because they come from 2 different time periods and played against a completely different set of players, well, neither did Aronian and Anand play exactly the same players. You can argue that Aronian is the better player, but saying that he is exactly 38 ELO points better doesn't make sense.
Yes, they are similar, but you can't say that Aronian currently outperforms Anand by exactly 38 points, because the two pools of players are not exactly the same. ELO ratings are meant to be an estimate of a player's skill, but of course it's simply not possibly to quantify the extent by which one player is better than the other. For example, is the difference in skill between a 1638 rated player and a 1600 exactly the same as the difference in skill between Aronian and Anand?
harryz wrote:
people like capablanca and fischer lose a game about every 3 years. aronian loses games every 6 months
The obvious answer is that in Capablanca's and Fischer's time, trains, planes and cars were not invented. Petrosian travelled for more than three weeks on foot to defend his title against Spassky.
Fischer spent months on a boat travelling to Iceland to face Spassky in their title match.
They simply did not have the opportunity to play as many games.
JMB2010 wrote:
Giri is only a top grandmaster "just a little." lol
Giri is soooo overrated. 5 rounds in the Grand Prix in Paris, of which he lost 3. He's a good player, but blunders too much. I've seen him in other tournaments too. Not exceptionally good results either... On the other hand there are lower rated players, like Tomashevsky, who seem to play rock solid.
theunsjb wrote:
harryz wrote:
people like capablanca and fischer lose a game about every 3 years. aronian loses games every 6 months
The obvious answer is that in Capablanca's and Fischer's time, trains, planes and cars were not invented. Petrosian travelled for more than three weeks on foot to defend his title against Spassky.
Fischer spent months on a boat travelling to Iceland to face Spassky in their title match.
They simply did not have the opportunity to play as many games.
What the dolphin said! They hadn't even invented the telegraph in 1972 when Fischer won the WCC in Iceland. The chess players of today don't know how easy they have it. Capablanca had to swim the oceans to play his matches.
I have an ancestor that would have been world chess champion except chess had not even been invented yet! He was better than Fischer.
beardogjones wrote:
I have an ancestor that would have been world chess champion except chess had not even been invented yet! He was better than Fischer.
Pssh, that's nothing. My ancestor used to play before the concept of a game had been invented. They had to figure out the concept of game before they could even invent the rules, and all this without language yet existing!!
But you try to tell this to the youth of today, and they won't have any of it.
LOL this thread is funny. People have good days and people have bad days.
This Aronian vs Anand can be settled real quick
by looking at head to head games.
Should not have gotten this far.
royalbishop wrote:
This Aronian vs Anand can be settled real quick
by looking at head to head games.
Should not have gotten this far.
Head to head records aren't good judges because it is a course of many years. One player could get better and the other could get worse.
The Anand vs Aronian argument seems to be that Aronian can't well be better than Anand today since his better tournament results, higher rating and clear edge head to head are less important, as is the fact that Anand hasn't exactly been unbeatable lately either, and lost eight games this year, playing less than Aronian.
A better measure should be how many notable games where Aronian lost the users at Chessgames.com have in their game collections :-) The latter I think may partly be influenced by the fact that someone usually has to play great chess to beat Aronian, so his losses are often great games.
Plus he has the sort of spectacular style that involves taking risks.
royalbishop wrote:
This Aronian vs Anand can be settled real quick
by looking at head to head games.
Should not have gotten this far.
Well, the argument that I was trying to make was that you can't just say that Aronian is flat-out better than Anand because he has a higher elo. I'm just trying to say that the Aronian vs Anand argument does exist despite their difference in rating.
fabelhaft wrote:
The Anand vs Aronian argument seems to be that Aronian can't well be better than Anand today since his better tournament results, higher rating and clear edge head to head are less important, as is the fact that Anand hasn't exactly been unbeatable lately either, and lost eight games this year, playing less than Aronian.
A better measure should be how many notable games where Aronian lost the users at Chessgames.com have in their game collections :-) The latter I think may partly be influenced by the fact that someone usually has to play great chess to beat Aronian, so his losses are often great games.
The notable games part was what made me ask this question. I like your reasoning for this. I totally agree with you.
Count the number of members from Anand's country in this thread.
Aronian doesn't always lose, but when he does, he does it spectacularly.
royalbishop wrote:
Count the number of members from Anand's country in this thread.
none so far.
people like capablanca and fischer lose a game about every 3 years. aronian loses games every 6 months
lol, should I take this or do you want to Scottrf?