Pretty cool Lou. Did you figure out Pillsbury's career if you take out the last 2 years he was alive and declined in skill because of his affliction? Just curious.
What if we calculate winning percentages (excluding draws)?
Sort:
TundraMike wrote:
Pretty cool Lou. Did you figure out Pillsbury's career if you take out the last 2 years he was alive and declined in skill because of his affliction? Just curious.
Mike,
If you check the Chessgames.com database, because of his illness, he wasn't that active toward the end of his career. The illness didn't just affect his playing toward the end. He was sick for the second half of the St, Petersburg tournament of 1895/6 where he scored +5-7=6, and at several other events.
It's figured that is where he caught the dreaded disease at St. Petersburg, But the next few years he had some remarkable results, probably because it went dormant until it came back with vengeance. Just my guess. He was still one of the best and if not for his illness Lasker might not have held the title all those years. My opinion.
TundraMike wrote:
It's figured that is where he caught the dreaded disease at St. Petersburg, But the next few years he had some remarkable results, probably because it went dormant until it came back with vengeance. Just my guess. He was still one of the best and if not for his illness Lasker might not have held the title all those years. My opinion.
Mike,
Pillsbury is a sad tale of what might have been. After his explosive international debut at Hastings in 1895 where he came in first ahead of Lasker, Steinitz, Chigorin, Tarrasch, and Janowski, among other top-ranked masters, he was leading at St. Petersburg in 1895 when he became ill scoring only 1.5./9.0 in the second half of the tournament. After that, recurring bouts of the disease (which eventually killed him) certainly affected his performance. Brilliant at times, struggling at others. As good as Pillsbury was, he was always standing in Lasker's shadow. In the six tournaments where he competed again Lasker, Lasker bested him in 5 out of 6. And although Pillsbury's lifetime performance against Lasker was nearly even at (+4-5=4), when compared against their contemporaries (Steinitz, Janowski, Maroczy, Tarrasch, Marshall, and Chigorin), Lasker compiled a winning percentage of 70.4% to Pillsbury's 53.9%. Pillsbury was brilliant, but he didn't dominate the way Lasker did. For example, Lasker was (+26-8=12) against Steinitz, (+26-4=7) against Janowski, (+12-2=11) against Marshall, (+18-4=8) against Tarrasch, (+10-3=7) against Chigorin, and (+5-0=2) against Maroczy! [Source: Chessgames.com database]
Sure, you could do this. However, it is just one statistic and not representative as to who was the better chess player (which I'm sure is how many will interpret these "results"). Following this statistic only, then the beginner who only plays one game in their life, but wins, now has a 100% winning percentage. They might not even be 1000-rating-ability: certainly they wouldn't compare to Capablanca, Fischer, Kasparov and others (which all have 80s for % according to your chart).
Another consideration is that this statistic rewards players who play weaker players and do not challenge themselves.
U must take into account the strength of their opponents. For example, Magnus is on a 120 game non losing streak against an average opponent of about 2750. I dont think anyone in history had opposition of that level CONSISTENTLY.
So only looking at those win percentages is misleading. U must take into account who has the toughest average competition.
KeSetoKaiba wrote:
Sure, you could do this. However, it is just one statistic and not representative as to who was the better chess player (which I'm sure is how many will interpret these "results"). Following this statistic only, then the beginner who only plays one game in their life, but wins, now has a 100% winning percentage. They might not even be 1000-rating-ability: certainly they wouldn't compare to Capablanca, Fischer, Kasparov and others (which all have 80s for % according to your chart).
Another consideration is that this statistic rewards players who play weaker players and do not challenge themselves.
KeSeto & Damonevic,
I agree, all calculations of winning percentages, whether they include draws or not, are relative to the level of the competition. There's a big difference between lions vs. tigers and lions vs. lambs?
Magnus Carlsen has winning percentage is 62.5% (72.5% excluding draws). I'm sure there are expert level players out there who have amassed a winning percentage of 75% or higher, does that mean they're better than Magnus? Obviously not. But where the playing field is more level, like amongst GM rated players, I think the results can be telling. I find it statistically relevant that 9 of the 11 players who have compiled a Won/Loss percentage over 80% on the list above were world champions! This isn't just a fluke. It merely tells us what we already know -- that the cream rises to the top, and the statistics bear this out. All in all, It's just for fun guys.
A player’s overall winning percentage is calculated by taking the total number of points scored (1 point for a win and ½ point for a draw) and dividing that sum by the total number of games played.
For example, as of today, Magnus Carlsen’s record for classical games (excluding blitz/rapid and odds games) is (+713 -270 =785), that works out to a winning percentage of 62.5%. But what skews this statistic is the greater number of draws when compared to players of old. According to the stats, Magnus draws 44.4% of his games, which is in line with many of his contemporaries – Caruana (50.2%), Nakamura (45.7%), Krammnik (57.1%), Anand (55.1%), Liren (56.5%), Karpov (51.9%), and Kasparov (46.7%). By comparison, Alekhine drew only 29.6% of his games, Lasker (27.6%), Capablanca (38.5%), and Steinitz at 18.8%.
Compiling an aggregate list of winning percentages based on the equation above favors the players with fewer draws, but a draw isn’t a win. To level the playing field, why not disregard draws all together and recalculate the winning percentages, excluding draws. Winning Percentage = wins / (wins + losses).
When we apply this metric, we come up with some interesting results. The table is a list of all the players with an adjusted winning percentage over 80%.