Fischer said that Paul Morphy, if given time to study modern theory, would've been better than any current player.
Fischer was very probably wrong on this. For one reason --the population of chess players has greatly increased and those who are at the very top have skills that Morphy never had or used.
I think Jeremy Fisher was a really good player as well and when he met up with Sir Isaac Newton for dinner I thought sparks would fly, but they had roasted grasshopper and lady bird source,Mr Alderman Ptolemy Tortoise had salad, which they all enjoyed. (but I think it sounds rather nasty.)
Fischer said that Paul Morphy, if given time to study modern theory, would've been better than any current player.
Oh yeah. I forgot about Morphy. Maybe it should be: 1. Fischer 2. Kasparov 3. Morphy 4. Carlsen 5. Lasker. Carlsen could move up a slot or two before his career is over though.
Like Fischer said, Morphy had a very high level of natural talent. He just didn't have access to modern chess theory, so some theoretical things that may be well known to low-level chess players today were not known to him.
I guess we'll never know. It's all just speculation. Even giving them all CAPS scores won't prove anything, because the level of competition back then was also handicapped by not having the latest advances in theory. So, Morphy didn't have to make the #1 computer move each time, to beat the Masters of his era.
I guess we'll never know. It's all just speculation. Even giving them all CAPS scores won't prove anything, because the level of competition back then was also handicapped by not having the latest advances in theory. So, Morphy didn't have to make the #1 computer move each time, to beat the Masters of his era.
You don't need the number one computer move to beat the masters of this era either.
True. However, I was referring to the idea of giving them all CAPS scores, to compare champions of different eras.
Ok, I didn't know they already compared their CAPS scores. Carlsen and Kramnik grew up in the computer age though, so their moves should more naturally match computer moves (for example, Carlsen often plays the computer-produced opening move of h4). I seriously doubt that Kramnik would have beaten Fischer at his peak though, if they played head to head, without the help of computer openings. Kasparov (at his peak) probably would have given Fischer a run for his money. What an epic match that would have been.
”Carlsen often plays the computer-produced opening move of h4”
Carlsen has never played h4, and no chess engine would suggest it...
”I don't think he'd be as great as Fischer or Kasparov without using a computer for his training”
This is a common type of comparison that is a bit unfair on Carlsen. It isn’t easy to show the same dominance as Fischer and Kasparov if you do not have the same opportunities as your competitors. It would be just as fair to say that Fischer and Kasparov wouldn’t be as great as Carlsen if their opponents had chess engines.
I think Carlsen claimed that his basic development as chess player was not really affected by chess engines, apparently his first coaches were amazed at how computer illitterate he was, not even knowing what Chessbase was. I don’t know how true that is, but his chess strikes me as more human that chess engine influenced, with his strength being in the endgame rather than in the openings.
”Carlsen often plays the computer-produced opening move of h4”
Carlsen has never played h4, and no chess engine would suggest it...
I didn't mean for move #1. He plays it around move 4 or 5 sometimes though.
”I don't think he'd be as great as Fischer or Kasparov without using a computer for his training”
This is a common type of comparison that is a bit unfair on Carlsen. It isn’t easy to show the same dominance as Fischer and Kasparov if you do not have the same opportunities as your competitors. It would be just as fair to say that Fischer and Kasparov wouldn’t be as great as Carlsen if their opponents had chess engines.
I think Carlsen claimed that his basic development as chess player was not really affected by chess engines, apparently his first coaches were amazed at how computer illitterate he was, not even knowing what Chessbase was. I don’t know how true that is, but his chess strikes me as more human that chess engine influenced, with his strength being in the endgame rather than in the openings.
I don't agree. I've seen some of his games and, if I didn't know better, would have thought that Stockfish or Houdini was playing. Maybe I just don't understand the logic of some of his moves yet or maybe he's memorizing computer openings 15-20 moves deep. He does have an awesome memory. I was able to follow Fischer's and Kasparov's games and make sense out of them though. They played more "human moves", although very advanced ones.
”I don't think he'd be as great as Fischer or Kasparov without using a computer for his training”
This is a common type of comparison that is a bit unfair on Carlsen. It isn’t easy to show the same dominance as Fischer and Kasparov if you do not have the same opportunities as your competitors. It would be just as fair to say that Fischer and Kasparov wouldn’t be as great as Carlsen if their opponents had chess engines.
What do you mean by it isn't easy to show the same dominance [..] if you don't have the same opportunities as your competitors? Are you suggesting Carlsen can't dominate his contemporaries to the extent Fischer did because they can use computers for preparation? Don't forget Carlsen has access to computers too! Same goes for Kasparov: a 20-21 years old Garry could do no better than 7-4 against a 52 years old Korchnoi and 8.5-4.5 against a 63(!) years old Smyslov. Kasparov's supporters usually argue that the theory advanced significantly in the 12 years Fischer had been away from the board (which should explain the close matches in the post Fischer era), forgetting that Kasparov's opponents weren't the only ones to benefit from the theory advancements.
In fact if there's one name in this list who was at the greatest disadvantage compared to his contemporaries, that was Fischer. No he didn't do it all by himself (as often stated), but the help he received during his formative years - both in terms of financial support and coaching - was nowhere near to what top soviet players were receiving.
Ok, I didn't know they already compared their CAPS scores.
As far as I understand (please correct me if I'm wrong), top chess engines have clearly surpassed humans tactically, but when it comes to positional understanding top players still have the upper hand. (if I'm not mistaken there was an article recently to that effect on chess.com). The day chess engines show clear superiority over top humans both tactically and strategically, then I'd like to have another look at caps scores. Another problem with these computer based comparisons is the selection of games subjected to analysis. Do they compare players at the same age, at their peak only (I can see disagreements over one player's peak years), do they submit all available games for analysis?
Finally, it's entirely possible that Carlsen or Kasparov or both were objectively stronger at their peak than Fischer, but there's still no absolute certainty how such a match would have turned out. Neither players faced the other (excluding the 3 blitz/rapid games between Kasparov and a 13 years old Carlsen), and the human factor has to be considered. Last but not least, the rating differences between these 2 and Fischer were 66 and 97 points respectively. We have seen surprising match results at similar rating gaps.
Exactly, thanks! This is the article I was referring to.
If someone plays better, they play better. Maybe if other players had better tools and education they would have been better. We don't know. We only know how strong they actually were. On that list, Magnus is first, followed by Kramnik or Kasparov. Maybe Fischer would be stronger with computers. Fact is, he wasn't as strong as Magnus based on move accuracy. Tools are just as much a part of playing strength as anything else. Maybe Magnus is only stronger because of computers, but he is stronger.
”What do you mean by it isn't easy to show the same dominance [..] if you don't have the same opportunities as your competitors?”
Carlsen has a computer, his competitors have computers. Carlsen is great because he is better than his competitors. The pre-computer players didn’t have computers, their competitors didn’t have computers, the best players were great because they were better than their competitors.
If suggesting that Carlsen wouldn’t be great if he didn’t have a computer means that he wouldn’t be great if he alone didn’t have a computer that is one thing. He certainly would be less great compared to competitors that had advantages he didn’t have. If the suggestion is that Carlsen would be less great if all modern players were without computers, this means that they are supposed to be less engine dependant than he is, and I don’t think that is the case. I think Carlsen relies much less on engine prep than on outplaying opponents from close to equal positions thanks to simply being the better ”human” player.
”Don't forget Carlsen has access to computers too! Same goes for Kasparov: a 20-21 years old Garry could do no better than 7-4 against a 52 years old Korchnoi and 8.5-4.5 against a 63(!) years old Smyslov”
Well, that was good enough :-) Korchnoi had beaten Portisch (World #2 in 1981) 6-3 while Smyslov had beaten Hubner (World #5) and Ribli (top ten in 1983) in matches in the same Candidates. I don’t know if computers had much to do with Kasparov’s results in the early 1980s, but not much to frown about beating Korchnoi and Smyslov easily. Kasparov was still quite young and some 150 Elo from his peak.
As far as I understand (please correct me if I'm wrong), top chess engines have clearly surpassed humans tactically, but when it comes to positional understanding top players still have the upper hand. (if I'm not mistaken there was an article recently to that effect on chess.com). The day chess engines show clear superiority over top humans both tactically and strategically, then I'd like to have another look at caps scores.
I would have agreed with this comment a couple of months ago. Although, I believe that AlphaZero does both better than any human or computer that ever existed. So, that day has finally come. Too bad chess.com can't use AlphaZero for it's CAPS scores.
If someone plays better, they play better. Maybe if other players had better tools and education they would have been better. We don't know. We only know how strong they actually were. On that list, Magnus is first, followed by Kramnik or Kasparov. Maybe Fischer would be stronger with computers. Fact is, he wasn't as strong as Magnus based on move accuracy. Tools are just as much a part of playing strength as anything else. Maybe Magnus is only stronger because of computers, but he is stronger.
Only according to Stockfish, which is very tactics based. I'd love to see AlphaZero's assessment of their CAPS scores.
Indeed, Bobby Fischer its the greates chess player that lived