No. I am serious. Lasker's greatness wasn't surpassed yet. He would demolish Kramnik in a similar manner like he demolished Marshall and Janowski.
Computers don't understand human's aspects of the game.
Btw, Kramnik understood Lasker's play better then Regan & Bratko, but not enough to beat him.
Pb needs no evidence for his assertions. The evidence compiled by people with Ph.Ds in statistics is pseudoscience.
Pb is right. Q. E. D.
kramnik weaker then lasker? good joke.
lasker vs kramnik would end prob 10-0 in classical time control.
next arcitle:http://en.chessbase.com/post/computers-choose-who-was-the-strongest-player-
computer is the best tool in saying who is better player objectiveness.
So Capablanca is the best of all time, regardless of era. Good to know.
Pb is right.
Right.
PB doesn't need such computer geeks to form his expert opinion, because he already has one. PB thinks they should have been more careful in their nonsensical conclusions, because ignorant amateurs quote them a lot and tend to be improperly impudent.
so your basically sayin that we cannot measure who is better in chess objectively?
so your basically sayin that we cannot measure who is better in chess objectively?
Yes.
if so,lest say player A and B playin 100 games,we can later on analyze their games and compare their moves to houdinis choices and player B got 65% accuracy and player A only 55% wouldnt you say that B player is strongergenerally in chess?
*assuming they never played together.
if so,lest say player A and B playin 100 games,we can later on analyze their games and compare their moves to houdinis choices and player B got 65% accuracy and player A only 55% wouldnt you say that B player is strongergenerally in chess?
No, we can't. But if player B had 65% match with houdini 1st choice at fixed conditions (houdini's constant time or depth) in 100 games, we can be almost 100% sure player B cheated with some engine similar to houdini, but not exactly houdini (stockfish, rybka, firebird, strelka), in his shoes.
Carlsen would easily wipe the floor with Fischer, both ar 15 or at 22. And I'm no Carlsen fan but he plays with the accuracy of a machine. If Fischer were born in 1990, well... now we're talking.
Carlsen would easily wipe the floor with Fischer, both ar 15 or at 22. And I'm no Carlsen fan but he plays with the accuracy of a machine. If Fischer were born in 1990, well... now we're talking.
This is true, and only a retarded bobby wanker would believe otherwise
OK, I should have answered: "No, I wouldn't say player B is stronger than player A, but player B is an idiot cheater."
quisiera ver a los jugadores actuales jugar sin la ayuda del computer! Por otra parete las partidas actuales son mucho menos buenas que las de la epoca de Botwinik. Simplemente porque ahora tienen menos tiempo para pensar?
I think it all boils down to character. Both are extremly strong chess players.Carlsen is very much comfortable in solid, risk-free positions. he can accept drawish positions and even play em to death. But Fischer is known to take risks in his games in drawish positions because he always goes for the win and that in itself is his waterloo. The rest is equal.
nailed it^
Caruana > Carlsen hahahahaha 4-0 4-0 4-0
How about if Carlsen was born at the same time and age as Fischer? 
Wouldn't that change things the same way ? Carlsen has the accuracy of a machine but in my opinion, Fischer has the insanely mad accuracy it takes to beat a machine.
It is not only the players that are stronger but chess itself is different. Ratings are only relevant in comparison to the current generation of players. The difference between Carlsen and Caruana is not that big, but the difference between Fischer and his peers was so great that not even the whole Soviet school of chess could beat him. If he was not such a difficult character and if the Soviets did not play between themselves for draws in order to emilinate him (this was proven to be true), he would be world champion around age 20 not 22. That is impressive strong chess when the level of chess play genius was more obvious than today's age of computers. Carlsen is a genius too there is no denying about that but he had proper mentoring from Kasparov and other grand masters as well. Ask yourselves where would Carlsen be if he was self taught in modern chess. And then ask yourselves : imagine eveyone else was playing for draws and against him for wins. That is a fair comparison.
Ultimately, in 20 years there will be chess players that dwarf even Carlsen or whoever rises up now. But everybody will be comparing the new guy always to Fischer not Carlsen. It is logical.
carlsens resolt is better thne kramniks.