Could Fischer defeat today's Super GMs or would they school him with their knowledge?

You repeat this after I dismantled it because you're stupid.

So how would these statisticians explain that all of those in the top 15 of the "strongest ever" list, except for Kasparov, are from the past ten years? To explain it other than by rating inflation just isn't viable, because it would depend on the most unlikely coincidence .... so unlikely that we can assume it didn't happen, unless of course, people are congenitally becoming better at chess. I doubt that very much, even though intelligence does morph and change, as the centuries progress.

You'll have to do much better than "someone published a dodgy article, on which I'm basing my assertion that rating inflation is a myth".

What makes you believe you "dismantled" it? Did you mean "refuted it"? Why should you believe that your opinion is worth half a candle?

It wasn't an opinion, it was an argument.

In any case you're not worth talking to, so I'll leave for a while.

I found your effort. I normally just ignore people when they start with things like "that argument makes no sense", as you did.

Instead, you need to acknowledge why it DOES make sense and work from there. The dates on the list are an extremely strong, inductively positive reason why it's safe to assume that rating inflation exists and the idea it doesn't is the myth. You then need to factor in the counter-arguments, which are very hard to demonstrate. Also, and this is the most daunting difficulty, you have to show why all these variables suddenly factored in in the past ten years, rather than in the chess boom of the 1950s, in Fischer's chess boom of the early 70s or when chess engines became viable as analytical tools in the mid 1990s.

You can't do that. I know you can't. Funny you calling me stupid, isn't it? But I'll let it pass.

Calling others stupid is clear violating of forum guidelines but that is allowed 

It wasn't a very good argument though, so you'd save face if you passed it off as an opinion. I do agree that it isn't worth your "talking" to me, incapable of learning as you obviously are.

Hard to say

It wasn't important. I don't want to make an issue of it. He isn't a troll.

Breaking down the arguments about what causes rating increases, I don't think that technological advances are so relevant, because they apply to all. In particular, they apply to all or many of each generation. Armed with their increased knowledge, due to databases, the young guns of each generation will tend to defeat the older ones, not due, so much, to ability as to knowledge. Therefore, ability for ability, there WILL be rating inflation, as they beat well established, "strong" players of previous generations.

The real differences, regarding people, are probably the younger age of exposure to chess and increasing prosperity, in the World, in the 1980s. If a player peaks at 30 to 35 years of age, people born in 1980 were peaking from 2010 to 2015. However, there's nothing to indicate that the increased ratings were not a legitimised form of rating inflation. Generally, statistics isn't a field of mathematics that has been pursued by the most able mathematicians, Elroch notwithstanding.

I can see you're on form, today!

Nah, I'll delete it... I read your other post... there's just so much to say that it becomes not worth saying.

I was following this a little bit because it was nice to see @smyslovfan in the forums again, but I think I'll unfollow now.

Thanks for replying again. I admit I saw your post as a challenge because your opinion was so firmly stated. You did make a good point or two and I'm here to learn, more than anything, and your point did make me think. No harm done.

Ok, thanks

Approach

To evaluate playing strength we analysed more than 300,000 games, checked each played move with Stockfish, and calculated the average centipawn loss (acpl). The centipawn loss (cpl) is the difference between the evaluation after the stockfish move and the evaluation after the played move. (We capped the cpl at 500.) Though the acpl is just half the truth about playing strength as it doesn't take the complexity of positions into account, it is a sufficient measure for our purpose to judge the playing strength of huge groups of players.

This is just wrong and the approach of Wolf et al need not be taken seriously. The work required to justify this measuring of strength of moves by comparing them with Stockfish's assessments would require a thesis in itself and has been pretty effectively debunked in the "has chess been solved" threads.

The answer is blindingly obvious:

Today’s best players are better than the best from any previous time, and they continue to scramble higher each generation by climbing on the shoulders of giants.

Added: almost all of the fastest swimmers of all time are alive today, and the same is true in other sports.

<<Added: almost all of the fastest swimmers of all time are alive today, and the same is true in other sports.>>

The question I believe we're trying to examine is whether top chess players of bygone years could compete effectively in today's environment, if they had the same access to the facilities that today's players have access to. Obviously, stipulating that they wouldn't have that access would be silly. Regarding sporting achievement, all we have is that during the time that records were kept, those who compete in sports are becoming more effective. If it's true, it will be because people in general are getting quite a bit bigger and there are methods to enhance physical performance, food supplements and so forth.

Chess isn't a sport, of course. It's a cognitively-based game and the best strategies have only really been worked out since the 1970s. Everyone has access to them. So it isn't  blindingly obvious. I'd be interested in how it's possible to prove there's no rating inflation via statistics. In general, you can't prove anything, statistically.

Scientific method has changed markedly over the past 100 to 120 years. That's effectively because the way people tend to think has changed. The change is basically that individual brilliance is systematically devalued. How many brilliant physicists or cosmologists, for instance, have existed in the past half a century? I don't know of one single one.

Fischer would use today's computer and database facilities more efficiently than others, to the point where he would be a World championship contender and maybe win it. He was good and that level of excellence isn't confined to one era, in that brilliant people from other eras can interact effectively in whatever environment they find themselves. That's because brilliance is all about having a clear mind and, simply, seeing the right things. Making the most effective mental connections, quickly.

Your sarcasm was completely lost on me.

That's the spirit!

im better, none of those players have beat me