If a 7 year old has access to a 3200+ computer.....surely if interested he or she will develop faster and better if nurtured then even F. If the conditions and will or intuition are there then the individual is capab** of anything.
Could Today's 2600 GMs All Beat Bobby Fischer?
Sort:
Genius are always genius. It's impossible to a human or even a super chess-engine tell who of Steinitz, Capablanca, Fischer or Carlsen is better. Different times, different chess knowledges, different chess concepts, different searching resources. I'ts like comparing Pele to Messi.
Convolvulus wrote:
If a 7 year old has access to a 3200+ computer.....surely if interested he or she will develop faster and better if nurtured then even F. If the conditions and will or intuition are there then the individual is capab** of anything.
The problem with this idea is it completely ignores the talent aspect of great chess players . An engine , no matter how strong , cannot explain/teach anything and I believe they are becoming a crutch to many amateur players .
Rating inflation is nonsense. If a guy like short can make it to play vs KaspaRov, it's clear that there were simply less talented players. Everybody that is up and coming now is a complete destroyer compared to the older guys. Bobby would have lost to Karpov most likely and now we have guys like Carlsen. He's a better more adaptable version of Karpov. Aronian Fabiano Karjakin I bet Nakamura would beat Fischer in a best of 12
Oct 10, 2014
0
#126
GmPrice wrote:
Rating inflation is nonsense. If a guy like short can make it to play vs KaspaRov, it's clear that there were simply less talented players. Everybody that is up and coming now is a complete destroyer compared to the older guys. Bobby would have lost to Karpov most likely and now we have guys like Carlsen. He's a better more adaptable version of Karpov. Aronian Fabiano Karjakin I bet Nakamura would beat Fischer in a best of 12
Rating inflation is very real. Carlsen and Caruana would have a chance to beat Fischer. I doubt anyone else would unless they were running stockfish while playing. Fischer doesn't need to play theory in order to win, players back then weren't any weaker than today. Fischer, Casablanca, Lasker, Morphy would all be fine today. If engines saw impeccable play by past world champions then what makes anyone think that their play was weaker?
Oct 10, 2014
0
#127
I'm soooory I dont have the guts to ever be even a 1500 because I cant even carry the responsibility to place anothers remarks where he put them.
When I saw your name, I first read "Convulsions".
Oct 10, 2014
0
#129
Benzodiazepine wrote:
When I saw your name, I first read "Convulsions".
Where are you going. find out because its still time consuming to have to answer f3 moves when you have better things to do. Besides your statistics show that you are into a world of possibilities so dont waste your time.
It always amazes me when I come across lesser GMs (like 2600s) giving commentary about great players (like Fischer) saying the greats played at a level so far above them it's hard to describe. I'm thinking, at 2600 you can't be that far away, but Fischer's comments and games are treated with a sort of reverence.
Also as mentioned with the ratings... Fischer destroyed 2600s then, he'd destory them now.
Good point.
Except that's insane, and only someone who knows nothing about it would believe what you just wrote 
There have been so many threads on the subject top players of one or two centuries ago being better or at least no worse than top players of today, but it just doesn't make any sense. Of course an amateur from the distant past, that wasn't professionally trained since childhood, without access to engines and databases and modern opening theory, endgame theory and the last century of games, can't compete with a top player of today that had the benefit of all these things. The professionalisation of the game has made chess players and athletes etc better than they were a century ago, and that's why comparisons of objective strength are unfair. Aronian obviously plays much stronger moves than Stenitz did, but the latter was a greater player in his time, just like most of those who run faster than Jesse Owens can't be said to be anywhere near him in greatness. But they do run faster, just like Aronian plays better moves than Steinitz.
fabelhaft wrote:
There have been so many threads on the subject top players of one or two centuries ago being better or at least no worse than top players of today, but it just doesn't make any sense. Of course an amateur from the distant past, that wasn't professionally trained since childhood, without access to engines and databases and modern opening theory, endgame theory and the last century of games, can't compete with a top player of today that had the benefit of all these things. The professionalisation of the game has made chess players and athletes etc better than they were a century ago, and that's why comparisons of objective strength are unfair. Aronian obviously plays much stronger moves than Stenitz did, but the latter was a greater player in his time, just like most of those who run faster than Jesse Owens can't be said to be anywhere near him in greatness. But they do run faster, just like Aronian plays better moves than Steinitz.
What is "greatness"? Just thought I'd ask. It seems to me to be a much overused and misused term.
Greatness to me is the same thing as achievements in a players own time. Steinitz winning every match he played for over 30 years etc is what matters, not that Aronian today plays better moves without ever being close to become #1 or World Champion.
lolurspammed wrote:
GmPrice wrote:
Rating inflation is nonsense. If a guy like short can make it to play vs KaspaRov, it's clear that there were simply less talented players. Everybody that is up and coming now is a complete destroyer compared to the older guys. Bobby would have lost to Karpov most likely and now we have guys like Carlsen. He's a better more adaptable version of Karpov. Aronian Fabiano Karjakin I bet Nakamura would beat Fischer in a best of 12
Rating inflation is very real. Carlsen and Caruana would have a chance to beat Fischer. I doubt anyone else would unless they were running stockfish while playing. Fischer doesn't need to play theory in order to win, players back then weren't any weaker than today. Fischer, Casablanca, Lasker, Morphy would all be fine today. If engines saw impeccable play by past world champions then what makes anyone think that their play was weaker?
Just because he played top computer moves doesn't mean anything. If I play vs competition weaker than myself, I play top computer moves. How closely a person follows a computer means nothing. It's how far his opponent deviates that is what matters.
Mersaphe wrote:
Fischer was playing with a bunch of scrubs in his time, he was lucky not to ever have faced any real competition. Only a handful of players that Fischer went up against could qualify as 2600+ rated players today (e.g., Spassky, Tal, Petrosian, Geller).
Boris Spassky could beat all of us easily. Note the lack of an in his prime qualifier too. They had plenty of great players back then. We may have better GMs today, but scrub is too strong of a word. He played against Reshevsky, Larsen, Taimanov, and others. His 60 Memorable Games is also a must for those collecting annotated master games, though the Botvinnik books are more instructive (though Botvinnik thought Fischer was immature since he was clearly frusterated that Botvinnik instead of resigning staunchly defended to hold the draw)
This current crowd of over rateds beating Fischer ???
Hahahahaha .... Good one!
classic topic in sports forums aswell. would babe ruth hit so many homeruns in today's era?? of course!!! i've said if before and i'll say it again- greatest is greatest! period. the harsh elements that players of past generations dealt with eclipse every aspect of today's prima donnas. player's skill sets were relative to their time period and if they dominated their competitors then, so would they now. if muhammad ali had the HGH of today's athletes he probably would k/o mike tyson and lennox lewis while submitting georges st. pierre.
Fat Babe Ruth would not make a roster in today's game, not to mention he never played against a single black or hispanic, so all his stats are beyond dubious.
Track & field records are lowered all the time because the bar has been set for those to strive. Nobody, it was said, will ever run a 4:00 mile, and yet once it was done, suddenly anyone who could lace 'em up could do it. Same with ratings; it's just a system manipulatable for points (see: Claude Bloodgoode); in yesteryear, GMs were out for blood; today, so much tepidness it makes one laugh. Kasparov was a beast because he stood almost alone in striving for a win over a draw. One of the last old guard true fighters.
Today's GMs dinna have near the patience, imagination, creativity, strategic depth, nor will to win like the players of the past. Too reliant on engines and playing the board (lol) rather than the opponent, today's game is entirely too civil next to the savage rivalries that once raged on the checkerboard.
Street cred? Ph.D. & tactics trainer:
Tactics: 2
| Current: | 2 |
|---|---|
| Highest: | 1665 (Jul 30, 2014) |
| Lowest: | 0 (Oct 10, 2014) |
| # Attempts: | 5122 |
mnhsr wrote:
Fat Babe Ruth would not make a roster in today's game, not to mention he never played against a single black or hispanic, so all his stats are beyond dubious.
Track & field records are lowered all the time because the bar has been set for those to strive. Nobody, it was said, will ever run a 4:00 mile, and yet once it was done, suddenly anyone who could lace 'em up could do it. Same with ratings; it's just a system manipulatable for points (see: Claude Bloodgoode); in yesteryear, GMs were out for blood; today, so much tepidness it makes one laugh. Kasparov was a beast because he stood almost alone in striving for a win over a draw. One of the last old guard true fighters.
Today's GMs dinna have near the patience, imagination, creativity, strategic depth, nor will to win like the players of the past. Too reliant on engines and playing the board (lol) rather than the opponent, today's game is entirely too civil next to the savage rivalries that once raged on the checkerboard. Street cred? Ph.D. & tactics trainer: Tactics: 2 Current: 2 Highest: 1665 (Jul 30, 2014) Lowest: 0 (Oct 10, 2014) # Attempts: 5122fat babe ruth never would, but babe ruth jacked on growth hormone would make miguel cabrerra look like yogi berra. thanks for making my point! people forget that if the greats of years past had the advantages of today their excellence would transition. and on a side note, the black and hispanic comments are not well founded as it is a well known fact that all the "off-shore talent" only lowers american born players salaries.
Yeah, I think it is pretty likely that Blackburne and Marshall were stronger than Fischer. Why not?
I've looked at some of Blackburne's games and he had unbelievable accuracy sometimes, though I highly doubt he's better than Fischer.
"Some ignorant people believe chess evolves in a good way and therefore today's grandmasters play better than their predecessors. 4/5 of forum windbags take it as axiomatic truth.
Well, no. It's exactly opposite: computers made people lazy and today's top level play decreased compared with two decades ago."
What about their great play after a novelty was found? It's not just memorizing prep up there (though a lot of it still is) The past still has some remarkable games, such as The Zurich 1953 tournament and Botvinnik's matches. However, Botvinnik noted that Tal had a prejuduced style of play that narrowed his creative possibilities and in the return match Botvinnik won because he took advantage of his (relative since this is world championship level we're talking about) defects in creativity.
We need to have a healthy respect for players of the past, but computer research by those such as Kenneth Regan have determined that modern GMs simply play better.
http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/papers/pdf/ReHa11c.pdf
I think we need distinguish. One thing is thinking and presenting an opinion, it's OK, but completely another thing is stating that categorically. It is ridiculous and inappropriate when anonymous patzers with no chess credentials make categorical statements about opening theory, great players etc.
Regarding Kenneth Regan's work, I think I am entitled to disagree with some conclusions he has made. Moreover, unlike people here, he doesn't make categorical statements, he presents data and only suggests trends and possible conclusions. The widespread misconception is that strength of chess play must be strictly correlated with appearance of moves preferred by computers and minimum delta-evaluations. However such reasoning doesn't take into account psychology, the art of chess fight and last but not least, intrinsic inaccuracy of computer analysis. Regan seems to remain with this fallacy. I analyzed correspondence games from the past to obtain benchmarks to distinguish computer cheating from genuine human play (to eliminate cheaters from my groups and report them). I used stronger engine on higher depths. Many cheat analysts (inluding myself) think it is (theoretically) possible to play above supercomputer level with honest non-computer moves.