do you buy the argument

Sort:
Avatar of superking500

that the stronger players in the world arn't that stronger then the other players.... its just that the elite plays with usually the same guys in every tournament that they get accustomed and famailiar with their playstyle

 

like someone like Magnus would struggle with a 2600 player that doesn't play like the super gms he plays

Avatar of AlCzervik
A few 2600 players have had a difficult time with me. My firearm on the table should have no effect in some places.
Avatar of Eviator

This idea sounds silly. Who argues this? Good players play the board, not the person. Well they might choose openings that suit their style, but once it gets past that, it's all skill man.

Avatar of pdve

when magnus played p harikrishna, a 2690 rated something guy, he probably had never played him or played him a couple of times before.

however, he played 1.e4 e5 2.nf3 nc6 3. c3!? against him and beat him

Avatar of landwehr
superking500 wrote:

that the stronger players in the world arn't that stronger then the other players.... its just that the elite plays with usually the same guys in every tournament that they get accustomed and famailiar with their playstyle

 

like someone like Magnus would struggle with a 2600 player that doesn't play like the super gms he plays

stupid 

Avatar of NimzoRoy

Elo ratings measure current PERFORMANCE. Ergo the higher the rating the stronger the player in terms of current performance ie current overall results. So NO I don't buy any bogus "arguments" about why Carlsen really isn't that much better than almost everyone else in the world, the Elo ratings are very accurate and based on mathematics not hogwash opinions.

That said (or pontificated, your call) I suppose Anand may barely hang on to his title after all Carlsen is "only" rated 85 pts higher - back in 1972 when Fischer was rated 125 pts higher than WCH Spassky (2785 to 2660) I read that rating difference gave him a 62.5% probability of winning each game they played. Coincidentally(?) Spassky got crushed although towards the end Fischer drew several games (underperforming in effect) since that's all he needed to do to reach a winning margin of 12.5 pts.

FUN FACT: Fischer lost rating pts by winning the WCH! ("Underperforming" rears its ugly head) After that FIDE changed the rules so that you can't lose rating pts when you win a match.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system

Avatar of pdve

these guys were not just airlifted to super GM level. They would have beaten players of all levels along the way.

Avatar of pdve

anand played the scandinavian against kasparov in 1995 championship.

kasparov played the dragon against anand in the same match

anand played the trompowsky against kasparov in that match

where is the familiarity?

Avatar of pdve

however, the anand gelfand match was really boring in the opinion of my coach even though it featured the shortest game in world championship history - 17 moves !!!

that was game 8 in which anand bite back gelfand after a loss.

anand's 17th move Qf2 wasn't seen by any of the GM commentators. Makes you think..

Maybe this was because at f2, the queen performed the important function of covering only ONE square (f3) !!!

Avatar of royalbishop
landwehr wrote:
superking500 wrote:

that the stronger players in the world arn't that stronger then the other players.... its just that the elite plays with usually the same guys in every tournament that they get accustomed and famailiar with their playstyle

 

like someone like Magnus would struggle with a 2600 player that doesn't play like the super gms he plays

stupid 

Hey!  How do you know how the GM's feel, think or see!

I see no memebers here have a GM in front of their name.

With all his money would figure he numerous ways to find out about any player.

Avatar of learningthemoves

I'm not buying that argument.

Avatar of royalbishop
learningthemoves wrote:

I'm not buying that argument.

+1

Avatar of coalescenet

Oh, how much is it?

What a great deal! 

I'll take two, please.

Avatar of Knightly_News

No, I don't buy that argument.  

You're thinking of Congressmen.

Avatar of MrDamonSmith

Superking. Come on now. Seriously. Snap out of it. We've had this discussion before. You know, posting bizarre, crazy, silly stuff. Please, stop embarrassing yourself. Learn to play chess first before trying to form ideas about chess related stuff. Ok? Come on now. If anyone is wondering what I'm referring to just look up the posts he keeps putting on here. Just a bit more time. learning to actually PLAY chess. Ok superking?

Avatar of Ubik42

                                           Signs of a troll

                                    (From the trollonomicon)

1. Makes one embarrasing post about provacative nonsense, nuanced to just fit enough plausibility into it to get people'e ire up.

2. Vacates the thread.

3. Watches the carnage.

 

The famous trollonomicon was written by the worlds first internet troll, who was also largely responisble for creating the internet in the first place. I believe he was also a US Vice President back in the 1990's.

Avatar of MrDamonSmith

That's fuggin funny.

Avatar of royalbishop
11qq11 wrote:

Oh, how much is it?

What a great deal! 

I'll take two, please.

Sound like one of those guys that will take that for a $1.00 .

Avatar of coalescenet
royalbishop wrote:
11qq11 wrote:

Oh, how much is it?

What a great deal! 

I'll take two, please.

Sound like one of those guys that will take that for a $1.00 .

Ok, I was joking, I don't REALLY buy the argument.

Avatar of DrSpudnik

If you ever play an IM or GM, you'll know that the OP is just a sad joke.

They have you rolled up in a bundle and ready for the garbage can in about 10-15 moves or whenever you run out of book memorization.

And if you happen to make it into an endgame, you won't likely get to the other side safely.