Somebody who is good at opening theory but not so good at middlegames and endgames would never have become champion. Opening advantages were never enough to enable the overcoming of inferior middlegame or endgame technique.
Impossible to Compare Players Across Eras?
Sort:
Oct 5, 2014
0
#4
Sorry for accident my posting. But I agree. Computers change a lot. But rating system is about how you compare to other players, so if everyone has more knowledge a same rating still show the same amount of work and talent, even if you're from difference eras.
Oct 5, 2014
0
#5
It is impossible to compare players across different eras, not because of different skill sets, but because of the different kinds of competition across eras. Engines are the main reason for differences between capablanca, fisher, kasparov, and carlsen in terms of strength. Every era gets more and more help from engines.
Oct 5, 2014
0
#6
johnb1024 wrote:
Sorry for accident my posting. But I agree. Computers change a lot. But rating system is about how you compare to other players, so if everyone has more knowledge a same rating still show the same amount of work and talent, even if you're from difference eras.
I agree.
Is it impossible to compare the strength of players across different time periods?
It seems there are a lot of variables that would make for difficult comparisons. First, chess knowledge is cumulative over time and it's hard to know what someone might have been able to do under different circumstances and with different background knowledge.
Secondly, the advent of computer chess engines has changed the way people play and prepare.
It seems to me that it's possible that a player with a certain set of natural skills (let's say a very good opening thinker, but not very good in middle and endgames - or, at least, just average) may have done better (or worse) under different circumstances. ...Perhaps, a good opening thinker would have done better in the early years of chess, for example, where opening theory had not been so deeply established and this person could consistently gain an advantage over others early and beat them that way. But with openings more "scientifically" established now, perhaps such a player's natural abilities would be dimished and he or she would suffer more in games where the middle and endgames come into play. Do you see this type of issue?
If these are valid concerns, then would it be impossible to compare the strengths of players across time - like asking who is better between Kaprov and Capablanca?