Is chess experiencing a weak era?
Sort:
We need a good Russian
Everyone knows the Russians chess stuff now.
Nov 27, 2020
0
#44
This is just how it was explained to me.
One thing is indisputable though. Ratings are based on relative performance.
If everyone in the pool got better or if everyone I the pool got worse, but each maintained the same win ratio, there would be no change in the ratings. Zero.
One thing is indisputable though. Ratings are based on relative performance.
If everyone in the pool got better or if everyone I the pool got worse, but each maintained the same win ratio, there would be no change in the ratings. Zero.
Nov 27, 2020
0
#45
In many ways powerful game engines ruined has disrupted classical chess at the very top level and Carlsen admitted it himself. You can come up with an extremely powerful line and the very next day game your opponent has the solution because engines can spot the weaknesses way too easily.
That's not to say that chess is in a weak era, it has gotten a lot more exposure recently which brought lots of players and lots more spectators for online events. Its just that its less about classical and more about rapid and blitz.
Nov 27, 2020
0
#46
llama45 wrote:
Check out this guy's highest bullet rating
Yeah, that's crazy inflated. Lol.
Though, Jerry is quite the excellent player. He was 2240 FIDE about ten years ago (last time he played).
He'd likely be much higher now, if he returned the tournament scene. I'd say he would reach FM quite easily. Possibly IM.
Nov 28, 2020
0
#47
If you put Magnus Carlsen into the 1970s he would have been destroyed by Fischer, Spassky, and Petrosian.
staples13 wrote:
If you put Magnus Carlsen into the 1970s he would have been destroyed by Fischer, Spassky, and Petrosian.
Then why do new players say " You are using a 70s tactic" :" Stop playing like a 90s guy" and they say that modern tactics are much better and all?
UrkedCrow wrote:
Epiloque wrote:
JudgeCat wrote:
Cinematic wrote:
staples13 wrote:
Magnus did not manage to win one single classical game against Caruana
Chill.... Magnus could beat all of the players from the past easily. Why? Logic. He beat Vishy who beat Kramnik who beat Kasparov and so on. This means that he is better than all of them. If let say, player x beat Magnus, that means he can beat Fisher.
It doesn't work like that. Someone could play differently, or even blunder. I used to have the mentality but it went the opposite. So you could never know until you play someone.
yeah that is called the transitive property. In math it is if a > b, b > c, then a > c.
I think it actually does apply here, as if you have the skill level required to beat Magnus, and Magnus is way better than Fischer, then you also have the skill set required to beat Fischer.
We can agree that MC would beat BF anyday of the week without even trying right?
That means that anyone who could beat Magnus fair and square (no time odds, piece odds, etc) could also beat Fischer, as Magnus is so good that he will not ever lose to someone who is worse than him.
Hell no, I don't agree! That is absolutely ridiculous. You don't understand the play of Fischer at all and what a competitor he was. In fact, I've seen Magnus make stupid mistakes that Fischer never would.
Max Euwe beat Alekhine in a match. Did that make him better than Alekhine? Of course not.
eh... i am pretty sure that magnus can beat fischer blindfolded while talking about orange juice to his subscribers. Anyone who thinks that fischer has even the slighest of chances of even drawing a game with magnus needs to correct his delusions.
Ronchin wrote:
staples13 wrote:
If you put Magnus Carlsen into the 1970s he would have been destroyed by Fischer, Spassky, and Petrosian.
Then why do new players say " You are using a 70s tactic" :" Stop playing like a 90s guy" and they say that modern tactics are much better and all?
That's because chess masters of the past are way, way worse than masters of the present. For example capablanca won't even manage to draw a game with anyone top 20 in the world, heck he would be lucky to not lose in under 30 moves
Nov 29, 2020
0
#51
If we put the "Magnus Carlsen" debate on the back burner, and get back to the "Is chess experiencing a weak era"....you know, the topic header of the forum?? I have been noticing that the median average player to this very day is below 1000 ELO, and just a year or two ago it was above that. Any debates weather this can back up the "weak era" theory?
UrkedCrow wrote:
kartikeya_tiwari wrote:
Ronchin wrote:
staples13 wrote:
If you put Magnus Carlsen into the 1970s he would have been destroyed by Fischer, Spassky, and Petrosian.
Then why do new players say " You are using a 70s tactic" :" Stop playing like a 90s guy" and they say that modern tactics are much better and all?
That's because chess masters of the past are way, way worse than masters of the present. For example capablanca won't even manage to draw a game with anyone top 20 in the world, heck he would be lucky to not lose in under 30 moves
If Capa survived the opening he would be fine.
lol.... he was a very weak player compared to today's players
Nov 29, 2020
0
#53
Average player rating is 949, even just a few months ago it was around 990!
Magnus is the highest rated GM to have ever lived so you can't really complain
Nov 29, 2020
0
#55
Magnus lost a game a few years ago to a player barely in the 2300's, so highest rated GM is highly irrelevant.
Nov 29, 2020
0
#56
Anybody is beatable in chess, doesn't matter your ELO, ELO is just bragging rights IMHO
I think chess is experiencing a strong era.
Ah... of course, the question mark.
krazykat1975 wrote:
Magnus lost a game a few years ago to a player barely in the 2300's, so highest rated GM is highly irrelevant.
That player "barely in the 2300s" will probably beat capa in a match lol
UrkedCrow wrote:
kartikeya_tiwari wrote:
krazykat1975 wrote:
Magnus lost a game a few years ago to a player barely in the 2300's, so highest rated GM is highly irrelevant.
That player "barely in the 2300s" will probably beat capa in a match lol
I have no idea what Capablanca did that you consider weak.
According to Chess.com's CAPS system, Capablanca has a projected rating of close to 2700. And that's without training on a computer for hours everyday.
I don't care about any "system" since they are full of biases. I only care about how many moves match the top moves of the engine. Old masters are just bad
In my opinion, Players are getting stronger because of computers and more available information than ever, Also very easy to share as well.