You know, I'm not even convinced that Fischer would have beaten Korchnoi had he won the '74 Candidates final against Karpov
Kasparov vs Fischer
Sort:
[COMMENT DELETED]
Aug 20, 2011
0
#44
I'm a little reluctant to continue because you seem to be getting defensive/abusive (is that why the previous thread was locked?). FYI I admire both Fischer and Kasparov enormously as players, but am of the opinion that the latter would probably have had an edge in a match. In the hope that you want to discuss this rationally...
mshaune wrote:
To 'ontomorrow'-you said basically that I did not have enough material to come to my conclusions. Did you read my original post? I studied way more than I posted, but 'boiled it down' for brevity. If you don't understand the phrase 'boiled down' I understand. You reduced my formula to 'nonsense' apparently because it does not cover enough possibilites. Good point. But then, what does? Are we to consider who might have a cold? Who slept better? Who has the 'Indian sign' over who? Nothing can take in all contingencies. That's why it's not 'proof'. But to suggest it's unworthy as 'evidence' is to me hypocritical.
I don't think you've fully grasped the point about your sample size being way too small when drawing conclusions of the type "Player A beats Player B who beats Player C, therefore Player A is a better match player than Player C" (correct me if I'm wrong, but this type of comparison is what I understand to be the evidential basis of your conclusion that at their peaks, Fischer was a better match player than Kasparov).
Consider the number of "events" (ie games) that count towards a top player's ELO rating - let's call this 'A' - and compare that to the number of matches you've cited here - let's call this 'B'.
'A' is clearly in the hundreds or thousands; 'B' is several orders of magnitude lower, ie a "few". In the real world, both a single game and a single match can potentially be unduly influenced by illness, tiredness, domestic problems and other random non-chess factors etc, but such external influences will tend to even themselves out in 'A' far more than in 'B' due to the law of big numbers. Therefore, if you're still with me, results from 'B' type events have far less predictive value.
That's why using a single instance of a match to rate a player's match strength is flawed. As you say yourself, what you've given isn't proof, and I think I've shown here it's hardly worth considering as evidence either, because (as I've said before) there simply isn't enough data.
Even if your methodology is valid (which it isn't), this
DC-poc wrote:
mshaune wrote:
Korchnoi's awesome, but I don't believe he's seen his prime since his 30's.
All available data indicates otherwise. According to chessmetrics his top 3 performances occured in his 40s.
Heck, his next 2 occured in his 50s.
and this
Tricklev wrote:
Korchnoi himself, aslong as Kasparov and alot other seems to be under the impression that Korchnoi had his prime around 1978. Korchnoi himself claims that the few years before this, was when he really started studying and analysing properly, claiming that he wasted his best years by not being serious enough. He needed to study the initiative, and he did so by playing through a collection of Alekhine games.
More about this can be read in Kasparov's my great predecessors, aswell as in the various Korchnoi books he has written.
and this
brilliantboy wrote:
mshaune wrote:
Korchnoi's awesome, but I don't believe he's seen his prime since his 30's.
Amazing then that Korchnoi has been a World Championship candidate 8 times since he turned 40.
pretty much dismantle your conclusion.
Give it up, it's going nowhere.
To Doc poc- results can improve even as strength subsides because of the opposition. To Tricklev- I have said before that what people believe about Korchnoi in 1978 is important, if you believe that he was in his prime at 47 then you probably have no problem with Karpov being the 2nd greatest match player of all time and Kasparov being the 1st. I was unaware of Korchnoi saying that he was in his prime at 47, if true that could change my opinion, however I find it more than a bit strange that a Soviet grandmaster [who had been one for many years and had competed in the candidates matches for the right to play for the championship of the world would not study properly], but Kasparov's remarks about Korchnoi being in his prime mean nothing to me because although it might be Kasparov's honest opinion, anthing that makes Karpov look better makes him look better. To 'brilliant boy' [ironic name] being strong and not being in your prime = 2 different things. Smyslov was in candidates matches in his 60s. If I have nothing, why do you feel the need to respond? At least this time you did more than copy my post. My conclusions are only dismantled in your head.
An update after two more votes:
1.Kasparov 137
2.Capablanca 98
3.Fischer 96
4.Karpov 95
5.Morphy 57
6.Lasker 54
7.Alekhine 39
8.Steinitz 20
9.Tal 20
10.Anand 18.5
11.Botvinnik 18
12.Spassky 11.5
13.Andersson 11
T14.Carlsen 7
T14.Petrosian 7
T14.Kramnik 7
17.Phillidor 5
T18.Korchnoi 4
T18.Ulf Andersson 4
T18.Bronstein 4
T21.Topalov 3
T21.Flohr 3
T23.Pillsbury 2
T23.Euwe 2
25.Smyslov 1
[COMMENT DELETED]
Pretty impressive for Joey White Cape, considering he hasn't held a championship in 84 years and there is likely no one on this site old enough to have seen him play or hear others talk about his then-contemporary peformances, unlike the more modern champion dudemars. You can't spell Jose Raul Capablanca y Graupera without "super legacy", or Garry Kasparov without "A. Karpov" or Robert James Fischer without "$#!+face".
Aug 24, 2011
0
#50
DC-poc wrote:
Do you have any evidence that the chess playing strength of the chess world dipped?
Korchnoi says he reached his peak and you dismiss it because you know more about what makes a good player than a world championship candidate.
You dismiss Kasparov because allegedly his comments on Korchnoi are a convoluted attempt to cement his own legacy.
So your argument is based on the fact players must decline when they reach 40 versus the opinions of some of the greatest players ever who incidentally are backed up by statistics.
Yeah, you got nothing.
I will summarise what I said earlier: Korchnoi reached his peak rating at the age of 48, and he is ranked 5th of all players in the 20 years all-time chessmetrics rankings, behind just 4 world champions. This ranking is particularly impressive considering that most top players play more than 20 years, suggesting he is often underrated by people who are less objective.
Continued...
John Cochrane: January-April 1843
Howard Staunton: May 1843-August 1849
Lionel Kieseritzky: September-November 1849, February 1850-September 1851
Henry Buckle: December 1849- January 1850
Tassilo von der Lasa: October 1851-December 1852
Daniel Harrwitz: January 1853-February 1856
Serafino Dubois: March 1856-August 1858
Paul Morphy: September 1858-November 1861
Adolf Anderrsen: December 1861-March 1862, June-August 1870
Louis Paulsen: April 1862-May 1865, July 1878
Berthold Suhle: June 1865-August 1866, October 1866-February 1867
William Steinitz: September 1866, March-June 1867, September 1870-July 1877, December 1882-June 1883, October 1883-January 1886, March 1886-May 1890
Ignatz Kolisch: July 1867-November 1868
Gustav Neumann: December 1868- May 1870
James Mason: August 1877-June 1878
Johannes Zukertort: August 1878-November 1882, July-September 1883, February 1886
Emmanuel Lasker: June 1890-December 1902, April 1907-April 1908, September 1908-July 1912, June 1914-April 1915, March 1916-March 1919, April 1924-December 1926
Harry Pillsbury: January 1903-April 1904
Jose Raul Capablanca: May 1914, May 1915-February 1916, April 1919-December 1923, March-October 1927, November 1928-April 1929, May-July 1937
Alexander Alekhine: January-March 1924, November 1927-October 1928, May 1929-December 1935, December 1937-October 1938, November 1942, April 1943-May 1944, July 1944
Efim Bogoljubow: January-February 1927
Max Euwe: January-August 1936, March-April 1937, August-November 1937
Mikhail Botvinnik: September 1936-February 1937, November 1938-September 1940, April 1941-October 1942, June 1944, August 1944-May 1950, December 1952-July 1953, April-May 1954, April-May 1958
Reuben Fine: October 1940-March 1941
Samuel Reshevsky: December 1942-March 1943, May-November 1952, August-October 1953
David Bronstein: June 1950-December 1951
Vassily Smyslov: January-April 1952, November 1953-March 1954, June 1954-March 1958, June-September 1958
Mikhail Tal: October 1958-April 1961, April-August 1965, June-July 1966
Tigran Petrosian: May 1961-January 1964
Bobby Fischer: February 1964-March 1965, September 1966-July 1974
Viktor Korchnoi: September-December 1965
Boris Spassky: January-May 1966, August 1966
Anatoly Karpov: August 1974-August 1982, November 1984-January 1985
Garry Kasparov: September 1982-October 1984, February 1985-October 2004
Viswanathan Anand: November 2004-January 2005
That is all that is on the Chessmetrics site.
Fischer never played Karpov or Kasparov, according to chessgames.com.
It would be nice to see Sonas update Chessmetrics one day, it's seven years since the last time that happened and for example Carlsen would really compete for the highest spots on some of those lists considering his results especially 2008-11. Topalov would improve enormously from his already decent #28 on the one-year-peak list after finding another level in 2005. And Anand would of course jump a few places as well with for example Linares titles in 2007 and 2008, World Championships in 2007, 2008 and 2010, etc. Even Kasparov would improve a tiny little bit with his final Linares title in 2005 included.
Aronian is another player that would do well on an updated Chessmetrics. At the moment Pillsbury is #10 on the five-year-peak list for 1899-1903 but Aronian won Linares, Wijk twice, Grand Slam series and Tal Memorial in 2006-10 and should be quite competitive on that list. Ivanchuk already has many good results before 2005 but after that there's a few amazing scores like his Sofia (+6 in 10 rounds) and Tal Memorial 2008, Bazna and Jermuk 2009, and a few other top results that will do wonders for his 20-year-peak. Always interesting to see the achievements of players of different generations put in perspective and Chessmetrics does that fairly well even if it is more generous towards the latest players.
I have made a new group to discuss the best of many categories related to chess. Hope to see you all there!
Aug 26, 2011
0
#57
You know, I like that list of world number ones better than the list of world champions. It's really just as valid, and includes so many great players who are slighted because they never won the world championship. But really does need updating by someone (doesn't have to be the originator - the algorithms are published). Requires a fair amount of crunching of results.
Fischer wins. In keeping with his 187 IQ, Bobby was legend for his powers of detailed calculation, his precise feeling for position, his stamina, and his very quick play. Fischer was probably the best 'lightning-player" ever, and there was no better end-game player in the world.
checkmateibeatu wrote:the Russians fixed chess for decades and held Fischer;s title by cheating
pathfinder416 wischerrote:
Or maybe it was checkers.
By the way, weren't you the same one that said that stealing isn't wrong?
Heh, this old thing again. So I thought I'd try something fun. I peaked at your flag, then your rating (not that that's a big deal, but what else can I go on?) to try to guess which you'd pick. Now I feel bad because it was a very long post with probably a lot of points you made (I didn't read it)
But I did guess you would pick Fischer 
Korchnoi's awesome, but I don't believe he's seen his prime since his 30's.
Amazing then that Korchnoi has been a World Championship candidate 8 times since he turned 40. Maybe the overall standard of chess at the highest level has dropped since the 60's