Sad case of high school chess cheating

Trying to compare raw ratings 40+ years apart (as one would if comparing Nakamura's peak with Fischer's) is a useless exercise. Ratings tend to go up in general over time. One can see that while looking over the world's top players over the last 45 years. During Fischer's time, a 2600 rating was sufficient for world top ten status. Nowadays, it takes 2700 to even make the top 40-50.

Most reasonable comparisons of players in different eras are usually undertaken by looking at how they compared to other top contemporaries of theirs. By that measure, Fischer has virtually no equal, except perhaps Kasparov. Look at it this way: when Fischer became world champion, he beat Spassky 12.5-8.5 (and that included a forfeit win for Spassky, which wasn't rated). So, in rated games, Fischer out scored the reigning world champion by 5 points over 20 games. Fischer was so far ahead of Spassky on the mid-1972 rating list, though, that he actually LOST five rating points to Spassky. (His rating dropped from 2785 to 2780.) No other player has been quite that dominant, even Kasparov (who always had Karpov within shouting distance). What puts Kasparov in the conversation, and quite possibly ahead of Fischer, is his long and distinguished run as world champion and top rated player.

This is not to say that Nakamura is not a great player (of course he is), nor is it to say that he might not belong in that conversation someday (he might). However, he has to at least get past Carlsen (against whom he has a brutally bad classical record) before you can even begin to mention him as an equal of Fischer.

Yes, attacking anyone who disagrees with you personally is the way to prove your point.

Fine....I will.

Well said, eastside!!!    

I want whatever it is you are smoking! 

SF, we have been good friends for years, and I totally "get" what you are saying.   (and) I have the deepest respect for your love of chess, it equals my own.

However, mathematically, the statement you made is competely invalid, you have not factored rating inflation in at all. (Fischer was 2785 ... when the next highest rated player was Spassky who was 2605.) Have a look at this website. Right now, Carlsen is like 2852, while Caruana is 2808. Figuring for the inflation - on a purely percentile basis - Carlsen would have to be over 3000 to be compared to Fischer in 1972 ... Garry Kasparov always had Karpov right on his heels. (And CHESS-METRICS has rated all chess players going all the way back before Morphy. Fischer is the ONLY player ... ever ... to win a World Championship ... and LOSE rating points!!!!!)

And I won't ever compare Naka to Fischer ... its not even a valid comparison, not based on anything he has done. (Let him win the World Championship, and then we can re-open this discussion.)  

Hikaru himself said that Fischer, as he was in the 70's, would "lose to all of us."

But he also said that, if given access to today's tools and theory, Fischer would be right back at the top.

FLChessplayer, thank you for the kind words! I definitely enjoy discussing these issues with knowledgeable players. We can definitely disagree with each other while still respecting each other!

There are a couple facts that you got wrong. 

Kasparov lost rating points in a WC match against Karpov. He proposed that it should be impossible to lose rating points if you win a WC match. I think that was passed by FIDE and then rejected later, but I'm not sure. I think Magnus may have lost rating points in his last match against Anand. Those are facts that we can look up.

To argue that there is inflation based on "percentile basis" is nonsensical. There are many reason to believe there has been inflation, but that's not one of them.

Competition generally becomes tougher over time in every sport. Take a look at the number of people who have run a sub-4 minute mile as just one example of this. In general, last place in any Olympic event is faster than last place in previous Olympics. Competition gets tougher over time.

To argue that Carlsen is weaker than Fischer because he has more competition doesn't make sense.  In fact, one could argue that Fischer could have been pushed to even greater heights if he had more competition (for example, by Karpov). But that's the opposite argument to what you just made. Notice, Carlsen could be weaker than Fischer, but not because of that argument. (I believe Carlsen is considerably stronger than Fischer at his best.)

Kasparov and Karpov were far ahead of the field, and are often considered the two strongest players of the 20th Century.

If you read Jeff Sonas' own writings on his chessmetrics system, you will begin to see why no serious statistician accepts his system, including Sonas himself! He starts from the premise that every world champion was at least 2700 strength. His statistics are wrong from the very beginning. 

Sonas himself agreed in 2005 that a more accurate measure of playing strength could be accomplished by engines comparing the quality of moves, a method that Regan used and is now accepted by FIDE in measuring whether players cheat in OTB chess. 

Those are facts. The discussion over rating inflation is complex, and facts can be used in many ways, but I think we can agree to the facts.

Whether inflation has occurred or not is a hot topic. I side with Regan and others who argue that there has been no discernible rating inflation since ~1970. The increase in ratings is due to improved chess play. Kasparov didn't believe in rating inflation until Carlsen surpassed him. Go figure.

Kasparov and Carlsen are extremely close to each other in sustained ratings (as opposed to a single peak rating), and it would have been an amazing thing to see the two fight it out when they were both at their best. I strongly suspect that Carlsen isn't at his best even now. His rating could approach 2900! 

But to argue that anyone, even Fischer, could possibly be 3000 rated today is to defy reality. He didn't play anywhere close to the level of chess engines today. You are probably aware of Anand's discussion of his analysis sessions with Fischer. Anand pointed out that Fischer didn't realise how strong engines have become. Do the math, what would it take to reach a 3000 rating today? Do you still believe that anyone, even Fischer, could be rated 3000?

Wow.... :/ It makes me sad when people cheat, honestly, because they could be better on their own but they decide to cheat. It's unfortunate.

It is very stupid to allow a chess player access to ANY kind of electronic device during a game.  It is especially stupid to allow a player to record the game electronically.  If the organisers need an electronic record they should use intelligent boards.  In well-run tournaments the only materials a player is allowed are a scoresheet and a pen or pencil, and the only thing they are allowed (or rather, required) to do with them is record the moves AFTER they have been made on the board.

I agree. Pen/pencil, and paper only, is how it should be.

I also wonder, for those who would know:

In OTB amateur tournaments—what's preventing a player from going to the restroom, then firing up an electronic device to input their position into an engine?

An easy solution is to allow players to look at their opponent's scoresheet/machine on the said player's turn.This already happens around where i live because kids mess up notation alot

Wow only just noticed this thread. Amazingly stupid that uscf allowed electronic move recording apps.

<< So folks at the USCF are now trying to determine exactly how Smiley cheated, and how often. The answers could affect not only the severity of his punishment, but the future of computers in competitive chess. >>

I had a LONG talk with a {former} USCF VP ... about 10-15 years ago. (I had heard that they were going to start allowing electronic devices to record chess games.) The conversation ended with something like the following: "A.J. ... the people who manufacture these things GUARANTEE they will be tamperproof." (My emphasis.) To which I responded: "It is only a matter of time before some whiz kid figures out how to rig one of these things to tap into a program or link to the Internet." (USCF VP) "Oh A.J. ... that is just you being paranoid!"

Anyone who cheats suffers more eventually, so who gives a monkeys. Electronics should be banned to save people from themselves.