Yeah that game was awesome, i dropped a whole piece but found myself in a winning position which I totally blew in time pressure.
What would be the rating of a top chess player in the late 1800s today
Sort:
I admire how you neglected to point out your winning move :-)
millionairesdaughter demands full disclosure:
how about disclosing your rating progress over the last 5 years!
Ask Ben Franklin!
He refuses to answer.
Magikstone wrote:
It's just a waiting move. I like to see how white will choose to develop his pieces before I decide how I will develop mine.
It was an outstanding trolling effort until you got here. Better luck next time.
" It all about talent and Carlsen has no talent except from his guidance from his trainers"
Carlsen is indeed very talented. One doesn't become world champion by being mediocre. He's called the Mozart of Chess and for good reason. He's been a full fledged grownup for the past 5 or 6 years but when he was a kid everyone said he was talented. Even the 1700 rated children that may defeat you on occasion you'd shake their hand and enthusiastically say, "Wow you're talented!" And Carlsen at their age was already far better.
aerodarts wrote:
I guess you are asking if the chess players you listed were alive today, what would be their rating...right?
That is a tough question because the resources available to a modern day GM allows them to well prepared for a game. Lately, I hear about who comes better prepared to do battle has a better chance at winning and about how hard it is to obtain an advantage.
Another aspect of the modern day GM is they grew up with the technology that is intergrated into the game of today.
You just can not have those guys time travel and start playing against Carlsen and Nakamura etc. They would have a huge learning curve to overcome. Imagine his shock when you drove him out to the airport and told him to get on the Jumbo Jet to fly to Europe to play in a tournament!
So, do not forget all the games of those famous but passed on GM's have already been seen by the present day GM's.
Imagine the pressure when the elite GM's face a position that is out of preparation. Recently Nakamura won a game when he played some moves that his opponent was unsure of what to do. I think it was in Zurich. Then he had to accept a draw when he was thinking over the board and failed to find the winning move.
Then I read about rating inflation and I think that means higher the rating does not mean that the players are getting better.
So, I would say their rating would decrease until they caught up with the way the chess is played today. That would would take a long time.
So, maybe just leave those guys in their graves! Modern day chess is likely to send them to an early grave!
Of course people come up with a rating inflation excuse, otherwise they'd have to admit that Carlsen and even some super GMs that were never world champion are at least as good as Fischer! Could Fischer defeat Gelfand? Perhaps, though I'm confident that Gelfand would defat 1975 Karpov and Korchnoi and 1960's Spassky.
If you sent Gelfand to the early 1900s Lasker and everyone would be shocked over his impeccable defense and technique and gain a reputation of being invincible. Yet Carlsen could consistently obtain a noticeable plus score over Gelfand! Modern players simply play better. Vidmar, mentioned in Reti's Masters of the Chessboard, was noted as a draw master, but today his playing strength is estimated to be around 2000.
When transhumanism occurs and people meld with machines then chess will be rendered pointless as everyone will be at least GM strength.
TheGreatOogieBoogie wrote:
aerodarts wrote:
I guess you are asking if the chess players you listed were alive today, what would be their rating...right?
That is a tough question because the resources available to a modern day GM allows them to well prepared for a game. Lately, I hear about who comes better prepared to do battle has a better chance at winning and about how hard it is to obtain an advantage.
Another aspect of the modern day GM is they grew up with the technology that is intergrated into the game of today.
You just can not have those guys time travel and start playing against Carlsen and Nakamura etc. They would have a huge learning curve to overcome. Imagine his shock when you drove him out to the airport and told him to get on the Jumbo Jet to fly to Europe to play in a tournament!
So, do not forget all the games of those famous but passed on GM's have already been seen by the present day GM's.
Imagine the pressure when the elite GM's face a position that is out of preparation. Recently Nakamura won a game when he played some moves that his opponent was unsure of what to do. I think it was in Zurich. Then he had to accept a draw when he was thinking over the board and failed to find the winning move.
Then I read about rating inflation and I think that means higher the rating does not mean that the players are getting better.
So, I would say their rating would decrease until they caught up with the way the chess is played today. That would would take a long time.
So, maybe just leave those guys in their graves! Modern day chess is likely to send them to an early grave!
Of course people come up with a rating inflation excuse, otherwise they'd have to admit that Carlsen and even some super GMs that were never world champion are at least as good as Fischer! Could Fischer defeat Gelfand? Perhaps, though I'm confident that Gelfand would defat 1975 Karpov and Korchnoi and 1960's Spassky.
If you sent Gelfand to the early 1900s Lasker and everyone would be shocked over his impeccable defense and technique and gain a reputation of being invincible. Yet Carlsen could consistently obtain a noticeable plus score over Gelfand! Modern players simply play better. Vidmar, mentioned in Reti's Masters of the Chessboard, was noted as a draw master, but today his playing strength is estimated to be around 2000.
When transhumanism occurs and people meld with machines then chess will be rendered pointless as everyone will be at least GM strength.
Put the pipe down and back away slowly .
Come on guy be objective! There's data saying that modern players play better. Countless authors even imply and explicitly state so. Crouch in How to Defend in Chess mentions that none of Morphy's competitors played at IM strength whereas very few of Lasker's did.
As for humans having a chip that syncs with the brain...well it could very well be impossible due to currently unknown laws but I don't think so. The laws of thermodynamics were discovered when engineers found they discovered that perpetual motion and energy was impossible when trying to find a way to make perpetual energy machines.
I am being more objective than you . Rating inflation ( FIDE ) is a fact that has also been shown by studies . Those who don't want to believe that try to discount or discredit the studies , they are the ones not being objective .
Mar 9, 2015
0
#494
Reb wrote:
I am being more objective than you . Rating inflation ( FIDE ) is a fact that has also been shown by studies . Those who don't want to believe that try to discount or discredit the studies , they are the ones not being objective .
Brilliantly argued: "Those who disagree with me aren't objective."
Rating inflation is not a fact. The fact, as statisticians have shown, is that ratings have actually deflated ever so slightly since they were first introduced. And yes, I've cited my sources numerous times. Reb is well aware of this.
And anecdotal comments from GMs is not actually evidence. Kasparov claimed there was no rating inflation when he was the # 1 player in the world, but when he was no longer the #1 rated player in history, he suddenly started saying there is such a thing. GM Spraggett's comments about rating inflation are also not actually evidence of rating inflation. They're just informed opinions.
Reb knows this, but still throws out this "fact ... shown by studies" herring out every few days. Go take a look at the actual studies.
So you believe Spraggett was a stronger player in his 50s than when he was in his 30s and a candidate for the WC ?! He certainly does not , he was never able to break 2600 FIDE until after the age of 50 and there arent many reasonable ways to explain that . 1) he was indeed stronger after the age of 50 ( which he himself denies ) or 2 ) ratings are indeed inflated ( which he said is the reason )
The elite players wouldnt have such bloated ratings if they were all forced to play a few big Open events every year instead a steady diet of super tournies where they continue to keep their bloated ratings among themselves .... Why do you think so few of them actually still play Open events ? They are protecting their bloated ratings .... Fischer didnt even have this option as the #2 below him was over 100 pts lower rated .
So if they crush abunch of IMs and 2600s in an open how would that effect their ratings? I was told as a JV athlete back in high school why can't the Varsity kids come to the tournament too since no Varsity stuff was happening and a teammate said, "That would make them look bad."
Why shouldn't Super-GMs just compete in the strongest tourneys instead of bullying lower rateds too?
Mar 9, 2015
0
#497
Yup, in the face of statistical evidence, you throw out an anecdote by Spraggett... again.
Spraggett had an anomalous rating period in January 2007. His rating jumped from 2577 in June 2006 to 2637 in January 2007. His rating fell back to his normal level after that and has been relatively stable before and after until about 2009, when his rating gradually declined. Spraggett's rating history is not proof of rating inflation. Rather, it's proof that he had a pretty good set of results in 2007.
When elite players do play in open events, they usually perform at their rating level. When ordinary GMs rated 2500-2600 are thrown into elite events, they usually perform at their rating level and are just chum for the sharks.
There is no statistician who argues that the ratings are perfect. But also, almost all statisticians (with the exception of Jeff Sonas, whose articles have been shredded by other professional statisticians) agree that there has been no inflation. Dr. John Nunn said flatly that Sonas is wrong about rating inflation, as have other statisticians including Dr. Kenneth Regan and Dr. Alexander Kornijenko (perhaps better known for his work with poker statistics).
Ivanchuk is the only elite GM that regularly plays Open events still , ( am I forgetting someone ? ) and he struggles to keep his rating over 2700 because of it . If the other top players played as many Opens as he does they would also struggle to maintain their bloated/inflated ratings ...
Mar 9, 2015
0
#499
Umm... Ivanchuk just played in a rapid open event and BOOSTED his rating! He's now #5 in the world in rapid chess. Sorry, I just looked. Officially he's #4 in live rapid ratings, with a 2834 rapid rating.
I know, they didn't even have rapid ratings back in Fischer's day. But your point, which I'm disputing, is that today's highest ratings are artificially inflated compared to their own population. This is a point that not even Sonas agrees with.
He booked up on the Kings Indian Attack too! :(
Check out the theoretical novelty on move 15 in this game :-)
http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=1081336196