PDA

View Full Version : Carlsen - Highest Rated Chess Player of All time.



flipflop
02-01-2013, 03:02 PM
Magnus Carlsen has been confirmed as the highest rated chess player of all-time by the January 2013 official FIDE rating list!

Its a pretty mean feet for a young player and will (I hope) in time inspire a new generation of young players.

Top 100 FIDE Ratings List for 2013 and this story can be found here (http://www.chess.com/news/january-2013-fide-rating-list-8813).

Adamski
03-01-2013, 11:41 AM
It is indeed a great feat, eclipsing Kasparov.;) :clap:

Thunderspirit
04-01-2013, 07:18 PM
I've seen this article heralded all around the world but no-one notes that FIDE's rating system is inflationary. As a result Carlsen's rating in real terms isn't as high as Kasparov's.

20 years ago there was barely anyone over 2700 FIDE, now there are heaps of players.

Rather than cheering blindly, a bit of critical analysis does help occassionally.

flipflop
05-01-2013, 09:17 PM
Thunderspirit,

Possibly, many are cheering blindly because they do not know that the system is inflationary. I didn't know and would not have even thought to ask the question. Such is my ignorance. So, I will modify my high praise.

"Lets hope that despite the inflationary rating system, other young players will be inspired by by Carlsen's popularity and success, and take up chess ..."

Kevin Bonham
05-01-2013, 09:26 PM
There is another thread about this here (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=14391) but that concerned the issue of premature announcements of Carlsen's status, which is why I haven't merged the two.

I made a similar point to Thunderspirit on that one:


I actually think the size of Carlsen's expected lead is more interesting than him beating Kasparov's record. After all the meaning of the former is hard to argue with while in the latter case there is a possibility of inflation and it is not clear we are comparing two things that are really the same!

The inflation thing is debated - I have seen one paper arguing, based on computer analysis, that the standard of play is improving and that the inflation is therefore justified. I did not find it too convincing though because the moves they included in their assessment included moves early enough to be theory in some cases. I don't think improvements in theory count as improvements in playing skill; if they did we may as well say Morphy was a patzer. So I do think the inflation may really be inflation.

flipflop
05-01-2013, 09:49 PM
Thanks Kevin for that insight. My enthusiasm was largely driven by the fact the media was paying some attention to the game.

Many world class Chess tournaments have admitted that they are struggling with waning interest. I think it would be great for chess to have a guy like Carlsen inspire other players - and even attract a little more media interest.

I realise amongst aficionado's there are arguably better players, but Carlsen brings something to the table (in my opinion) that an 18 year old might see and relate to more readily than say, what they see in Anand.

Capablanca-Fan
06-01-2013, 04:31 AM
The inflation thing is debated - I have seen one paper arguing, based on computer analysis, that the standard of play is improving and that the inflation is therefore justified. I did not find it too convincing though because the moves they included in their assessment included moves early enough to be theory in some cases. I don't think improvements in theory count as improvements in playing skill; if they did we may as well say Morphy was a patzer. So I do think the inflation may really be inflation.
It's a difficult question. Nunn + computer analysed the games of one of the top tournaments for 1912, and found that even the top players were much more error-prone in middlegames and endgame than they are today, i.e. after eliminating the opening theory disadvantage. See Watson's assessment (bottom of this book review page (http://www.chess.co.uk/twic/jwatsonbkrev82.html)). For the other side, researchers have compared the workld champions with Rybka (http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7621) and argued that Capablanca made fewer blunders than the others, and and had a lower deviance from computer-calculated best moves.

Kevin Bonham
06-01-2013, 11:18 AM
The question in terms of modern rating inflation is whether the standard is still improving over, say, the last 20-30 years (the inflation issue started (http://members.shaw.ca/redwards1/) in the mid-80s)

This is the recent no-inflation case paper I was referring to:

http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/papers/pdf/ReHa11c.pdf

I think Carlsen is quite an incredible player for one particular reason, which is his ability to keep squeezing and squeezing and extract very long wins from seemingly sterile positions.

Tony Dowden
07-01-2013, 08:06 PM
... Rather than cheering blindly, a bit of critical analysis does help occassionally.

If we are engaging in 'critical analysis' (dubious as it is across different eras), then when comparing Carlsen's rating high/intrinsic strength to Kasparov's we could also: (1) consider that Carlsen didn't get trained by the Soviet machine headed by legendary world champion Botvinnik, (2) note that Carlsen didn't get to play dozens of world championship games against Karpov at an optimum time in his development, and (3) remember that Carlsen still has plenty of up-side. Indeed he is fully capable of breaking 2900 in the not-too-distant future.

Tony Dowden
07-01-2013, 08:10 PM
... I think Carlsen is quite an incredible player for one particular reason, which is his ability to keep squeezing and squeezing and extract very long wins from seemingly sterile positions.

Just imagine what he'll be like once he fully develops his technique at around 30-35 years old then.

Kevin Bonham
07-01-2013, 10:42 PM
Just imagine what he'll be like once he fully develops his technique at around 30-35 years old then.

It may get like computers - noone wanting to play him anymore!

BrendanNorman
09-01-2013, 11:50 PM
Yeah from my view Carlsen IS on Kasparov's level and still not developed fully.

In terms of knowledge he may be miles behind (as he admitted himself "Kasparov knows SO much" after training with him), but his objective strength is comparable already in my opinion.:hmm:

Also his talent could ever be higher since as somebody mentioned, Magnus wasnt blessed to attend the Botvinnik school (which has also produced amongst others Kramnik), so as much as I don't REALLY like his personality (ok...its not toooo bad) he is truly a great player and = to GK.

Best description of his style: Karpov on steroids :lol: