Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 72
  1. #1
    CC Grandmaster road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    12,336

    Strength of players through time (sf Aus vs World Champs)

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    2450 was same value as 2550 or so (at least) now.
    How so?
    meep meep

  2. #2
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Copenhagen, Denmark
    Posts
    632
    Inflation, I presume...

  3. #3
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    12,359
    Quote Originally Posted by road runner View Post
    How so?
    Inflation as pointed out above by Henrik + more strong chess players worldwide. 2500 used to be enough to be in the top 100. Now 2655 is required to make the cut.
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  4. #4
    CC Grandmaster road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    12,336
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    Inflation as pointed out above by Henrik + more strong chess players worldwide. 2500 used to be enough to be in the top 100. Now 2655 is required to make the cut.
    Could it be people are stronger now? Every game ever played at your fingertips and 3000+ engines freely available, wouldn't you expect players to be stronger?
    meep meep

  5. #5
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    931
    Quote Originally Posted by road runner View Post
    Could it be people are stronger now? Every game ever played at your fingertips and 3000+ engines freely available, wouldn't you expect players to be stronger?
    An interesting question. Perhaps a mathematician can tell us whether or not the FIDE rating system is inflationary. It is true that players these days have better access to data and search engines but does that help you much other than in the opening? Your opponents have the same access!

    Perhaps we should compare Wesley So rating 2782 with Bobby Fischer rating 2780. Fischer was a pretty intelligent guy who devoted his whole life to chess probably more so than anyone else has done. Who do you think would win a match between these two players?
    Still searching for Bobby Fischer....
    and fighting against those humourless bureaucrats who are forever lost in the minutiae.

  6. #6
    CC Grandmaster Garrett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    the City
    Posts
    3,163
    John Nunn in one of his puzzle books has looked at a similar issue (strength of past masters) that may be of interest.

    3/4 down the following page,

    http://theweekinchess.com/john-watso...-installment-3

  7. #7
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,492
    Quote Originally Posted by jammo View Post
    An interesting question. Perhaps a mathematician can tell us whether or not the FIDE rating system is inflationary.
    This is a point on which even statisticians who have looked at it in detail have reached different conclusions. There have certainly been system features in the past that have been likely to cause inflation.

  8. #8
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    406
    The best analysis I have seen indicated a 200 point comparative inflation from the early 1980s until a few years ago. About two-thirds could be attributed to genuine inflation and another third to general improvement but there was plenty of margin for error.
    The major inflationary factors were:
    (i) The extra 100 points added to every female player (except Zsuzsa Polgar) in the 1980s
    (ii) The rule that noone who won a tournament could lose rating points (abandoned after half a dozen years),
    (iii) The offering of minimum ratings - as high as 2205 - for 50% performances in particular international events (now abandoned)
    and
    (iv) - the big one - the reduction in minimum ratings to 1000 along with the continuation of a minimum number of points for each win. Thus if a 2600 player beats a 1200 player, they actually get the same credit as if they beat a 2200 player.
    The introduction of ratings going down to 1000 has also had a deflationary effect which can be seen in particular countries such as Australia, India and Vietnam, with juniors entering the system earlier and taking points off established players as they improve.
    One factor which has not been examined at all is whether the general improvement in play (thanks to computers and more easily accessible learning material) has been steady or has sped up in recent years (a time when inflation seems to have moderated).
    Another way of looking at these performances is comparing them with the best in the world at time. In that respect Jamieson's Lucerne result was approximately equivalent to the rating of the world number 3 at the time - hard to beat.

  9. #9
    CC Grandmaster road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    12,336
    Quote Originally Posted by jammo View Post
    An interesting question. Perhaps a mathematician can tell us whether or not the FIDE rating system is inflationary. It is true that players these days have better access to data and search engines but does that help you much other than in the opening? Your opponents have the same access!

    Perhaps we should compare Wesley So rating 2782 with Bobby Fischer rating 2780. Fischer was a pretty intelligent guy who devoted his whole life to chess probably more so than anyone else has done. Who do you think would win a match between these two players?
    I think if you took a top 5 player in a time machine back to 1972 they would crush Fischer. Things have moved on a bit since then.
    meep meep

  10. #10
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,370
    Quote Originally Posted by road runner View Post
    I think if you took a top 5 player in a time machine back to 1972 they would crush Fischer. Things have moved on a bit since then.
    GM Smerdon probably doesn't agree, given that he thinks that Fischer would crush Nakamura 4.5-1.5, which would make the peak Fischer 2985 in modern ratings.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  11. #11
    CC Grandmaster road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    12,336
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    GM Smerdon probably doesn't agree, given that he thinks that Fischer would crush Nakamura 4.5-1.5, which would make the peak Fischer 2985 in modern ratings.
    Sounds like Naka would agree with me though.
    meep meep

  12. #12
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Garrett View Post
    John Nunn in one of his puzzle books has looked at a similar issue (strength of past masters) that may be of interest.

    3/4 down the following page,

    http://theweekinchess.com/john-watso...-installment-3
    I don't agree with him and Watson though. On the Capablanca thread in chessgames.com, I and a Filopino neurosurgeon and chess connoisseur with the userid "visayanbraindoctor" argue against the Watson/Nunn thesis and defend the strength of the older champions (also extensive discussion on the cause of Capa's death).
    Last edited by Capablanca-Fan; 20-09-2016 at 09:31 PM.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  13. #13
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,370
    Quote Originally Posted by road runner View Post
    Sounds like Naka would agree with me though.
    True enough!
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  14. #14
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,149
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian_Rogers View Post
    The best analysis I have seen indicated a 200 point comparative inflation from the early 1980s until a few years ago. About two-thirds could be attributed to genuine inflation and another third to general improvement but there was plenty of margin for error.
    The major inflationary factors were:
    (i) The extra 100 points added to every female player (except Zsuzsa Polgar) in the 1980s
    (ii) The rule that noone who won a tournament could lose rating points (abandoned after half a dozen years),
    (iii) The offering of minimum ratings - as high as 2205 - for 50% performances in particular international events (now abandoned)
    and
    (iv) - the big one - the reduction in minimum ratings to 1000 along with the continuation of a minimum number of points for each win. Thus if a 2600 player beats a 1200 player, they actually get the same credit as if they beat a 2200 player.
    The introduction of ratings going down to 1000 has also had a deflationary effect which can be seen in particular countries such as Australia, India and Vietnam, with juniors entering the system earlier and taking points off established players as they improve.
    One factor which has not been examined at all is whether the general improvement in play (thanks to computers and more easily accessible learning material) has been steady or has sped up in recent years (a time when inflation seems to have moderated).
    Another way of looking at these performances is comparing them with the best in the world at time. In that respect Jamieson's Lucerne result was approximately equivalent to the rating of the world number 3 at the time - hard to beat.
    We have discussed some of these issues in Baku and I think it is very hard to compare players 30 years ago and now as a few things are so different.

    1) One of my claims was that if you take the 2710 Karpov from 1983 and get him to play against current Yu Yangyi rated 2720, I would put my money on the latter. The difference in the opening knowledge is so huge that Karpov would not survive the opening stage in most of the games.
    2) Generally it is hard to define inflation as we compare two different distributions. However, 200 points is a way too much in my opinion - not more than 50. We are bargaining, are not we?
    3) When you discuss Jamieson's Lucerne result I believe you are missing something very important. This is like comparing the third tallest person in Sydney in 1900 with the third tallest person in Sydney in 2000. Even if we abstract from big factors like a) difference in nutrition and b) globalization leading to a more distant gene code mixing, there is an even bigger factor. The cities are of a different size, so the third tallest in 1900 is probably equivalent to the top 30 in 2000.

  15. #15
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Vlad View Post
    We have discussed some of these issues in Baku and I think it is very hard to compare players 30 years ago and now as a few things are so different.

    1) One of my claims was that if you take the 2710 Karpov from 1983 and get him to play against current Yu Yangyi rated 2720, I would put my money on the latter. The difference in the opening knowledge is so huge that Karpov would not survive the opening stage in most of the games.
    I would bet on Karpov for his overall skill and great technique. In the modern era, Carlsen is not known as an opening specialist, and even beats strong opponents with openings like the London System.
    Quote Originally Posted by Vlad View Post
    2) Generally it is hard to define inflation as we compare two different distributions. However, 200 points is a way too much in my opinion - not more than 50. We are bargaining, are not we?
    OK, make it 130. This is in line with GM Roger's opinion that 2/3 of the 200-point average increase is due to inflation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Vlad View Post
    3) When you discuss Jamieson's Lucerne result I believe you are missing something very important. This is like comparing the third tallest person in Sydney in 1900 with the third tallest person in Sydney in 2000. Even if we abstract from big factors like a) difference in nutrition and b) globalization leading to a more distant gene code mixing, there is an even bigger factor. The cities are of a different size, so the third tallest in 1900 is probably equivalent to the top 30 in 2000.
    That assumes that intelligence is like physical factors like height (or running speed for example). But it's not so clear. It's doubtful that we have ever had a greater scientific intellect than Sir Isaac Newton for example.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Video of the top chess players over time
    By Nikolaos in forum General Chess Chat
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 17-04-2016, 09:48 PM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-01-2016, 08:13 AM
  3. Top 10 Engame Players of All time
    By James Peirce in forum General Chess Chat
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 23-02-2013, 05:18 PM
  4. Replies: 76
    Last Post: 24-03-2011, 03:53 PM
  5. Junior champs for developing players
    By bunta in forum General Chess Chat
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-01-2006, 03:36 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •