Fischer had a 94 percent win rate,and btw he was 15 when he became GM not 16 , I question alot in your OP . but why correct it all . Comparing Fischer abnf Kapsy is difficult , Kaspy had a full career . I do not think his win rate against contemporaries was that of Fischer, ONLY Laskers for a time I believe was higher .I could be wrong. Obvioulsy it is hard to tell who is the all time best ,when conflating era's,and almost pointless to try, especially ratingwise due to inflation . One thing is for sure Carlsen would not be on the list . There have been many prodigy's throughout history, but only a few players like Fischer or Kaspy , it is just too soon to tell .So if you wan to compare every child chess prodigy to Fischer you left several dozens off that list, there are quite a few 2700 plus's in the last decade due to programs , and general advancement of chess understanding, theory and the ease of it's access due to the internet. I do not think you realize or appreciate how difficult it used to be for poeple to keep up to date on theory in the past And how little realible theory there actualy was in the first place . Fischer gave so much to chess theory. Carlsen is standing on Fischer's shoulders . So many of the top players are young today becuase of this very fact chess knowledge is progressing and poeple can learn it faster . I suppose with so many child prodigies recently he is amoung the best. Nakamura is fairly exciting stylewise to me, and as a USA resident but hasn't crossed 2800 yet. With that said he will soon . There are more 2800 players now than would be conceived possible in even Kaspy's time becuase of rating inflation alone, so the rating's really are just pointless to compare . Anyway everyone has an opinion, you are entitled to yours, I completely agree that Carlsen is a very exciting player , and he probabaly will achieve greatness .
On September 07 2011 06:17 MrProphylactic wrote: Fischer had a 94 percent win rate,and btw he was 15 when he became GM not 16 , I question alot in your OP . but why correct it all . Comparing Fischer abnf Kapsy is difficult , Kaspy had a full carreer . I do not think his winrate against contemporaries was that of Fischer, ONLY Laskers for a time I believe was higher . Obvioulsy it is hard to tell who is the all time best ,when conflating era's,and almost pointless to try, especially ratingwise due to inflation . One thing is for sure Carlsen would not be on the list . There have been many prodigy's throughout history, but only a few players like Fischer or Kaspy , it is just too soon to tell .So if you wan to compare every child chess prodigy to Fischer you left several dozens off that list, there are quite a few 2700 plus's in the last decade due to programs .
And yet none of those other prodigies achieved world rank #1 at such a young age, making Carlsen different from every other prodigy, for rising farther and faster than any other, except perhaps Fischer, which is why it is a valid comparison.
I never compared Fischer's and Kasparov's ratings. That would be pointless, so it's a strawman to argue about rating inflation. I merely said Kasparov's career was dominant for a much longer period of time, and most chess enthusiasts would say Kasparov was the more dominant player in his era, and I would agree with that assessment. Kasparov is in a league of his own.
You are right you never compared Fischers and Kaspy's; you compared Carlsen's and Kaspy . Since you are the one who is comparing Carlsen's rating to Kaspy's in a previous Era, Rating inflation betwen era's is very relevant , and do not quite follow what is strawman about it . I am questioning the validity of your comparison . I was using it to further show how if you added the inflations to Fischer's it would be near 2900 or something . I think his high was 2785 . add the inflation and at least 2875 if not more . Either way both Kaspy and Fischer were awesome.
On September 07 2011 06:43 MrProphylactic wrote: Since you are the one who is comparing Carlsen's rating to Kaspy's in a previous Era, Rating inflation is very relevant , and do not quite follow what is strawman about it . I am questioning the validity of your comparison directly .
Ok, so tell me very clearly then... What is wrong with comparing Robert Fischer at age 13-20, and comparing Magnus Carlsen at 13-20. I see nothing wrong with it, except perhaps that Carlsen has achieved the same milestones at a younger age than Fischer did.
And here are the highest ever ratings adjusted for inflation by Chessmetrics:
Over a 1 year time frame: Robert Fischer, with Kasparov at #2 Over a 5 year time frame: Garry Kasparov, with Fischer at #5 Over 10 year time frame: Garry Kasparov, with Fischer at #5 Over 15 year time frame: Garry Kasparov, with Fischer at #7 Over 20 year time frame: Garry Kasparov, with Fischer off the list
On September 07 2011 06:43 MrProphylactic wrote: Since you are the one who is comparing Carlsen's rating to Kaspy's in a previous Era, Rating inflation is very relevant , and do not quite follow what is strawman about it . I am questioning the validity of your comparison directly .
Ok, so tell me very clearly then... What is wrong with comparing Robert Fischer at age 13-20, and comparing Magnus Carlsen at 13-20. I see nothing wrong with it, except perhaps that Carlsen has achieved the same milestones at a younger age than Fischer did.
Uh? The advent of computers & Internet means players have access to opening and end game analysis at the very least even early '00s
e.g. if you are a prodigy it's easier to become good much faster.
As an aside, playing around with chessmetrics DB is quite fun
On September 07 2011 06:43 MrProphylactic wrote: Since you are the one who is comparing Carlsen's rating to Kaspy's in a previous Era, Rating inflation is very relevant , and do not quite follow what is strawman about it . I am questioning the validity of your comparison directly .
Ok, so tell me very clearly then... What is wrong with comparing Robert Fischer at age 13-20, and comparing Magnus Carlsen at 13-20. I see nothing wrong with it, except perhaps that Carlsen has achieved the same milestones at a younger age than Fischer did.
Uh? The advent of computers & Internet means players have access to opening and end game analysis at the very least even early '00s
e.g. if you are a prodigy it's easier to become good much faster.
As an aside, playing around with chessmetrics DB is quite fun
We aren't comparing objective skill here, we are comparing skill relative to their opposition in each era. It doesn't matter at all that players are learning openings etc. faster these days, if their opponents are learning the same exact things. If you are #1 in the world, then you are #1, period. It's not like Carlsen is living in the future and his opponent's are living in the past.
First of all there is nothing wrong with what you are doing . I just question the validity of some of the comparisons and facts . Such as Fischer became a Gm at 15 Not 16 , of age(due to learning methods and overall theory to learn from ) and ratings ( due to inflation ). Also, the amount of theory Fischer contributed at such a young age was staggering . I have said why this is already . Because he had to invent his own theory due to the lack of chess literature and current databases. One had to wait years in between publications of ECO'S and they were not well written, and many of the lines had flaws in them as practice or programs had not found them yet . This is a very important point. People had to rely on themselves to find which lines were solid and learn to trust there own analysis , they had no way to double check it , this directly effects the accuracy of preparation . . That took an immense amount of time, and in the end you only had your evaluation to rely on . . He contributed a large amount to chess at age very young age theory-wise by staring at the board alone, especially in the Spanish asnd found many flaws in many lines to surprise oponents . To me it is difficult to compare modern-computer-created GM's and the ones of the past that created themselves . But it is just my opinion. One more thing as theory advanced , and the technological methods of learning , one would expect younger GM'S to be a side-effect . I would choose to compare him to more current Gm's and prodigies myself . But that is just me I guess there is nothing wrong with it , I just cannot help but see the flaws . Kaspy to Fischer is a much more accurate comparison, than Carlsen to Fischer imo We can agree to disgree. I guess
On September 07 2011 06:43 MrProphylactic wrote: Since you are the one who is comparing Carlsen's rating to Kaspy's in a previous Era, Rating inflation is very relevant , and do not quite follow what is strawman about it . I am questioning the validity of your comparison directly .
Ok, so tell me very clearly then... What is wrong with comparing Robert Fischer at age 13-20, and comparing Magnus Carlsen at 13-20. I see nothing wrong with it, except perhaps that Carlsen has achieved the same milestones at a younger age than Fischer did.
Uh? The advent of computers & Internet means players have access to opening and end game analysis at the very least even early '00s
e.g. if you are a prodigy it's easier to become good much faster.
As an aside, playing around with chessmetrics DB is quite fun
We aren't comparing objective skill here, we are comparing skill relative to their opposition in each era. It doesn't matter at all that players are learning openings etc. faster these days, if their opponents are learning the same exact things. If you are #1 in the world, then you are #1, period. It's not like Carlsen is living in the future and his opponent's are living in the past.
Except environment is actually relevant in this case.
Have you looked at the state of the American chess scene during the 1950s-1970s compared to the Soviet juggernaut?
Being in backwater land having to do your own analysis with literally no resources is not the same as collaboration of GMs in Soviet nor is it comparable to "everyone having the same amount of resources" which is what the Internet age has done. Plus, Carlsen is/was getting personal coaching from Kasparov.
There is a vast, vast difference from Fischer's experience with chess compared to anything nowadays. I don't think any legit comparisons can be made.
If Fischer had the same amount of resources that any of the other world champs had I don't think there would be any debate that he would be the GOAT. But as it is the mere fact that he is in the debate for GOAT with highest 1 yr ELO (1970 -> 1972 run was insane) with such little resources and support is/was amazing. That is why he became a national hero back then.
Fischer and Kasparov brought life to chess. When they played competitively they added in their own, yet different, ways to the game. Kasparov played "the world" and took on supercomputers specifically built to beat him. Fischer even invented his own variation of the game itself and his openings and midgame variations are still being used to this day.
This kid is undoubtably great, but let's not compare him to others who have far more accomplishments and have contributed to the chess world in many more ways than him.
To me it's like being #1 in grandmaster in SC2 for months and never making a splash in the world competitive scene.
On September 07 2011 06:43 MrProphylactic wrote: Since you are the one who is comparing Carlsen's rating to Kaspy's in a previous Era, Rating inflation is very relevant , and do not quite follow what is strawman about it . I am questioning the validity of your comparison directly .
Ok, so tell me very clearly then... What is wrong with comparing Robert Fischer at age 13-20, and comparing Magnus Carlsen at 13-20. I see nothing wrong with it, except perhaps that Carlsen has achieved the same milestones at a younger age than Fischer did.
Uh? The advent of computers & Internet means players have access to opening and end game analysis at the very least even early '00s
e.g. if you are a prodigy it's easier to become good much faster.
As an aside, playing around with chessmetrics DB is quite fun
We aren't comparing objective skill here, we are comparing skill relative to their opposition in each era. It doesn't matter at all that players are learning openings etc. faster these days, if their opponents are learning the same exact things. If you are #1 in the world, then you are #1, period. It's not like Carlsen is living in the future and his opponent's are living in the past.
Except environment is actually relevant in this case.
Have you looked at the state of the American chess scene during the 1950s-1970s compared to the Soviet juggernaut?
Being in backwater land having to do your own analysis with literally no resources is not the same as collaboration of GMs in Soviet nor is it comparable to "everyone having the same amount of resources" which is what the Internet age has done. Plus, Carlsen is/was getting personal coaching from Kasparov.
There is a vast, vast difference from Fischer's experience with chess compared to anything nowadays. I don't think any legit comparisons can be made.
If Fischer had the same amount of resources that any of the other world champs had I don't think there would be any debate that he would be the GOAT. But as it is the mere fact that he is in the debate for GOAT with highest 1 yr ELO (1970 -> 1972 run was insane) with such little resources and support is/was amazing. That is why he became a national hero back then.
This right here,. If he cannot understand this , we may as well stop trying to hit him over the head with the truth . But You said it much shorter and sweeter than I . Fischer basically took on the entire Soviet Union by himself , and won !!!!!!
On September 07 2011 06:43 MrProphylactic wrote: Since you are the one who is comparing Carlsen's rating to Kaspy's in a previous Era, Rating inflation is very relevant , and do not quite follow what is strawman about it . I am questioning the validity of your comparison directly .
Ok, so tell me very clearly then... What is wrong with comparing Robert Fischer at age 13-20, and comparing Magnus Carlsen at 13-20. I see nothing wrong with it, except perhaps that Carlsen has achieved the same milestones at a younger age than Fischer did.
Uh? The advent of computers & Internet means players have access to opening and end game analysis at the very least even early '00s
e.g. if you are a prodigy it's easier to become good much faster.
As an aside, playing around with chessmetrics DB is quite fun
We aren't comparing objective skill here, we are comparing skill relative to their opposition in each era. It doesn't matter at all that players are learning openings etc. faster these days, if their opponents are learning the same exact things. If you are #1 in the world, then you are #1, period. It's not like Carlsen is living in the future and his opponent's are living in the past.
Except environment is actually relevant in this case.
Have you looked at the state of the American chess scene during the 1950s-1970s compared to the Soviet juggernaut?
Being in backwater land having to do your own analysis with literally no resources is not the same as collaboration of GMs in Soviet nor is it comparable to "everyone having the same amount of resources" which is what the Internet age has done. Plus, Carlsen is/was getting personal coaching from Kasparov.
There is a vast, vast difference from Fischer's experience with chess compared to anything nowadays. I don't think any legit comparisons can be made.
If Fischer had the same amount of resources that any of the other world champs had I don't think there would be any debate that he would be the GOAT. But as it is the mere fact that he is in the debate for GOAT with highest 1 yr ELO (1970 -> 1972 run was insane) with such little resources and support is/was amazing. That is why he became a national hero back then.
This right here,. If he cannot understand this , we may as well stop trying to hit him over the head with the truth . But You said it much shorter and sweeter than I . Fischer basically took on the entire Soviet Union by himself , and won !!!!!!
I see Fischer as like a Ramaujan was to math .
Fischer did not take on the soviet union when he was 20 years old.
I simply can't understand why people are unable to distinguish two different periods of time in their mind. When they think Fischer, they are incapable of thinking of Fischer at a specific period, they can only think of ALL of Fischer, apparently. I guess I will just drop it here, the fanboyism is out of control. I apologize for speaking Carlsen's name in the same breath as God's.
lol you keep ignoring every point made . yes he wasn't 20 when he won the title .Maybe that was irrelevant .But, you are pretty much ignoring every other point made, and deciding to drop it on that one, pretty funny . I question anyone who cannot even get the correct age he made gm in the OP as seriously understanding or researching the topic in the first place . Not to mention your Rainman view of worldclass chessplayers in OP is just absurd . And as someone who did learn chess in the pre-computer age, I have first hand experience of how difficult it was to get up to date theory, and then having to question how accurate it was even then [b].You keep ignoring the point of available, and accurate resources . BTW there have been thirteen grandmaster to make GM before the age of 15 in the last decade or so you may as well compare all of them to Fischer, Calrsen is only one of them. There are currently 5 players in the top 13 that are 23 or younger and 12 players 25 or under in the top 25 . The top twenty Junior players in the world are all GM's . The top three to five players in the world are usually within 10 points or so of eachother ( ( can you honestly try to tell me this is not because of programs, databases, and internet. ) . I do like Fischer's games( I won't deny that ) . treasure's. But, at this point I do also believe I understand the topic of chessmetrics a little more deeply than you do(not that is something to be proud of) If you want to do a serious comparison you might read some materials by chessmetric creators like Jeff Sonas . There are a few sites that help with some of the elo conversion formulas etc. , plus they explain some of the environmental issues as well, and have some formulas to deal with some of them .
To offer congratulations to Magnus Carlsen, who yesterday officially became the highest rated chess player in history, finally surpassing Kasparov's record. Carlsen achieved a rating of 2851 after beating Aronion in a hard fought end game in the London Chess Classic tournament. There may be some slight rating inflation, but this is still a huge achievement and is history making.
Here is the game with analysis for anyone interested:
Hopefully it is only a matter of time before he is able to claim the official title of World Champion, since he is certainly the best in the world.
On September 07 2011 06:43 MrProphylactic wrote: Since you are the one who is comparing Carlsen's rating to Kaspy's in a previous Era, Rating inflation is very relevant , and do not quite follow what is strawman about it . I am questioning the validity of your comparison directly .
Ok, so tell me very clearly then... What is wrong with comparing Robert Fischer at age 13-20, and comparing Magnus Carlsen at 13-20. I see nothing wrong with it, except perhaps that Carlsen has achieved the same milestones at a younger age than Fischer did.
And here are the highest ever ratings adjusted for inflation by Chessmetrics:
Over a 1 year time frame: Robert Fischer, with Kasparov at #2 Over a 5 year time frame: Garry Kasparov, with Fischer at #5 Over 10 year time frame: Garry Kasparov, with Fischer at #5 Over 15 year time frame: Garry Kasparov, with Fischer at #7 Over 20 year time frame: Garry Kasparov, with Fischer off the list
Which player would you say is more dominant here?
Grats to Carlsen, it was only a matter of time. He's going to probably be the greatest.
That graph is interesting... it shows what I saw studying each player intuitively after a few years; Karpov was astoundingly consistent, Kramnik was disappointing (thought he'd be much better over time), Kasparov was simply a cut above until Carlsen and as usual Fischer's graph was as meteoric and unstable as his own life. What's new here!
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/gS26x.jpg)
