Every once in a while, there comes along a child who is a natural prodigy at chess. They learn the rules of the game, and in little time they are stomping on players who have devoted years of their life to the game. Magnus Carlsen from Oslo, Norway is one such prodigy.
Here he is at the age of 13, drawing a game against Garry Kasparov. For those who don't know who Garry Kasparov is, he is widely considered to be the greatest chess player who has ever lived. Watch how this kid casually makes his moves and watch as Kasparov squirms. In the same year, he achieved the rank of Grandmaster, the highest possible in chess, and was the third youngest person in history to do so.
Eventually, Kasparov himself, the former and long-running world champion, decided to take this prodigy under his wing and began coaching him as a personal trainer. As the years passed, Carlsen's rating skyrocketed, eventually placing him at #1 in the world, and only 25 points behind Kasparov's own record for the highest rating of all time. He now holds the record for the youngest player to ever reach the #1 ranking in the world.
In 2010, he won the right the face Viswanathan Anand as a challenger for the official World Champion title. Unfortunately, he turned it down, citing an unfair and complicated Candidates process. It's likely only a matter of time before he claims the throne.
"The World Championship cycle will last for almost five years, and with constant rule changes. It takes too much effort to deal with the political part of the process. I would therefore like to focus my energy on developing my skills as a chess player, and to defend my position as number one in the world rankings."
These type of prodigies have always amazed me. How is it that someone is simply born with such incredible natural talent? And how discouraging it must be for people who have devoted years of their life to mastering the game, only to get trounced by an adolescent with innate ability. Sometimes, however, the talent comes at a severe cost. Robert Fischer was one such prodigy, but he devoted his life to chess. He didn't have relationships, he didn't experience life; he spent his time hunched over a board and studying the game. Eventually, Fischer reached a point of insanity and paranoia, living in complete reclusiveness, only surfacing to rail against Jewish conspiracies and perceived enemies.
I have a lot of awe and admiration for Magnus Carlsen, but at the same time, I fear for the sacrifices he will have to make to reach the greatest heights in this art called chess.
Pretty decent write-up. That video of Carlsen vs Kasparov is awesome.
But it is not a sacrifice if that's what he wants to do, and it is not a prerequisite for championship that you go completely out of your mind. Look at Kasparov, he's sharp all over, not an idiot savante like Fischer.
Thanks for the info. Web is so much faster than the official chess magazine edit: Note that he is now about to turn 21. He is 20 now, not 13 like your blog implies.
On September 06 2011 12:01 Saturnize wrote: Why are you assuming his life is going to be shit?
I never assumed his life is going to be shit. I merely explained that in the past, reaching such heights in so little time often came at a huge cost of personal development. I fear he will go down the same path, since reaching these ranks takes essentially an obsession with the game, at the expense of real-life experiences.
Whoa crazy. The last time i followed high ranked GM's was maybe 2 years ago? And he was only top ~10-20 or so. Didn't know Kasparov coached him. Pretty insane that he is now competing for the #1 title.
I don't think there's any risk of Carlsen ending up as Fischer. He comes from a caring family with friends and intrests outside chess. When he got his GM title Kasparov offered to coach him but he first refused, reportedly because Kasparov demanded that he work too hard.
They eventually started working together when Carlsen became one of the top players in the world.
On September 06 2011 12:39 Hidden_MotiveS wrote: On youtube when he plays against other teens, and children, he always looks at other people's boards. Is he a cocky bastard or is it to be more fair?
A very common exhibition for high level chess players is to play many games at once vs average guys, where the high level player takes only a few seconds to make his move and then goes to the next board. I think this is what you are talking about, and no it's not cocky, it's to be a little bit more fair... he's probably a favorite to go 30/30 all at the same time ;d
He set out to raise his daughters as genius chess players. His methods were fairly simple, he would set different boards up and just play through games from printed chess books. Over time his daughters managed to "see" how games would progress based on visualising series of boards they had seen. This allowed them to know the best next move without knowing explicitly why. I wonder whether this guy has a similar ability.
People can play by feel, but in reality there is always a best move given how your opponent plays. Recognising their style based on which board patterns they reflect would certainly allow a player to know the next move very quickly, without having to think through how that affects the later stages of the game.
As for prodigies turning crazy, I'd like to know what it's about! Some amazing pianists and writers go bonkers around their 20's. It's really odd to think that some amazing minds are"manufactured" with defects, so to speak. The French poets Nelligan, Rimbaud and Verlaine (maybe?) for instance. (I assume most of you guys don't know about them)
Chess is very interesting and the personalities involved even more interesting. It's not something I ever really followed that much or played but I can make parallels between piano players/music and chess.
Best be careful though, pretty much the majority of TL doesn't believe in ' talent '. They believe all humans can reach similar heights based off hard work and determination.
Pretty good writeup; I have been following this kid's career since a few years ago and check out his Wikipedia page once in a while to see what he's achieving. Reading this article might be a good way to get some TL'ers interested about chess.
On September 06 2011 12:04 Darkness2k11 wrote: Real life is overrated ;;
Pretty much this. I have no idea if devoting the vast majority of his time to chess is a good idea, I am not educated enough on the game, dunno if he can make a career out of it, etc. However, life is short, and for the time being he enjoys the game, so thats really all that matters I think.
On September 06 2011 13:25 Ack1027 wrote: Chess is very interesting and the personalities involved even more interesting. It's not something I ever really followed that much or played but I can make parallels between piano players/music and chess.
Best be careful though, pretty much the majority of TL doesn't believe in ' talent '. They believe all humans can reach similar heights based off hard work and determination.
That simply isn't true. Do any among us really believe that with a lifetime of training, we could match FlaSh?
Your view of these protege's reminds me of Good Will Hunting where Will just doesn't seem to care about the Math and has other professors walk away unhappy with how great he is and how little they've achieved in the grand scheme of things.
On September 06 2011 12:57 Geovu wrote: Does he have Aspergers/Autism/other mental disabilities?
Just wondering, because most people with 'natural talent' tend to be coupled with a disability somewhere else.
WTF, I don't know any current chess players with mental disabilities. And as far as I know, Carlsen is one of the most ordinary players because yes there are some people with personality quirks.
On September 06 2011 15:21 mdb wrote: You cant compare Carlsen and Fisher. One has the the best chess computers and players helping him, the other was alone relying only on his brain.
That's a nonsensical argument. You win based on beating people. Sure the level of support may have increased, but so has the competition. You get to be the best by being better than others.
On September 06 2011 15:21 mdb wrote: You cant compare Carlsen and Fisher. One has the the best chess computers and players helping him, the other was alone relying only on his brain.
That's a nonsensical argument. You win based on beating people. Sure the level of support may have increased, but so has the competition. You get to be the best by being better than others.
As I said, you cant compare them both. Maybe you should work a little on your chess history. Fisher was training alone against all the Soviet GMs who had tens of other GMs helping them prepare for the candidates and on later stages against Spaski for the Wch. Carlsen was picked up by Kasparov very young and although he is getting the best possible coaching and computer assistance, he is still very far away from the total domination Fisher had in the chess world.
On September 06 2011 15:21 mdb wrote: You cant compare Carlsen and Fisher. One has the the best chess computers and players helping him, the other was alone relying only on his brain.
That's a nonsensical argument. You win based on beating people. Sure the level of support may have increased, but so has the competition. You get to be the best by being better than others.
As I said, you cant compare them both. Maybe you should work a little on your chess history. Fisher was training alone against all the Soviet GMs who had tens of other GMs helping them prepare for the candidates and on later stages against Spaski for the Wch. Carlsen was picked up by Kasparov very young and although he is getting the best possible coaching and computer assistance, he is still very far away from the total domination Fisher had in the chess world.
Yes, it's too early to compare Fischer's lifetime accomplishments with Carlsen's. I was simply comparing the fact that they were both young prodigies, and illustrating the dangers that obsessions can create.
Fischer reached GM at age 16, 3 years older than Carlsen, and he didn't win the world title until he was 29. Carlsen reached rank #1 in the world at only 19, the youngest ever. I guess the point is, he certainly has immense potential. Kasparov didn't start training him until 2009, and all of his competitors have access to the same computers he does, so I'm not sure how that changes anything.
On September 06 2011 14:06 Ecrilon wrote: That simply isn't true. Do any among us really believe that with a lifetime of training, we could match FlaSh?
mastery has become a hot topic lately, with a lot of popular books being published to discuss it, and many of them come to the conclusion that it is about the quantity and quality of practice moreso than talent.
i think countering it with an anecdotal example won't accomplish much.
On September 06 2011 15:21 mdb wrote: You cant compare Carlsen and Fisher. One has the the best chess computers and players helping him, the other was alone relying only on his brain.
That's a nonsensical argument. You win based on beating people. Sure the level of support may have increased, but so has the competition. You get to be the best by being better than others.
As I said, you cant compare them both. Maybe you should work a little on your chess history. Fisher was training alone against all the Soviet GMs who had tens of other GMs helping them prepare for the candidates and on later stages against Spaski for the Wch. Carlsen was picked up by Kasparov very young and although he is getting the best possible coaching and computer assistance, he is still very far away from the total domination Fisher had in the chess world.
It's not totally logical, is it? Computer assistance isn't a luxury exclusive to Carlsen, and it's of no great help in tournament play. It's just a tool to assist preparation, something GMs have always spent a lot of time on. Fischer had peaked in his late 20s. The fact that we can't judge Carlsen on his serious attempts at the championship (as he hasn't had any) doesn't mean we need to discount him out of hand either.
On September 06 2011 15:21 mdb wrote: You cant compare Carlsen and Fisher. One has the the best chess computers and players helping him, the other was alone relying only on his brain.
That's a nonsensical argument. You win based on beating people. Sure the level of support may have increased, but so has the competition. You get to be the best by being better than others.
As I said, you cant compare them both. Maybe you should work a little on your chess history. Fisher was training alone against all the Soviet GMs who had tens of other GMs helping them prepare for the candidates and on later stages against Spaski for the Wch. Carlsen was picked up by Kasparov very young and although he is getting the best possible coaching and computer assistance, he is still very far away from the total domination Fisher had in the chess world.
It's not totally logical, is it? Computer assistance isn't a luxury exclusive to Carlsen, and it's of no great help in tournament play. It's just a tool to assist preparation, something GMs have always spent a lot of time on. Fischer had peaked in his late 20s. The fact that we can't judge Carlsen on his serious attempts at the championship (as he hasn't had any) doesn't mean we need to discount him out of hand either.
Oh, no, I`m not discounting him at all. On the contrary, he is without a doubt the most serious contender for the world title. Noone can argue against that. All I`m saying that you cant compare Fisher and Carlsen, because they have totaly different paths towards the chess top. Comparing Fisher to Carlsen is like comparing Tal to Karpov imo.
I think Really this entire prodigy theory can be used in anything competitive. including sc2.
If someone young enough comes through the ranks and all of a sudden is taking games off the best. If that kid decided to take their enough life to learning the game. Then side effects can occur.
I think though if one is that smart to know enough about chess and to be that good. They would know that its not healthy to have no interaction with human being for long stretches of time.
On September 06 2011 14:06 Ecrilon wrote: That simply isn't true. Do any among us really believe that with a lifetime of training, we could match FlaSh?
mastery has become a hot topic lately, with a lot of popular books being published to discuss it, and many of them come to the conclusion that it is about the quantity and quality of practice moreso than talent.
i think countering it with an anecdotal example won't accomplish much.
Won't accomplish much? It's correct. When your general theory statement if countered by an anecdotal counterexample, you are required to provide either an explanation why the anecdote is irrelevant, an elaboration of the theory, or some demonstration that it's a special case.
But whatever, here's a non anecdotal argument if you really want one: Some people's brains and bodies are built differently and can't do certain things. You can practice all you want. You can't exceed your physical limitations.
A book's popularity says nothing about its accuracy. Carlsen didn't get good at chess because of intense and rigorous training. That came later, after he had already shown considerable skill. So if your "goal" of mastery is "become grandmaster at age X," I am absolutely certain that you're not getting there through training.
It's clear that he doesn't know what he's talking about because the difference is nowhere near that extreme. Having said that, the strongest computers are much better than any human now. If you gave them a rating they might be somewhere around ~3000+ compared to the top tier of 2800 FIDE players (Carlsen, Anand, and Aronian currently).
Ever since 1997 when Deeper Blue beat Kasparov 3.5-2.5 they have only gotten better. Just take a peek at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-computer_chess_matches. In 2005 the 7th best player in the world is crushed 5.5-.5. Rybka has had decent results giving up pawn, move, and exchange odds vs. other top tier GMs.
I like to believe that as time goes on, the harder it gets to become "good" at any given sport.
It is the same case with many other disciplines; right now, a high school student can be taken to know more math than all top-tier mathematicians during Pythagoras’s era. This is because we are standing on the shoulders of giants to reach higher heights.
Comparing Carlsen to Fischer is much like comparing a P-51 Mustang to an F-22 Raptor; you cannot draw the line in between these two planes because they fight in different realms and under different meta-rules.
On September 06 2011 17:22 Ecrilon wrote: Won't accomplish much? It's correct. When your general theory statement if countered by an anecdotal counterexample, you are required to provide either an explanation why the anecdote is irrelevant, an elaboration of the theory, or some demonstration that it's a special case.
ok. here's why it's irrelevant. none of us will ever receive a lifetime of training in the same time frame that Flash was trained, and none of us will know the nature of Flash's training and mental state when he was training so we can't easily replicate it either. on top of that, this ignores the fact that Flash is still training.
But whatever, here's a non anecdotal argument if you really want one: Some people's brains and bodies are built differently and can't do certain things. You can practice all you want. You can't exceed your physical limitations.
when do your physical and mental limitations really matter? people born with a third arm may be able to catch a ball better, but that doesn't mean people with two arms are that much disadvantaged. this guy medaled over people who have two working legs.
A book's popularity says nothing about its accuracy.
it was a demonstration of the attention that the field of mastery is receiving. all these books cite actual studies, and many studies are ongoing.
Carlsen didn't get good at chess because of intense and rigorous training. That came later, after he had already shown considerable skill. So if your "goal" of mastery is "become grandmaster at age X," I am absolutely certain that you're not getting there through training.
intense and rigorous training doesn't necessarily mean that it's the best quality/quantity of training. having a fascination and a willingness to explore the game raises the training quality more than hardcore drilling.
"The Art of Learning" by Josh Waitzkin goes over how he (Waitzkin) learned how to play chess, which I feel is relevant to this discussion. it also answers one of the OPs concerns about how he'll have no life, since it covers that point as well.
On September 06 2011 15:21 mdb wrote: You cant compare Carlsen and Fisher. One has the the best chess computers and players helping him, the other was alone relying only on his brain.
That's a nonsensical argument. You win based on beating people. Sure the level of support may have increased, but so has the competition. You get to be the best by being better than others.
As I said, you cant compare them both. Maybe you should work a little on your chess history. Fisher was training alone against all the Soviet GMs who had tens of other GMs helping them prepare for the candidates and on later stages against Spaski for the Wch. Carlsen was picked up by Kasparov very young and although he is getting the best possible coaching and computer assistance, he is still very far away from the total domination Fisher had in the chess world.
It's not really fair to say Fischer was alone relying only on his brain when he taught himself russian and spent 12+ hours a day studying chess material.
It's not like he sat in a room using only his brain to figure the game out.
On September 06 2011 15:21 mdb wrote: You cant compare Carlsen and Fisher. One has the the best chess computers and players helping him, the other was alone relying only on his brain.
That's a nonsensical argument. You win based on beating people. Sure the level of support may have increased, but so has the competition. You get to be the best by being better than others.
As I said, you cant compare them both. Maybe you should work a little on your chess history. Fisher was training alone against all the Soviet GMs who had tens of other GMs helping them prepare for the candidates and on later stages against Spaski for the Wch. Carlsen was picked up by Kasparov very young and although he is getting the best possible coaching and computer assistance, he is still very far away from the total domination Fisher had in the chess world.
Yes, it's too early to compare Fischer's lifetime accomplishments with Carlsen's. I was simply comparing the fact that they were both young prodigies, and illustrating the dangers that obsessions can create.
Fischer reached GM at age 16, 3 years older than Carlsen, and he didn't win the world title until he was 29. Carlsen reached rank #1 in the world at only 19, the youngest ever. I guess the point is, he certainly has immense potential. Kasparov didn't start training him until 2009, and all of his competitors have access to the same computers he does, so I'm not sure how that changes anything.
1. Rating inflation . todays 2800 elo = 2700 in Fischers time 2. Fischer had a near 90 percent win ratee in tournaments over his entire career against his contemporary world class Gms , no one in history has come remotely close to this level of domination . You say above his oponets have access to the same programs so it is not relevant , well the reason it is , IS becuase Carlsens win rate and rating are not substantially better than his oponents . As I said above there are a group all within points of eachother . This was not the case with Fischer which set himself fart apart rating and win rate-wise from his oponents , and he did it all alone with no help .While all of his oponents were Russian and on the same team, all working together to beat this one man, and they could not do it . 3. Fischer had no aide but himself and his own brain , computer programs were not relevant 4. Carlsen studies the theory Fischer created 5. Carlsen's win rate and rating is not nearly as substantially better than his contemporaries, there are a group within points of eachother . Aronion , Anand , Kramnik, Ivanchuck etc. 6. It is a well known fact Gms are being created younger and younger due to programs and thus easier access to databases and theory , this is a well documented fact 7. Fischer dominated an entire team of Russians , some of the greatest chess minds in history all by himself . 8. Fischer could dominate in any opening , much like Ivanchuck today , yet he had to rely on himself to create the theory, not learn it from a program , Which being a master myself I can tell you makes the process take quite a bit less time , as well as the confidence you have in the theory . Fischer had to trust his own analysis
To sum up ; While Carlsen is an amazing player , it is too early to compare him to Fischers accomplishments . Also the adversity Fischer dealt with makes it all the more incredible, as someone pointed out he dominated an entire team of Russians working against him , some of the best chess minds in history all by himself without the aide of technology To me this sets Fischer apart from any GM in history. If Fischer would not have walked away it would be hard to imagine how long he would have held the title and how high his rating would have gotten . He left the world stage in his prime . Simply put there has never been a Gm in history that dominated the world class level as Fischer did , not even kasparov . Morphy came close for a time . While Calrsen is a prodigy( I think no one is arguing that) that is the only thing that he can be compared with , his level of domination is just not there , and no where close to Fischers . The win rate Fischer achieved has never been seen in history accept by him . The only one you can compare to Fischer is Fischer , there has never been a talent like him before or since .
I'm not sure why you are quoting me and saying it's too early to compare him to fischer's accomplishments, since I stated very, very clearly in my post that "It's too early to compare Fischer's lifetime accomplishments with Carlsen's."
This is because Carlsen is still young, and hasn't had time to actually achieve anything substantial, other than reaching youngest world #1 in history. It doesn't make any sense to compare a 20 year old's achievements to someone who played the game twice as long, obviously. You can only compare where they were at similar ages. Whether this will continue and lead to the same accomplishments is too early to tell, but there is nothing wrong at all with comparing their status as young prodigies.
Also, I strongly disagree with your statement that Kasparov did not dominate his era like Fischer did. No other player has dominated as long or as strongly as Kasparov. You won't find many chess enthusiasts who believe that Fischer was more dominant than Kasparov, either. Fischer's career was brief in comparison, and he left at the peak of his achievements. I understand people being big fans of Fischer, but you shouldn't let that blind you to any valid comparisons with other great players.
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/79kPG.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/uus02.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/rAANQ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ysKRX.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/gS26x.jpg)
