14 Jan 09
4 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderModern GMs are biased in their own favor.
Modern GMs are biased in their own favor.
No one is talking about openings. Engine match ups have nothing to do with openings. This is a complete non sequitur.
What evidence do you have that Spassky is a "weaker" player than the top 100 present GMs has you seem to be claiming? Did you think that you saying it makes it so?
idence, but a logical fallacy. I certainly hope someone who is a lawyer is aware of that.
Unbased claim.
No one is talking about openings. Engine match ups have nothing to do with openings. This is a complete non sequitur.
Do you think that knowledge of opening, quality of your opening play does not affect your chess strength??? Do you think that ability to evaluate of position does not affect your chess strength???
I assume you have seen the data comparing blunder percentage of World Champions. How do you account for the fact that a player who reached his zenith almost 100 years ago (Raul Capablanca) had a lower percentage of blunders than any WC since? He must have been a "weaker" player after all.
According to your logic only measure of chess strength is "blunder percentage".
14 Jan 09
Originally posted by KorchYes but you said
They all (including Fischer) did not have knowledge of modern top GMs which is the main reason why their level was not so high from modern top GM`s point of view. Or do you think that knowledge in chess is not important?
Dont you know that many opening schemes (Hedgehog and Sveshnikov are the best known examples) which modern GMs play today were considered as bad then?
...As I already have pointed out numerous times - against weaker opponents its easier to play better...
Inferring that Fischer had high match up %'s than Spassky because Spassky was not that strong a GM.
I am saying that at the time Spassky was just about the best player other than Fischer & Fischer can only beat what is in front of him.
You then changed the argument to fit in with the "time warp" discussions which neither of us were originally referring to.
14 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by KorchI wonder why judges don't get to decide their own cases?
[b]Modern GMs are biased in their own favor.
Unbased claim.
No one is talking about openings. Engine match ups have nothing to do with openings. This is a complete non sequitur.
Do you think that knowledge of opening, quality of your opening play does not affect your chess strenght???[/b]
No, I don't think minor differences in knowledge of current opening evaluations makes any difference in middle game and end game play. Again, you keep asserting something without a shred of evidence to support your claim.
Here's some actual data comparing World Champions of different eras using engine analysis. http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3455
Once you take all the factors into consideration, it's quite surprising how close the results are. Great players 100 years ago (never mind 30 years ago) would be great players today.
EDIT: Actually the article has a detailed analysis of different criteria besides blunder percentage. Still, you'd expect "weaker" players to make more blunders, wouldn't you?
14 Jan 09
Originally posted by SquelchbelchI am saying that at the time Spassky was just about the best player other than Fischer & Fischer can only beat what is in front of him.
Yes but you said
...As I already have pointed out numerous times - against weaker opponents its easier to play better...
Inferring that Fischer had high match up %'s than Spassky because Spassky was not that strong a GM.
I am saying that at the time Spassky was just about the best player other than Fischer & Fischer can only beat what is in f ...[text shortened]... to fit in with the "time warp" discussions which neither of us were originally referring to.
"The best" is relative. 2600 rated player is the best amongst 2500 rated ones. Which is not reason why to claim that 2600 is better than 2700.
You then changed the argument to fit in with the "time warp" discussions which neither of us were originally referring to.
Taking into account that you tend to misunderstand my previous arguments I`m trying to find better way how to explain my point.
14 Jan 09
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't think minor differences in knowledge of current opening evaluations makes any difference in middle game and end game play.
I wonder why judges don't get to decide their own cases?
No, I don't think minor differences in knowledge of current opening evaluations makes any difference in middle game and end game play. Again, you keep asserting something without a shred of evidence to support your claim.
Here's some actual data comparing World Champi er percentage. Still, you'd expect "weaker" players to make more blunders, wouldn't you?
Claiming these differences "minor" witnesses about lack of your knowledge. I already suggested you book in which have been described main changes during this time. You answered that you are not interested.
For your notice - modern opening is connected with plans in middle game. Today its axiom even for Master candidates.
Here's some actual data comparing World Champions of different eras using engine analysis. http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3455
It`s SO important difference between average error 0,10 and 0,1292. Like difference between 0,01 and 0,02 blunder percentage.
Difference in chess knowledge does not matter, of course.
14 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by KorchWhen you want to present some actual evidence, please do so. So far, you just sound like the Christian Fundies in Spirituality asserting things must be true because some supposed Higher Authority told ya so.
I don't think minor differences in knowledge of current opening evaluations makes any difference in middle game and end game play.[/b]
Claiming these differences "minor" witnesses about lack of your knowledge.
For your notice - modern opening is connected with plans in middle game. Today its axiom even for Master candidates.
Here's some actual ...[text shortened]... 1 and 0,02 blunder percentage.
Difference in chess knowledge does not matter, of course.
Top GMs of 30 years ago understood chess principles just as well as modern GMs do. Openings come and go in fashion, but looking at the Fischer-Spassky match I don't see any opening that wouldn't be played today.
If this so-called "difference in chess knowledge" doesn't equate to improved quality of play, then of what use is it? The exhaustive data presented in that study seems to strongly suggest that the differences between great World Champions is mostly stylistic. I know you have no use for objective data, but there it is.
14 Jan 09
Originally posted by KorchHere's another document with 14-ply Rybka analysis:
[b]I don't think minor differences in knowledge of current opening evaluations makes any difference in middle game and end game play.
Claiming these differences "minor" witnesses about lack of your knowledge. I already suggested you book in which have been described main changes during this time. You answered that you are not interested.
For your not ...[text shortened]... 1 and 0,02 blunder percentage.
Difference in chess knowledge does not matter, of course.[/b]
http://web.zone.ee/chessanalysis/summary311.pdf
Which demonstrates Fischer's very low blunder & average error ratios
14 Jan 09
4 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderTop GMs of 30 years ago understood chess principles just as well as modern GMs do.
When you want to present some actual evidence, please do so. So far, you just sound like the Christian Fundies in Spirituality asserting things must be true because some supposed Higher Authority told ya so.
Top GMs of 30 years ago understood chess principles just as well as modern GMs do. Openings come and go in fashion, but looking a Champions is mostly stylistic. I know you have no use for objective data, but there it is.
Really? Then please explain how it comes modern GMs considered Hedgehog and Sveshnikov as inferior, but modern GMs are not? Which of them are wrong?
Openings come and go in fashion
So you think that development of opening theory does not matter? And are you informed that openings which are in fashion are analysed very detailed and in result there are found many new improvements.
But looking at the Fischer-Spassky match I don't see any opening that wouldn't be played today.
What do you mean with "opening"? If first few moves after which we can say "It`s French" or "It`s Sicilian" then yes. Unfortunately in GM level knowing first few moves was not enough even then 🙂
If we are talking about opening systems developed during these years (some of them analysed till the endgame) then there would be many opening systems which were unknown/unpopular/considered as inferior which are met in modern GMs practice. Should I list all of them?
For example today hardly anyone top GM would use 6.Bg5 and 7.f4 (played in Fischer-Spassky match) because after 7...Qb6 it has been analysed so much that its estabilished the best moves for both sides leading to draw. Here is example.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1290137
It would take a lot of time to number all more or less important changes, but during this week I`m planning to make post in my blog devoted to "minor" opening development since 70ties.
14 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by SquelchbelchAccording to your logic I would be able to prove that 2700 rated was weaker than 2600 rated because 2700 rated have made less good moves/more mistakes against 2650, rated, than 2600 rated playing against 2450 rated.
Here's another document with 14-ply Rybka analysis:
http://web.zone.ee/chessanalysis/summary311.pdf
Which demonstrates Fischer's very low blunder & average error ratios
14 Jan 09
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderModern GMs are biased in their own favor.
Modern GMs are biased in their own favor.
No one is talking about openings. Engine match ups have nothing to do with openings. This is a complete non sequitur.
What evidence do you have that Spassky is a "weaker" player than the top 100 present GMs has you seem to be claiming? Did you think that you saying it makes it so?
idence, but a logical fallacy. I certainly hope someone who is a lawyer is aware of that.
If you did read the book I`ve recommended then you would know that also GM`s of older generation (reaching their peak in 70ties) have admitted that there have been changed a lot in understanding of chess and opening theory.
Btw. Feel free to explain what will you consider as evidence?
14 Jan 09
5 edits
Some other example of "minor" changes in evaluation.
15th game of Fischer-Spassky match:
After 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6 7. f4 Be7 8. Qf3 Qc7 9. O-O-O Nbd7 10. Bd3 b5 11. Rhe1 Bb7 12. Qg3 O-O-O
Spassky played 13.Bxf6 and after 13...Nxf6 14.Qxg7 Rdf8 15.Qg3 b4 16.Na4 Rhg8 Black had compensation for pawn due to initiative.
2 years later Velimirovich found 13.Bxb5! which closed 12...0-0-0 line. Indeed - after 13....axb5 14.Ndxb5 Qb6 15.e5! Nc5 16.exf6 gxf6 17.Bh6 Rhg8 18.Qh3 Black are in serious trouble.
14 Jan 09
2 edits
Originally posted by KorchNo, minor changes in evaluations of opening theory don't matter. If a refutation of an opening is found, a Fischer or Spassky take one game to figure that out. And even if lines are found which lead to a slight advantage for one or the other in the opening, that doesn't mean an automatic or even likely win for one side.
[b]Top GMs of 30 years ago understood chess principles just as well as modern GMs do.
Really? Then please explain how it comes modern GMs considered Hedgehog and Sveshnikov as inferior, but modern GMs are not? Which of them are wrong?
Openings come and go in fashion
So you think that development of opening theory does not matter? And are y planning to make post in my blog devoted to "minor" opening development since 70ties.[/b]
Surely you know all this. Surely you are just being disingenuous.
Modern GMs don't play 6 Bg5 and 7 f4 against the Najdorf? Better check your database.
If you are seriously claiming that top modern GMs would easily defeat Fischer or Spassky just because there have been refinements in opening theory in the last 40 years, you really are deranged.