Originally posted by Jakal
Result:
White: Spassky
Top 1 Match: 19/42 (45,2% )
Top 2 Match: 30/42 (71,4% )
Top 3 Match: 36/42 (85,7% )

Black: Fischer
Top 1 Match: 28/42 (66,7% )
Top 2 Match: 39/42 (92,9% )
Top 3 Match: 39/42 (92,9% )

I am fairly new to chess and absolutely love the game. This discussion seems very interesting as I am currently reading all about the 1972 Worl ...[text shortened]... ampionship Match. I'm not 100% sure what the above statistics mean. Can someone kindly explain?

Once the game goes out of book, I set Fritz to look for the top 3 moves for both players after each move.
After giving Fritz 30 seconds I move the game forward & I then write down if the player chooses Fritz's 1st, 2nd or 3rd choice or if they pick a move not in the top 3, in which case it isn't included in the final figures. I then repeat the process for both players until the end of the game.

In the example you quoted, Spassky played 42 moves after the game went out of book (ie that position hadn't occurred before the 1972 WC match.
Spassky's move selections tallied with Fritz's best move 19 times out of the 42, he chose Fritz's 1st or 2nd choice moves 30 times out of 42, and Spassky picked Fritz's 1st, 2nd or 3rd choice moves 36 times from 42 moves.

It's pretty simple really.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Quench! Not one of their best albums but still pretty reasonable.

It didn't ring a bell at first so had to put the album on.

Originally posted by Korch
[b]I'm amazed the Fritz match-up was so high in the Fischer-Spassky match, current wisdom is that the 1972 Fischer would be slaughtered by the likes of Anand, Topalov etc. It looks to me like this is simply incorrect.

Higher matchup may not always mean "better play". For example in 1st game of their match Fisher lost but his matchup was higher. Also whe ...[text shortened]... hup of many games, selected by objective criteria (consecutivity, particular tournament,etc.)[/b]

Hi Korch.

"So I doubt if Fisher would reach such a matchup (and quality) against modern GM`s. "

Hmmmmmm...... I disagree here mate.

Modern GM's playing against the Fischer of 70-72 would have been
sucked in and blown out in bubbles. They are simply not in the
same class. (and Squelch has just proved it) 😉

Perhaps the best way to do this Fischer-Spassky test is to pick the game
with the highest match up and use the times the players took.

eg If Fischer took 13 minutes on move 15 then the box must be
allowed to take 13 minutes on it's choice for move 15.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Hi Korch.

"So I doubt if Fisher would reach such a matchup (and quality) against modern GM`s. "

Hmmmmmm...... I disagree here mate.

Modern GM's playing against the Fischer of 70-72 would have been
sucked in and blown out in bubbles. They are simply not in the
same class. (and Squelch has just proved it) 😉

Perhaps the best way to do this F ...[text shortened]... utes on move 15 then the box must be
allowed to take 13 minutes on it's choice for move 15.

Modern GM's playing against the Fischer of 70-72 would have been
sucked in and blown out in bubbles. They are simply not in the
same class.

It`s popular myth amongst patzers. During last 30 years chess has developed too much.

(and Squelch has just proved it)

How?

Originally posted by Korch
[b]Modern GM's playing against the Fischer of 70-72 would have been
sucked in and blown out in bubbles. They are simply not in the
same class.

It`s popular myth amongst patzers. During last 30 years chess has developed too much.

(and Squelch has just proved it)

How?[/b]

The idea that Fischer couldn't compete against the GMs of today is absolute nonsense.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The idea that Fischer couldn't compete against the GMs of today is absolute nonsense.

With his play in 70ties he could be something like average 2600+ GM today. But definitely he would not be in modern elite. The idea that top GMs of past (with chess knowledge which they had in past) could compete with modern top GMs are nonsense, based on inability to evaluate progress of chess knowledge.

Originally posted by Korch
With his play in 70ties he could be something like average 2600+ GM today. But definitely he would not be in modern elite. The idea that top GMs of past (with chess knowledge which they had in past) could compete with modern top GMs are nonsense, based on inability to evaluate progress of chess knowledge.

What "chess knowledge" has advanced sooooooooooooo much in the last 30 years that Bobby Fischer would have been unable to grasp it?

Originally posted by no1marauder
What "chess knowledge" has advanced sooooooooooooo much in the last 30 years?

Have been created and developed many opening systems (Chebanenko in Slav, Sveshnikov in Sicilian etc.) have been changed evaluation of many type of positions, including opening schemes. Have developed opening theory. Computers and game databases have affected preparation to competitions, have refuted many ideas from old games, have affected playing style. It`s impossible to make detailed description in one post. If you are really interested then I can suggest Kasparov`s "Revolution in the 70s".

Originally posted by Korch
Have been created and developed many opening systems (Chebanenko in Slav, Sveshnikov in Sicilian etc.) have been changed evaluation of many type of positions, including opening schemes. Have developed opening theory. Computers and game databases have affected preparation to competitions, have refuted many ideas from old games, have affected playing style. It`s ...[text shortened]... one post. If you are really interested then I can suggest Kasparov`s "Revolution in the 70s".

I'm not.

It wouldn't take Fischer long to adjust to changes in opening theory. I suspect that he would create innovations in some lines today as he did in the 60's.

I don't see any higher quality in games now than 30 years ago. Wasn't there some recent computer/statistical analysis of world champions that said Capablanca made the fewest percentage of errors of any World Champion?

The idea that the game has evolved so far that the great players of past eras would be non-competitive is a nice fantasy for present players, but nothing more.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I'm not.

It wouldn't take Fischer long to adjust to changes in opening theory. I suspect that he would create innovations in some lines today as he did in the 60's.

I don't see any higher quality in games now than 30 years ago. Wasn't there some recent computer/statistical analysis of world champions that said Capablan ...[text shortened]... past eras would be non-competitive is a nice fantasy for present players, but nothing more.

For once I agree with No1.

Fischer would need a little time to adjust (and of course he'd need to shave 35 years off his age) but if given modern tools there is no doubt he would compete favorably and perhaps knock the spots off the current generation of GMs.

Fischers ability comes into its own when out of book and there his innovative ability and depth of tactical calculation exceeds anything I have seen in todays GMs. Yes they know more about the basics and their depth of opening knowledge is greater than Fischers but Fischer would soon learn that.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Wasn't there some recent computer/statistical analysis of world champions that said Capablanca made the fewest percentage of errors of any World Champion?

Maybe you're thinking of this one:

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3455

Greenpawn - when you said the "Fischer of 70-72" did you mean with his opening knowledge, etc. fixed as of 70-72? Or did you have in mind Fischer at his peak but allowed to adapt to present day theory, etc. ?

Originally posted by no1marauder
I'm not.

It wouldn't take Fischer long to adjust to changes in opening theory. I suspect that he would create innovations in some lines today as he did in the 60's.

I don't see any higher quality in games now than 30 years ago. Wasn't there some recent computer/statistical analysis of world champions that said Capablan ...[text shortened]... past eras would be non-competitive is a nice fantasy for present players, but nothing more.

It wouldn't take Fischer long to adjust to changes in opening theory. I suspect that he would create innovations in some lines today as he did in the 60's.

Probably you misread words in my words "With his play in 70ties" in which I included also his chess knowledge then.

I don't see any higher quality in games now than 30 years ago.

Its your problem if you are unable to see that during these 30 years many things have been changed.

Wasn't there some recent computer/statistical analysis of world champions that said Capablanca made the fewest percentage of errors of any World Champion?

Capablanca (as any other great player of past) played against his contemporaries, not against modern GMs. And (as I have pointed out numerous times) against weaker opposition it`s easier to play in higher quality.

The idea that the game has evolved so far that the great players of past eras would be non-competitive is a nice fantasy for present players, but nothing more.

Empty claim. I would suggest for you to read more old books to see that many openings/opening lines played today by chess professionals have been considered inferior before.

Originally posted by Dragon Fire
For once I agree with No1.

Fischer would need a little time to adjust (and of course he'd need to shave 35 years off his age) but if given modern tools there is no doubt he would compete favorably and perhaps knock the spots off the current generation of GMs.

Fischers ability comes into its own when out of book and there his innovative ability and ...[text shortened]... nd their depth of opening knowledge is greater than Fischers but Fischer would soon learn that.

Fischer would need a little time to adjust (and of course he'd need to shave 35 years off his age) but if given modern tools there is no doubt he would compete favorably and perhaps knock the spots off the current generation of GMs.

There are not only modern tools, but also modern understanding of chess, re-evaluation of many positions. Btw. modern top GMs are not able to make adequate preparation working alone as Fischer could in 70ties - due to enormous amount of information they are unable to get highest results without their teams. and Fischer had problems with team work due to lack of social abilities.

Fischers ability comes into its own when out of book and there his innovative ability and depth of tactical calculation exceeds anything I have seen in todays GMs. Yes they know more about the basics and their depth of opening knowledge is greater than Fischers but Fischer would soon learn that.

Actually Fischers main pluses to compare with his contemporaries were:

1) Excellent chess erudition (with modern sources of information it is not so important anymore).
2) Ability to analyse (computers have changed process of analysis to compare with time 30 years before)
3) Physical stamina (Modern top GMs pays much more attention to that then 30 years ago)
4) Fighting spirit.

Originally posted by Korch
[b]It wouldn't take Fischer long to adjust to changes in opening theory. I suspect that he would create innovations in some lines today as he did in the 60's.

Probably you misread words in my words "With his play in 70ties" in which I included also his chess knowledge then.

I don't see any higher quality in games now than 30 years ago.

Its ...[text shortened]... gs/opening lines played today by chess professionals have been considered inferior before.[/b]

So you are saying that even without preparation, Fischer would be in the 2600's, against today's GM's. I think the point the crew is making here is given his level of play in '72 and time warping him to 2009, he would quickly absorb the latest theory and then come out on top again or close to it. They are saying he would not be static and stuck in 1972.
Fantasy match: Timewarped and given time to absorb modern theory Fischer Vs Carlson.