I think if you gave Fischer a year to catch up with all the theory updates he would not lose.
Fischer was almost 2800 in 1960. A time when no one else was in the 2600s. Computer analysis of his games show a modern level of accuracy. At his peak he would be a super GM right away. He would love computers as they lighten the work load for openings.
@ErikSkov
I like numbers, but It's not valid to compare ratings from different pools of players.
Some have tried to argue that he was very dominant in comparison to his contemporaries, but it's kind of the same thing.
Ever wonder what it takes to win?
It takes that the other guy screws up. So as the quality increases the draw rate follows suit. As the draw rate increases the rating difference gets smaller.
Look at the 2019 Singfield Cup, drawfest. Correspondance world championship, even more draws!
If Tcec didn't force the engines to play different openings, it would be one draw after another.
And even with that they predict they will be unable to maintain the decisive game outcomes forever
[TCEC Openings FAQ]
'
Q: How long can you maintain your targeted 65-80% draw-rate in the Superfinal when engines are continually improving?
A: Draw abatement will definitely be more challenging as the competitors increase in strength in the years ahead. A mental comparison between today’s leading chess programs and those of ten years ago, combined with extrapolation into the future, points to a time where something will have to give. [...]
'
I like numbers, but It's not valid to compare ratings from different pools of players.
Some have tried to argue that he was very dominant in comparison to his contemporaries, but it's kind of the same thing.
Ever wonder what it takes to win?
It takes that the other guy screws up. So as the quality increases the draw rate follows suit. As the draw rate increases the rating difference gets smaller.
Look at the 2019 Singfield Cup, drawfest. Correspondance world championship, even more draws!
If Tcec didn't force the engines to play different openings, it would be one draw after another.
And even with that they predict they will be unable to maintain the decisive game outcomes forever
[TCEC Openings FAQ]
'
Q: How long can you maintain your targeted 65-80% draw-rate in the Superfinal when engines are continually improving?
A: Draw abatement will definitely be more challenging as the competitors increase in strength in the years ahead. A mental comparison between today’s leading chess programs and those of ten years ago, combined with extrapolation into the future, points to a time where something will have to give. [...]
'
@BlackSalt
Agree! What I tried to underline with the rating comparison is the fact we can’t compare players because as you say they are from different pools. But rating IS the only parametre we have! You are right about games being drawn, you know, back in the 20’s Capablanca said that there was a tendency to drawn games and he was maybe some sort of a prophet who was able to look into the future (smile).
Regarding drawn games I think the reason is many players do not play for a win but instead try not to lose!
Best regards
Erik
Agree! What I tried to underline with the rating comparison is the fact we can’t compare players because as you say they are from different pools. But rating IS the only parametre we have! You are right about games being drawn, you know, back in the 20’s Capablanca said that there was a tendency to drawn games and he was maybe some sort of a prophet who was able to look into the future (smile).
Regarding drawn games I think the reason is many players do not play for a win but instead try not to lose!
Best regards
Erik
@BlackSalt
Agree, but what I try to say that, with the technology now, Fischer would be much better than he was. We can't compare past events with the criteria from today. This applies to chess as well. We can't judge a player from 1900s without thinking about every detail: for example, you couldn't analyse a position in a deep way with the help of a computer, it was hours and hours in front of the board to know which was the best move.
Regards.
Agree, but what I try to say that, with the technology now, Fischer would be much better than he was. We can't compare past events with the criteria from today. This applies to chess as well. We can't judge a player from 1900s without thinking about every detail: for example, you couldn't analyse a position in a deep way with the help of a computer, it was hours and hours in front of the board to know which was the best move.
Regards.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.