Its wrong that a 2600 or even 2700 rated player is comperable to a below average music student. Maybe my xxx is high like that, maybe its " just" 2400. One could never get a real estimate about such things. But for sure no 1200 rated player will be able to beat a world champion from the past, like some writers before think. That's all i wanted to say.
#20
That analogy is not very good. Today drugs are much better that increase physical performance of all top athletes. And equipment is better, tech has improved. Chess is a bit different.
That analogy is not very good. Today drugs are much better that increase physical performance of all top athletes. And equipment is better, tech has improved. Chess is a bit different.
Chess has even more improved. The computers, the databases, the tablebases, everone has access to media, more playing possiblitities for everyone. In former times only the USSR had an big chess community, today everyone.
"And equipment is better, tech has improved. Chess is a bit different." No, even so.
"And equipment is better, tech has improved. Chess is a bit different." No, even so.
One fact sheet: chess.stackexchange.com/questions/8765/what-percent-of-chess-games-contain-a-blunder
To the question of this topic in Germany they say: "Oh HERR, lass es Hirn regnen." {Oh LORD, let it rain brain.}
To the question of this topic in Germany they say: "Oh HERR, lass es Hirn regnen." {Oh LORD, let it rain brain.}
And here a little more text with two disadvantages: You must be able to read. But this is not sufficient. You must be able to understand too:
ailab.si/matej/doc/Computer_Analysis_of_World_Chess_Champions.pdf
;)
ailab.si/matej/doc/Computer_Analysis_of_World_Chess_Champions.pdf
;)
I hope and believe that the question the original poster is asking is a joke, otherwise they seriously lack chess understaning, but let's for a moment pretend that it is not a joke, and let's actually attempt to consider it as a serious argument.
Let's start by asking ourselves two questions:
1) How strong was Bobby Fischer?
2) How strong is a 1500 player today?
1) Robert James "Bobby" Fischer was clearly the best player in the world in his prime. Period. In the year 1972, which is the year that he became World Champion, he was the highest rated player in the world (and he held that record for quite a few years, until Kasparov broke it) with a FIDE rating of 2785. To put that into perspective, the previous World Champion, Boris Spassky had a FIDE rating of 2660 (as an active World Champion). So, to give an obvious comparison, imagine if the next World Champion who beats Magnus Carlsen for the title outrates Carlsen by 120 points. Consider that point, and consider that Fischer beat both Larsen and Taimanov 6-0 in their Candidates matches (more or less unheard of today, none of the players playing in the Candidates 2020 can realistically be beat with a score 6-0 by any human player) and beat Petrosian, a former World Champion 6.5-2.5 in that same series of Candidate matches. It becomes clear that Fischer was extremely dominant over his contemporaries at his peak. He was the best player in the world in the early 70s and he is considered by many to be one of the strongest chess players of all time, most including him in at the very least the top 3 (alongside Kasparov and Carlsen), if not outright considering him the best.
2) Is a 1500 player one of the 3 strongest players of all time? Usually, no. A 1500 has quite a basic level of pattern recognition in terms of tactics. His calculation typically isn't particularly fast, nor deep. His endgame knowledge, as well as his opening knowledge is limited. But now it sounds like I'm bashing 1500 players, which I'm not. I was one not too long ago (now I'm just above 2000 FIDE). But let's explore the strength of a 1500 from a different angle. If one was particularly insistant that a 1500 player can indeed defeat one of the strongest 3 players of all time and demanded direct proof of it being otherwise, let's go by direct player-to-player comparison. Who can a 1500 beat, on a good day? A 1700, perhaps? Let's be generous, and say that on a very good day, a 1500 player can beat an 1800 player. Is a 1500 player a match for your average 2500 GM of today? The answer is no. This can't be argued.
Let's continue this player-to-player comparison.
Point 1) A 2500 GM is usually no match for a world-class GM like Carlsen (or anyone rated 2750+). In 2017, a retired Kasparov, who has been out of professional tournament chess since 2005, comes out of retirement briefly and plays some games against the top players. He plays and beats Caruana (Carlsen's main challenger and number 2 in the world, among others). So an out of shape Kasparov is capable of beating World's number 2 player of today, on a good day.
Point 2) In 1992, Kasparov played Mikhail Tal. Tal was a former World Champion, but he had lost his title all the way back in 1961, more than 30 years earlier. In 1992, Tal was quite sick (dying in fact) and he was quite old as well. An old and badly sick Tal goes on to beat a young and very strong Kasparov (so strong in fact, that he had become World Champion a full seven years earlier, back in 1985 after defeating Karpov) in quite a famous game.
Point 3) Fischer did not have a particularly great score against Tal in his earlier years, but still a very young Fischer (18 and 19, respectively) beat Tal both in the 1961 Bled Tournament, as well as a year later, in the 1962 Candidates. Tal was very much at the peak of his youth and powers at the time, and he was far, far stronger than in 1992 when he beat Kasparov.
The point of this extensive player-to-player comparison is: the top players of each generation are comparable to one another. Fischer can beat Tal, who can beat Kasparov, who can beat Caruana or Carlsen himself. Opening theory develops, and the world's elite does gradually become stronger, but it is a matter of very subtle differences and finesse. If Fischer came back today and he couldn't open a book, or use a computer, he wouldn't be able to compete with the 2700+ GMs on equal footing, but in the middlegame, endgame and calculational aspects of the game he was (at his peak) stronger than most of them, and on par with, if not stronger than our current world champion.
Let's start by asking ourselves two questions:
1) How strong was Bobby Fischer?
2) How strong is a 1500 player today?
1) Robert James "Bobby" Fischer was clearly the best player in the world in his prime. Period. In the year 1972, which is the year that he became World Champion, he was the highest rated player in the world (and he held that record for quite a few years, until Kasparov broke it) with a FIDE rating of 2785. To put that into perspective, the previous World Champion, Boris Spassky had a FIDE rating of 2660 (as an active World Champion). So, to give an obvious comparison, imagine if the next World Champion who beats Magnus Carlsen for the title outrates Carlsen by 120 points. Consider that point, and consider that Fischer beat both Larsen and Taimanov 6-0 in their Candidates matches (more or less unheard of today, none of the players playing in the Candidates 2020 can realistically be beat with a score 6-0 by any human player) and beat Petrosian, a former World Champion 6.5-2.5 in that same series of Candidate matches. It becomes clear that Fischer was extremely dominant over his contemporaries at his peak. He was the best player in the world in the early 70s and he is considered by many to be one of the strongest chess players of all time, most including him in at the very least the top 3 (alongside Kasparov and Carlsen), if not outright considering him the best.
2) Is a 1500 player one of the 3 strongest players of all time? Usually, no. A 1500 has quite a basic level of pattern recognition in terms of tactics. His calculation typically isn't particularly fast, nor deep. His endgame knowledge, as well as his opening knowledge is limited. But now it sounds like I'm bashing 1500 players, which I'm not. I was one not too long ago (now I'm just above 2000 FIDE). But let's explore the strength of a 1500 from a different angle. If one was particularly insistant that a 1500 player can indeed defeat one of the strongest 3 players of all time and demanded direct proof of it being otherwise, let's go by direct player-to-player comparison. Who can a 1500 beat, on a good day? A 1700, perhaps? Let's be generous, and say that on a very good day, a 1500 player can beat an 1800 player. Is a 1500 player a match for your average 2500 GM of today? The answer is no. This can't be argued.
Let's continue this player-to-player comparison.
Point 1) A 2500 GM is usually no match for a world-class GM like Carlsen (or anyone rated 2750+). In 2017, a retired Kasparov, who has been out of professional tournament chess since 2005, comes out of retirement briefly and plays some games against the top players. He plays and beats Caruana (Carlsen's main challenger and number 2 in the world, among others). So an out of shape Kasparov is capable of beating World's number 2 player of today, on a good day.
Point 2) In 1992, Kasparov played Mikhail Tal. Tal was a former World Champion, but he had lost his title all the way back in 1961, more than 30 years earlier. In 1992, Tal was quite sick (dying in fact) and he was quite old as well. An old and badly sick Tal goes on to beat a young and very strong Kasparov (so strong in fact, that he had become World Champion a full seven years earlier, back in 1985 after defeating Karpov) in quite a famous game.
Point 3) Fischer did not have a particularly great score against Tal in his earlier years, but still a very young Fischer (18 and 19, respectively) beat Tal both in the 1961 Bled Tournament, as well as a year later, in the 1962 Candidates. Tal was very much at the peak of his youth and powers at the time, and he was far, far stronger than in 1992 when he beat Kasparov.
The point of this extensive player-to-player comparison is: the top players of each generation are comparable to one another. Fischer can beat Tal, who can beat Kasparov, who can beat Caruana or Carlsen himself. Opening theory develops, and the world's elite does gradually become stronger, but it is a matter of very subtle differences and finesse. If Fischer came back today and he couldn't open a book, or use a computer, he wouldn't be able to compete with the 2700+ GMs on equal footing, but in the middlegame, endgame and calculational aspects of the game he was (at his peak) stronger than most of them, and on par with, if not stronger than our current world champion.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.