- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

Comparing the Rise of 3 Generations of Chess Prodigies

#2

Couldn't you use chessmetrics data for the older player generation?

Couldn't you use chessmetrics data for the older player generation?
#3

@Ruanpablors said in #2:

Couldn't you use chessmetrics data for the older player generation?
As far as I know, chessmetrics has only data for the best players in the world and not juniors

@Ruanpablors said in #2: > Couldn't you use chessmetrics data for the older player generation? As far as I know, chessmetrics has only data for the best players in the world and not juniors
#4

@jk_182 said in #3:

As far as I know, chessmetrics has only data for the best players in the world and not juniors

They have top 5 lists for ages 12 and up. http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/AgeLists.asp?Params=199510SSSSS3S000000000000111000000000000012100

@jk_182 said in #3: > As far as I know, chessmetrics has only data for the best players in the world and not juniors They have top 5 lists for ages 12 and up. http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/AgeLists.asp?Params=199510SSSSS3S000000000000111000000000000012100
#6

But do they have also the past of top that were not top yet, or is that the definition of prodigies that they were always top for their "category".

Are all top players now prodigees or were there non-prodigies young that became top later. If innate differences don't matter, then all chess players that start young enough and keep at might all be prodigies.. It would be interesting to see about those of the same age that were playing as much that stopped at some point..

It seems that this might be having hindsight factor heavy in the analysis. I find the curves very similar to each other. Even the step functions bumps trajectories, all seem to have the same "destiny" (but it was the selection criterion to have that).

But do they have also the past of top that were not top yet, or is that the definition of prodigies that they were always top for their "category". Are all top players now prodigees or were there non-prodigies young that became top later. If innate differences don't matter, then all chess players that start young enough and keep at might all be prodigies.. It would be interesting to see about those of the same age that were playing as much that stopped at some point.. It seems that this might be having hindsight factor heavy in the analysis. I find the curves very similar to each other. Even the step functions bumps trajectories, all seem to have the same "destiny" (but it was the selection criterion to have that).
#7

It is quite funny that the rating progression of the 2008-2013 generation shows a "covid"-plateau. Lu Miaoyi was 10 when covid began, Mishra 11, erdogmus 9 and all have a rating plateau for about 1-1.5 years at that age

It is quite funny that the rating progression of the 2008-2013 generation shows a "covid"-plateau. Lu Miaoyi was 10 when covid began, Mishra 11, erdogmus 9 and all have a rating plateau for about 1-1.5 years at that age
#8

Are there any players who can progress before the rating of 2600 or higher, who start in chess after 30 years old, for example?

Are there any players who can progress before the rating of 2600 or higher, who start in chess after 30 years old, for example?
#9

This is not too interesting yet - but if your next blog post is "A statistical survey on the number of statistical blog posts on Lichess" or the like, I will totally read that one.

This is not too interesting yet - but if your next blog post is "A statistical survey on the number of statistical blog posts on Lichess" or the like, I will totally read that one.
#10

Are there any more graphs to cross reference this graph? I was thinking of adding on several layers here for added perspective.

Are there any more graphs to cross reference this graph? I was thinking of adding on several layers here for added perspective.