Svetozar Gligoric. Svetozar Gligoric Raymond D Keene Viktor Korchnoi Timmermans Ivo Tomi Nyback Niclas Hjelm Haapasalo Jukka-Pekka Edlund Robin Show All Games. Comments 0. In he was in the top 10 players in the World. Nowadays there are msny players with grades over who are mot im thr dame class as Gligoric.
Is it because when Prof. Elo introduce his ratimg system Gligoric had slipped considerably down tin his results at that tima. Jun plang : in means a totally different thing than in Jun perfidious : Takes a rating over nowadays to even make the top hundred in the world. Jun Nosnibor : I should have stated the Karpov Poikovsky in my last post.
Jun plang : I'm saying that you can't compare ratings from different eras - Elo was very clear when he developed the formula that the intent was to measure differences in players of the same era not different eras though many here ignore this distinction.
I don't even want to think about how complicated the math would be and I'm sure some approximation would be involved, but I bet it's possible. Jun ChessHigherCat : The problem seems to be that one would have to base the calculations on a certain assumption about overall progress: one could assume that there's no general progress and that the old masters were every bit as good as the contemporary champions, or else one could simply say contemporary chessplayers have higher ratings now because they're better!
Ever onward and upward! Some degree of objectivity might still be possible: if you call the relative playing strengths at a certain time "synchronic", you could determine whether overall progress actually exists or not "diachronically" by analyzing the transitional games between players of one era and those of the next with the complicating factor that the older masters might be growing old and weak and the newer masters in their prime or else immature when they play together.
Jun john barleycorn : First of all: in general, today's players are better than those in the past as they have studied the "old" games and learned from them. How then to compare a player today to a player in the past? And have a fresh view on them?
In the middle ages people who could count to ten and do simple calculations up to were considered mathematical geniuses. They are fitter, have better preparation, read more and better books, and have better endgame technique owing to advances in theory. There is inflation in the Elo system, but players are also simply better nowadays. That is evolution. It's the same as in basketball or sprinting or surfing. Be sure not to tell anyone but I have it on good authority that the real reason that Fischer went it to hiding is that a gypsy woman told his mother that if he didn't leave the country he might have to face the humiliation of playing me!
Jun brankat : There should be a much simpler and a more valid method of comparing the relative playing strength of players from different eras.
Never mind all the possible mathematical complexities. During the period S. Which would place him 7th, to say the least. Check out the ratings of the 7th player of today. Whatever the number is, that was Gligoric's strength 60 years ago. For your argument to work, you have to assume there's no progress.
The following example may be an absurd exaggeration but bear with me to illustrate my point. Say in , some missionary arrived in Botswana and introduced the game of chess in his church. In , there were only ten chess players in the country and even the best of them was extremely weak. Then say, again for the sake of argument, that thanks to chess instruction in the top ten players in Botswana are 3 grandmasters, 5 IMs and two experts.
Is the International Master number 7 in the same strength as no. That's an extreme example but it's really the same situation now, because you have some people who claim that the top 15 players in the world now are all much better than the World Champion a hundred years ago. Feb parmetd : "That's an extreme example but it's really the same situation now, because you have some people who claim that the top 15 players in the world now are all much better than the World Champion a hundred years ago.
Except they don't say top 15, they say top For me the KO argument against their strength were Reshevsky is known to have competed with masters at tournaments at the age of eight and beat Wolf in an informal club game at the age of five. Guys, look at modern child prodigies and masters. Can you imagine a modern master losing to a five year old, no matter how prodigious the five year old is? Site s :. Opening Name s :. ECO Code s :. Advanced Search. Copyright C Chess Tempo Privacy Terms of Service Contact.
Nimzo-Indian Defense, St. Petersburg Variation. Nimzo-Indian Defense, Huebner Variation. Rad1 Rab8 Rd2 b4 Qf3 Ra2 Ng4 gxf5 Nxf6 Nd4 Qf2 Qc6 Nxe8 Qxe8 Bxd4 exd4 Re1 Qf7 Qh4 Ra8 Rf2 Bc6 Qg4 Re8 Rxe8 Qxe8 Re2 Qd7 Re6 Ba8 Rxg6 Qh7 Qg3 Qh5 Rg4 Bareev, Evgeny. Dreev, Alexey. QGD Slav 4. ROUND 5. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. Bg5 h6 6. Bh4 dxc4 7. Bg3 b5 9. Be2 Bb7 O-O Nbd7 Nxb5 a6 Bxd6 Qb6 Bg3 Rc8
0コメント