Fischer-Spassky 1972 Fritz 11 analysis

Originally posted by no1marauder
Here's a quiz for ya; what's Kasparov's record against Spassky lifetime? And how old was Spassky before Kasparov was finally able to win a game off him?

Unlike the players you mention, Spassky was a World Champion. You have claimed he was a "weaker" player than modern top GMs since Fisher's high match ups against him should be disregard ...[text shortened]... r" player? He was strong enough to defeat Kasparov when Spassky was well past his prime.

The difficulty with this point is that Spassky had not retired from chess competition at the time the game was played. Kasparov was beaten by a contemporary not a Victorian player with a time machine. I think what your example shows is that the over 40s are not past it.

I think comparisons along the lines of was ¨Morphy better than Kasparov¨ are fodder for Sunday newspaper supplements. The real question is whether modern grandmasters have higher match-up rate and I think that that is likely. Engines are used as learning aids, as opponents and engine driven developments in opening theory mean that the game is played far more precisely in the early phase.

I don´t think any of this applies to non-grandmasters, non-professional players just aren´t going to be as accurate as either modern or historical professionals. A statistically significant match-up rate over 85% from a non-professional is not going to happen.

Originally posted by Squelchbelch
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 ...[text shortened]... itz's 1st, 2nd or 3rd choice moves 36 times from 42 moves.

It's pretty simple really.

Your statistics, are they output from Fritz, or have you compiled it yourself, and calculated the percentages?

Originally posted by DeepThought
The difficulty with this point is that Spassky had not retired from chess competition at the time the game was played. Kasparov was beaten by a contemporary not a Victorian player with a time machine. I think what your example shows is that the over 40s are not past it.

I think comparisons along the lines of was ¨Morphy better than Kasparov¨ are fod ...[text shortened]... statistically significant match-up rate over 85% from a non-professional is not going to happen.

It may be claimed it is likely that top modern GMS have higher match ups, but no evidence has been submitted that this is true. I seriously doubt that any top modern GM reached levels of match up equal to Fischer's in the match with Spassky (who contrary to Korch's unfounded claim wasn't "weaker" than people he was beating when he was 46).

I'm willing to test my little theory. Kramnik's performance against Kasparov was pretty dominant; I could analyze that match. But I'm not going to waste a lot of time if people are going to refuse to accept the validity of any comparisons. What say you?

Originally posted by Korch
Only ignorant patzer like you will claim that Kasparov in 1983 has reached his peak. In fact to compare with 2 years later when he became World champion he was obviously weaker. To say nothing about his progress during next 10-15 years.

Arguments were posted in this thread already and only closed minded patzers like you showed inability to read them. As I`v ...[text shortened]... such ignorant jerks anymore. I`m gonna only laugh about your lack of elementary chess knowledge.

Since you can't refute the point, you have to resort to abusive bluster. Kasparov was #1 in the world in 1983 yet Spassky 11 years after losing to Fischer was able to beat him (for the second time).

I laugh at your total inability to support your specious claims with any actual facts.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Since you can't refute the point, you have to resort to abusive bluster. Kasparov was #1 in the world in 1983 yet Spassky 11 years after losing to Fischer was able to beat him (for the second time).

I laugh at your total inability to support your specious claims with any actual facts.

you know No.1, i find myself in the strange, but not unpleasant situation of agreeing with you for once, the points you made are sound, the reasons you gave have some credence, excellent points, thanks, for the achievements of Spassky have probably been overshadowed by the events in Reikiavic for even Fischer himself considered him to be the strongest in a field of many!

Originally posted by no1marauder
Since you can't refute the point, you have to resort to abusive bluster. Kasparov was #1 in the world in 1983 yet Spassky 11 years after losing to Fischer was able to beat him (for the second time).

I laugh at your total inability to support your specious claims with any actual facts.

Kasparov was #1 in the world in 1983
This statement says about your knowledge.

Are you informed that this #1 in his 1984 match against Karpov had 4 loses and 5 draws in first 9 games? If not such a stupid thing as unlimited match (which become in competition of physical stamina) he would lose that match. Or maybe you haven`t heard about first Kasparov-Karpov match which was stopped when number of wins was 5:3 in Karpov`s favour? Kasparov won in their second match in 1985 because he learned lessons from their first match.

To say nothing about moronic assumption that chess more than 25 years ago can be called modern chess.

Originally posted by Korch
[b]Kasparov was #1 in the world in 1983
This statement says about your knowledge.

Are you informed that this #1 in his 1984 match against Karpov had 4 loses and 5 draws in first 9 games? If not such a stupid thing as unlimited match (which become in competition of physical stamina) he would be hammered very hard.

To say nothing about moronic assumption that chess more than 25 years ago can be called modern chess.[/b]

So, Kasparov isn't a top modern GM either. Thanks for sharing. He obviously was "weaker" and would have been "hammered" by top modern GMs like Anand just like Fischer.

How many games did Karpov win after that in the match BTW? What were the rules of that match BTW?

Kasparov was near enough to his prime to play for the World Championship. Spassky was far past his prime. Yet Kaspy couldn't beat him. Those are the facts and you are either extremely ignorant or just being a dogmatic, stubborn ass not to admit that your claims are completely misguided.

EDIT: My knowledge that Kasparov was ranked #1 in the world in 1983 is correct.

Originally posted by Korch
To say nothing about moronic assumption that chess more than 25 years ago can be called modern chess.

I'm curious, when does something cease to be modern?