Hi - at work nursing a wonderful hangover.
Now where were we...
Quote:
..."modern chess during these 30 years has developed too much for Fisher
to get top results today with his level of 70ties?"
Squlech's analyse started after 70's opening theory ended so
any argument relating to opening theory has to be set aside as it was
not used in the final model.
So that leaves middle/endgame play. Where the real chess is played.
Fischer's very high match up using a 2008 computer indicates very
cleary yes he would have been one of the top players of this era.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this not the highest match up ever
from an OTB series of games. If so then a valid claim can be made
that Fischer would have been top dog amongst the current pack of GM's.
Remember the analyse was done soley on non theoretical moves.
Pure chess. So any claim about chess development over the past 30
years is irrelevant.
Perhaps Squelch needs to test the Kramnik/Anand match to prove
a point (it won't take long Squelch half the moves were theory).
Originally posted by greenpawn34Fischer's very high match up using a 2008 computer indicates very
Hi - at work nursing a wonderful hangover.
Now where were we...
Quote:
..."modern chess during these 30 years has developed too much for Fisher
to get top results today with his level of 70ties?"
Squlech's analyse started after 70's opening theory ended so
any argument relating to opening theory has to be set aside as it was
not us k/Anand match to prove
a point (it won't take long Squelch half the moves were theory).
cleary yes he would have been one of the top players of this era.
You are still ignoring fact that against weaker opposition its easier to
1) play better.
2) get higher matchup.
To say nothing about fact that higher matchup not always mean better play (look at first game of Fischer-Spassky match for example).
And claim that Spassky, Larsen, Tajmanov , Petrosian (with their chess knowledge then) would be able to compete against modern top GMs is obviously absurd.
Originally posted by Squelchbelch1) In 70ties Fisher showed his primacy in using of resources accessible in 70ties. I don`t see reason to claim that he will be able to use resources of 2008 with the same success.
I can't see modern Fischer with access to modern resources & modern chess training techniques being more prone to blunders/inaccurate moves than '70's Fischer.
I don't see any possible logic in arguments that his play would be less accurate now than it was then unless you can think some up?! 😀
2) About his ability to adapt with modern theory - look at Kamsky who after his returning 4 years ago still has problems with opening (as he have admitted himself).
3) If you are playing against opponent who has much better knowledge about openings and about chess in general he will make you solve more problems which will lead to more mistakes by your side.
P.S. sorry for late reply - have missed that post before.
To be honest I`m tired to argue against people repeating one and the same, ignoring my arguments and being unable to understand obvious things.
I`m not gonna continue to waste my time with this subject. you can claim yourselves as winners and live illusions that "The idea that the game has evolved so far that the great players of past eras would be non-competitive is a nice fantasy for present players, but nothing more" and that you understand chess better than Kramnik, Kasparov and many other strong GM`s who believes to that "nice fantasy".
Originally posted by KorchYour argument is circular and illogical.
[b]Fischer's very high match up using a 2008 computer indicates very
cleary yes he would have been one of the top players of this era.
You are still ignoring fact that against weaker opposition its easier to
1) play better.
2) get higher matchup.
To say nothing about fact that higher matchup not always mean better play (look at first game of Fisc ...[text shortened]... heir chess knowledge then) would be able to compete against modern top GMs is obviously absurd.[/b]
You're offered no objective evidence that players from 30 years ago were "weaker". A few games where someone lost quickly proves absolutely nothing except people can play a bad game. Modern top GMs also occasionally play a bad game as the links I have provided prove.
On the other hand, Squelchy has offered objective evidence that Fischer was stronger than recent GMs IF his match ups, to an engine that is stronger than the average play of top GMs, are higher.
Here's an interesting game to test your theory that players of the 60's and 70's are weaker than top modern GMs. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1070070
That's Boris Spassky at the age of 46 defeating Kasparov the year before K played for the World Championship! And look who had Black!
Originally posted by no1marauderUmm, are you sure kasparov resigned in this game? Looks like a time loss to me...
Your argument is circular and illogical.
You're offered no objective evidence that players from 30 years ago were "weaker". A few games where someone lost quickly proves absolutely nothing except people can play a bad game. Modern top GMs also occasionally play a bad game as the links I have provided prove.
On the other hand ...[text shortened]... ing Kasparov the year before K played for the World Championship! And look who had Black!
Originally posted by no1marauderIgnoring your other nonsense (taking into account your closed mind, inability to read and obvious lack of chess knowledge), statement that Spassky was stronger (or at least no worse) than Kasparov, based on one game seemed for me too much funny to resist from laugh about you.
Your argument is circular and illogical.
You're offered no objective evidence that players from 30 years ago were "weaker". A few games where someone lost quickly proves absolutely nothing except people can play a bad game. Modern top GMs also occasionally play a bad game as the links I have provided prove.
On the other hand ing Kasparov the year before K played for the World Championship! And look who had Black!
With your logic I will prove that:
1) Ivan Sokolov was stronger (or at least no worse) than Kasparov
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1011516
2) W Hartmann was stronger (or at least no worse) than Karpov
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1068351
3) If we are taking larger number of games then I`m gonna to prove that Portisch (who never had real chances to became World Champion) was stronger (or at least no worse) than Tigran Petrosian as Petrosian had negative score against Portish when he was World champion (1963-1969).
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.[WORD TOO LONG]
Awaiting for new discoveries from you 😀
Originally posted by KorchHere'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?
Ignoring your other nonsense (taking into account your closed mind and obvious lack of chess knowledge), statement that Spassky was stronger (or at least no worse) than Kasparov, based on one game seemed for me too much funny to resist from laugh about you.
With your logic I will prove that:
1) Ivan Sokolov was stronger than Kasparov
http://www.chessgam ...[text shortened]... yer2=&movescomp=exactly&moves=&opening=&eco=&result=
Awaiting for new discoveries from you 😀
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 disregarded (IYO). What is the evidence to support the claim that this World Champion was a "weaker" player? He was strong enough to defeat Kasparov when Spassky was well past his prime.
Apologies if I misspell or do not express myself clearly in the following, I must be quick...
...the progression of chess theory, about which this discussion indirectly pertains to, is interesting to me, naturally, as a chess fan...
Regarding progression of chess theory: [two quick examples]
Capablanca-Yates 1930
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1284177
Okay, obviously the opening play seems somewhat circumspect.
10.0-0? dissipates white’s advantage. Why?
After this move, Black will have no problems getting in c5 and equalizing as evidenced by the game. What do I mean by equalizing? The resultant pawn structure is not favorable for either side and Black does not have problems in development or defense in the lines stemming from the played move. And perhaps stronger players would come to the same understanding; 10.0-0 is not played the three games by high rated players in the database in which I checked in this line.
Also it is very unlikely that a modern day GM would fail to understand the proper defensive technique to draw with Black from the position after move 35.
Kasparov-Wahls
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1070209
7…Bg7?
After this move, White has significant positional advantage. Black’s queen is decoyed to an unfavorable square.
If you disagree, play through the lines or research the current theory and give reason for an alternative assessment.
Chess theory has importance that an engine does not detect at high levels. And not just in opening and endgame theory where engines are less effective. Attacking and defensive play has become more tenacious as evidenced by the attacking play of Kasparov and the sterling defensive technique of Petrosian and Ulf Andersson of the players I have studied; I understand the latter two players are less modern. Still, my point is that clearly, according to their analyses and games, grandmasters are well informed of past theory and make improvements so of course there is increased quality of play.
There is also some difference with the modern time control; no adjournments, 2 hours instead of 2 ½ hours for 40 moves. Anyway, be careful when comparing strength of past generations; chess has surely advanced in theory so the top players have advanced in strength - and that is not just my opinion but what is likely deduced by any player who avidly studies the progression of the game.
Originally posted by no1marauderOnly 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.
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 r" player? He was strong enough to defeat Kasparov when Spassky was well past his prime.
Arguments were posted in this thread already and only closed minded patzers like you showed inability to read them. As I`ve already pointed out - I`m not gonna bother to argue with such ignorant jerks anymore. I`m gonna only laugh about your lack of elementary chess knowledge.
Originally posted by YugaKasparov-Wahls
Apologies if I misspell or do not express myself clearly in the following, I must be quick...
...the progression of chess theory, about which this discussion indirectly pertains to, is interesting to me, naturally, as a chess fan...
Regarding progression of chess theory: [two quick examples]
Capablanca-Yates 1930
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessga ...[text shortened]... opinion but what is likely deduced by any player who avidly studies the progression of the game.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1070209
7…Bg7?
7...Bg7 seems to be OK, which can`t be said about 12...Bd4? (instead of 12...f5).
Originally posted by KorchApologies for not getting back to your PM some time ago... I will do that soon.
[b]Kasparov-Wahls
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1070209
7…Bg7?
7...Bg7 seems to be OK, which can`t be said about 12...Bd4? (instead of 12...f5).[/b]
Yes, 12...Bd4 is the critical mistake.
7...a6 I think is definitely preferable.
True, I did not find a way to exploit white's positional advantage in the line stemming from 12...f5 in the following game; my plan from move 20 onward was horribly wrong. Game 5753788