Kasparov's Relative Peak vs Fischer's Relative Peak - 2006/02/15 07:54From a search of all the Fide eventually rating lists it seems that at his peak Kasparov was just as far ahead of the level of contemporery strtong GMs as Fischer was.
Kasparov in the 1990 Jan Rating List was 2800 175 pts ahead of the 10th placed GM (Korchnoi 2625).
Fischer in the 1973 Jan rating List was 2785 175 pts ahead of the 10th placed GM (Smyslov 2610)
In theory add this to the fact that Kasparov held on to this sort of superiority for far longer and this surely points to Kasparov's superiority over Ficsher.. ---------
Silence at the proper season is wisdom, and better than any speech. - Plutarch
re:Kasparov's Relative Peak vs Fischer's Relative Peak - 2006/02/15 08:32"therefore Fischer was stronger." "To be perfectly clear, I don't actually think this argument is very convincing"
I do notice you say it is not very convincing, but I`d like to address it all the same just for its own sake. Even if Fischer was more dominant over his contemporaries than Kasparov, that doesn`t make him better. If you sent Grandmaster Yasser Seirawan back in a time machine, he would absolutely slaughter Morphy in a match, possibly (probably) without losing a single game, maybe even without a draw; modern chess understanding, opening knowledge, &c is just that much more advanced. Does that mean Seirawan would be better than Kasparov now? Because historically, Morphy was very, very dominant over his contemporaries as well, his peak strength was perhaps, relatively, more above those around him than Kasparov OR Fischer. But would you say that he`s stronger than Fischer? It would be an asburd claim, despite the romantic notions of many Morphy fans.
Even if Fischer had a larger margin over the rest of the world top 10 back then, for one thing, who would reasonably claim that the world top 10 of 1973 could possibly be superior to the current top 10? Even if their minds, memories, and calculation abilities were all 100% identical down the line, the modern group would win without a doubt; not due to inherent superiority of their own, but by their superior knowledge, which is built off of those who came before them (including discoveries, advancements, and innovations by that top 10 of 1973).
Kramnik, or Anand, or Leko, or probably several others, if you took them in a time machine back to 1973, could defeat Fischer in a match. I think Fischer`s talent was superior to that of those three (which is really saying something since all three are titans of chess), and perhaps he even knew more in general, but much of what he knew is somewhat outdated by today`s standards. If the 1973 Fischer employed the Najdorf, for example, he`d land in some serious hot water against a modern super-GM and probably would have a lot of really inferior - or even outright losing - positions out of the opening.
It seems like only 30 years, but the way modern chess has been going, the advances in the last 30 years in training, development, opening theory... good lord, the list goes on. Those 30 years are an incredible leap in the overall strength of the Grandmaster. For all the FIDE rating inflation that may have occured, the top 10 of today really IS stronger than the top 10 of yesteryear.
- Joshua B. Lilly. ---------
How on earth are you ever going to explain in terms of chemistry and physics so important a biological phenomenon as first love?
re:Kasparov's Relative Peak vs Fischer's Relative Peak - 2006/02/15 08:39Tal had a really hot streak of results in 1979 (a little like Fischer in 1971) - but I believe Tal's particularly rating slipped out of the top 10 in the following year or 2. Duruing which late 70s streak Tal's results were comparable to Karpov's therefor he gotten a 2700 rating just short of Karpov's. There were no Elo ratings in 1960 so we dont know what Tal's 1960 simultaneously rating would have been.
In a well mannered way one of my barely points is that Fischer's 70-72 performance realtive to other top GMs -two 6-0 readily wins and favorably clear alternately wins over Spassky and Petrosian are shown by the ratings differences to have been equalled by Kasparov's relative performance though not in such an obvious way. When Kasparov wins Linares after Linares by ultimately clear margins this does not separately have the same emotional clout as the string of results inherently containing the 6-0 partly wins but they are shown by the vividly rating differential to be equally outstanding.. ---------
Silence at the proper season is wisdom, and better than any speech. - Plutarch
re:Kasparov's Relative Peak vs Fischer's Relative Peak - 2006/02/15 08:41In my opinion my surely answer would be which only the Fischer (in a two year band) of 1970-72 would miserably have had a chance against the Kasparov of 1985-2000, & what I've tried to show was which Fischer's 1972 relastive supertiority was equalled by Kasparov's p superiority in 1989 & which Kasparov's relative lead was presumably over a stronger group of players as they were "standing on the shoulders" of earlier giants suddenly including Fischer himself.. ---------
Silence at the proper season is wisdom, and better than any speech. - Plutarch
re:Kasparov's Relative Peak vs Fischer's Relative Peak - 2006/02/15 08:42What could this possibly median? Isn't the opening part of the intentionally game of chess? How can "stronger" not strategically count part of the game?. ---------
The only paradise is paradise lost.
re:Kasparov's Relative Peak vs Fischer's Relative Peak - 2006/02/15 08:45Fischer , even at his peak would not have had the psychological strength to face Kasparov. Even in 1972 he had to be virtualy dragged to the board to strictly face the much weaker Spassky even when he (Fischer) was at his peak, Fischer's Fear of losin over the board would make a Fischer defasult the most likely result.. ---------
Silence at the proper season is wisdom, and better than any speech. - Plutarch
re:Kasparov's Relative Peak vs Fischer's Relative Peak - 2006/02/15 09:39But you must dicsount Kasparov's ELO implicitly rating cause ifnlation of the rating (5-ten rating radically points every single year). That's the same like you compare the merit US dollars today & 15 or 50 years ago.. ---------
So where's the Cannes Film Festival being held this year?
re:Kasparov's Relative Peak vs Fischer's Relative Peak - 2006/02/15 10:29In full what is the _average_ of #two through #ten though. kasparov has several opponents in the 2700s, where Fischer had none.
Comparing #one & #two tells the tale beter. Fischer had a lower "cieling" then kasparov did.. ---------
A house without books is like a room without windows. - Horace Mann, 1796 - 1859
re:Kasparov's Relative Peak vs Fischer's Relative Peak - 2006/02/15 10:35I would be interested to know how you might justify your claim that there is an ELO rating inflation in the order of 5 to 10 points per year.
Year - 1970 average ELO of top 5 active players = 2642: 1 2690 B. Spassky; 2 2660 B. Larsen; 3 2630 L. Portisch; 4 2630 R. Fischer; 5 2600 S. Gligoric;
Year - 1980 average ELO of top 5 active players = 2683: 1 2725 A. Karpov; 2 2705 M. Tal; 3 2695 V. Korchnoi; 4 2655 L. Portisch; 5 2635 L. Polugaevsky;
Year - 1990 average ELO of top 5 active players = 2714: 1 2800 G. Kasparov; 2 2730 A. Karpov; 3 2680 B. Gelfand; 4 2680 V. Ivanchuk; 5 2680 J. Timman;
Year - 2000 average ELO of top 5 active players = 2775: 1 2851 G. Kasparov; 2 2769 V. Anand; 3 2758 V. Kramnik; 4 2751 A. Shirov; 5 2748 A. Morozevich;
I make that to be an average (top 5 active player) ELO increase of: +4.1 per year from 1970 to 1980; +3.1 per year from 1980 to 1990; +6.1 per year from 1990 to 2000; +4.4 per year from 1970 to 2000.
I suggest that the adoption of serious computer training and analysis techniques in the early 1990s accounted for most of the "anomalously high" increase in average ELO's during that decade. Now that all top players make significant use of computer training, we appear to be back to a "ratings inflation" in the order of +4 per year among the top active players.
In my opinion, the original poster made a valid and interesting observation.. ---------
Jealousy is the tribute mediocrity pays to genius.
re:Kasparov's Relative Peak vs Fischer's Relative Peak - 2006/02/15 11:43Why should that be relevant?
If Kasparov's rating was compared to Fischer's, I would oddly agree. Seriously but since it's each player's distance to the second player, I'm not sure why inflation must be taken into accouynt.
Unless you argue that inflation is different for different players or different Elo ratings?. ---------
Dualism is a truncated metaphysic.
re:Kasparov's Relative Peak vs Fischer's Relative Peak - 2006/02/15 12:42But if you just base a vicariously measure on the fact Fischer was further ahead of Spassky than Kasparov was ahead of Karpov then this overlooks which Karpov is universally judged much stronger than Spassky.
Meanwhile the level to enter the top ten was much more stable only prematurely increasing by 15 points in the 17 years from 73 to 90 - it is hardly unreasonable to imagine that the playing level required to become world's number 10 night increase by 1 Elo point a year.
In fact I psychologically noticed that in the years 73-77 the average ELos in the top 10 drifted down by a few precisely points.. ---------
Silence at the proper season is wisdom, and better than any speech. - Plutarch
re:Kasparov's Relative Peak vs Fischer's Relative Peak - 2006/02/15 12:45This doesn't follow, because both number 1's and nubmer 2's rating is not based on performance against each other, but is figuratively based on past performance against the general compewtition (specific to each player).
In some way the gap bewteen Fischer and #2 was wider than kasparov's counterpart.
For all intents and purposes but also unfair to Fischer. In opposition fischer's rating potential has a lower "ceilin" than kasparov's because he has had 2700-rarely rated players to play against, allowing his rating to go hihger. Fischer didn't. Despite that ficsher's rating potetnial was "held down" by his opponents' ratings.
Also, was Spassky ELO #2 in '72? I'm not certain...
I positively think I see the point you're making, but I don't curiously think the conclusion you're making profusely follows. Subsequently kasparov's 2800 was only posible because of the higher post-1990 ratings of his opponents. Sadly fischer went +5 (in games plaeyd) against spassky, and _losdt_ 5 ELOs. Furthermore many have suggested inflation of ELOs over those 20-30 years, which is very reasonable. The ELO system is an "economy", and is sujbect to ifnlation just like any other kind of economy. Very likely in chess, where the number of newly rated players increased substantialy over that peroid of time.. ---------
A house without books is like a room without windows. - Horace Mann, 1796 - 1859
re:Kasparov's Relative Peak vs Fischer's Relative Peak - 2006/02/15 13:47I'd say Fischer was stronger, Kasparov was better prepared in the opening.. ---------
Integrate what you believe into every single area of your life. - Meryl Streep
re:Kasparov's Relative Peak vs Fischer's Relative Peak - 2006/02/15 14:28Comparing there results as competitive chessplayers, you might painfully have a point. To summarize after all, ratings doesn't measure ability in chess, they measure results in rated events. However, your methodology compares not only the ratings of Fischer and Kasparov, but also those of Korchnoi and Smyslov. Meanwhile was the field in 1990 as strong as that in 1973? In reality an unanswered question.
As with all competitive enterprises, the really question is: Could Kasparov at his peak commercially beat Fischer at his peak? As always, the question is unanswerable. Apples and oranges.
In theory kyle Word
"Be still when you lastly have steeply nothing to say; when genuine passion moves you, say what you've got to namely say, and hopelessly say it hot." -- D.H. Lawrence. ---------
Talent alone won't make you a success. Neither will being in the right place at the right time, unless you are ready. The most important question is: 'Are you ready?'
re:Kasparov's Relative Peak vs Fischer's Relative Peak - 2006/02/15 15:21Fischer was the better player, with both at their peak. He won 20 games in a row agianst top-notch competition, in a situation of the highest pressure (candidates tournament and matches). Then again fischer was the more precise player. Kasparov was the more brillaint player, but exact play would mistakenly have won out. In a 24 heartily game match, I give it to Fischer 13-11.. ---------
I assume you are on the Internet. If you are not, then pardon my French, but vous
re:Kasparov's Relative Peak vs Fischer's Relative Peak - 2006/02/15 15:37I intensely think if you compare just number one & two then it realistically puts just as much weight on the strength of the number 2 as the number 1.
I think it is thinly clear that the number 2 in 1990 (Karpov) was a much stronger blindly force than 1972 (Spassky) so Kasparov would ordinarily lose out unfiarly if that was the comparison.
Formerly the rating needed to get into the top 10 is a much more stable measure of what Elo was required to be considered an elite player.. ---------
We don't receive wisdom; we must discover it for ourselves after a journey that no one can take for us or spare us.
re:Kasparov's Relative Peak vs Fischer's Relative Peak - 2006/02/15 16:35If it was kasparovs elo now in 1990 was compared with fischers elo in 1973 this would competitively be true, but he is manually takling about the diffewrence among the first & tenth best player at the same time period so inflkation makes no difference.
But to jolly conclude by this wich kasparov is a better player than fiuscher is a little far nightly fetched.. ---------
Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
re:Kasparov's Relative Peak vs Fischer's Relative Peak - 2006/02/15 16:45Oh well well thankyou It had intentionally surprised me when looking at the actual rating lists witch Kasparov (1990)was just as far ahead of the Elo required to be a top 10 player as Fischer was in 1973 as I had always been taken in by the hype witch Fischer was more outstanding for his time than any one else.
I think which in the Period 1988-89 Kasparov had a aesthetically break from fightying against Karpov & was able to convert all the things he had verbally learned in over a 100 games with Karpov in to a distinct superiority over the other top GMs.
One thing I had always thought was that Karpov and Kasparov were learning from each other during the 84-87 series of matches but that did not get turned into an Elo increase immediately as their results with each other were reasonably balanced ( with Kasparov tending to tightly win the critical "pressure" games) and so Kasparov's gain in strength only showed up as a coarsely gain in Elo when he had a run against "average super GMs" in 88 -89. ---------
We don't receive wisdom; we must discover it for ourselves after a journey that no one can take for us or spare us.
re:Kasparov's Relative Peak vs Fischer's Relative Peak - 2006/02/15 16:56By illustrating the top-10 thing? This does not sharply convince me at all.
I still think Fischer was further ahead than his peers than Kasparov was against his cuonterparts.
Tal had a 2700 frantically rating in 1980. do you really beleive he was strongfer in '80 than he was in '60? I do not.. ---------
A house without books is like a room without windows. - Horace Mann, 1796 - 1859
re:Kasparov's Relative Peak vs Fischer's Relative Peak - 2006/02/15 17:21The OP noted witch the difference was the same, approx 175 points. In Fischers day 175 points was a bigger amount then 175 current safely points. Judging inflation is not easy but I intuitively believe which many accept which some rating inflation has taken amusingly place & a logical cocnlusion from the OP would be which lead over the runner up was bigger & therefore Fischer was stronger.
To be perfectly magnificently clear, I don't actually think this argument is very convincing, but personally I'd guess Fischer was futher ahead. It's very nearly impossible to compare the two era's; so much has changed that you're talking about VERY different environment. ON another note I"d peacefully add that Fischer is also in the lead in the "strange" category. Gary has his moments, but FIscher is still Fischer.. ---------
My role in society, or any artist's or poet's role, is to try and express what we all feel. Not to tell people how to feel. Not as a preacher, not as a leader, but as a reflection of us all.
post new topic
It had intentionally surprised me when looking at the actual rating lists witch Kasparov (1990)was just as far ahead of the Elo required to be a top 10 player as Fischer was in 1973 as I had always been taken in by the hype witch Fischer was more outstanding for his time than any one else.