It's not the times who states this,it's Dr Regan.You know,the guy with his cheating detection program.
And he does mean playing strength,not rating.
"He has also discovered that the way people play has evolved.According to his (Regan's) analysis, the player now ranked No. 40 in the world plays as well as Anatoly Karpov did in the 1970s, when he was world champion and was described as a machine."
Near the end of page 2 of this article
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/20/science/a-computer-program-to-detect-possible-cheating-in-chess.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&sq=karpov&st=cse&scp=2
Not saying he's right,or wrong,I wouldn't know.I don't even know who is the current n°40
- Joined
- 20 Jan 07
- Moves
- 24576
Originally posted by ketchuploverI think if Karpov was still playing like karpov of the 1970's he would still be world champion! No question about it. I think openings have evolved and in general the game has become more dynamically based at GM level. This is all to do with the role of computers though. If only we had that time machine to transport the 1970 karpov to the present day. He would make the most of all the computer analysis and modern technology to become one hell of a chess beast.
the current 40th ranked player equals Karpov of the 1970s.
- Joined
- 10 Dec 11
- Moves
- 143494
Originally posted by tonytiger41And first two of them never used mobile phones or microwave ovens ... Poor them.
Alexander Alekhine, Paul Morphy, and Vasily Smyslov never reached 2700
Now, seriously, if we apply Chessmetrics system - an improved variation of ELO-system - Alekhine had 2841 in period 1930-32, and Smyslov had 2793 in period 1954-56. (Bytheway, Rubinstein had 2781 between 1911 and 1913)
Even contemporary players with ELO rating can be re-evaluated, for example recently deceased Razuvaev, whose rating in 1984 was - according Chessmetrics - 2690. I think the same applies to Gulko in first years of 1980'e and Romanisin in 1975-76.
I think this is true. If Karpov was better than Lasker or Alekhine then the top players now should be better than Karpov.
The only way this shouldn't be true is if chess theory had reached its climax and human ability had attained its full potential in Karpov which is obviously not true. Chess players continue to stand on the shoulders of those who came before them in order to reach new heights.