According to a recent NY Times article...

the current 40th ranked player equals Karpov of the 1970s.

Maybe in rating, certainly not in playing strength.

Rating is just a number. There are some players today that do nothing impressive in international tournaments but still maintain a rating above 2700.

There is a world of difference between the way the rankings were back then and how they are now. So I wouldn't put any faith in what was written.

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

Originally posted by ketchuplover
the current 40th ranked player equals Karpov of the 1970s.

I 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 point is that acc. to rybka or w/e the "accuracy" of Karpov's play is inferior to the top 39 players now - no surprise there. I doubt that necessarily translates into actual chess strength though. There are sporting, psychological etc elements that factor into any tournament or match.

I'm not sure how comparable ratings are over a long period of time... the formulas change, the pool of players change, and the strength of the top players changes. One guy tried to create ratings that were time independent: http://chessmetrics.com

but it's not about ratings

Does the accuracy only start after players are out of. Known openings?

Originally posted by ketchuplover
the current 40th ranked player equals Karpov of the 1970s.

Alexander Alekhine, Paul Morphy, and Vasily Smyslov never reached 2700

The chess metrics site makes interesting reading:
http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/PeakList.asp

Personally I think that there are a great many more "very good" players nowadays, but the superstars of the past were just as strong as the best now.

Originally posted by tonytiger41
Alexander Alekhine, Paul Morphy, and Vasily Smyslov never reached 2700

And first two of them never used mobile phones or microwave ovens ... Poor them.

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.