I think that if we compara a player with his strongest opponents at the time it will be clear, capablanca won most games he played, and his personal record against his rivals is a winner:
(Capablanca derrotó a Marshall +20 -2 =28, a Lasker +6 -2 =16, a Alekhine +9 -7 =33), a excepción de Spielmann que consiguió su nivel (+2 -2 =8). De los más grandes jugadores, solamente Keres tuvo un estrecho margen a su favor (+1 -0 =5), triunfo que ocurrió cuando Capablanca tenía 50 años, en el declive de su carrera. Su puntaje Elo ha sido calculado en 2725.
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Ra%C3%BAl_Capablanca
It means capablanca defeated Marshall, Lasker, Alekhine, exept for Spielman who has his level, and keres that has a margin at his favor. and below his elo rating.
Originally posted by SupermanI was thinking about this on the way home from work and I realised that all this study shows is that Capablanca and Kramnik are the World Champions who play most like Crafty.
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3455
"Garry Kasparov in his set of books My Great Predecessors when commenting Capablanca's games speculates that Capablanca occasionally did not even bother to calculate deep tactical variations. The Cuban simply preferred to play moves that were clear and positionally so strongly justified that calculation of variations was simply not necessary."
What would be really interesting is if someone could modify Crafty so that it's moves matched, say, Steinitz, with the same degree of accuracy.
If this could be done with all the World Champions then you could play them against each other to see which style was the most effective.
Originally posted by ketchuploverBut what did "a top U.S. player" mean in those days? There were loads of strong chess players in Europe in the 1850s, but I can't think of any Americans apart from Morphy.
Morphy gave knight odds against a top U.S. player and won. case closed.
I would imagine that the second best player in America would have been about 2200 strength, reasonably talented but very little theoretical knowledge and uncomfortable in positional games or ones where he was defending against an attack.
Do you have a name for this top U.S. player than Morphy gave knight odds to?
Originally posted by Fat LadyI realy dont know Crafty, but as I can see they took into consideration a lot of factors, and if this program is good enough to find the best move in a given situation, I supouse this can also be veryfied by an expert, and it means that Capablanca and Kramnik are the ones who picked the best moves on the given situations.
I was thinking about this on the way home from work and I realised that all this study shows is that Capablanca and Kramnik are the World Champions who play most like Crafty.
What would be really interesting is if someone could modify Crafty so that it's moves matched, say, Steinitz, with the same degree of accuracy.
If this could be done with all the ...[text shortened]... hampions then you could play them against each other to see which style was the most effective.
Of course, this makes them hard to beat because when you make the best move, against an agresive player, then he won't have much place to agresiveness, and it works the same for positional players, so I belive that is why Kramnik won against Topalov, who is an agresive player himself(besides all blunders he made).
I would like to see the outcome when Kramnik and Fritz finish their match.
Originally posted by Fat LadyYou can only beat what's in front of you... or everyone over the other side of the Atlantic as well, as Morphy did 😉
But what did "a top U.S. player" mean in those days? There were loads of strong chess players in Europe in the 1850s, but I can't think of any Americans apart from Morphy.
I would imagine that the second best player in America would have been about 2200 strength, reasonably talented but very little theoretical knowledge and uncomfortable in positional ga ...[text shortened]... st an attack.
Do you have a name for this top U.S. player than Morphy gave knight odds to?
The version of crafty they used would never find the best move in most positions since it was only searching 12ply meaning that if crafty was analysing let's say a tal game where tal sacrificed his queen for mate in 9 the stupid beast would never see the mate and it would say that tal's brilliant move was a huge blunder.
1 edit
Originally posted by SquelchbelchSomeone was suggesting that Morphy was the player who was the strongest in a particular time frame by the widest margin.
You can only beat what's in front of you... or everyone over the other side of the Atlantic as well, as Morphy did 😉
I said that although Morphy was streets ahead of everyone in America, his margin of superiority over the best of the European players wasn't nearly so great.
Fischer played at a time when there were many more excellent players, and everyone had access to the games of the players from previous eras and also fairly up-to-date games and analysis of recent games.
Despite this Fischer managed to be completely dominant for a short time just before his 1972 World Championship match and at that time I think he was the player with the widest margin ahead of the number 2 in the world of any player in the history of chess.
Originally posted by omulcusobolaniYes, but they assume that by a process of averaging that their system will tend to give the players the right scores. The problem with the method is that it assumes that there's always one best move, and that if Crafty's second choice move is close (say first choice +0.5 second choice +0.45) then the move is hard to find and so they give it a higher weighting. The problem is that these are the cases most susceptible to error, which they then magnify by by taking them more seriously than the results that are likely to be right...
The version of crafty they used would never find the best move in most positions since it was only searching 12ply meaning that if crafty was analysing let's say a tal game where tal sacrificed his queen for mate in 9 the stupid beast would never see the mate and it would say that tal's brilliant move was a huge blunder.