The thing is I just had stopped using the world soviet ever since the the soviet union broke down so like many americans just started saying russians for all previous people living under soviet rule from before. just a stupid yankee now knowing how to put things in historical contect. sorry. Team country. They played for the USSR team right? It was considered a unified country before? They don't go together? ok I think I will just shut up.
Originally posted by onehandgann The thing is I just had stopped using the world soviet ever since the the soviet union broke down so like many americans just started saying russians for all previous people living under soviet rule from before. just a stupid yankee now knowing how to put things in historical contect. sorry. Team country. They played for the USSR team right? It was considered a unified country before? They don't go together? ok I think I will just shut up.
As I know many americans have called people from USSR "russians" also before USSR broke down. The best well known example is Fischer.
Dont you know that there were people living in USSR did not feel pertaining to USSR? For example many Latvians, Estonians and Lithuanians which were incorporated by occupation in 1940.
About top chess players in USSR - playing in international competitions was only way how they were able to get in capitalistic states. And if USSR chess federation wanted to punish some player they did not let him play abroad.
For example Tajmanov was not able to play abroad for some years after his defeat to Fischer. Bronstein was not able to play in West more than 15 years (from beggining of 70ties till end of 80ties). Ratmir Kholmov was very good top class GM, but he was allowed to play only in socialistic states (he has been defeated Fischer in Cuba). Thats the reason why Kholmov is not too well known out of ex-USSR.
Iceland is the strongest if we factor in per capita considerations. Russia has one titled player (as recognised by FIDE) for every 136,670 people (based on a total population of 142,000,000). Iceland has one titled player (as recognised by FIDE) for every 10,194 people (based on a total population of 316,000).
Originally posted by !~TONY~! Latvia is not Russian. Russia = Russian, Latvia = Latvian. That said, I agree. The strongest U.S. player that's actually American is probably Larry Christiansen.
I don't know- I think Yasser Seirawan ( though he seems to gone into a semi-retirement-) would be better than christiansen- Seirawan is in the top 100 (or at least he was the last time I checked about a year ago)
Originally posted by demonseed Iceland is the strongest if we factor in per capita considerations. Russia has one titled player (as recognised by FIDE) for every 136,670 people (based on a total population of 142,000,000). Iceland has one titled player (as recognised by FIDE) for every 10,194 people (based on a total population of 316,000).
I think Ukraine has a very large titiled player per capita too- it has only a little less than Russia but quite a few less people
Originally posted by chesskid001 I think Ukraine has a very large titiled player per capita too- it has only a little less than Russia but quite a few less people
Ukraine has far fewer title players than Russia. In total Ukraine has 262 players who have been awarded titles by FIDE for a population of roughly 46,372,700. This puts their title player to population ratio at 1: 176,995 so Ukraine has fewer titled players per capita than Russia.
Originally posted by kbaumen Who is Iceland's strongest? Hjartarson? ~2590.
Well Russia's aces are guys like Kramnik, Morozevich, Bareev, Timofeev, Karpov, Khalifman, Svidler, Grischuk, all 2650+.
In these types of debates, it's often helpful to first agree on the debating criteria. In this case, it should be decided up front whether the argument is players' elo ratings or titles, and whether the per-capita issue is part of the equation. It makes a difference in how the argument progresses. It's not a good idea to have one person arguing apples and another person arguing oranges. 🙂
Originally posted by Mad Rook In these types of debates, it's often helpful to first agree on the debating criteria. In this case, it should be decided up front whether the argument is players' elo ratings or titles, and whether the per-capita issue is part of the equation. It makes a difference in how the argument progresses. It's not a good idea to have one person arguing apples and another person arguing oranges. 🙂
Bugger!
I was hoping to string this guy along for a few more posts yet and then refer him to my previous per capita post pertaining to Iceland (since he obviously hadn't read it!).
I was hoping to string this guy along for a few more posts yet and then refer him to my previous per capita post pertaining to Iceland (since he obviously hadn't read it!).
Damn your eyes, man!!
Sorry, I didn't realize a plot had been hatched. 😳🙂
I was hoping to string this guy along for a few more posts yet and then refer him to my previous per capita post pertaining to Iceland (since he obviously hadn't read it!).
Damn your eyes, man!!
I read your post about per capita. I just don't know what it is. 😉
25 Apr '08 07:27
Country Strong player
Back to Top