10 Jan '09 13:27>
This post is unavailable.
Please refer to our posting guidelines.
Originally posted by JakalOnce the game goes out of book, I set Fritz to look for the top 3 moves for both players after each move.
Result:
White: Spassky
Top 1 Match: 19/42 (45,2% )
Top 2 Match: 30/42 (71,4% )
Top 3 Match: 36/42 (85,7% )
Black: Fischer
Top 1 Match: 28/42 (66,7% )
Top 2 Match: 39/42 (92,9% )
Top 3 Match: 39/42 (92,9% )
I am fairly new to chess and absolutely love the game. This discussion seems very interesting as I am currently reading all about the 1972 Worl ...[text shortened]... ampionship Match. I'm not 100% sure what the above statistics mean. Can someone kindly explain?
Originally posted by KorchHi Korch.
[b]I'm amazed the Fritz match-up was so high in the Fischer-Spassky match, current wisdom is that the 1972 Fischer would be slaughtered by the likes of Anand, Topalov etc. It looks to me like this is simply incorrect.
Higher matchup may not always mean "better play". For example in 1st game of their match Fisher lost but his matchup was higher. Also whe ...[text shortened]... hup of many games, selected by objective criteria (consecutivity, particular tournament,etc.)[/b]
Originally posted by greenpawn34Modern GM's playing against the Fischer of 70-72 would have been
Hi Korch.
"So I doubt if Fisher would reach such a matchup (and quality) against modern GM`s. "
Hmmmmmm...... I disagree here mate.
Modern GM's playing against the Fischer of 70-72 would have been
sucked in and blown out in bubbles. They are simply not in the
same class. (and Squelch has just proved it) 😉
Perhaps the best way to do this F ...[text shortened]... utes on move 15 then the box must be
allowed to take 13 minutes on it's choice for move 15.
Originally posted by KorchThe idea that Fischer couldn't compete against the GMs of today is absolute nonsense.
[b]Modern GM's playing against the Fischer of 70-72 would have been
sucked in and blown out in bubbles. They are simply not in the
same class.
It`s popular myth amongst patzers. During last 30 years chess has developed too much.
(and Squelch has just proved it)
How?[/b]
Originally posted by no1marauderWith his play in 70ties he could be something like average 2600+ GM today. But definitely he would not be in modern elite. The idea that top GMs of past (with chess knowledge which they had in past) could compete with modern top GMs are nonsense, based on inability to evaluate progress of chess knowledge.
The idea that Fischer couldn't compete against the GMs of today is absolute nonsense.
Originally posted by KorchWhat "chess knowledge" has advanced sooooooooooooo much in the last 30 years that Bobby Fischer would have been unable to grasp it?
With his play in 70ties he could be something like average 2600+ GM today. But definitely he would not be in modern elite. The idea that top GMs of past (with chess knowledge which they had in past) could compete with modern top GMs are nonsense, based on inability to evaluate progress of chess knowledge.
Originally posted by no1marauderHave been created and developed many opening systems (Chebanenko in Slav, Sveshnikov in Sicilian etc.) have been changed evaluation of many type of positions, including opening schemes. Have developed opening theory. Computers and game databases have affected preparation to competitions, have refuted many ideas from old games, have affected playing style. It`s impossible to make detailed description in one post. If you are really interested then I can suggest Kasparov`s "Revolution in the 70s".
What "chess knowledge" has advanced sooooooooooooo much in the last 30 years?
Originally posted by KorchI'm not.
Have been created and developed many opening systems (Chebanenko in Slav, Sveshnikov in Sicilian etc.) have been changed evaluation of many type of positions, including opening schemes. Have developed opening theory. Computers and game databases have affected preparation to competitions, have refuted many ideas from old games, have affected playing style. It`s ...[text shortened]... one post. If you are really interested then I can suggest Kasparov`s "Revolution in the 70s".
Originally posted by no1marauderFor once I agree with No1.
I'm not.
It wouldn't take Fischer long to adjust to changes in opening theory. I suspect that he would create innovations in some lines today as he did in the 60's.
I don't see any higher quality in games now than 30 years ago. Wasn't there some recent computer/statistical analysis of world champions that said Capablan ...[text shortened]... past eras would be non-competitive is a nice fantasy for present players, but nothing more.
Originally posted by no1marauderMaybe you're thinking of this one:
Wasn't there some recent computer/statistical analysis of world champions that said Capablanca made the fewest percentage of errors of any World Champion?
Originally posted by no1marauderIt wouldn't take Fischer long to adjust to changes in opening theory. I suspect that he would create innovations in some lines today as he did in the 60's.
I'm not.
It wouldn't take Fischer long to adjust to changes in opening theory. I suspect that he would create innovations in some lines today as he did in the 60's.
I don't see any higher quality in games now than 30 years ago. Wasn't there some recent computer/statistical analysis of world champions that said Capablan ...[text shortened]... past eras would be non-competitive is a nice fantasy for present players, but nothing more.
Originally posted by Dragon FireFischer would need a little time to adjust (and of course he'd need to shave 35 years off his age) but if given modern tools there is no doubt he would compete favorably and perhaps knock the spots off the current generation of GMs.
For once I agree with No1.
Fischer would need a little time to adjust (and of course he'd need to shave 35 years off his age) but if given modern tools there is no doubt he would compete favorably and perhaps knock the spots off the current generation of GMs.
Fischers ability comes into its own when out of book and there his innovative ability and ...[text shortened]... nd their depth of opening knowledge is greater than Fischers but Fischer would soon learn that.
Originally posted by KorchSo you are saying that even without preparation, Fischer would be in the 2600's, against today's GM's. I think the point the crew is making here is given his level of play in '72 and time warping him to 2009, he would quickly absorb the latest theory and then come out on top again or close to it. They are saying he would not be static and stuck in 1972.
[b]It wouldn't take Fischer long to adjust to changes in opening theory. I suspect that he would create innovations in some lines today as he did in the 60's.
Probably you misread words in my words "With his play in 70ties" in which I included also his chess knowledge then.
I don't see any higher quality in games now than 30 years ago.
Its ...[text shortened]... gs/opening lines played today by chess professionals have been considered inferior before.[/b]