August 2016 ratings: Monster Maxime reaches 2819 FIDE!

Are you daft, Brabo? I'm not talking about gamescore errors - where did you get that notion? You clearly have comprehension difficulties.

I'm telling you something very simple: chess is NOT a mathematically solved game. This is fact. The biggest tablebases are, what, 7-man? 8-man? Computers come up with the supposedly "best moves" by using search and evaluation algorithms based on principles and rules deduced by HUMANS about the game, which are practical guidelines that are about as scientifically proven as whether the universe is infinite or not - meaning not at all. Therefore, any evaluation by a computer of a line or position, or move, while possibly (even that we don't know for sure - we're just assuming, as with everything else relating to this matter) closer to the ultimate truth than an evaluation by a weaker human player, is about as valuable, scientifically, as a random, uneducated guess. It means nothing.

Once all of the possible variations starting from move one will have been calculated using a computer program, and the best moves in every possible position, for each side, determined (at which point we could well find out that 90% of all the things we think we "know" about how chess is supposed to be played right now are quite wrong, and, honestly, I wouldn't be all that surprised if that turned out to be the case), then you can talk to me about "proof" of inflation not existing, based on computers evaluating players' moves. Until then, what computers "think" about it is about as reliable (from a scientific standpoint) as what any half-decent player thinks about it. Which is not at all.

Surely you understand such a simple concept!... Or am I wrong? Until you address this problem, or prove to me, with links to an article about the mathematical solution to chess having been found, and details of said solution, we have nothing more to discuss, because all of your studies and all of the "scientific" research you keep mentioning is quite meaningless. It's just as much speculation as any random chess fan's opinions on the matter. Which is what I've been trying to explain to you for a while now - neither Regan, Haworth (whose article is nothing more than a statistical study of something that has no real scientific value whatsoever - computer evaluations of human moves), you, or I, or anybody else, is any kind of expert on this, no matter how much any of us think we know about it. So, please, stop boring me with your college-level statistics based on completely unfounded assumptions! Because, sadly, you're not saying anything new anymore, by this point, but just repeating the same stuff that you've chosen to believe is the truth, based on your background, temperament and education. Your opinions on inflation, or anything else we've discussed here, have no more value than anybody else's, and I'm tired of hearing them from you over and over, in that same smug, amateur scientist tone - you've already wasted far too much of my time.

But, like I said, you can send me the Fischer chapter page and move numbers, if you feel like that means anything, and I'll go over them and acknowledge if you're right about there being multiple instances of Kasparov "correcting" Fischer. Because I promised I'd do so. But, apart from that, until/unless you have that link for me about the mathematical solution to chess, I have no more interest in this conversation, so please leave me alone! Thank you!

I'd like to see some rivalry against Carlsen and MVL if he continues his ascent. Such thing should bring some sparkling interest on the next world championship matches.

If you would have read carefully the paper of the professors then you can find all the relevant links in it. I quote:
"Further methodological details, including the incidence of gamescore errors in the test-data sets
and the policy on fixing them, and difficulties in the identification of repetitions (amending ‘0.00’
values given by chess programs that are premature according to the rules of chess), will be found
in links from the first-author’s website, www.cse.buffalo.edu/∼regan/chess/, along with
the data and C++ and Perl code used here."

So just to avoid a misunderstanding, the number crunching was based on more than 150.000 games and happened fully automated by special developed programs. You don't do the effort to read a paper of a few pages but you will go through tons of data ? Oh you are probably too tired, right?

Anyway, no need to rush - I won't look at them today. I'm too tired. Tomorrow or the day after. (If you post them by then.) You have my word. You'll see - I don't break promises.

:)) What credentials? (You probably meant contact information.)

"Anybody knows"

Yes, very convincing... Is that how you prove things scientifically these days? I must be getting old!... At least this time you bothered to state your opinion, and didn't dodge the question altogether. (As for how engine moves correlate with your playing strength: a sample of one is meaningless. I want a link to a study of how they correlate with, let's say, 1000 players' strengths. And I want it done by the book, with mathematical proof for every step, no random assumptions, etc.; until then, as I said, saying "anybody knows" is just like me saying "anybody knows Fischer was stronger than Carlsen" - it's not some self-evident fact, like saying that water flows, or whatever, so no matter how many people think they "know" it, it's not even close to being scientific fact. Surely this much you can understand without my having to repeat myself!)

"It will take me probably a couple of hours work to put both books next to each other, compare the analysis and write down the differences in evaluation."

Bro, if it takes you a couple of hours, good for you!... If I thought it'd take me so little time, I'd probably do it, like you say. But I don't. I think it'd take me way longer than that. But, yeah, I confirm that I WILL look at your results (and agree with you here, if they support your claim). That I KNOW would only take a few minutes, having the exact page and move numbers - maybe an hour... and that long I do have at my disposal, obviously.

"neither you, nor Regan, nor Haworth, nor anybody else, have ever proven scientifically that computer evaluations of players' moves is actually related to their playing strength."
Anybody knows that the number and size of errors that an engine can find, correlates with the playing strength. Well you are joking of course.
B.t.w. if you are 1% serious then I did in fact publish a small study about how the number type of errors correlate with my own playing strength see http://chess-brabo.blogspot.com/2015/10/mistakes.html


It will take me probably a couple of hours work to put both books next to each other, compare the analysis and write down the differences in evaluation. I can free this time this evening. However I don't believe you that you will look at it seriously. If you are really interested in it then you would spent yourself the couple of hours. So I don't buy it.

Anyway my line stays open for any constructive feedback. You have my credentials so you know where to find me.

"A subjective opinion without any details has zero value."

So ignore it. Because your article is also precisely that - a subjective opinion (the 'subjective' is superfluous there, by the way) -, given the "strength" of the assumptions it's based upon.

"Calm down. Anyway shouting via capital letters does not make things true. It is too easy to say something is flawed and not back it up."

Yeah, I don't need to back it up, because neither you, nor Regan, nor Haworth, nor anybody else, have ever proven scientifically that computer evaluations of players' moves is actually related to their playing strength. That's just an assumption that has, to quote you, 'zero value', scientifically speaking. Makes for fun speculation and nothing more. I invite you to prove me wrong by linking to whatever article you think demonstrates that this is not the case, and that this is an actual thing!

"First it was zero errors. Now it is already one or 2 on top of what I found. Yes this is really getting ridiculous."

I never said it was zero errors. I half-jokingly said I didn't remember anybody ever finding errors in Fischer's analysis. If you think that's some binding statement, and want to turn it into a whole debate, then that's your problem. I don't really care that much. (And no, not 1-2 on top of what you found - 1-2 altogether; remember, I was talking about what I remembered from when I read the chapter, when I had no idea you, or your finding, even existed! It could easily be included in those 1-2 - but, again, this is a dumb discussion, because I wasn't being too serious about this point, and I certainly didn't actually COUNT them at the time, in order to come up with an exact number. I said 1-2, but I could just as well have said 2-3 or 3-4. It was a random low number I threw out. But, if you want to make a big deal out of it, go ahead, do the research! I'm interested.)

"If I give you the pages and the move numbers then I am sure you will laugh how stupid I was by falling into a typical trap of a troll. I won't give you that pleasure."

I'm as much a troll as you are. You were the first to make pseudo-scientific references to support some lame crusade against what you think is a misguided notion that there is inflation, that helps you boost your obviously fragile ego.
And no, if you gave me the page and move numbers, I wouldn't laugh, I would check them out very seriously, and then acknowledge you were right, in this very comments section. Because I don't care anywhere near as much about my "image", or whatever, as you seem to do. Don't presume to know me, troll!... But, yeah, if you don't want to do that, that's also fine by me. I'll have forgotten the whole thing by the end of the week, perhaps sooner.

And, by the way, I don't hear you contradicting me about your impressive "background" in statistics not making you an expert, or even anything close to it...

"Some of the assumptions you make there are extremely shaky, in my opinion... (And I believe you admit to it yourself, at one point.) I'd wanted to go into more detail on that, but decided not to do that based on a Google Translate reading, in the end..."
A subjective opinion without any details has zero value. I think you are angry and just wrote this line trying to annoy me. Didn't work however.

"Dude, if the tool you're using to generate the numbers (in this case, engine analysis) is flawed, then the study helps understand nothing, regardless of how well grounded in statistical theory it is. This is the part you seem to refuse to grasp and, no, it does NOT take knowledge of ANYTHING to understand that. "
Calm down. Anyway shouting via capital letters does not make things true. It is too easy to say something is flawed and not back it up.

"Still, I don't remember there being that many corrections (one or two, sure, but not more) by Kasparov on Fischer's analysis, specifically, but I could be remembering it wrong."
First it was zero errors. Now it is already one or 2 on top of what I found. Yes this is really getting ridiculous.

"I don't have time to go through the chapter again myself, obviously. I've said that already. You can point out the page and move numbers, if you don't want to have to copy all of that stuff here, that's perfectly fine by me."
If I give you the pages and the move numbers then I am sure you will laugh how stupid I was by falling into a typical trap of a troll. I won't give you that pleasure.

"On my blog I even published a small study about it containing a number of references (which you probably didn't read yet). If you are willing to discuss that subject with hard facts, statistical calculations and well based conclusions then I am all ears. I will continue to counter baseless statements about inflation anytime anywhere as long I have the means as I do think this myth is uttermost damaging chess."

http://schaken-brabo.blogspot.ro/2012/12/elo-inflatie.html - there, some free publicity! :) That's the article you mean, right?

So, I've just read your article - with Google Translate, admittedly, because I don't speak Dutch, but I feel like I understood 90% of it, and pretty much all of the important stuff, through some simple deductions. Also, feel free to translate it for me, if you feel there might have been significant misunderstandings! Some of the assumptions you make there are extremely shaky, in my opinion... (And I believe you admit to it yourself, at one point.) I'd wanted to go into more detail on that, but decided not to do that based on a Google Translate reading, in the end...

"The profiles have very little to do anymore with how individuals play chess of the same strength but do help us to understand if inflation or not exists. To understand this you need to have knowledge of how statistical research works. I followed during my years at the university some courses about it."

Dude, if the tool you're using to generate the numbers (in this case, engine analysis) is flawed, then the study helps understand nothing, regardless of how well grounded in statistical theory it is. This is the part you seem to refuse to grasp and, no, it does NOT take knowledge of ANYTHING to understand that.

Anyway, if the fact you 'followed some courses at university' is the kind of credentials you want to use to convince me you know what you're talking about, then I think you might be barking up the wrong tree. I 'followed a course' in art history at university - does that make me an expert on the subject? :)) Please!...

I know - personally - people with a solid background in statistics, who actually WORK IN THE FIELD right now, and have had several discussions with them about specific statistical models (in relation to another field, not chess.) Am I saying I'm an expert because of that? No. I'm not even an amateur. What I'm saying is I know how they think, what kind of assumptions they make and what kind of fallacies they strive to avoid, and I can tell you that, based on this, and on reading your article and comments, you're the one that sounds like an amateur statistician, even more so than the likes of Rod Edwards and others you so nonchalantly call amateurs. But, hey, it's OK! I, unlike you, won't tell you to 'stop thinking for yourself'. Amateur scientists like yourself should be encouraged - who knows what they could stumble onto someday?! You never know...

"You claimed that Fischer made no errors in his analysis or at least you insinuated that. I only wanted to proof with one example that this is false. I am sure there are more examples. In fact I remember that Kasparov in his Predecessors book of Fischer made on several points corrections of Fischers original analysis. I possess both books so I can dig it up quickly if you don't have them both / don't have the time but you are interested in the details and will afterwards admit being wrong. Just send me your emailadress. Mine can be found on my blog / internet if you do a little bit of googling."

You already gave the link to your blog.

You don't want to post the quotes here, for all to see? I don't mind being proven wrong in public. And, honestly, I'd rather not give out my email address to someone I don't know personally, if it's all the same to you...

Anyway, I do have the books, and I did, of course, read the Fischer chapter, but that was a few years ago. Still, I don't remember there being that many corrections (one or two, sure, but not more) by Kasparov on Fischer's analysis, specifically, but I could be remembering it wrong. I have no attachment to being right in this matter, so I definitely want you to show me all of the corrections you speak of. (I don't have time to go through the chapter again myself, obviously. I've said that already. You can point out the page and move numbers, if you don't want to have to copy all of that stuff here, that's perfectly fine by me.)

"I am not interested at all in what people think about Fischer, Kasparov, Tal,... That is the typical pub talk about who is greater, who is more consistent, who had the longer winning streak,... and leads to nothing.
However I am interested for many years already in the inflation subject as it belongs to all of us."

OK, fair enough. I understand now. Still seems like you're spending an awful lot of time talking about it, in spite of that, but, whatever... It's your time, not mine. :)

@imdvb_8793
I was not involved in any way with how the study of Kenneth Regan and Guy Haword was built. In fact first time that I read it, I was highly critical of the presented output. However looking at it more attentively, I started to realize that thanks to huge number crunching they were able to make several profiles of players with a different strength. The next step was to see if those profiles would change over time or not.

The profiles have very little to do anymore with how individuals play chess of the same strength but do help us to understand if inflation or not exists. To understand this you need to have knowledge of how statistical research works. I followed during my years at the university some courses about it.

I've been working with engines for more than 20 years extensively. There are indeed many pitfalls to avoid if you want to get the right output. Many articles on my blog are published about new methods, techniques how to improve this output and how to correctly interpret them.

I don't think I need to defend myself from personal attacks against my methods of play/ study. In the last 10 years I've played averagely 10 rated games per year so I focused on things which I cared about.

@imdbv_8793
You claimed that Fischer made no errors in his analysis or at least you insinuated that. I only wanted to proof with one example that this is false. I am sure there are more examples. In fact I remember that Kasparov in his Predecessors book of Fischer made on several points corrections of Fischers original analysis. I possess both books so I can dig it up quickly if you don't have them both / don't have the time but you are interested in the details and will afterwards admit being wrong. Just send me your emailadress. Mine can be found on my blog / internet if you do a little bit of googling.

I am not interested at all in what people think about Fischer, Kasparov, Tal,... That is the typical pub talk about who is greater, who is more consistent, who had the longer winning streak,... and leads to nothing.
However I am interested for many years already in the inflation subject as it belongs to all of us . On my blog I even published a small study about it containing a number of references (which you probably didn't read yet). If you are willing to discuss that subject with hard facts, statistical calculations and well based conclusions then I am all ears. I will continue to counter baseless statements about inflation anytime anywhere as long I have the means as I do think this myth is uttermost damaging chess.

Also, you seem to be placing WAY too much importance on engines' evaluations. I'm not surprised to see you're around the same rating as myself. People like us tend to do that - believe in the engine's evaluations way more than we should. But there are so many practical considerations we overlook/ignore because of it. That's how Grandmasters beat us a lot of the time, really - they look deeper into positions than just checking the engine's score, analyze on their own, and discover which of them are actually uncomfortable to play for this or that side, despite the computer saying they're equal, or whatever. Which is also why all of these Rybka studies are - I feel the need to repeat myself -, while interesting, anecdotal, at best. Most definitely NOT scientific proof of anything, despite your constant protestations to that effect.

Maybe you actually know/realize these things, but what I'm saying is that you're not showing it, by placing so much emphasis on studies based on, exclusively, computer evaluations, in, practically, all of your comments. You appear very one-dimensional in your take on all of this...

One small error - wow! Think how many games he would have lost due to that small error, had they only known!... When you tell me you've found 10-20 errors (and show them to me, obviously), then I'll agree with you. You want a serious discussion? Then do the work, as you claim you enjoy doing so much! (I'd do it myself, if I had the, apparently, limitless time you seem to have in your life.) Let me know how many days you expect it will take, and I'll promise to check back here then for your results!

"I am not interested at all in the typical pub talk which you can find also so often on the internet. It is not only completely useless but it also distracts the attention of any serious discussion."

Then why are you getting involved in it to begin with? Do you really need validation from people whose intellectual level you have no respect for? No? So, then, how is all of this productive in any way? Do you see how you're contradicting yourself? You're 'not interested at all', yet you're interested enough to take the time to dismiss it in writing... repeatedly...

"A very common misunderstanding is that the greatest player of all time must also play the best chess. No it often means that he was much more ahead and/or for a longer period of his contemporaries than any other champion was able to do.
Kasparov also said that each champion is a product of its time. That also means that it is not respectful to compare the moves produced e.g. 50 years ago with today."

I agree with all of that. Because, of course, each player should, in fact, be judged based on the sum of resources available to him in his time. In which case I think Fischer and Kasparov are by far the strongest ever. Possibly Lasker, too. I also happen to think Fischer and Kasparov played the best chess REGARDLESS of anything else, but you're right, it's really not even terribly important, because, based on the resources they had, they were clearly the two that reached the highest peaks. (Fischer even more so, because Kasparov had A LOT more resources at his disposal.)

As for Tal in 1961, I quote from Soltis' Soviet Chess 1917-1991: "the question remains whether Tal was healthy enough to play at all. The Latvian had serious kidney problems throughout his life. Koblents said he suffered a mild heart attack two weeks before the match yet smoked 50 to 60 cigarettes a day during it. Asked in 1988 if there was anything in his life, he'd like to do over, Tal replied : "Well, maybe, I would have postponed my return match with Botvinnik." In fact, Nikolai Romanov notified Botvinnik before the rematch that it would be postponed a month for Tal to recover. But when Botvinnik demanded a doctor's certificate as proof, Tal refused, and the match started on schedule, Botvinnik wrote." I don't know how much truth there is to Tal and Soltis' claims, but I do think it's something you should take into consideration before making any statistical studies using said match. See, this is the trouble with statistics - certain factors, often decisive ones, such as the above, are simply not considered. Am I wrong about this? Please correct me if I'm wrong!

"Looking at the games of old champions often means we look at a collection of best games. However that gives a completely wrong impression of the playing strength of a player."

I think you misunderstood me - that's not what I've been doing. I've been looking at all kinds of games by the top players of the early 1970's. Wins, draws, defeats... Don't ask me how I pick them - I have a method, and I assure you it's QUITE random! And, yes, I analyze them with Komodo. Not as thoroughly as Regan, obviously, but, yeah, I am, in fact, NOT talking out of my ass...

"Stop thinking and stop making subjective conclusions. Study Kenneth Regans results or maybe better develop your own study and let it review by some experts in chess and statistics."

Stop thinking for yourself! :) Yes, that's a healthy message... (By the way, did I ever claim these were anything more than subjective conclusions? Unlike you...)

You seem to have a particular liking for calling people amateurs, either directly or implicitly. Is that something you admire about yourself? (Random, unrelated question. I'm not necessarily offended because, again, I claim to be no more than that, but you have to admit it does sound at least a little bit rude/condescending...)

@lajosarpad - sure, but my contention is that all of those advantages only go so far towards making today's top 10 better, as there are still all of the practical problems to solve at the board, all of the calculation, in which Fischer was unequalled, plus Fischer could easily come up with something taken from the old masters, that they haven't analyzed in any detail, in order to surprise his opponents in the opening, and thus negate their theoretical advantage. Which he surely would do, because he wasn't dumb, I think you'll agree. (Also, what flaws were there ever discovered in Fischer's analysis? I don't remember any such examples...) And then, it'd be down to pure playing strength and, for me, Fischer was better than anybody today in that department.

In other words, all of those advantages can be overcome by the more talented player, and, like I said, most of today's top games are decided by precisely that - playing strength. Rarely are games between the very best decided in the opening. Sure, there is an advantage, in the long run, for the better prepared player, because he starts with better opening positions, but if he's outplayed afterwards (as I believe any of them would be, were they to face someone of Fischer or Kasparov's sheer talent, understanding and calculating ability, not to mention their mental fortitude, which few of today's top 10 can even claim to be close to matching, at least in my opinion), then it won't do him much good... Kasparov didn't beat everybody BECAUSE he was the best prepared - he beat them because he was the best prepared AND outplayed everybody after the opening as well. And, again, Carlsen himself is living proof that theoretical knowledge is no match for sheer playing ability and fighting spirit. He's never been the best prepared player of his day. Those would be Anand, Kramnik, maybe Topalov, maybe Giri, etc.

As for the archers vs. shooters - surely you don't actually think the difference in "arsenals" is as big as that in chess, 1970's vs. 2010's!... Even if you do, I strongly disagree. :)

Looking at the games of old champions often means we look at a collection of best games. However that gives a completely wrong impression of the playing strength of a player. We need to be careful that we don't mix a performance of a limited amount of games with the strength of a player.
A serious study of performances was made again by professor Kenneth Regan: http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/papers/pdf/Reg12IPRs.pdf. 2 examples of Tal are given in which you can see how much the performances sometimes fluctuate: 2683 in Wch of 1960 but only 2466 in Wch of 1961 !!

"but, as for the top 10, I just don't think that's the case"
Stop thinking and stop making subjective conclusions. Study Kenneth Regans results or maybe better develop your own study and let it review by some experts in chess and statistics.

A very common misunderstanding is that the greatest player of all time must also play the best chess. No it often means that he was much more ahead and/or for a longer period of his contemporaries than any other champion was able to do.
Kasparov also said that each champion is a product of its time. That also means that it is not respectful to compare the moves produced e.g. 50 years ago with today.

Fischer, in his prime did not have the knowledge of opening theory developed since his prime, didn't have access to tablebases, nor engines to help him determine the flaws of some analysis. He did not possess his own games played after his prime and did not have internet connection to play a few blitz games to stay in shape. His opponents did not have that possibility either. With such a disadvantage, frankly speaking I doubt Fischer, or Kasparov, any of them, in their prime would stand a chance against a top GM of today. We can play with the thought of Carlsen as a player of the 70's or a young Fischer or Kasparov of today. I am not sure that a Carlsen of the 70's would beat Fischer, but I am not sure that a young Fischer today would beat Carlsen either. We, essentially compare apples with oranges. Or, to give you another example: I am sure many native Americans were great archers, maybe even greater archers than the best White shooters, but they didn't stand a chance, because of their inferior technical background.

As about rating inflation, one of the key factors is the difference of number of players, which gives the possibility to grow for virtually anyone. Let us be happy for rating inflation, as it means that the game becomes more popular :)

"Fischer's tournaments were longer, but his opponents were on average much weaker (it was current for him to play IM or even non-titled players, for example there were two untitled players in the famous 1963-1964 US tournament), no wonder he had better percentage results."

Yes, but it wasn't his fault super-tournaments back then also included more weak players; and during his interzonal and candidates run, he only played very strong players, and he did pretty well against them, to say the least...

"Every WC has some very painful defeats, and some very bad game or blunders."

I'm not saying that's not the case. I never did. All I said was Carlsen has had a lot more of them, on average, than the great champions of the past. (More so the very bad games than the blunders.)

"Since he is WC (2013), he had only one really bad result (last year in Norway). Even his results in the Olympiads are not really bad (he always had a positive score, +5-2=2 in 2014 if I remember correctly)."

+5-2=2 is NOT a decent result for a world champion against mostly weak - for a top 10 player's standards - opposition. And, again, that's still clearly more truly bad performances (and in a pretty short period of time) than the very best champions of the past.

"Kasparov and Karpov were very consistent, but they are the only WC who have shown this kind of consistency."

Are you serious? Apart from Fischer 1967-1972, there's also Capablanca, who hardly ever lost throughout the early and mid-1920's (so, basically, for the duration of his reign as champion), and Lasker, who was way more consistent than Carlsen (even in Hastings he came third, he was 2nd in Cambridge Springs, and, apart from that, from 1894, when he became champion, to 1924, he had ONLY 1st place finishes, 10 of them, playing in ONLY super-tournaments, across 30 years), and also Alekhine in the late 1920's and early 1930's... If you read everything I said, you'll see I claimed Carlsen was about Karpov's strength, in my opinion, possibly a bit weaker. So I only rate Fischer, Kasparov, and possibly Karpov, Capablanca and Lasker higher than him. Not any of the others (at least not overall, though, at certain points in their careers... it's hard to say...) That's still not bad. But Fischer and Kasparov were clearly better. The other 3 I'm not so adamant about, though I still very much believe in my rankings. So, overall, like I said, Carlsen is a great champion and certainly one of the best all-time, but NOT in the discussion for THE BEST all-time, to my mind.
Chess history didn't start in 1948. :)

"Remember Karpov plumetting playing level as the WC dragged on in 1984-1985, 1975, 1978... Remember the Rotterdam tournament in 1989's World Cup serie : he was leading with three round to go and only needed 2/3 to claim undisputed tournament victory. He lost his last three games..."

I know that. :) It's one of the first stories about chess I read as a kid. It was in an almanac... Anyway, you're talking about Karpov AFTER his prime - meaning roughly 1975-1984. Find me several bad games by him during that period (preferably NOT during one of the long World Championship matches that Carlsen is so lucky to avoid, due to the more forgiving modern rules), or even more than 1-2 truly bad tournaments, and I might acknowledge you have a point. But, as it stands, there's no comparison between the two, in my opinion, consistency-wise.

"Finally, compared to today's other leading players, it is simpler : Carlsen is the only player in the top 10 able to achieve consistent good results."

Today's top players are clearly no match for Carlsen (well, we'll see, but they haven't been until now... and Aronian/Giri do very well against him, but they've been too inconsistent to get to play him in a match, of course, at least so far.) I never disputed that for a second.

Fischer's tournaments were longer, but his opponents were on average much weaker (it was current for him to play IM or even non-titled players, for example there were two untitled players in the famous 1963-1964 US tournament), no wonder he had better percentage results.
Every WC has some very painful defeats, and some very bad game or blunders.

" What I was saying is that his bad results are REALLY bad, much worse than the great past world champions' bad results."
Since he is WC (2013), he had only one really bad result (last year in Norway). Even his results in the Olympiads are not really bad (he always had a positive score, +5-2=2 in 2014 if I remember correctly).
Kasparov and Karpov were very consistent, but they are the only WC who have shown this kind of consistency. Botvinnik, Smyslov, Petrossian, Spassky, Kramnik more regular than Carlsen ? Are you joking ?
Besides even Kasparov and Karpov had their bad moments. Remember Karpov plumetting playing level
as the WC dragged on in 1984-1985, 1975, 1978... Remember the Rotterdam tournament in 1989's World Cup serie : he was leading with three round to go and only needed 2/3 to claim undisputed tournament victory. He lost his last three games...

Finally, compared to today's other leading players, it is simpler : Carlsen is the only player in the top 10 able to achieve consistent good results.

:)) I just realized 'imdvb' looks like an abbreviation of 'I am da very best' or something lame like that - it's not. It stands for 'il Milan di van Basten' (1987-1993.) Maybe that's part of why people like tom_70 are throwing so much hate at me... :)

"Fischer is something like the archetype of the irregular player."

Before 1967? Yes, absolutely. But he wasn't even rated anywhere near 2700 before then (Elo compiled unofficial lists going as far back as mid-1967, as you can see on the Olimpbase website), and only after crushing everybody at Sousse, before withdrawing, did he cross 2700. After that, he pretty much won any tournament he played in, if memory serves, and I don't remember him losing too many games, either. He certainly didn't bomb entire tournaments, like the Carlsen did at the Olympiads or Norway Chess. From around 1967 to 1972, Fischer was, in fact, incredibly consistent, and clearly above everybody else in the world.

"Players who tend to win a lot of game also tend to lose a lot of game, because their take more risks. Carlsen takes risks (particularly in his opening choice, but also in middle-game decisions)."

Fischer was the same type of player when it comes to taking risks in order to win at all costs (in fact, he was probably even more averse to draws than Carlsen), but he won 21 games in a row against top grandmasters, and even in the 3-4 years before that run, he rarely lost. Much more rarely than Carlsen. He just did the same thing Carlsen does, but better, safer, and was also better at attacking chess (and at defending against attacks on his own king, for that matter.)

"Carlsen [...] has scored at least +2 and 60% in all his tournaments since 2011 with only two exceptions (Norway 2015 and Sinquefield 2014).
The only events were he has had consistent bad results are the Olympiads."

Agreed. What I was saying is that his bad results are REALLY bad, much worse than the great past world champions' bad results. But, again, I mostly meant he was inconsistent from game to game. Fischer lost due to taking risks, but, maybe apart from that first game in the match against Spassky (though even that isn't terrible, in my opinion - it's just one miscalculation that isn't a complete gimme even for a top player, under pressure), he didn't lose games as bad as Carlsen does, and most certainly didn't lose as often as Carlsen has, recently (and not only - remember his losses during the 2013 Candidates, those were pretty poor games, to say the least), even though, mind you, tournaments back in Fischer's time were twice as long (16, 18 and even 20-player round-robins were still the norm when it comes to strong international tournaments, unlike today's 10-games max., except for Wijk and the Candidates.)

Sorry for the delayed response, guys - been sleeping. :)

Yes, I understand completely why Karpov and Fischer's games couldn't be used - I was just saying that, because of this, while the study more or less proves (with the reservations I expressed about the method itself) that there is no inflation in the sense of playing stength vs. actual, numerical rating, for players just outside the top 10/20, because it doesn't actually analyze those top 10 games, it doesn't, in the end, prove that there is no inflation at the very top, within the top 10. And, until someone actually does analyze those games, it's always going to be hard for me to believe that, say, Wesley So, rated about 2770 today, would win 70-30 out of 100 games (as strict Elo predictions would indicate) against someone like Tal, who was rated 2620 in July 1971. And I say this having actually recently studied a whole bunch of Tal's, and all other top 10 players of the early 70's games (purely coincidentally - I started doing that long before this discussion here ever took place), as well as watched a ton of recent broadcasts (and replayed the games from Chessbase's articles later) featuring today's top 10 players, Wesley So included, of course - I just don't see the big difference. In fact, to me, Tal was clearly stronger (as were others) than Wesley So is now - even then, when he wasn't quite in his best form. Of course, I'm not 2700, so, clearly, I'm not the best person to judge this sort of thing. But, then, let's throw it to the top 10 players of today themselves: when they were asked, recently, I think at the Sinquefield Cup (I'm not sure), who the greatest player of all time was, I don't think I remember a single one of them naming Carlsen, even though he's the one who's had the biggest rating, inflation not accounted for. Most said Kasparov, and 1-2 said Fischer. I don't remember if other names were mentioned. And they've actually PLAYED against Carlsen, a lot, and many of them also played against Kasparov...

I do agree that, simply due to the number of players involved in the game having grown so much, it's pretty clear that the overall strength of the world's top 100 has grown significantly over 1971, but, as for the top 10, I just don't think that's the case, and I would genuinely be surprised if somebody studied the moves - openings and, perhaps, also endgames, excluded - of today's top 10 vs. those of 1971's top 10, and concluded that today's top 10 are, in fact, 150 rating points' worth more accurate. VERY surprised...

Just to adress Imdbb_8793 claims on Carlsen's irregularity :
1) Fischer is something like the archetype of the irregular player.

2) Players who tend to win a lot of game also tend to lose a lot of game, because their take more risks. Carlsen takes risks (particularly in his opening choice, but also in middle-game decisions).

3) Last year, Carlsen has played 8 tournaments. Out of these, he won 6, was once shared 2nd, and had a very bad performance in Norway.
Before 2015, he was on a serie of thirty-three (33 !) tournaments ended at least in shared 3rd place.
He has scored at least +2 and 60% in all his tournaments since 2011 with only two exceptions (Norway 2015 and Sinquefield 2014).
The only events were he has had consistent bad results are the Olympiads.

Another element which is often neglected in discussions about inflation is that chess has become popular in new parts of the world.

Just compare the nationalities in the top 100 list of 1975 http://www.olimpbase.org/Elo/Elo197501e.html and the current top 100 list.
0 players of India and China were in the top 100 list of 1975. Today we have 7 players from India and 8 from China in the top 100 list.

The chess world is much bigger than 40 years ago so automatically there will also be much more stronger players. Our rating distribution does follow after all a Gauss curve.

"Therefore, the study includes neither Fischer, nor Karpov, anywhere near their prime, nor the top 10 players from the two's respective heydays."

True. There are very good reasons for that.
The study is based on statistical analysis of the quality of play linked to a well established rating.
- A statistical analysis makes only sense if you have a lot of data . Any conclusion about a handful of 2700 games played in periods before 1990 would just be doing pseudo scientific research.
- Fide only published in 1971 the first rating list. Not only very few players were in the first years rated but ratings were still rather provisional. So using ratings before 1976 would again be doing pseudo scientific research.

Anyway the study gives very accurate figures for + 2700 players over a period of 15 years and even 30 years for players below. That sounds to me a period long enough to know if inflation is really something so huge (more than 50 elo, I already consider as huge) as some pseudo-analysts state or not.

@cythlord - Yup, very good point. Still, you can't exactly hold that against him. I mean, you don't KNOW he would have played them much weaker had he had to play them at the board. You can assume it, if you're so inclined, but it wouldn't be based on much, really. It's not like he used engines or tablebases. AND his opponents ALSO benefitted from having analyzed the adjourned position. And maybe his intuition would have steered him in the right direction anyway. Maybe when he started analyzing his adjournments, he already had a very good idea of what he had to do, and most of the analysis was just confirming that everything worked. I mean, there are so many factors to consider here, not least of which, of course, is the level of endgame theory he had to work with, which, while still quite advanced, was definitely not the same as it is today...

So, yeah, your point stands, but it only proves one thing: that you can't compare Carlsen and Fischer's endgame skills, because their endgames weren't played under the same conditions. It doesn't prove one or the other is/was better at endgames because of that, or at least I don't see it.

Fischer's endgames were very strong in part because of adjournments. Instead of having 30 min-1 hr. for endgame play, you could spend the whole night. Just keep that in mind.

I understand I sound like I'm being nitpicky, but I think these are nits that might actually be worth picking... :)

Still, it would be interesting to see someone analyze games of actual top 10 players from the 1970's, compared to today's. And I don't think Carlsen was included in that study of the games of World Champions a few years back, so it'd be cool to see an analysis of his games compared to the other champions'... If they show me Carlsen's moves are, on average, more accurate than Fischer's in his prime, then, while I won't accept that as proof (see the relevant paragraph above), I will, at least, consider adjusting my opinion on the matter somewhat. :)

@brabo_hf - The study you mention is definitely very, very interesting. This is the kind of contribution this discussion needs, not tom_70's rants!

I would, however, like to point out a few things. If I understood that part correctly -, the games checked were those of players rated between 2690-2710, 2590-2610, etc., and, since "for 1976–1979 it was possible to find reliable and large-enough game sets only for the 2300 through 2600 mileposts, while 1991–1994 made it possible to add 2700", etc., the study in question actually analyzes virtually no games played between top 10 players for 1976-1979, and only starts doing so from 1991 - when there was already quite a bit of inflation (50-60 points), going by the more generally accepted theory. Therefore, the study includes neither Fischer, nor Karpov, anywhere near their prime, nor the top 10 players from the two's respective heydays.

Therefore, all it proves, more or less, is that there are far more players these days that are as strong as the players Karpov and Fischer were beating consistently in their day. Which is still a good thing to prove, I'll give you that! But we kind of knew that already, and it makes sense - the advancement of theory and the greater number of tournaments per year/region, etc., makes it so there are more rated players, and more players know the theory better, because of accessibility, so there are more very strong players. So, yes, perhaps the low 2600's of today are about the same strength as the low 2600's then, but the 2700's then aren't compared to the 2700's now, so we can't say the same about those, at least not based on this article. In other words, this still says nothing about the very top players and how they compare between the late 1970's and late 2000's (and, again, the 1991-1994 2700's ratings were already inflated quite a bit, so that comparison isn't quite as relevant either.) There's no proof, in my opinion, based on this article, that the advancement of theory has in any way impacted the quality of play of the very BEST players out there. Maybe, for example, once you've learned how to beat 2700's, the more there are, the easier it is for you, a top 3 player, or whatever, to gain rating points from them and get to 2850, or something, whereas for a Fischer or Karpov, who had only a few 2600-2650 players to get their points from, it was a lot harder to get there, even though they were just as good as Carlsen and Caruana, for example, are today. There are other things I'm not clear on as well, but there's a word cap, it seems...

And, finally, of course, the whole premise of this analysis is a bit shaky, because it's quite unclear whether even Rybka, just because it never blunders tactically and can calculate better than any human, really understands properly the depth of all of the grandmasters' plans/concepts, particularly world class grandmasters, especially in less tactically-charged positions, NOT TO MENTION that it probably can't understand at all a lot of the practical decisions they make (like speculative sacrifices based on the opponent's tendencies, psychological decisions, etc., and the pressure such decisions can put on a specific opponent), at times, so a lot of its evaluations could be misleading, to say the least. I would never use such a study as the be-all-end-all when it comes to comparing actual players' strengths. It's very interesting, for sure, and I always love looking at stuff like this, but it's FAR from being actual, scientific proof of anything, I think you'll agree...

I get that we're amateurs and stuff, myself and Edwards and Sonas and the rest, but, if you're a specialist yourself, or are in contact with specialists on the matter, then please, for the sake of all us ordinary folk's peace of mind, quickly address these issues - "explain it to me like I'm a four year old!" :) What's the flaw in my logic?

The only serious article I've read about inflation was published in 2011 by professors Kenneth Regan and Guy Haworth: http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/papers/pdf/ReHa11c.pdf
Many others like Rod Edwards, Jeff Sonas, .... are amateurs approaching the inflation subject in a pseudo-scientific way. Unfortunately it is exactly their articles which created myths about inflation.

Also, I didn't know he was the youngest - that's pretty cool! Go Romania! :)

@DeepGreen:

That's not an argument. Karpov lost to Kasparov, Capablanca lost to Alekhine, etc. - the positional player triumphs about as often as the attacking player in title matches. Youth is the deciding factor, most of the time, when there isn't a clear difference in playing strength between the two. Also, Fischer was FAR from being a predominantly attacking player, especially in his later years. He was a superb positional player and, also, a fantastic endgame player - I don't know how you compare him and Carlsen here, specifically; as excalibur2 says, have you performed computer analysis of the two's endgames? :)

@excalibur2 - believe it or not, I have a win and two draws against Deac, in our three games, the last two having been played last year and earlier this year. :) The first game was back in 2012, when I was actually a clear rating favorite against him (that was the other draw). Even then, I could see he had great understanding for his age. (He also calculates a lot, and very quickly, of course.) He's obviously a much better player than myself, overall, but I was only worse in the last game, which was a draw (and I end up worse against A LOT of people, though I do get my fair share of points from those games, in the end.) I suppose it's the inconsistency typical of junior players, or just the way our styles fit. I fully expect I'll lose the next 4 or 5 games against him, though, if I even get the chance to play him again. (I'm probably not helping my cause by saying this, either, were he to actually read it, although I doubt a lack of confidence is a real issue for such a talented young player...)

I had expected no less of an insulting and obtuse response from you, having seen your previous posts.

"To say that Carlsen is "terribly inconsistent" is just laughable in the extreme."

Where were you last year?

"He always finishes in first or second place, regardless of the tournament."

Again, where were you last year? Under what rock? Must've been a big one...
Anyway, I mostly meant from game to game, playing level-wise. And I think I made that pretty clear. Even throughout many of the tournaments he does win, you will find 1-2 games where he's just well below his usual standards. More so than the champions of the past - you don't have to agree with this, by the way. It's obviously not something that can be proved or disproved. But that's my opinion - one I know several people agree with - and I think I've presented it far more articulately and convincingly than you have any of yours.

"All of today's elite players are better than those of previous eras. That is a fact."

Is it? Because you say so? Did the Fischer of 1972 or the Kasparov of 1990 play against the Anand of 2008 or the Carlsen of 2016? I don't recall those matches... No, in fact, this is as far from being a "fact" as anything... ever...

"Any of today's top 10 players would crush Fischer or Tal or Petrosion or Botvinnik."

As much a "fact" as the above... (And, in my opinion, horribly wrong; only Carlsen and, maybe, one or two more, would even stand a chance, were they to go against any of those four in their heyday.)

"Theory has improved exponentially."

So? Carlsen is still playing whatever the hell he feels like playing and beating everybody on pretty much playing strength alone. (Which other champions have done in the past as well. Not all were Fischers or Kasparovs.) And look at what Jobava and Rapport are doing! There's no substitute for talent, good calculation, good understanding and fighting qualities. Opening (and endgame) theory helps, of course, but the decisive mistakes in games at the top almost always come in the middlegame or in non-theoretical endgames, where one player (such as Carlsen) simply outplays or outcalculates the opponent.
Besides, I already addressed the issue of taking the difference in the level of chess theory of the time when comparing players' strengths from different eras. Did you even read my post? (Of course not - trolls never do that. They just read the first 20 words, and then spew a bunch of random s**t they heard somewhere else, trying to sound as though they know what they're talking about by insulting you, instead of actually making a case for anything.)

"Acting like the advancement of chess theory has no impact on the strength of today's players just shows your ignorance of the subject at hand."

Saying that I was acting like that simply proves beyond any doubt you didn't even read half of what I wrote. (Or, alternatively, that you forgot it within seconds.)

@imdvb

Your response just shows how ignorant you are. To say that Carlsen is "terribly inconsistent" is just laughable in the extreme. He always finishes in first or second place, regardless of the tournament. I mean seriously, do you actually believe the nonsense your posting ??
All of today's elite players are better than those of previous eras. That is a fact. Theory has improved exponentially. Computers have made all players much better. Any of today's top 10 players would crush Fischer or Tal or Petrosion or Botvinnik. Acting like the advancement of chess theory has no impact on the strength of today's players just shows your ignorance of the subject at hand.

And, personally, I think Carlsen is about Karpov's strength, maybe slightly below. Definitely not stronger than Fischer or Kasparov. I rate Lasker, Capablanca and others more highly as well, but that's more debatable, clearly - though, had they been born when Carlsen was born, and had access to the same resources he's had access to, I think they'd have been clearly stronger. To me they were more talented. Results-wise (vs. contemporaries) it's not really close, either. Carlsen has been terribly inconsistent as a champion, and loses incredibly poor games sometimes, for a strong World Champion's standards. Lasker and Capa also lost games, of course, perhaps even more frequently (such were the times), but they didn't lose like that, to my recollection. Maybe once or twice in their entire careers, but most definitely not multiple times a year, like Carlsen.

The debatable part is absolute playing strength. But even there, with no adjustments for time period and level of chess knowledge, I still think Fischer and Kasparov (and again, probably Karpov, by a little bit) were clearly better than Carlsen is, or ever will be, and would have won a pretty serious majority of matches against him, were they to play, say, 20 matches for the title. They were just much better, in my opinion. More consistent, more creative, better prepared - again, probably even without adjustments -, stronger mentally, more talented... you name it! Don't get me wrong - Carlsen is hella strong! :) But he's not really in the discussion for "best ever", in my opinion, at least not based on what he's achieved so far. The (adjusted) rating peaks (calculated by ELO for 1851-1978, and presented in his book, and then, of course, since 1971, by FIDE, using ELO's ratings system) more or less confirm my rankings, but, as Angelo says, that could be more or less accidental, as ratings don't necessarily measure players' results across different eras - different factors (not just inflation) might intervene and alter the rating pool, I suppose, after enough time has passed, so we can't take those as absolutes.

Lightsouttonight wrote:

"Sorry, but I disagree that Carlsen is better than Fischer was . In my opinion, Fischer is the best of all time. "

You're blinded by historical sentimentality: Fischer the attacking player would lose to Carlsen the positional player, for the same reasons Kasparov lost to Kramnik. Carlsen is also a stronger endgame player than Fischer. Fischer the aggressive player would fail versus Carlsen's positional defenses, and he would lose positionally in the mid- or endgame.

Fischer was more superior to his competitors back then than Carlsen is today (today the top players are more evenly matched), and this is why some people misinterpret this as Fischer being stronger than Carlsen. But in more absolute terms, Carlsen is stronger.

Also don't confuse this with who's the greatest player: The greatest player from a historical perspective (in terms of achievements, tournament wins, consistency over time, etc.) is Kasparov. Fischer was also great, but he had a much shorter career. Carlsen may (and probably will) be remembered as one of the greatest chess players when he retires, but he's still young (and he has already won 28 supertournaments, and has won two World Championships, etc.).

"elo ony gives relative strength for same period players."

That's the key phrase, right there, of course...