< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 21 OF 21 ·
|Jan-06-13|| ||thejack: > Absentee
Yes, but is it really all about numbers?
Fischers results in 1970-1972 were legendary..and have not been equalled to this day.
But so what?
Fischer stopped playing in his prime. Botvinnik and Karpov played top-flight chess for more than 30 years.
You really want to discuss that??
Ficher is the best of all time because he had the biggest "120 points gap" at one time in his career?
Is that what you are seriously saying?!
As for Kasparov i donīt have his predecessors book before me but i remember him claiming that Fischerīs opponents in the 70s used to break down psychologically - and if they didnīt he would not have scored the way he did.
I remember reading once that Fischer himself said that 3,5 to 2,5 would have been an appropriate result for his match with taimanov (or was it larsen?).
I canīt remeber where i read it though.
The links for Kramnik and Karpov:
(the intersting part regarding our discussion starts around 4:30)
|Jan-06-13|| ||Jim Bartle: "As for Kasparov i donïŋ―t have his predecessors book before me but i remember him claiming that Fischerïŋ―s opponents in the 70s used to break down psychologically..."|
...which has always been considered part of the game.
|Jan-06-13|| ||thejack: Yes of course.
But that doesnīt make it a part of pure playing strength, does it?
|Jan-06-13|| ||AylerKupp: Many seem to think that Fischer's best performance was in the 3-year 1970-1972 period, but actually that was nowhere near his best (remember, he did relatively "poorly" in his 1972 match with Spassky with a record of +7, -3, =11 and a 59.5% winning percentage). Based on the chessgames.com database (not necessarily complete) and excluding blitz, offhand, simultaneous exhibition, etc. games Fischer's 3-year winning percentage in 1970-1972 was "only" 78.9% (+74, -6, =37). His best "3-year" period (effectively a 2-year period since he didn't play any games in 1969) was actually 1968-1970 with a winning percentage of 83.7% (+73, -3, =28).|
But either performance was not only nearly equaled but exceeded by many other legendary players in their best 3-year period. For example:
Alekhine 1918-1920: 83.3% winning percentage (+28, -4, =4)
Capablanca 1918-1920, 92.9% winning percentage (+31, -1, =3)
Karpov 1961-1963: 85.5% winning percentage (+23, -1, =7)
Lasker 1891-1893: 86.5% winning percentage (+61, -7, =6)
Morphy 1855-1857: 86.5% winning percentage (+49, -3, =3)
Steinitz 1863-1865: 85.6% winning percentage (+36, -4, =5)
I know, many will say that Fischer's performance was "harder" because he played more games. But is that really the case? A single game blunder leading to a loss or a draw has a more significant negative effect on a player's winning percentage if that player plays a smaller number of games. Fischer himself argued for longer matches saying that they would more conclusively prove who was the better player by reducing the impact of a chance blunder (29...Bxh2 anyone?). So what's considered to be of greater significance when trying to determine the "greatness" of a player's winning percentage, a larger number of wins or a smaller number of losses? And at what point does the additional number of games that a player plays cease to become significant?
Finally, no matter how anyone jumps and dances you can't ignore Lasker's superior 86.5% winning percentage while playing close to the same number of games during his best 3-year period (74) as Fischer (104).
However, as <thejack> asked, "is it really all about numbers?" I would say NO. Numbers alone are interesting but they don't usually tell the whole story. But if we're going to make comparisons based on numbers, let's at least get the numbers right.
|Jan-06-13|| ||perfidious: <AylerKupp> Some off-the-cuff observations on your well-presented chart:|
In the period for Alekhine and Capablanca, they never faced each other, or Lasker.
Karpov was so young and nowhere near the monster he would become, but whom did he face in that nascent period?
Lasker-even as of the end of 1893-had yet to play a single game with Chigorin, Tarrasch or Steinitz.
Excluding the thumbnail on Karpov, there are, of course, a number of reasons why certain of these meetings never took place.
|Jan-06-13|| ||RookFile: Fischer could give pawn and move to some of Steinitz's opponents. It starts with that. |
Karpov was playing people in 1961-1963 that didn't measure up to Fischer's level of opposition.
The list goes on and on.
Get real man, nobody goes 6-0, 6-0, and 6.5-2.5 in Candidates play, yet Fischer did it.
|Jan-06-13|| ||drnooo: those who feel Fischer was the best ain't gonna yield and those who hold there were five or six better also ain't.
feel being the operative word. many of
the predictions about most of the w.c.
matches have turned out to be wrong, all the way back to capa and alex, but that does not prevent the prognosticators from their yelling. however you can say this for sure, by 72 Fischer had begun to unravel and no telling where THAT would have stopped.
It would not have taken many losses from Karpov to send him over the edge, but, who knows, he might have been able to keep it together.
|Jan-07-13|| ||AylerKupp: I guess it all depends on how you define "results" and "performance". From strictly a won-loss-draw performance, when the quality of the opponents is not considered, Fischer's peak performance during the 3-year periods of 1970-1972 or 1968-1970 did not match the performance of some of the legends during their best 3-year periods. That's simply what these numbers say.|
<thejack> asked whether it's all really about numbers and I said NO, that numbers don't tell the whole story. Obviously the quality of the opponents (and the players themselves) need to be factored in. While the strength of Karpov's, Lasker's, or whomever's opponents measured up to the strength of Fischer's opponents during the latter periods, neither was Karpov, Lasker, etc. as strong as they would become in later years. So their performance was still impressive, regardless of the strength of their opponents.
Probably a better way to take into account a player's results compared to their opponents strengths is to calculate their performance based on the ratings or equivalent measures at the time that the various games were played. Obviously that's a significant undertaking, determining the ratings of each player's opponents and is particularly difficult for earlier players when such ratings were not available nor easily calculatable. Sounds like a project for some number crunching fanatic.
|Jan-07-13|| ||RookFile: I won all my games in junior high school. Let me dig those out. It's time for Fischer and Karpov to step aside.|
|Jan-07-13|| ||AylerKupp: Just remember, not all players got better with age. I certainly didn't.|
|Jan-09-13|| ||perfidious: <AylerKupp> You aren't the only one-I got to 2300 as early as age 23, then again a few years on, but as they say, that-a was that-a.|
So sez this retired hasbeenusetawas.
|Jan-12-13|| ||Everett: <RookFile: Fischer could give pawn and move to some of Steinitz's opponents. It starts with that.>|
Not Lasker, of course.
|Jan-12-13|| ||Everett: As far as streaks go, Petrosian faced many different opponents, including the best of the best, in '62, and didn't lose a single game... something like +24 =37.|
Also, Spassky from '64-'70 has similarly ridiculous numbers.
And as things got more difficult for Karpov, his results in '73 and '74 are also ridiculously good, especially considering the competition.
Thing is, just before winning the WC, nearly all the champions were absolutely crushing every else. They were locked in and smashing people.
|Jan-17-13|| ||AylerKupp: <perfidious> Well, I never got anywhere close to 2300 but, looking back, the somewhat frustrating thing in my case is that several of the players that I could beat easily when I was young (and they were younger), managed to become fine players, over 2400, and one became a GM at 2525.|
I guess that's what lack of talent and unwillingness to work gets you. :-( But I had fun, and in the end that's all that really counts. At least in my case.
|Jan-17-13|| ||leka: Dear rook file. You are totally wrong.Steinitz faced Blackburne and MacDonnell years between 1863 to 1965.The chess metrics gives them an averidge rating 2486. If Fischer gives a pawn up rating drops 361,6 points.If you calcuated 2486 plus 361,6 we get 2847,6. Fischer was that high 1970-1971.But as we know the chess metrics gives Paul Morphy 2743 that is at least 100 points too less.If you put 100 points to Blackburne and MacDonell ratings.Fischer could not beaat them one pawn down|
|Jan-17-13|| ||leka: Sorry an error.Steinitz faced MacDonell and Blacburne 1863-1865|
|Mar-27-13|| ||Jadoubious: A bit of trivia about this game. The moves were being received by telex in NY. The operator was asked to confirm 3.d4, because they were sure it must be a typo since Fischer had never played Queens Gambit in his entire career.|
|Mar-27-13|| ||RookFile: leka, that's still not as impressive as my score in junior high school.|
|Apr-08-13|| ||PawnSac: < AylerKupp: Many seem to think that Fischer's best performance was in the 3-year 1970-1972 period, but actually that was nowhere near his best (remember, he did relatively "poorly" in his 1972 match with Spassky with a record of +7, -3, =11 and a 59.5% winning percentage). >|
This statistic should be corrected by removing the notorious NON-GAME #2
as it was a non-performance game, and doesn't count in a "performance" rating.
|Apr-08-13|| ||harrylime: Fischer's period of massive dominance was actually longer than most folk realise. |
By 1965 he was the best chess player in the world and only the Soviet wall of super GM's obscured this along with his obstinacy.
I like and respect Karpov but he never came close to Fischer's level of dominance or Fischer's level of actually changing the game of chess.
|Apr-08-13|| ||Petrosianic: His results don't show that. It was in 1970 that he went from scoring 42% against the Soviets to scoring 70%. Give it up, you've been trying and failing for years to make this point. You might as well give it up. You've failed to make this case, but not for lack of trying.|
|Apr-08-13|| ||harrylime: ^^^
I think you're the one who should be giving it up .
Fischer's results in the mid 60's reflected his dissatisfaction with the cold war fixed and corrupt chess world in general.
Fischer's actual play was sublime.
By the mid 60's Fischer was the best chess player in the world.
|Apr-08-13|| ||Petrosianic: Again, the evidence doesn't show that. You can see how well he did or didn't do against Soviet players in those years for yourself if you have the courage to look. I know that this is a religious issue for you, whereas it isn't for me.|
It would be nice if people gave up posting unpleasant facts, and just let myth take over, wouldn't it? Anyway, it's not me you should be mad at. It's Chessbase. Did you see?
They just posted an article naming Fischer as only the SEVENTH best champion in championship matches. I expect you to write them a letter explaining their error, and post a copy of it here, if you care about this issue even half as much as you've seemed to.
|Apr-08-13|| ||harrylime: ^^^
TBH I respect your opinions which do indeed differ very much from mine.. But it really does seem like you're following me around lol ..
Maybe coz of your username you've got some emotional attatchment to the soviet cold war era ?
I've got news for you. ..
Fischer brought this down.
|Apr-08-13|| ||Petrosianic: Uh huh. Have you written the letter to Chessbase or not? Or maybe you're not as keen on defending Bobby as you say you are.|
I haven't directed a post at you in over 6 months before the other day, so I have to warn you again about just making facts up out of thin air to suit your case. You were asking the other day why you get no respect. This is one of the big reasons.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 21 OF 21 ·