| Jan-05-05 | | Jaymthegenius: Larsen is only slightly better then Deep Blue, as he won, drew, but didnt loose. Larsen perhaps did more for opening theory in history, apart from Nimzovich and Reti, then anyone else. I am sad that In Fritz 7's estimated ratings it put Morphy at 2560, and
Adolf Anderrsen to be slightly better then Nimzovich, And worse still is that Reti is 2200 around!!! i do not like this one bit, Reti is BETTER then Anderrssen, Staunton, Saint Amant, AND Steinitz, as is Nimzovich. Anybody with Fritz copy Every game from earliest game all the way to 1935, And see the hillarious estimations (Morphy #1 in a list of people from 1610 to 1935, THATS SILLY! Considering how Alekhine, Nimzovich, Reti, Lasker, Steinitz, and Tarrasch are on the list!) For anybody to know what I'm talking about copy a few games from the database, create a new database, paste games into new database, it will ask you a range of games from original database, say from game 1 to game 5000, then when games are copied select "start ELO list" then it will estimate (VERY poorly)the rating's of each player. |
|
| Jan-05-05 | | OJC: < Larsen is only slightly better then Deep Blue, as he won, drew, but didnt loose.> Therefore Larsen is better than Kasparov. Right?
< I am sad that In Fritz 7's estimated ratings it put Morphy at 2560, and Adolf Anderrsen to be slightly better then Nimzovich etc. etc. >
I am sad that anybody could be sad about this. Morphy, Anderssen, etc. were incredibly smart PEOPLE and the best in their time. Just because they didn't tend to fianchetto their bishops doesn't mean they were unable to grasp hypermodern concepts. As a homework assignment in 2005, you should play over and study a large number of Morphy, Anderssen, Paulsen, Staunton, Reti, Nimzovich, Waitzkin etc. games and draw your own conclusions and stop quoting crap Fritz 7 evaluations of players strengths |
|
| Jan-06-05 | | Jaymthegenius: I HAVE drawn my own conclusions! Kasparov is the greatest human player of ALL TIME! While Reti and Nimzovich would defeat anyone from 1800's. I estimate Reti and Nimzovich to be the eqivalent of a modern IM, while Staunton and Anderssen would be Class-C, And Morphy Class-B. |
|
| Jan-06-05 | | OJC: Fair enough < Jaym >. Could you explain why you feel so? Unless I'm mistaken: 2200-2399 = Master
2000-2199 = Expert
1800-1999 = Class A
1600-1799 = Class B
1400-1599 = Class C
1200-1399 = Class D
1000-1199 = Class E
Consider Morphy for example. How does one estimate his strength (by modern standards) to be only 1600-1799 elo when the greats are practically unanimous that he was an uniquely gifted chess player? As one example:
<< In 1914 Jose Capablanca luxuriated in a compliment from Amos Burn that he played like Morphy. “The style of Morphy, they say,” wrote Capablanca, “and if it is true that the goddess of fortune has endowed me with his talent, the result [of a match with Emanuel Lasker] will not be in doubt. The magnificent American master had the most extraordinary brain that anybody has ever had for chess. Technique, strategy, tactics, knowledge which is inconceivable for us; all that was possessed by Morphy fifty-four years ago.” >> http://www.worldchessnetwork.com/En... |
|
| May-09-16 | | PaulMeysman: I think Morphy was the greatest. Maybe Fischer was the greatest or maybe Kasparov. |
|
|
|
|
Kibitzing
