4 ms·

> their relative position to others is a new record. This doesn't seem necessarily true to me. If Magnus was in his prime in say 1980s it's not clear if he cou

> their relative position to others is a new record. This doesn't seem necessarily true to me. If Magnus was in his prime in say 1980s it's not clear if he could ever get so close to 2900 since every other super-GM had lower ELO which would make his progress slower than now. Not only do we not know how an average 2022-super-GM compares to a 1980-super-GM, we also don't know how Magnus compares to an 1980-super-GM. E.g. Tal achieved his peak ELO 2705 in 1980, but at that time Korchnoi had an ELO of 2695 (diff of 10), whereas, Magnus currently has 2864 and #2 Ding Liren has 2808 (diff of 56). But Magnus' peak rating of 2872 is 30 less than Caruana's peak rating of 2842 during the same time.

bsder 4y ago
> Not only do we not know how an average 2022-super-GM compares to a 1980-super-GM I suspect this is false. Chess is one of the few endeavors where we have decent historical records. Combine this with the fact that computers can now analyze lines a very long way, and I suspect that you can do things like compare how often GMs missed a superior line of play. By most measures, the GMs of the past played weaker chess than our current GMs. The current GMs benefit from having started at younger ages with a larger body of chess theory and super-strong computers to work with and against. I suspect that the GMs of the past would be as strong as the GMs of the present given those. However, they didn't have those and, consequently, the chess, itself, was weaker. Side note: I adore Mikhail Tal's "This position looks interesting and complex. Banzai!" games. However, most of them would get him absolutely creamed against the current top players. And to be fair--even the top players of his own time tended to refute them. However, Tal's games are often way more exciting than everybody else's.

4 ms·

> their relative position to others is a new record. This doesn't seem necessarily true to me. If Magnus was in his prime in say 1980s it's not clear if he cou

by gnulinux 4y ago

bsder 4y ago
> Not only do we not know how an average 2022-super-GM compares to a 1980-super-GM I suspect this is false. Chess is one of the few endeavors where we have decent historical records. Combine this with the fact that computers can now analyze lines a very long way, and I suspect that you can do things like compare how often GMs missed a superior line of play. By most measures, the GMs of the past played weaker chess than our current GMs. The current GMs benefit from having started at younger ages with a larger body of chess theory and super-strong computers to work with and against. I suspect that the GMs of the past would be as strong as the GMs of the present given those. However, they didn't have those and, consequently, the chess, itself, was weaker. Side note: I adore Mikhail Tal's "This position looks interesting and complex. Banzai!" games. However, most of them would get him absolutely creamed against the current top players. And to be fair--even the top players of his own time tended to refute them. However, Tal's games are often way more exciting than everybody else's.