4 ms·
> You can't compare Elo ratings over long stretches of time, period. I agree that you cannot do it reliably, in principle. However, Bobby Fischer peaked at 27
by hyperpape 1mo ago
> You can't compare Elo ratings over long stretches of time, period.
I agree that you cannot do it reliably, in principle.
However, Bobby Fischer peaked at 2785, and Gary Kasparov peaked at 2851. These are not far from what informed observers suggest--maybe 50 or 100 points off. They are well into super-grandmaster territory. Kasparov would be 1st today, Fischer would be 4th.
But on goratings.org, the top player of the 90s would be roughly 30th today.
My point is that the go ratings are much more unstable than the chess ratings. With chess ratings, you'll be wrong in the details. With go ratings, you'll be catastrophically wrong.
- DiogenesKynikos 1mo agoI agree that the drift in chess Elo ratings is slow enough that we can say Bobby Fischer at his peak would still be a strong grandmaster today (if he were given some time to study developments in opening theory). But I don't think we can say whether he would land at 2700 or 2800 in today's Elo scale.
- hyperpape 1mo agoThis is within the realm of reasonable opinion, but I'd tentatively say it's an uncommon one--I thought it's generally agreed that the very best players of that era didn't lag contemporary players in terms of skill, only theory. I may be wrong, though.
- DiogenesKynikos 1mo agoChess has developed significantly over the last 50 years. The best players now can be reasonably expected to be much more skilled than the best players of 50 years ago, even if you discount opening theory knowledge.