Author: Brian Katz
Date: 20:01:53 10/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 27, 2002 at 21:29:06, Bob Durrett wrote: >On October 27, 2002 at 21:18:51, Mike Byrne wrote: > ><snip> > >>Bottom line - Computers have raised the bar in terms of expectations from GM >>players - in general, I think top GMs of today are better than top GMs of >>yesteryear -- as today's top athlete's are better than yesteryear. <snip> > > >The following is somewhat "far out," but: > > >Today's top athlete's are better than yesteryear??? > >I don't see how that could be unless we have selective breeding. Are the top >athletes of today the products of matings of the top male and female athletes of >yesteryear? > >Improved training methods and facilities couldn't count for that much. Could >they? > >Maybe the same applies to the top GMs? No? . . . but why not? More complete >open and endgame theory? Or what? Which modern GM is as motivated and intense >as Fischer was at his prime? Maybe it's the possibility of winning $700,000 for >just eight games? > >WHY are the moderns better than their ancestors???? [Maybe they're not!] > >Bob D. Modern masters are better in that they have much more aquired knowledge due to mass media, vast amount of chess literature of all sorts, especially game collections, and last but not least, with the advent of Computer database of games and the use of computer chess programs, modern day masters have to be better than those of the past. Fischer of course would do well today as well. Look how Korchnoi is performing to this very day. As far as natural talent, it is hard to say if present day masters are any better or worse than those of the past. Brian Katz
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.