Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 20:19:33 10/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 27, 2002 at 23:01:53, Brian Katz wrote: >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 Yes. I can buy that. A few points: (1) The fact that chess masters of today have all of the advantages as you pointed out would certainly suggest that they should be better prepared. (2) Some people have said that the older masters would be competitive today after first absorbing the new information. That seems reasonable. (3) But, in my mind, the real question here is: "To what extent does modern chess technology contribute to the strengths of the GMs at the very top?" I know that the ability to come up with new opening novelties does offer advantages but it is not clear how much. The old masters may have produced opening novelties too. Do modern GMs get stronger, as if by osmosis, by playing many games against chess engines? Herein lies the crux of the issue: Are the modern chess tools really making that much difference at the top levels of human chess? Maybe the Soviet School used databases to get a competitive opening advantage in the days of Fischer? But at the top level, it just didn't defeat that Western GM. I suspect that outstanding talent is the dominant factor at the top. Just a few random thoughts. : ) Bob D.
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.