Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 07:18:42 10/28/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 28, 2002 at 02:18:55, Brian Katz wrote: >On October 27, 2002 at 23:19:33, Bob Durrett wrote: > >>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. > > >What I see and I failed to mention before as well is.......... >With the use of Computer Programs such as Fritz or Chessmaster 5000 and up (to >me the Chessmaster line is more popular in that it is sold in Stationary Stores >such as Staples and Office Max, (just to name a few)along side other programs >that the everyday person can purchase. Most people are unfamiliar with Fritz or >Chessbase unless they are already chessplayers who are already aware. I don't >believe that most people ever heard of Chessbase or Fritz. > >My point being that years ago, only a handful of players exhisted in comparison >to the amount of players of today. >I remember a day when I never heard of a chess club. I could only play my >friends on my block or some kids in school. >I am sure there were kids who could never get to a chess club unless their >parents or some other grown up took them there. There was always the stereotype >of the old man who plays chess. Not a young kid. Of course there were the >exceptions, Fischer and Reshevsky as an example. There are others of course. >In this present day, young kids who may never have been exposed to this game, >have it at their fingertips with the PC. Now a child does not have to wait for >that "next weeks" meeting at the chessclub. Or now a child who may never have >been able to play against strong opposition, can now get that with a computer. >Whether it be against a program or against someone else on the internet. > With computers, there are so many more people exposed to this game, that just >with the law of averages, you are bound to find more GOOD players then ever >before. >Just like in the case of Women players. Years ago there weren't many women >players. The women who played weren't rated very high. Most of the high rated >women in the US were in the 1800's (Elo that is) some were higher. Again, there >were the exceptions. Diane Savereide, Rachel Crotto. Many mistakenly assumed >that women weren't as good at chess as men. That was probably true then. >Again with the law of averages, the more woment exposed to the game and the more >that play, along with the reasons I mentioned pertaining to children before, the >greater the chance of finding many Great women players. >Judit Polgar, Susan Polgar, Zsusa Polgar, Irina Crush, Jennifer Shahade, >Beatrice Marinelo, GM Genady Sagalchek's wife is rated in the 2200's or 2300's. >There are other GM's whos wives are 2300+ and many others. Women are not >inferior or ever were inferior in chess to men. Just now there are many more >exposed to this game then ever before. >Women who were intimidated by going to a chess club can now play and learn on >the internet or with their chess program, get good and enter tournaments. > So with some of these thoughts in mind, I have no doubt that the use of >Computers makes a huge difference in Modern day playing strength. > >Comments welcome as always >Brian Katz > >In this present day Again as before, I agree in general with the above, except for the last sentence. I know that, in my own personal case, that the availability of internet chess servers [e.g. ICC] has greatly enhanced my enjoyment of the game. Previously, I had to drive for almost an hour to get to a chess club, which met only one day each week. Internet chess has been mostly blitz for me. It may be heresy to say this but I enjoy Blitz much more that the slow over the board games. I do not have Chess Assistant, but have derived much pleasure from Chessbase's CB8 database software. These are just two examples of how computers have enhanced my chess. But I am "just an ordinary guy." Not at all in the class of the top GMs of today and yesterday. I don't think that my situation says much at all about theirs. I see the top GMs as being extraordinary people. The rules that seem to apply to ordinary people may not apply to them. Watching GM chess on an internet server has been "eye-opening" for me. I try to guess the moves before they are played, for both sides. It is during this activity that their extraordinary abilities are especially apparent. Peter Svidler has made a huge dent in my thinking. He has served as a commentator at ICC for some key events involving top GM participants. His real time analyses blow my mind! He sees so much! I realize that "I am from Mars and he is from Earth." In other words, it's as if were are different species, or even different lifeforms entirely. The top GMs are not ordinary people. When one of these extraordinary geniuses is born, they are destined to rise to the top regardless of environmental factors. The size of the World's population, the availability of computers, and all the rest of the environmental factors, do not IMHO have much at all to do with their futures. They will rise to the top of a puddle or of an ocean. Nothing stands in their way. Back in the early fourties [I don't remember the exact date], a chess genius was born and his name was Bobby Fischer. Nothing could stand in the way of his rise to the top. Not the absence of computers, for sure! Not even the "Soviet Bloc." His demise was due to factors not related to chess. He ran into a meat grinder called an "overly inflated bureaucrat." Just bad luck. 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.