Author: Matt Frank
Date: 18:46:31 04/13/99
Go up one level in this thread
>On April 12, 1999 at 01:02:59, Nacho Bidnuz wrote: > >>I seriously question the statement that the GM title is inflated. Although I >>haven't heard any arguments that Kasparov, Kramnik, Anand and the rest of >>today's top ten or so players would do poorly against the best players of twenty >>or thirty years ago, many have said that today's "ordinary GM's" would have been >>nobodies in the old days. >> When I look around I see guys like Shaked, Norwood, and the rest of the >>under-2600 GM crowd who seem to be no worse than the average GM's of the old >>days such as Evans, Lombardy, Keene, etc. Maybe Fischer at his peak was good >>enough to beat God at HIS peak, but that doesn't mean that the number 200 player >>today isn't as good as or better than the number 80 player in Fischer's day. >>Sometimes I feel like I'm arguing with the sort of people who think Babe Ruth >>was the greatest simply because they were 16-year-old baseball fanst in 1927. >> >>Nacho On April 12, 1999 at 15:39:16, Charles Milton Ling wrote: >What it simply boils down to (for me) is this: If you are a GM and there are >over 500 people in the world who have a statistical expectancy to win against >you, you really should ask yourself how "grand" you are. It is not necessary to >ask the unanswerable question "then and now - how do they compare?"; that is a >separate matter. A GM in the 50s and 60s was one of the top (choose a low >two-digit number, it will depend on the year selected) players in the world, and >everybody knew it, saw it, and respected it. > >Charley I love debates like this. To me it is clear that the number of people at the upper level of chess is much larger today than say, 1975 (any perusal of the FIDE ratings from the tournaments, or the official lists, in those days will reveal the truth of this). The top 10 players today are clearly stronger than all but Fischer and Karpov, circa 1975 (or do you posit some previously unrevealed FIDE rating inflation?). Doesn't that evidence specify that there may be more players at ALL LEVELS near the top, and not coincidentially more middle and lower level Grand Masters (again based on the rating lists). For example, in the US today there are more players (i.e., 7-15) stronger than the strongest 1970 era US players (excluding Fischer). So what are you saying? Is it somehow less impressive to be a GM today than it was in 1975, or some earlier year, because of the increased numbers near the top? That belief appears to be consistent with saying that because training methods and other techniques have pushed the limit of accomplishment (e.g., the stronger techniques and greater availability of those techniques); those accomplishments are not as IMPORTANT because there is more company at the top. To me that sounds absurd! If I've misunderstood your point Charley please correct me. Sincerely, Matt Frank
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.