On Apr 22, 5:39 am, raylopez99 wrote:
On Apr 21, 10:32 pm, help bot wrote:

On Apr 21, 8:28 am, Taylor Kingston wrote:
As IM Winston
Churchill so succinctly put it: "Chess history is bunk".

-- help bot

bot, have you seen the articles by chess statistician Jeff Sonas on
the greatest champions ever? The research that 'backsolved' GW games
using computers to show which GMs made the fewest errors (both in
winning AND in losing games)? That showed Capa (and Lasker) and
Kasparov (and Karpov) and Fischer (and Petrosian) to be the greatest
players ever?

No, I haven't seen it.

How do you "back solve" a game, anyway?

How did the statistician decide which games to analyze,
and which to exclude? This seems to allow for human
bias to LEAP into the forefront. I would prefer a dufus
(who has no clue how to manipulate numbers) to decide
the matter, then enter the *competent* statisticians for the
number-crunching part.

Can I "back solve" my own games, or is there an upper
limit as to how many blunders the algorithm can handle?
;D

-- help bot