A Chess forum. ChessBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ChessBanter forum » Chess Newsgroups » rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Highest ELO performance



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old October 9th 05, 05:23 AM
Vladyslav Kosulin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Alan OBrien wrote:

"Vladyslav Kosulin" wrote in message
news:[email protected]

Frank Groъe wrote:


Salut,

Kasparow owned the highest ELO score by 2851 between July 1999 und
January
2000. Now Topalow plays a great tournament and reaches at the moment an
ELO
performance over 3100, but what was the highest ELO performance (!) ever
reached? Does anybody know?


http://www.chesspro.ru/events/sanluis05-stat2.shtml



I take it that that is Morosevich in 1st and 2nd places.


He takes second after the current Topalov. But his opposition was not very strong.

Here are column names:
Year, player's name, event site, score, player's rating, opponents rating, ELO
performance, score after 6 rounds.

There are 3 tables.
The first one on tournaments, the second - Bundesliga season, the third - rapid
chess events, fourth - in very weak tournaments, and fifth - historic list of
best performances before the ELO era.

Translation for some names:
Топалов Topalov
Морозевич Morozevich
Карпов Karpov
Крамник Kramnik
Каспаров Kasparov
Белявский Beliavski
Широв Shirov
Корчной Korchoi
Иванчук Ivanchuk
Свидлер Svidler
Таль Tal
Ваганян Vaganian
Ананд Anand
Спасский Spasski
Фишер Fischer
Ласкер Lasker
Капабланка Capablanca
Алехин Alekhine
Ботвинник Botvinnik
Котов Kotov
Ларсен Laarsen
Тайманов, Ларсен, Петросян Taimanov, Larsen, Petrosian
  #12  
Old October 11th 05, 04:50 PM
David Richerby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Fred wrote:
I seem to recall reading that Fischer's rating was so high by the time
he was finished the candidates matches that his rating actually dropped
a little as a result of the Spassky match. can anyone confirm this?


According to the database that comes with Fritz 8, Fischer's rating at the
start of the world championship and candidates' matches was:

2740 candidates' quarter-final vs Taimanov
2760 candidates' semi-final vs Larsen
2760 candidates' final vs Petrosian
2785 World Championship vs Spassky

Note that ratings lists are calculated quarterly so the jump from 2760 to
2785 is due to the matches against both Larsen and Petrosian.

Fischer's current FIDE rating is 2780 (inactive) so, yes, he did lose
rating points by not winning the World Championship match by a suffi-
ciently convincing margin. (I believe that the forfeit game two does
not count for rating purposes, by the way.)


Dave.

--
David Richerby Salted Electronic Sword (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a razor-sharp blade but it uses
electricity and it's covered in salt!
  #13  
Old October 11th 05, 05:06 PM
Mike Murray
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 11 Oct 2005 15:50:21 +0100 (BST), David Richerby
wrote:

A temporary digression:

Consider two Elo rating pools. Assume the ratings in both are
represented by a curve of the same shape, and that the average rating
of each pool is identical. Pool-A has 1000 players. Pool-B has
10,000 players.

Isn't it more likely that the top 10 players in Pool-B will have a
higher average rating than the top 10 players in Pool-A?

Or was my coffee not strong enough this morning?
  #14  
Old October 11th 05, 05:47 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Frank Gro=DFe wrote:
Salut,

Kasparow owned the highest ELO score by 2851 between July 1999 und January
2000. Now Topalow plays a great tournament and reaches at the moment an E=

LO
performance over 3100, but what was the highest ELO performance (!) ever
reached? Does anybody know?

Regards, Frank


Probably a series of tournaments in Vermont in the early 1990s. Phil
Innes secured his 'nearly an IM 2450' title while losing to players
rated 1800 USCF.

  #15  
Old October 12th 05, 12:00 PM
David Richerby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mike Murray wrote:
Consider two Elo rating pools. Assume the ratings in both are
represented by a curve of the same shape, and that the average rating
of each pool is identical. Pool-A has 1000 players. Pool-B has
10,000 players.

Isn't it more likely that the top 10 players in Pool-B will have a
higher average rating than the top 10 players in Pool-A?

Or was my coffee not strong enough this morning?


We're assuming the pools are disjoint and that there are no games between
people in different pools? In that case, yes, you should expect the top
ten of Pool-B to have a higher average rating because there is a higher
chance of outliers in the larger pool.

(I am not a probabilist and nor is my office-mate.)


Dave.

--
David Richerby Surprise Salted Hi-Fi (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a music system but it's covered in
salt and not like you'd expect!
  #16  
Old October 12th 05, 02:48 PM
Mike Murray
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 12 Oct 2005 11:00:24 +0100 (BST), David Richerby
wrote:

Mike Murray wrote:
Consider two Elo rating pools. Assume the ratings in both are
represented by a curve of the same shape, and that the average rating
of each pool is identical. Pool-A has 1000 players. Pool-B has
10,000 players.


Isn't it more likely that the top 10 players in Pool-B will have a
higher average rating than the top 10 players in Pool-A?


We're assuming the pools are disjoint and that there are no games between
people in different pools? In that case, yes, you should expect the top
ten of Pool-B to have a higher average rating because there is a higher
chance of outliers in the larger pool.


So, given that there are many more Elo rated players now than, e.g.,
thirty years ago, won't results from questions about "highest Elo
reached" in an event (or a year or whatever) be biased towards more
recent events ?
  #17  
Old October 12th 05, 05:52 PM
David Richerby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mike Murray wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
Mike Murray wrote:
Consider two Elo rating pools. Assume the ratings in both are
represented by a curve of the same shape, and that the average rating
of each pool is identical. Pool-A has 1000 players. Pool-B has
10,000 players.

Isn't it more likely that the top 10 players in Pool-B will have a
higher average rating than the top 10 players in Pool-A?


[Yes]


So, given that there are many more Elo rated players now than, e.g.,
thirty years ago, won't results from questions about "highest Elo
reached" in an event (or a year or whatever) be biased towards more
recent events ?


Not necessarily. The top ten from today's larger pool of players are
statistically likely to be stronger than the top ten from yesteryear's
smaller pool so they're also harder to beat. I'm not sure what the
interplay would be between this and the higher average rating of the top
players.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Incredible Newspaper (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a daily broadsheet but it'll blow
your mind!
  #18  
Old October 12th 05, 06:23 PM
Mike Murray
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 12 Oct 2005 16:52:14 +0100 (BST), David Richerby
wrote:

Consider two Elo rating pools. Assume the ratings in both are
represented by a curve of the same shape, and that the average rating
of each pool is identical. Pool-A has 1000 players. Pool-B has
10,000 players.


Isn't it more likely that the top 10 players in Pool-B will have a
higher average rating than the top 10 players in Pool-A?


[Yes]


So, given that there are many more Elo rated players now than, e.g.,
thirty years ago, won't results from questions about "highest Elo
reached" in an event (or a year or whatever) be biased towards more
recent events ?


Not necessarily. The top ten from today's larger pool of players are
statistically likely to be stronger than the top ten from yesteryear's
smaller pool so they're also harder to beat. I'm not sure what the
interplay would be between this and the higher average rating of the top
players.


Good point.

It make me curious as to how much of the reputed rise in chess
strength at the international/professional level is due to advances
in playing technique, and how much can be accounted for statistically
by the greater numbers of competitors.

With more players, we're likely to get some with greater natural
ability.

This is not to deny that deeper techniques are floating around in
mental space. I seem to remember reading about someone "Fritzing" the
published games of earlier grandmasters, and finding that they made
more tactical errors than the contemporary elite.
  #19  
Old October 12th 05, 10:42 PM
Larry Tapper
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Mike Murray wrote:
... It makes me curious as to how much of the reputed rise in chess
strength at the international/professional level is due to advances
in playing technique, and how much can be accounted for statistically
by the greater numbers of competitors.

With more players, we're likely to get some with greater natural
ability.

This is not to deny that deeper techniques are floating around in
mental space. I seem to remember reading about someone "Fritzing" the
published games of earlier grandmasters, and finding that they made
more tactical errors than the contemporary elite.


Mike,

You may be thinking of a puzzle book GM Nunn published in 1999. One
chapter features an error-checking study he did of games played at
Karlsbad 1911. Here's a BCM reviewer's summary:

"=2E..Another point of departure is Nunn's refusal to genuflect before
the greatest players of yesteryear. In a potentially controversial
chapter, The Test of Time, he subjects two tournaments (Karlsbad 1911
and the Biel Interzonal of 1993) to the harsh examination of analysis
by Fritz, set in 'blundercheck' mode. The top players from the
'historical' event were Alekhine, Rubinstein, Schlechter and
Nimzowitsch, whilst leading lights at Biel included Kramnik, Kamsky and
Anand. Leaving aside the difference in the states of opening theory and
strategical knowledge of the two eras, the idea was to look for serious
errors, and thus compare the strength of today's top players with that
of pre-World War 1 masters.

"Without going into too much detail here on Nunn's findings, it can be
said that they are not especially flattering for the 'old guys'. One
player, Hugo S=FCchting, is singled out (he scored 11=BD/25): "Having
played over all his games at Karlsbad I can confidently state that his
playing strength was not greater than Elo 2100 (BCF 187.5) and that was
on a good day and with a following wind." After some detailed study,
Nunn further extrapolates "[S=FCchting's] score implies an average
rating for the tournament of 2129 - it would not even be assigned a
category today." I imagine that advocates of past world champions will
be sharpening their writing implements at this very moment. However, as
with other favourite pub topics, such as who was the greatest between
Mohammed Ali v. Mike Tyson or Don Bradman v. Viv Richards, this
reviewer will stay determinedly on the sidelines and enjoy the
debate..."

http://www.bcmchess.co.uk/reviews/bcmrev9905.html

So this is most pertinent to the thread in progress! I found the Nunn
computer analysis very interesting because I had always thought of the
middling players in those pre-WW I events as equivalent in strength to
weak IMs, more or less. But I had no real basis for thinking so except
for their being deemed worthy opponents for the likes of Rubinstein and
Schlechter. =20

Larry T.

  #20  
Old October 12th 05, 11:23 PM
Mike Murray
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 12 Oct 2005 13:42:52 -0700, "Larry Tapper"
wrote:


Mike Murray wrote:
... It makes me curious as to how much of the reputed rise in chess
strength at the international/professional level is due to advances
in playing technique, and how much can be accounted for statistically
by the greater numbers of competitors.

With more players, we're likely to get some with greater natural
ability.

This is not to deny that deeper techniques are floating around in
mental space. I seem to remember reading about someone "Fritzing" the
published games of earlier grandmasters, and finding that they made
more tactical errors than the contemporary elite.


Mike,

You may be thinking of a puzzle book GM Nunn published in 1999. One
chapter features an error-checking study he did of games played at
Karlsbad 1911.


Thanks. That's exactly the source I was trying to remember.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright ╘2004-2017 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.