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
  #31  
Old October 13th 05, 09:15 PM
Ron
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article .com,
"Larry Tapper" wrote:

Another way to look at Nunn's study is that it measures playing
strength along one dimension only, which we might call "error
avoidance". This has the conspicuous merit of allowing us to compare
across large time gaps. But of course error avoidance is not all there
is to success at chess; so the blundercheck approach may be
questionable as an indicator of anyone's _overall_ strength. It ignores
important qualities such as tenacity, imagination, strategic insight,
etc.


But I think it's important not to turn older players into gods with
respect to these harder-to-measure categories.

There was a discussion here about Morphy a few years back, where a
couple of players, while admitting that they were probably objectively
stronger than Morphy was, admitted that they would never have been as
inventive as he was at the board.

Players like Tarrasch, Nimzovitch, Rubenstein, etc contributed to the
understanding of chess in ways that people who are now stronger than
them (in part because the newer players have learned from them) would
never have been. It's not disparaging of Nimzo's genius to point out
that a second-tier player like Judit Polgar would eat him for lunch -
because there's nothing in Polgar's resume that suggests she's as
capable of as radical, original thought as Nimzo was.

But tactically it's no contest. And because Polgar has the benefit of
having learned from Nimzo's games, he really wouldn't have an advantage
over her strategically, either.

Which doesn't change the fact that he's one of the most brilliant and
original thinkers in chess history and she ... isn't.

-Ron
  #32  
Old October 14th 05, 02:14 AM
Mike Murray
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 13 Oct 2005 09:32:00 -0700, "Larry Tapper"
wrote:

Another way to look at Nunn's study is that it measures playing
strength along one dimension only, which we might call "error
avoidance". This has the conspicuous merit of allowing us to compare
across large time gaps. But of course error avoidance is not all there
is to success at chess; so the blundercheck approach may be
questionable as an indicator of anyone's _overall_ strength. It ignores
important qualities such as tenacity, imagination, strategic insight,
etc.


And I agree with this. I didn't mean to suggest I necessarily bought
into the performance rating Nunn assigned to Teichmann. I was just
arguing (contra Taylor) that whatever estimates Nunn came up with
cannot be automatically shot down by pointing to Teichmann's
historical Elo.

Even so, I think Nunn came up with a real finding there, and an
interesting one too. His results suggest that surprising as it may
seem, the average 2400 player of today might well be able to hold his
own in an error-avoidance contest against Teichmann at his peak
strength. And this does not seem so outlandish when I pause to think
about it --- it would be a sign that professional standards have
tightened due to competitive pressure and so on.


It seems to me contemporary players train and play much more
intensively than those of yesteryear, although I'm not sure how to
prove this.

It would be interesting to restrict a program like Fritz to the
opening theory available at different time periods and use this in
matches against contemporary players.


Larry T.

  #33  
Old May 9th 17, 08:11 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
Offramp
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,157
Default Highest ELO performance

On Thursday, 13 October 2005 02:07:31 UTC+1, Ron wrote:
In article .com,
"Taylor Kingston" wrote:

Keep in mind that Teichmann did not finish atop a bunch of stiffs.
You may recognize some of the other participants, whom I give with
their historical Elos: Rubinstein (2640), Schlechter (2600), Marshall
(2570), Nimzovitch (2615), Vidmar (2600), Alekhine (2690), Duras
(2580), Tartakower (2560), Spielmann (2560), Levenfish (2540), just to
name those most famous now. That's an average of 2595. While not all of
these were at their peaks in 1911, they were all certainly way above
2130, or even 2300.
However, if you accept Nunn's logic, you would have to conclude that
these greats, who include a future world champion (Alekhine), two
actual challengers (Schlechter, Marshall), and three serious title
contenders (Rubinstein, Nimzovitch, Duras), with the rest of them all
regulars in very high-level tournaments, all performed *below*
Teichmann's supposed 2300 TPR. Seems just a tad implausible to me.


There are a couple of different problems here, all hinging on the
definition of Elo.

Elo's are nothing more or less than a measure of the performance of a
player compared to his contemporaries. Through some hocus-pocus, we can
guesstimate "historical" Elos for them, but:

Those numbers are fundamentally different than the rating you would
expect those players to achieve if they were playing against modern
players. The two numbers are not comparable.

Nunn's measure was simple: players who blunder at such-and-such a rate
tend to perform as such-and-such a level in today's tournaments. I think
it's a mistake to conflate, too much, his analysis with the entirely
different analysis which produces historical Elos.

-Ron


I think Mike has truly hit the nail on the head, there.
  #34  
Old May 25th 17, 12:53 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 111
Default Highest ELO performance

On Wednesday, October 5, 2005 at 5:36:55 AM UTC-4, Frank Große 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?

Regards, Frank


Hi Frank,

Here is high performance rating for a woman, IM Sophia Polgar

First place with 8,5 points of 9 games in 'Magistrale di Roma' 1989. This achievemnt is a record in chess history as compared to any other open chess tournament, due to my performance rating of over 2900.

Phil Innes
  #35  
Old May 25th 17, 04:54 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
Offramp
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,157
Default Highest ELO performance

On Thursday, 25 May 2017 12:53:19 UTC+1, wrote:

Here is high performance rating for a woman, IM Sophia Polgar

First place with 8,5 points of 9 games in 'Magistrale di Roma' 1989. This achievemnt is a record in chess history as compared to any other open chess tournament, due to my performance rating of over 2900.


Another 8½/9 performance was by Niemtzcowitschch at Dresden in 1926.
Chessmetrics gives Nimzo a 2778 rating for that. His opponents were

Aron Nimzowitsch 8.5/9 (+8 -0 =1)
Alexander Alekhine 7/9 (+5 -0 =4)
Akiba Rubinstein 6.5/9 (+6 -2 =1)
Savielly Tartakower 5/9 (+3 -2 =4)
Walther von Holzhausen 4/9 (+3 -4 =2)
Paul F Johner 3.5/9 (+3 -5 =1)
Fred Dewhurst Yates 3/9 (+2 -5 =2)
Friedrich Saemisch 3/9 (+2 -5 =2)
Max Bluemich 2.5/9 (+2 -6 =1)
Lajos Steiner 2/9 (+2 -7 =0).

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?tid=79440.

Chessmetrics ratings are higher than Elo, so it's a pretty low rating.
 




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 07:47 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.