I like to see these kind of chess players that defy time, like E.
Lasker did.

Here is a modern version, and perhaps you can put V. Anand and
Ivanchuck in this camp, along with Korchinoi.

Check out B. Gelfand's ratings over time, they're actually getting
stronger as he gets older. Either he's finding more time for chess
(and thus would have been even stronger when younger) or he's
discovered the fountain of chess youth. A third possibility is less
romantic: it's just due to chance, though the odds of this are very
small (note he's been getting stronger for a decade, not just a few
months which can be due to chance alone).

RL

http://ratings.fide.com/id.phtml?event=2805677

On Feb 5, 7:14*pm, raylopez99 wrote:

I like to see these kind of chess players that defy time, like E.
Lasker did.

Here is a modern version, and perhaps you can put V. Anand and
Ivanchuck in this camp, along with Korchinoi.

Check out B. Gelfand's ratings over time, they're actually getting
stronger as he gets older. *Either he's finding more time for chess
(and thus would have been even stronger when younger) or he's
discovered the fountain of chess youth. *A third possibility is less
romantic: *it's just due to chance, though the odds of this are very
small (note he's been getting stronger for a decade, not just a few
months which can be due to chance alone).

RL

http://ratings.fide.com/id.phtml?event=2805677


You seem to have overlooked the obvious: ratings inflation.

Recently, I noticed that an old ratings list of the 'top 500'
players in my state
did not match up well with the current list. At every level, from
the top down
the number of USCF rated players has shrunk considerably in just a
decade
or so. It would seem that reaching great heights is tougher now than
it was
back then, unless of course you travel a lot and play outsiders not on
these
two lists. Who knows what has happened elsewhere with the USCF?

As for FIDE, it appears that once upon a time it was neigh well
impossible to
get over 2700-- freaks of nature aside. But now there are oodles and
oodles
of 2600-2699 players, making it much easier to hurdle the 2700 mark
(if you
are good enough), by drawing and beating up on them and not losing
much.
Try that where everybody but you is rated 1500ish.

Forget about the bottom end. Looking at the top we can see that not
only
are there oodles of 2600+ players, there also is a certain
compression-- a
closeness together of players' ratings near the top. There are no
huge gaps
like the one Gary Kasparov managed to create by thumping other top
rated
players in his day in tournaments.

My guess is that the overall rating pool now contains more players,
and
this of course theoretically allows the ratings on both ends to expand
into
new territorries. The world's weakest FIDE rated player today is
likely to be
weaker than his counterpart from twenty or thirty years ago, as the
pool has
expanded considerably. I say 'weaker' but of course I mean lower
rated,
farther from the midpoint, the exact center of the overall rating
pool.

Think of it this way: a massive mountain range is where you will
find the
world's tallest mountains, not in the rounded hills of Ohio. The
deepest rift
is to be found in the world's largest ocean as well. Coincidence?
Perhaps
not.

Or maybe Gelfand simply 'had a problem with' Gary Kasparov, who is
no
longer active? Or with Anatoly Karpov, who is no longer Karpov.
Those two
players used to have a profound affect upon the ratings landscape at
the very
top of the chess world, but no more.

I attribute the so called glut of 2600 players to computer chess ..They
can analyze just about any game in the past and presence + play against
Rybka and Hircs and Fritz and Shredder and the list go's on and on and
they all have a little bit different playing styles ..
For the serious chess players and even not serious chess players i
belive can make themselves better with study at their finger tips..
I think there is more people playing chess today too than in the past
..

Your probably right but what Gelfand did at his age winning such a
strong tournament where you need that physical stamina is still quite
impressive for his age.

EZoto

On Feb 5, 9:03*pm, (SAT W-7) wrote:
I attribute the so called glut of 2600 players to computer chess ..They
can analyze just about any game in the past and presence + play against
Rybka and Hircs and Fritz and Shredder and the list go's on and on and
they all have a little bit different playing styles ..
* *For the serious chess players and even not serious chess players i
belive can make themselves better with study at their finger tips..
* I think there is more people playing chess today too than in the past
.

Well both you and The Master are simply articulating what Professor
Elo points out in his book, a well known statistical fact, that the
more players the greater the divergence between the top and bottom.
Simple statistics, like a pile of sand that grows higher spills wider
at the edges, as more grains of sand are added.

RL

This, IMO, is a good thread where all parties without exception bring
pertinent points to the discussion. Bravo! Phil

On Feb 7, 4:43*pm, ChessFire wrote:

This, IMO, is a good thread where all parties without exception bring
pertinent points to the discussion. Bravo! Phil


I was hoping for a bit more-- more ideas on Mr. Gelfand's recent
rise that is, not
a Judge Judy styled appraisal of such a short, undeveloped bikini-like
thread.

Personally I know nothing about Mr. Gelfand's style, his more recent
results or
his problem opponents. But I do know that such things as the problem
opponent
can have a dramatic impact on results. For example, in our local
events there is
this one guy who gives me fits despite the fact that he is a mere
patzer while I of
course am a chess genius. His overall results against me are
difficult to explain in
the context of Arpad Elo's statistical ideology. Sit him down against
someone far
lower rated and he will fall apart. But plop him in the seat
opposite mine and
there will be hell to pay!

Of course it is possible to find someone just the opposite-- someone
who will
always lose to me, even if I'm having a bad day. Not only will he
lose, but he will
invariably lose BIG! Hanging pieces left and right is typical. I
am wondering if
maybe Gelfand's recent rise has less to do with defying old age and
more to do
with some other factor, something a bit less absurd than managing the
nearly
impossible, defying the gods, circumventing Fate, eating just one
Lay's potato
chip.

As for Mr. Lopez's comment, I think he overlooked the fact that SAT
was not
aping Elo at all but attributing 'the glut of 2600 players' to
computer chess-- an
idea that makes no sense in that you cannot have a glut on just the
top end of
the rating pool, supported by thin air. It's basically a literacy
problem-- one man
left behind. And the aftermath of such a shortsighted policy.

I also said more people are playing chess too.
I just did not say that means a lot more lower rated players ..People
who are just starting to play chess of people like me who are
comfortable at where they are at elo wise..
I do not really seem to get any better than i am but i do not record
my games so i do not study my loses or wins ..

I consider people in the 2000 + elo range serious players and
probably want to try and get better and having a computer ( rybka )
teacher will make you better .

On Feb 7, 9:10*pm, The Master wrote:
On Feb 7, 4:43*pm, ChessFire wrote:

This, IMO, is a good thread where all parties without exception bring
pertinent points to the discussion. Bravo! Phil

* I was hoping for a bit more-- more ideas on Mr. Gelfand's recent
rise that is, not
a Judge Judy styled appraisal of such a short, undeveloped bikini-like
thread.

You are looking for a romantic explanation when in fact it's complete
random. Why did the chicken cross the road? No complex reason but to
get to the other side. Why did a particle undergoing Brownian motion
move to the right and not to the left in a particular millisecond?
And so on.


* Personally I know nothing about Mr. Gelfand's style, his more recent
results or
his problem opponents. * But I do know that such things as the problem
opponent
can have a dramatic impact on results. *

But in the long run that washes out. Gelfand's rise has been over the
course of a decade. You cannot attribute his rise to a single
"brilliant tournament" or some such.




* As for Mr. Lopez's comment, I think he overlooked the fact that SAT
was not
aping Elo at all but attributing 'the glut of 2600 players' to
computer chess-- an
idea that makes no sense in that you cannot have a glut on just the
top end of
the rating pool, supported by thin air. *It's basically a literacy
problem-- one man
left behind. *And the aftermath of such a shortsighted policy.

No, if you read the thread carefully you'll see he's saying more
people are playing chess. It the law of large numbers, not that
computers are making the existing pool necessarily smarter.

RL

On Feb 8, 8:03*am, (SAT W-7) wrote:

I also said more people are playing chess too.
I just did not say that means a *lot more lower rated players ..People
who are just starting to play chess of people like me who are
comfortable at where they are at elo wise..
* *I do not really seem to get any better than i am but i do not record
my games so i do not study my loses or wins ..

I consider people in the 2000 *+ elo range serious players *and
probably want to try and get better and having a computer ( rybka )
teacher will make you better .

One thing to consider is the very different nature of chess as seen
on a list
of the top FIDE rated players versus a list of the top USCF rated
players.

In FIDE there is a 'glut' of 2600s (as compared to the old days,
when you had
to be one of the world's best to break 2600). But with the USCF there
may not
be any such 'glut' at that high a level (I don't know). Maybe it
depends on what
you consider to be 'a glut'.

One of the locals has tried to drag me to several blitz tourneys,
and I don't like
these for two reasons: 1) the quality of play is awful, and 2) I
cannot record the
moves. I wish to record the moves of my games (even the bad ones) so
I can
look over the games some time later, to fathom where the biggest
problems are
in my understanding (or execution). Just playing a few games at a
very low
level in terms of quality is not attractive to me. Know that weak
players who
play one another do not learn very much. You must play those who are
better
than you and/or go over your (recorded) games in order to improve.
Or else
study tactics until you are like an octopus, grabbing material left
and right that
your opponents unwittingly leave hanging.

I just saw that in the lastest Chess Life magazine now-GM Ben
Finegold has
published an old game against Boris Gelfand. So then in 1989 it was
perhaps
Ben Finegold who was holding BG back, not Kasparov or Karpov. Gelfand
was
playing the then cutting edge hedgehog defense and got rolled, losing
in 25
moves.