From a search of all the Fide rating lists it seems that at his peak
Kasparov was just as far ahead of the level of contemporary strong GMs
as Fischer was.

Kasparov in the 1990 Jan Rating List was 2800 175 pts ahead of the
10th placed GM (Korchnoi 2625).

Fischer in the 1973 Jan rating List was 2785 175 pts ahead of the 10th
placed GM
(Smyslov 2610)

Add this to the fact that Kasparov held on to this sort of superiority
for far longer and this points to Kasparov's superiority over
Fischer.

"oxtut" wrote in message
om...
From a search of all the Fide rating lists it seems that at his peak
Kasparov was just as far ahead of the level of contemporary strong GMs
as Fischer was.

Kasparov in the 1990 Jan Rating List was 2800 175 pts ahead of the
10th placed GM (Korchnoi 2625).

Fischer in the 1973 Jan rating List was 2785 175 pts ahead of the 10th
placed GM
(Smyslov 2610)

Add this to the fact that Kasparov held on to this sort of superiority
for far longer and this points to Kasparov's superiority over
Fischer.

But you must discount Kasparov's ELO rating cause inflation of the rating
(5-10 rating points every year). That's the same like you compare the merit
US dollars today and 15 or 50 years ago.

Goran Tomic

tomic wrote:

But you must discount Kasparov's ELO rating cause inflation of the rating
(5-10 rating points every year).

Why should that be relevant?

If Kasparov's rating was compared to Fischer's, I would agree. But since
it's each player's distance to the second player, I'm not sure why inflation
must be taken into account.

Unless you argue that inflation is different for different players or
different Elo ratings?

--
Anders Thulin http://www.algonet.se/~ath

"tomic" schreef in bericht
...
"oxtut" wrote in message
om...
From a search of all the Fide rating lists it seems that at his peak
Kasparov was just as far ahead of the level of contemporary strong GMs
as Fischer was.

Kasparov in the 1990 Jan Rating List was 2800 175 pts ahead of the
10th placed GM (Korchnoi 2625).

Fischer in the 1973 Jan rating List was 2785 175 pts ahead of the 10th
placed GM
(Smyslov 2610)

Add this to the fact that Kasparov held on to this sort of superiority
for far longer and this points to Kasparov's superiority over
Fischer.

But you must discount Kasparov's ELO rating cause inflation of the rating
(5-10 rating points every year). That's the same like you compare the
merit
US dollars today and 15 or 50 years ago.

Goran Tomic


If it was kasparovs elo now in 1990 was compared with fischers elo in 1973
this would be true, but he's talking about the difference between the first
and tenth best player at the same time period so inflation makes no
difference.

But to conclude by this that kasparov is a better player than fischer is a
little far fetched.

From a search of all the Fide rating lists it seems that at his peak
Kasparov was just as far ahead of the level of contemporary strong GMs as
Fischer was.

Add this to the fact that Kasparov held on to this sort of superiority
for far longer and this points to Kasparov's superiority over
Fischer.

Comparing their results as competitive chessplayers, you may have a point.
After all, ratings don't measure ability in chess, they measure results in
rated events. However, your method compares not only the ratings of Fischer
and Kasparov, but also those of Korchnoi and Smyslov. Was the field in 1990 as
strong as that in 1973? An unanswered question.

As with all competitive enterprises, the real question is: Could Kasparov at
his peak beat Fischer at his peak? As always, the question is unanswerable.
Apples and oranges.



Kyle Word

"Be still when you have nothing to say; when genuine passion moves you, say
what you've got to say, and say it hot." -- D.H. Lawrence

Add this to the fact that Kasparov held on to this sort of superiority
for far longer and this points to Kasparov's superiority over
Fischer.

Comparing their results as competitive chessplayers, you may have a point.
After all, ratings don't measure ability in chess, they measure results in
rated events. However, your method compares not only the ratings of Fischer
and Kasparov, but also those of Korchnoi and Smyslov. Was the field in 1990
as
strong as that in 1973? An unanswered question.

As with all competitive enterprises, the real question is: Could Kasparov at
his peak beat Fischer at his peak? As always, the question is unanswerable.
Apples and oranges.

I'd say Fischer was stronger, Kasparov was better prepared in the opening.

In message , tomic
writes
"oxtut" wrote in message
. com...
From a search of all the Fide rating lists it seems that at his peak
Kasparov was just as far ahead of the level of contemporary strong GMs
as Fischer was.

Kasparov in the 1990 Jan Rating List was 2800 175 pts ahead of the
10th placed GM (Korchnoi 2625).

Fischer in the 1973 Jan rating List was 2785 175 pts ahead of the 10th
placed GM
(Smyslov 2610)

Add this to the fact that Kasparov held on to this sort of superiority
for far longer and this points to Kasparov's superiority over
Fischer.

But you must discount Kasparov's ELO rating cause inflation of the rating
(5-10 rating points every year).

I would be interested to know how you might justify your claim that
there is an ELO rating inflation in the order of 5 to 10 points per
year.

Year - 1970 average ELO of top 5 active players = 2642:
1 2690 B. Spassky;
2 2660 B. Larsen;
3 2630 L. Portisch;
4 2630 R. Fischer;
5 2600 S. Gligoric;

Year - 1980 average ELO of top 5 active players = 2683:
1 2725 A. Karpov;
2 2705 M. Tal;
3 2695 V. Korchnoi;
4 2655 L. Portisch;
5 2635 L. Polugaevsky;

Year - 1990 average ELO of top 5 active players = 2714:
1 2800 G. Kasparov;
2 2730 A. Karpov;
3 2680 B. Gelfand;
4 2680 V. Ivanchuk;
5 2680 J. Timman;

Year - 2000 average ELO of top 5 active players = 2775:
1 2851 G. Kasparov;
2 2769 V. Anand;
3 2758 V. Kramnik;
4 2751 A. Shirov;
5 2748 A. Morozevich;

I make that to be an average (top 5 active player) ELO increase of:
+4.1 per year from 1970 to 1980;
+3.1 per year from 1980 to 1990;
+6.1 per year from 1990 to 2000;
+4.4 per year from 1970 to 2000.

I suggest that the adoption of serious computer training and analysis
techniques in the early 1990s accounted for most of the "anomalously
high" increase in average ELO's during that decade. Now that all top
players make significant use of computer training, we appear to be back
to a "ratings inflation" in the order of +4 per year among the top
active players.

That's the same like you compare the merit
US dollars today and 15 or 50 years ago.

In my opinion, the original poster made a valid and interesting
observation.

--
Regards - Jim (reply to: News AT outcrops DOT co DOT uk)

Woman went into a bar and asked for a double entendre.
So the landlord gave her one.

LeModernCaveman wrote:



I'd say Fischer was stronger, Kasparov was better prepared in the opening.



What could this possibly mean? Isn't the opening part of the game of
chess? How can "stronger" not count part of the game?

John

Anders Thulin wrote:


tomic wrote:

But you must discount Kasparov's ELO rating cause inflation of the rating
(5-10 rating points every year).

Why should that be relevant?

If Kasparov's rating was compared to Fischer's, I would agree. But since
it's each player's distance to the second player, I'm not sure why inflation
must be taken into account.

Unless you argue that inflation is different for different players or
different Elo ratings?

The OP noted that the difference was the same, approx 175 points. In
Fischers day 175 points was a bigger number than 175 current points.
Judging inflation isn't easy but I believe that many accept that some
rating inflation has taken place and a logical conclusion from the OP
would be that lead over the runner up was bigger and therefore Fischer
was stronger.

To be perfectly clear, I don't actually think this argument is very
convincing, but personally I'd guess Fischer was futher ahead. It's very
nearly impossible to compare the two era's; so much has changed that
you're talking about VERY different environment. ON another note I"d add
that Fischer is also in the lead in the "strange" category. Gary has his
moments, but FIscher is still Fischer.

As with all competitive enterprises, the real question is: Could Kasparov at
his peak beat Fischer at his peak? As always, the question is unanswerable.
Apples and oranges.

In a way you answered your question with a question. Just about
everyone asks if Kasparov at his peak could beat Fischer. You almost
never hear it the other way around.

EZoto