Chess

[brokenshoelace]

Yeah I can't wait for the Blitz games with Garry and these guys. Kasparov is my favorite player of all time but I think they'll be too much.

 

[DarthFed]

Found more information: http://www.uschesschamps.com/2016-us-championship-news/ultimate-blitz-challenge-garry-kasparov

They play each other twice a day for three days for a total of 18 games. Time control is 5 minutes with 3 second delay (that helps the rest vs. Naka). I'd still favor Naka here but with the delay vs. just regular 5 minute blitz he has less of an advantage. 6 games against each player is certainly unique.

Kasparov wouldn't agree to something like this without prepping decently for it as opposed to the recent blitz match vs. Short that he could dominate easily. I wouldn't be surprised if he finishes top 2.

 

[DarthFed]

Yeah I can't wait for the Blitz games with Garry and these guys. Kasparov is my favorite player of all time but I think they'll be too much.

A true miracle, a game/sport where we have the same favorite player. What's the world coming to?

 

[DarthFed]

Carlsen is taking it to Kramnik. After 27 moves it is damn near resignable already. Vlad's position was already ugly but he must have not seen 20. Ng2 by Carlsen.

 

[DarthFed]

Harikrishna has a bit of an edge as white vs. MVL but it will not be easy to break through. Vlad is completely wrecked...brutal

 

[DarthFed]

https://www.chess.com/news/kasparov-to-face-caruana-nakamura-so-in-ultimate-blitz-challenge-8044

Some more idiotic statements from Nakamura. Naka is like 60 points away from Kasparov's peak rating, no one would say he is better than Garry was on a relative or even absolute level. Just like no one would say Curry is better than Jordan though he seems to think otherwise. I don't know where this guy gets that crap.

 

[Federberg]

I'm all for a bit of trash talk, but in my view you have to deliver at a similar level first. I feel quite embarassed for Naka sometimes

 

[DarthFed]

He just seems misinformed. It's not necessarily trash talk, but saying stuff like the next generation figures to be better, while true in a general sense, doesn't mean everyone now is stronger than everyone before. In most games/sports the current #1 will be better than the #1 20 years ago in an absolute sense. But when we start talking players that are ranked #5 or lower it is far from a given that they will automatically be better than the #1 20 years ago.

I'd say the same holds true for most sports. Kasparov's rating is still well above anything Nakamura or anyone aside from Carlsen has achieved and that doesn't even include rating inflation. So on a absolute level I'd say Carlsen is the only one who may play at a higher level than Kasparov did. Michael Jordan is still the best basketball player I've seen even on an absolute level. In tennis there is the top 3 but would we say Pete in his prime would not be able to beat Stan Wawrinka even with the difference in racquet technology? And seriously Naka...Steph Curry better than Jordan? I've never heard anyone else say that. I've seen some Kobe idiots say he is better than MJ was but that's about it. I don't even see the argument with Lebron (which is good) and he is the best there's been since MJ.

 

[Federberg]

He just seems misinformed. It's not necessarily trash talk, but saying stuff like the next generation figures to be better, while true in a general sense, doesn't mean everyone now is stronger than everyone before. In most games/sports the current #1 will be better than the #1 20 years ago in an absolute sense. But when we start talking players that are ranked #5 or lower it is far from a given that they will automatically be better than the #1 20 years ago.

I'd say the same holds true for most sports. Kasparov's rating is still well above anything Nakamura or anyone aside from Carlsen has achieved and that doesn't even include rating inflation. So on a relative level I'd say Carlsen is the only one who may play at a higher level than Kasparov did. Michael Jordan is still the best basketball player I've seen even on a relative level. In tennis there is the top 3 but would we say Pete in his prime would not be able to beat Stan Wawrinka even with the difference in racquet technology? And seriously Naka...Steph Curry better than Jordan? I've never heard anyone else say that. I've seen some Kobe idiots say he is better than MJ was but that's about it. I don't even see the argument with Lebron (which is good) and he is the best there's been since MJ.

Yup. I broadly agree. I'm not convinced about ratings inflation though

 

[Federberg]

Magnus in a spot of bother today. It'll be interesting to see if he can find another Bxg4 escape act again today, my sense is that Magnus is going to have to do something like give up an exchange to create a situation where he might get drawing chances. It's the sort of positinon where you fight and fight and things get worse and worse unless you do something practical like that.

Don't think he's lost this year yet. Levon has a nice position here.

 

[DarthFed]

^ I don't think there is any question that there is some rating inflation. And it'd be significant inflation if we had ratings stretching back a long time. Way more players playing way more tournaments leading to higher ratings. Using a non adjusted Elo I'd imagine Capablanca would not have been rated anywhere near what the top guys are today yet there was a study done some years ago showing by computer analysis that he was the most accurate player of all time. That doesn't mean Capablanca is the strongest ever by any means but I don't think we are talking some guy who would only be rated 2400-2500 if he traveled here in a time machine either. Fischer after winning 20 games in a row (!) against some of the top players in the world and dominating Spassky was rated just 2785. Also look at Nigel Short. It's hard to argue that he is stronger now than he was 20 years ago around the time he was playing Kasparov for the WC but his rating says that he is.

 

[DarthFed]

Magnus in a spot of bother today. It'll be interesting to see if he can find another Bxg4 escape act again today, my sense is that Magnus is going to have to do something like give up an exchange to create a situation where he might get drawing chances. It's the sort of positinon where you fight and fight and things get worse and worse unless you do something practical like that.

Don't think he's lost this year yet. Levon has a nice position here.

Na5 looks pretty dubious by Carlsen in the opening there. Up a pawn and a nice position for sure.

 

[Federberg]

The problem is that Elo measures relative strength, not absolute, so time comparisons based on Elo are inherently flawed. To me, it's far more important to look at Fischer's ratings gap to the next guy (or if you want look at the average of the next 10 guys) to get a sense of his dominance. But the Elo will never let you know if that means that Fischer is stronger than someone like MVL now who is on a similar rating to Fischer's peak.

It's probably far more accurate to say that Fischer showed the widest margin versus the next best than anyone else ever has, but Kasparov showed more consistent dominance over a longer period. Something that Carlsen looks likely to surpass. But it can never tell us which of them would be stronger if they all played at the same time. Certainly if you look at their respective games it's inherently unfair as the later guys are benefiting from theory that the earlier guys are in part responsible for.

 

[Federberg]

Oh dear! Magnus missed the tactics there, can't see him getting away with this one. Not with 6 minutes left on the clock with more than 10 moves to play

 

[DarthFed]

Pretty ugly game by Carlsen, he looks bent here.

 

[DarthFed]

The problem is that Elo measures relative strength, not absolute, so time comparisons based on Elo are inherently flawed. To me, it's far more important to look at Fischer's ratings gap to the next guy (or if you want look at the average of the next 10 guys) to get a sense of his dominance. But the Elo will never let you know if that means that Fischer is stronger than someone like MVL now who is on a similar rating to Fischer's peak.

It's probably far more accurate to say that Fischer showed the widest margin versus the next best than anyone else ever has, but Kasparov showed more consistent dominance over a longer period. Something that Carlsen looks likely to surpass. But it can never tell us which of them would be stronger if they all played at the same time. Certainly if you look at their respective games it's inherently unfair as the later guys are benefiting from theory that the earlier guys are in part responsible for.

All true, the thing is that the ratings will tell you Short is stronger now than 20 years ago. Korchnoi was probably rated higher at age 70 than he was for much of his 30's. It's tough to really determine it since the ratings don't go back too far.

 

[Federberg]

^But that's only the case if you choose to compare his current rating to what he had 20 years ago. That's the bit that I'm saying is inherently flawed. Elo isn't comparable across time. His Elo ranking is probably much more accurate to look at than the rating itself. Don't get me wrong, I'm as guilty as the next guy, because I often talk about Carlsen being the highest rated player of all time, which is true, but on the other hand that's not to say he's the strongest player of all time (at least just based on that rating). But we all sort of know that anyway, because if we really believed ratings and strength were perfectly correlated we wouldn't have discussions about who the strongest player ever is.

In a way it's sort of similar to tennis rankings. Does the fact that Novak probably has the highest points ranking as number one ever, mean he's the best ever?... NO

 

[DarthFed]

It looks like they are showing these blitz games live here: https://chess24.com/en/watch/live-tournaments/ultimate-blitz-challenge-garry-kasparov

Less than 10 minutes away, I can't wait.

 

[Federberg]

Yup me too!

 

[Federberg]

Gary!!! Still the beast of baku