Amazing historical ratings and rankings video

[Tryfon Gavriel]

This is a "Must see!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2DHpW79w0Y

Cheers, Tryfon

[Tim Harding]

This is a "Must see!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2DHpW79w0Y

Cheers, Tryfon

Absolutely! Keep your eyes glued because some guys are only number 1 very briefly.

[Roger de Coverly]

Absolutely! Keep your eyes glued because some guys are only number 1 very briefly.

Assuming it's reliable as to who was top at any one time, the absolute values appear to have been normalised to make the top player almost always in the range 2750 to 2800. If you wanted to measure absolute standard by quality of moves, it becomes necessary to resort to the witch finding approach where you correlate player choice to that of an engine or two. Even that is relative in assuming absolute knowledge for a current generation of chess engines.

[Tim Harding]

Absolutely! Keep your eyes glued because some guys are only number 1 very briefly.

Assuming it's reliable as to who was top at any one time, the absolute values appear to have been normalised to make the top player almost always in the range 2750 to 2800. If you wanted to measure absolute standard by quality of moves, it becomes necessary to resort to the witch finding approach where you correlate player choice to that of an engine or two. Even that is relative in assuming absolute knowledge for a current generation of chess engines.

You have to distinguish two things here. Firstly the data they are using, which for the period up to WW1 is chiefly Rod Edwards's very reliable annual calculations (see http://www.edochess.ca).The monthly changes for that period they have however got from somewhere else though they attribute to Rod; he does not break things down by month.
For post-1918 they are getting their information from somewhere else and until they have actual FIDE lists to work from, I wouldn't necessarily trust the accuracy - especially the WW2 years.

Secondly, the animated graphic.
What I was impressed by was the graphic presentation, very entertaining, even if we cannot quite trust the figures,

I don't know why you mention engines. We are talking about human versus human results, not move quality which is unmeasurable in this sense.

[Roger de Coverly]

I don't know why you mention engines. We are talking about human versus human results, not move quality which is unmeasurable in this sense.

If you want to attempt measurement of an absolute measure of chess strength, comparing the moves selected by the players to the moves selected by engines is a way to achieve it. If they reach the same positions, comparing how players handle them is another method, if a bit hit and miss.

[MJMcCready]

That video is at best titillation and at worst utter nonsense. It''s not history as the title claims, it is, if it is anything non-history.

[Tryfon Gavriel]

That video is at best titillation and at worst utter nonsense. It''s not history as the title claims, it is, if it is anything non-history.

First of all, I should emphasise it is not one of my videos, so I have no egotistical investment if people say they think the video is rubbish etc!. In my opinion, the video I think they did is only as good as the historical data they used. That historical data of ratings as far as I can see is relative to the population available at that point in history. So fore example, if the pool of players was such in Morphy's era that he could beat everyone - then surely it is correct to say that not only he would be in effect Rank 1, but also be 2700. It would be like playing on a weak server and beating millions of "bunnies" in a row - but if the same person goes to another server, they would lose maybe 50% of games. Morphy basically by dominating his peers would have in effect a high rating as well as a high ranking - is that the premise behind those that do historical rankings and ratings?!

On another note, the software used was done for other interesting videos like this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVh2Qw5 ... tml5=False

What I find particularly fascinating was how the influences of names here led to popularity.

Cheers, Tryfon

[Brian Towers]

That video is at best titillation and at worst utter nonsense. It''s not history as the title claims, it is, if it is anything non-history.

First of all, I should emphasise it is not one of my videos, so I have no egotistical investment if people say they think the video is rubbish etc!. In my opinion, the video I think they did is only as good as the historical data they used.

I think it is arguable.
Your viewpoint is a principled one but not one, I suspect, which anybody in Hollywood would share. Casting a jaundiced eye over today's youth one suspects that it also isn't shared by many in the education world either where presentation and ideology trump mere facts.

[MJMcCready]

It's not history as the title of the video suggests

[Tryfon Gavriel]

I am not quite sure what you mean about not being "history" - please clarify

I have used it to try and check between 1945 and 1950 for in particular Boleslavsky being placed Board 3 in the USSR vs USA radio match which I posed a query here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments ... ength_was/

It seems the video supports the idea that Boleslavsky would have been quite close to Smyslov e.g.

Check the video at May 1946:

Botvinnik (USSR)
Keres
Najdorf
Boleslavsky (USSR)
Smyslov (USSR)
Makagonov
Stahlberg
Kotov (USSR)
Bronstein (USSR)

Check the board order of the 1945 USSR vs USA radio match;

USSR USA
1 Botvinnik 11 Denker 00
2 Smyslov 11 Reshevsky 00
3 Boleslavsky =1 Fine =0
4 Flohr 10 Horowitz 01
5 Kotov 11 Kashdan 00
6 Bondarevsky 0= Steiner 1=
7 Lilienthal == Pinkus ==
8 Ragozin 11 Seidman 00
9 Makogonov 1= Kupchik 0=
10 Bronstein 11 Santasiere 00
Result USSR - USA: 15.5 - 4.5
Round 1: 8 - 2
Round 2: 7.5 - 2.5

The video seems to confirm how good Boleslavsky was in 1945 at least.

Is it not a useful historical resource especially given USSR's board order even seems to be a reflection of it in 1945?!

Forgive me for being dense about your comment - but could you clarify why the video hasn't got a basis in reality - or at least say 1945-1950 as a guide to the strongest players around?!

Cheers, Tryfon