Best Disputes

[Geoff Chandler]

Don't you think it is actually easier (easy as in there are more opportunites)
to get a GM title these days as there are so many of them knocking about (they are breeding).
How many nowadays, 1,300 in the 70's there were just over 100.

Often think the GM title, which is the highest honour you can get in chess
should have been restricted to anyone who qualifies for the candidates.
You really do have to a good chess player to get into that field.

So that gives us three English GM's. Adams, Short and Speelman.
IMO I think these three are actually the strongest players players England has produced.
(with a very strong nod to include Miles and Nunn.)
You won't find none of that lot seeded 131 in any tournament.

The idea that a player can pick up a norm in some locally organised event.
Carry that norm around for x number of years and have a another good tournament
(or league season in a 'within the rules' rigged team event) to finally be awarded the
GM title does quite sit right.

Well done to all those who managed it, it is how things are, they earned it.
But are there really 1,297 other Grandmasters as strong as Adams, Short and Speelman.

[Joey Stewart]

I can think of a lot of higher rated GM's then speelman - was he higher up the pecking order in his younger years?

[MartinCarpenter]

Very much so. Candidates semi finalist back in the day (after beating Short in the quarters). Not sure precisely how high he got in world ranking terms.

You would rather need a well organised candidates event before awarding the titles in that sort of manner.....

[Roger de Coverly]

Not sure precisely how high he got in world ranking terms.

From http://chess.eusa.ed.ac.uk/Chess/Trivia ... eList.html

Code: Select all

 January 1989 FIDE rating list. Top 10 players
   
    1 Kasparov, Gary....................   URS  2775 
    2 Karpov, Anatoly...................   URS  2750
    3 Short, Nigel......................   ENG  2650
  4-5 Beliavsky, Alexander..............   URS  2640
      Speelman, Jonathan................   ENG  2640
    6 Ivanchuk, Vassily.................   URS  2635
    7 Salov, Valery.....................   URS  2630
    8 Ribli, Zoltan.....................   HUN  2625
 9-10 Andersson.........................   SWE  2620
      Nunn, John........................   ENG  2620

[Joey Stewart]

Wow, and people say Fide ratings are in decline... most of those players would not even make the top 100 if they had those ratings these days!
Of course, at the other end of the scale, they probably are sliding but it seems if you are in the elite club over 2600 then you get taken good care of to protect your rating.

[John Foley]

BTW I didn't know who I was going to play (the same as anyone else) and agree that Shawn Tavares is a good player. He played a good fearless game against me and deserved his win.

As BCM Dragons captain, I agreed to the board order change because it was a reasonable request from the other side, for their player to have a norm chance, and it was permitted by the arbiter. Although BCM Dragons were doomed to relegation by that stage, we were still able to present a sporting challenge. The attack played by Shawn Tavares was splendid which goes to show that there are no easy opponents in the 4NCL. Shawn is no slouch, having played Board 1 for Trinidad in the Chess Olympiad in Lucerne in 1982. He would be amused at the description of him earlier in the thread as a "lad" given that he is a consultant orthopaedic surgeon.

If anything, BCM Dragons had high hopes of winning that final match. It all came down to the last game when the talented James Holland was defending with rook against the rook and knight of Ameet Ghasi. Cruelly, James lost when he allowed his rook to be forked in the very final time control period. Even if the 4NCL has not implemented incremental time controls, I would have thought there was a case for it in the final round (as in Wimbledon) when the arbitrariness of the time guillotine can spoil an important game.

[Roger de Coverly]

Wow, and people say Fide ratings are in decline... most of those players would not even make the top 100 if they had those ratings these days!
Of course, at the other end of the scale, they probably are sliding but it seems if you are in the elite club over 2600 then you get taken good care of to protect your rating.

Rating theorists claim the existence of "spread", by which they mean that the extremities of a rating system move apart from middle. The higher ratings at the top of the spectrum are driven by higher standards of play. In relative terms though, are the elite actually now better than the next 10%, who will or may have improved as well?

The effects of a rating system going down to 1000, with the consequent effect of new players obtaining ratings whilst still able to improve by hundreds or thousands of points, isn't always easy to predict. National rating systems have always had such problems, but equally have devised various ways to prevent the ratings of existing players being unduly deflated. It's going to vary by country as those where all forms of chess can be subject to FIDE rating are less likely to see ratings of active players at considerable variance to their strength.

As a rule of thumb, assume a player who consistently scores 75% against a field of equal rating to himself. As his rating increases, his strength does as well, assuming it to be 200 points a year, so he finds higher rated players to compete with. With a K of 15, he will gain 15 * 2.5 = 37.5 every ten games. Thus at just over 50 games a year, his rating will keep up with his improvement, in other words remain 200 points behind. The Junior issue, for those in England anyway, is that whilst their initial rating may be correct, their rate of improvement is faster than the rating system can keep up with if they don't play enough games.

[Roger de Coverly]

It all came down to the last game when the talented James Holland was defending with rook against the rook and knight of Ameet Ghasi. Cruelly, James lost when he allowed his rook to be forked in the very final time control period.

The recorded part of the game only goes as far as move 97 where it's KRBP against KRNPP. Move 55 had been the last pawn move or capture, so potentially white was only 8 moves away from a 50 move claim. The pawn on e6 could be moved to e5 at any time and perhaps that happened. I imagine there was a tactical problem that the e5 square was the only route into White's position. That's an advantage of 30 second increments, that players keep score.

Question for arbiters though. In the event of a player making a 10.2 claim, is it legitimate to draw the arbiter's attention to the number of moves played since last capture or pawn move? There may have to be a presumption that one or both players had an up-to-date score-sheet. It's an advice to players point, whilst you don't have to score from minus 5, should you score to minus 2 if a 50 move draw is possible or probable, given the game position?

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Joey,

We have to get together for a pint mate.
No telly in the 70's and now "I can think of a lot of higher rated GM's then Speelman."

Please will everyone stop judging people by a four digit number.
You lot are obsessed with it.
There is another thread on here where bods were trying to find out the grade
of Sir Milner Barry and Lady Thelma Barry.
170 for Sir Milner Barry, I shudder to think what the reaction would have
been should it have been 70. A letter to the Queen to remove his Knighthood?

Now what was Roger saying, usually he's OK but I think he has this bit wrong.

"As a rule of thumb, assume a player who consistently scores 75% against
a field of equal rating to himself. As his rating increases, his strength does as well..."

No. That does not mean his playing strength has increased.
It means he is a better chess player in that field of equal rating.
His grade will rise but is he actually a stronger player?

Let us say Roger's player emerged from a field of 1800's
with a cosy grade of 2000.

That does not make him a 2000+ player, it just means he is good at beating
up 1800 players.

So he is joined by other 2000 players who too got there by beating up 1800 players.
One of this new lot will emerge with a grade of 2200.
But this does not make him a 2200 player, it just means he is good at beating
up 2000 players who were good at beating up 1800 players.

Nobody is getting stronger, the 2200 player is basically beating good 1800 player's
of which he is one himself.
His grade is getting higher but he is still an 1800 player.

On and on it goes till one day you see you suddenly discover you have 1,300 Grandmasters.

The whole grading system is a wicked loop. It's corrupt, flawed, inflated and misguiding.

Inflated?

OK let us look at player No1. Magnus Carlsen.

I counted on Games.com (ignoring blitz stuff) he played 73 games in the year 2012.
34 of these, just under 50%, were played agains the same 6 players.

Polgar 5
The Nak 8
Kramnik 4
Karjakin 8
Caruana 9
Backrot 4

If I included the players he had played 3 times, Aronian, Bologan (there are more)
then you go way over 50%.

It is this grading incest that is producing these high mouth watering numbers.
The number worshippers are practically wetting themself with glee everytime
Magnus's grade shifts up by 2 points.

Joey it's a carve up and we are right in the middle of it.
If the others were not so blinded by numbers they could see what is happening too.

One day Boris Ivanov is going to get a 2600 grade.
Then everyone will stop moaning or refusing to play him in the guise of adopting
some moral high ground (it's to protect their grade Joey, nothing more).
Everything will then be OK. We will no longer have a 2100 player beating 2600's.

And if Jonathan Speelman came back today at his peak this current lot of
fresh-faced English GM's would not even be allowed to work the demo boards.

[Roger de Coverly]

But this does not make him a 2200 player, it just means he is good at beating
up 2000 players who were good at beating up 1800 players.

There are two completely valid ways of obtaining a 2200 rating. One is to score 75% against 2000, the other is to score 50% against 2200 players. Ratings will rank a player who scores 75% against an average field of 2000 above one who can only score 50%.

It cuts the other way as well. If as previously a 2200 player, you can only score 50% against a 2000 field, eventually your rating will decline to 2000. Particularly if you haven't got any weaker and the 2000 field contains juniors who are equal in strength to yourself but not in rating, you get rating deflation.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Roger.

".... rating deflation."

I grant you a player can get stronger, how does a player get weaker?
Only with old age does a players playing strength decline.

The grading system is Ageist!

Basically Roger we are all 1800 players.

Scrape the whole thing. Use colour bands.

White
Yellow
Green
Blue
Violet
Purple
Red
Black

White is a novice, Black is a GM.
To advance up the colour scale you must beat 25 DIFFERENT players in the colour band above you.
You never drop out of your colour band.

Jazz it up and bring Chess in the 21st century, replace colours with reptiles.

Frog
Toad
Lizard
Chameleon
Allegator
Crocodile
Red Dragon (IM equivalent)
Black Dragon (GM)

Just imagine the books Roger.

Think Like a Black Dragon, Openings for Lizards, From a Frog to a Toad in 7 Days.

EDIT: All this joking aside.

The grading system is Ageist!

Actually publishing a players grade which has gone down due to the fact
he has, through no fault of his own, got older can be classed as ageism.

You are embarrassing, nay....'poking at fun your Honour' a player because he has got old.
I'm sure some enterprising lad could take the lot of you to court for pubishing his low
chessplaying grade due to the fact he has got old.

A wide-eyed lawyer may be contacting you soon seeking compensation for his client.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Jazz it up and bring Chess in the 21st century, replace colours with reptiles.

Frog
Toad
Lizard
Chameleon
Allegator
Crocodile
Red Dragon (IM equivalent)
Black Dragon (GM)

Humorous as the above is, I feel compelled to point out that a frog is not a reptile, that lizard is a rather inexact term, and you mis-spelt alligator. And you seem to have a bias towards dragons. No Godzilla? Maybe that can be reserved for super-GMs.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Chris

I'll leave allegator in, you saw what I wrote but knew what I meant.
Not a word I have cause to use all that much.
Blame Carl for not providing a spell checker.

It's good I got Chameleon right, I thought I was going to have ressort to;
'that lizard thing that changes colours.'

Frogs are in irrespective if they are reptiles are not. (do frogs know this?)

I like the idea of calling anyone who does not know the rules of chess a tadpole.

Dragons reflect that to be an IM/GM you are no doubt a good player, a cut above the rest.
(I think about these things, I don't just bash the keyboard with no plan.)

And I am not cluttering up my grading system with mythical beasts.

I have worked out I'm an alligator, what are you?

[Geoff Chandler]

OOPS! I've double posted.

erm..........

Why did the chess player cross the road?

He saw the Pelikan Crossing.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

And I am not cluttering up my grading system with mythical beasts.

I have worked out I'm an alligator, what are you?

A stem cell (then I can be whatever I want). Aren't dragons mythical beasts?