JustinHorton wrote:Keith Arkell wrote:
Towards the end of his life, Tal, in a thought experiment, famously said that he would slaughter the Young World Champion Tal in a match.
Do you reckon he would though, or is that just an illusion we start suffering from in middle-age? I know that when I've occasionally looked at games I played in my twenties I've often thought well, I don't think I'd make
that mistake nowadays, and I suppose my store of knowledge must have expanded along with my experience, but on the other hand speed of thought, capacity to recollect, level of concentration and so on must all be less than they were. Ultimately I'm not sure objective evidence is in our favour here.
I think It's not trivial to find objective methods by which to compare our current level of play with former levels. One method is by using grades or ratings. My ECF grade is 240. This encompasses pretty much all of the 160 or so games of chess I played over the course of a year, in sickness and in health. I don't think that my grade was ever much more than this - not 1, 2 or 3 decades ago.
My ELO graph is more complex as it pinpoints quite strikingly the differences between periods of high motivation, periods of being under the weather, and, for example, the debilitating effect switching from a focus on competing in strong Internationals to playing in FIDE rated weekenders can have on your rating. Many high rated GMs simply refuse point blank to play in the latter!
Anyway, my peak ELO historically was 2545, in July 1996. In those days the list came out every 6 months, and I exactly maintained that rating 6 months later, in January 1997. By comparison, in August 2014 I was rated 2435, and then, after playing 89 rated games over the course of the next 6 monthly lists, appeared in the Feb 2015 list at 2510. I can't be bothered to do the maths, but I guess that the level of play required to push it up so quickly, using a sluggish 'k-factor' of 10, is not dissimilar to my peak level back in '96.
Some speak of rating inflation and some deflation. None can argue though with the fact that a few years ago the ECF had to take measures to combat deflation. It is easy to fall for the trap of believing that just because there are lots more 2700s around today than there were 30 years ago this is somehow proof of inflation. All it shows is that a lot of extremely strong players have emerged. There has been a worldwide chess explosion.
Furthermore, even those who argue for a modicum of inflation must surely accept that standards continue to rise. This is true of tennis, athletics, scientific knowledge and so on. How can chess, as an information based activity, be immune from the same pattern?
So, a 170 graded player today is stronger than he would have been had he had a grade of 170 thirty years earlier, and this increase in strength could have no more led to an increase in his grade than would the distance from Paignton to Blackpool measure 600 miles rather than 300 if the circumference of the Earth spontaneously doubled, along with the length of all measuring devices within it.
In answer to your question, yes I think there is an illusory aspect to the belief that you continue to get stronger with age. The illusion being that it is more difficult to perceive the reduced processing speed I referred to in my initial post, than it is the deeper understanding of the game we feel that we now possess. There is a constant juxtaposition between the two aspects: on the one side, the slowed brain processes, greater risk of impediment due to other age-related issues , and a possible decline in motivational levels; on the other side the constant addition to knowledge and understanding, the possibility of working on and ironing out the weakest aspects of your game, and simply benefiting from staying around and observing for yourself the worldwide development of the game.
It's my feeling that Tal was right, and the objective evidence would be in his favour were we to computer engine evaluate the level of his play in the mid-80s compared to in 1961. I think this is also the case with myself as a 240 graded player compared to the 236 graded 36 year old Keith Arkell of 1997. And ditto a 170 player versus himself graded 170 or indeed a different 170 player, from 20 or 30 years ago. And so on, whatever level of player we refer to.
. Just checked my training diaries; I was running 20 - 30 miles a week as well. Proper running mind. 7 minute miling not the 10 - 11 minute plod that is all I can manage nowadays. That this obvious overload had an effect can be seen from the fact that the 18 year old me, who really only had A levels to cope with and the fairly soft option of double maths, physics at that, had a BCF grading of 150.