Page 10 of 11
Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA
Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2019 2:13 pm
by Daniel Gormally
JustinHorton wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2019 1:59 pm
Daniel Gormally wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2019 1:33 pm
the idea that you can improve that much in your fifties (he had advanced his rating by about 200 points by the end) seemed ga-ga land to me.
With no prejudice to the rest of your argument, is this a completely sound assumption? (I was wondering about, say, Terry Chapman as a possible counter-example.)
But did Terry improve 200 points though? Also unlike chappers Rausis was a professional for over twenty years, and it's hard to believe he wasn't already serious about chess during that period.
Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA
Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2019 2:58 pm
by David Sedgwick
JustinHorton wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2019 1:59 pm
I was wondering about, say, Terry Chapman as a possible counter-example.
Daniel Gormally wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2019 2:13 pm
But did Terry improve 200 points though?
Chapman was rated 2156 when he returned to active play in 2007 and he peaked at 2331 during 2013, so he improved by 175 points in his early fifties.
However, I can't give chapter and verse, but I would suggest that he was only returning to his previous level. In his youth he was considered by his contemporaries, of whom I am one, to be potentially of IM standard or higher.
Also, I am sure there must be examples of players improving from 1800 to 2000 in their fifties. That doesn't of itself make it plausible that someone could improve from 2500 to 2700. 2150 to 2350 lies inbetween.
As for Rausis, he was exploiting a loophole in the FIDE rating system in a way that could have been done by someone who was not cheating. That is an issue which still needs to be addressed.
Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA
Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2019 3:05 pm
by Matt Bridgeman
So like muscle memory, you could call it brain muscle memory. There are plenty of players who perhaps reached a decent level in their youth, and then return after a gap of years return to an approximation of their former level. I’d imagine Chessbase and other programs aid with that process. That seems all quite normal and logical.
Probably the high 1700‘s to high 1900’s increase in players aged in their 50’s is probably relatively common in English chess. I think usually those type of gains are often down to a shortage of FIDE tournaments in the North and a FIDE grade lagging behind a ECF grade. Again all quite normal and explainable.
Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA
Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2019 3:27 pm
by NickFaulks
David Sedgwick wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2019 2:58 pm
As for Rausis, he was exploiting a loophole in the FIDE rating system in a way that could have been done by someone who was not cheating.
If you mean that in summer tournaments he played games against players rated more than 400 points below him, then I doubt that he gained more than 20 points in that way, and even then only by cheating. Scoring 100% against 2200 opposition ( 95% won't do! ) isn't trivial.
Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA
Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2019 4:23 pm
by Richard Bates
Matt Bridgeman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2019 3:05 pm
So like muscle memory, you could call it brain muscle memory. There are plenty of players who perhaps reached a decent level in their youth, and then return after a gap of years return to an approximation of their former level. I’d imagine Chessbase and other programs aid with that process. That seems all quite normal and logical.
Probably the high 1700‘s to high 1900’s increase in players aged in their 50’s is probably relatively common in English chess. I think usually those type of gains are often down to a shortage of FIDE tournaments in the North and a FIDE grade lagging behind a ECF grade. Again all quite normal and explainable.
I don't think it's just returning to a former level. In some cases it might simply be jumping on a trajectory of potential improvement that was abandoned at an early stage (although probably and inevitably with a lower peak). This is obviously far more plausible for a non-professional player, even more so for somebody who largely gave up. For a professional player to make such an improvement you'd want to ask the question of what they are doing differently if they failed to reach such a peak at any point previously in their professional chess playing life.
From a personal perspective i believe that should circumstances arise, i would be able to improve significantly at a future point. And i have hardly been remotely close to inactive at any point in my life. But i was an IM and achieved my peak rating at 18. Whether i was stronger (in real terms) then than i am now i don't know. Possibly not. It was a different era. Largely pre computers. But logically it would be justifiable to say that i never reached my true potential, or even close to it. Maybe that's delusional and maybe circumstances will never arise to put it to the test. And maybe i wouldn't be prepared to put in the effort anyway. But if i did, who knows?
Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA
Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2019 4:30 pm
by Christopher Kreuzer
NickFaulks wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2019 2:04 pm
Daniel Gormally wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2019 1:54 pm
not really following what you're saying there to be honest
I'm sure I've seen such comments about monkeys and typewriters before, and would genuinely like to know where they started and how they are backed up. Does anyone know their origin?
Infinite monkey theorem (Wikipedia article)
Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA
Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2019 4:36 pm
by Matt Bridgeman
Would people agree that the most heavily hyped junior prodigy in the world of recent years, Praggnanandhaa, took around 4 years to reach the standard of a strong IM?
Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA
Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2019 4:44 pm
by LawrenceCooper
Matt Bridgeman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2019 4:36 pm
Would people agree that the most heavily hyped junior prodigy in the world of recent years, Praggnanandhaa, took around 4 years to reach the standard of a strong IM?
His first rating was in September 2011 and he started Jan 2015 rated 2084 and was 2085 in November having played 129 games that year so it would appear that it was rather longer. From December 2015 though his rating started to rise at some pace.
Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA
Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2019 5:37 pm
by Jonathan Rogers
Richard Bates wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2019 4:23 pm
...
From a personal perspective i believe that should circumstances arise, i would be able to improve significantly at a future point. And i have hardly been remotely close to inactive at any point in my life. But i was an IM and achieved my peak rating at 18. Whether i was stronger (in real terms) then than i am now i don't know. Possibly not. It was a different era. Largely pre computers. But logically it would be justifiable to say that i never reached my true potential, or even close to it. Maybe that's delusional and maybe circumstances will never arise to put it to the test. And maybe i wouldn't be prepared to put in the effort anyway. But if i did, who knows?
Yes, I feel that way about myself too. I mean, my play is quite non-serious, both on and off the board. Suppose I started to look over my games, to prepare and to use computers when doing so, for example! Jus' warning y'all
Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA
Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2019 5:42 pm
by Daniel Gormally
Richard Bates wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2019 4:23 pm
Matt Bridgeman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2019 3:05 pm
So like muscle memory, you could call it brain muscle memory. There are plenty of players who perhaps reached a decent level in their youth, and then return after a gap of years return to an approximation of their former level. I’d imagine Chessbase and other programs aid with that process. That seems all quite normal and logical.
Probably the high 1700‘s to high 1900’s increase in players aged in their 50’s is probably relatively common in English chess. I think usually those type of gains are often down to a shortage of FIDE tournaments in the North and a FIDE grade lagging behind a ECF grade. Again all quite normal and explainable.
I don't think it's just returning to a former level. In some cases it might simply be jumping on a trajectory of potential improvement that was abandoned at an early stage (although probably and inevitably with a lower peak). This is obviously far more plausible for a non-professional player, even more so for somebody who largely gave up. For a professional player to make such an improvement you'd want to ask the question of what they are doing differently if they failed to reach such a peak at any point previously in their professional chess playing life.
From a personal perspective i believe that should circumstances arise, i would be able to improve significantly at a future point. And i have hardly been remotely close to inactive at any point in my life. But i was an IM and achieved my peak rating at 18. Whether i was stronger (in real terms) then than i am now i don't know. Possibly not. It was a different era. Largely pre computers. But logically it would be justifiable to say that i never reached my true potential, or even close to it. Maybe that's delusional and maybe circumstances will never arise to put it to the test. And maybe i wouldn't be prepared to put in the effort anyway. But if i did, who knows?
I don't think that's even a question. If you had time to be a full-time pro, then it would be common sense to think that you could have achieved much greater heights, given you already achieved a decent level in the first place.
then again a think a lot of full time chess professionals (and I'd include myself in) don't really devote themselves enough to chess, in other words we are bumming around during the day watching countdown or chatting on facebook when we should be studying opening theory
in other words, being a full time player can often just be a passport to bum around.
Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA
Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2019 5:44 pm
by Daniel Gormally
Although I should also add that even bumming around, at least you are burning less energy than you are using during a full-time job, and therefore have more energy for chess tournaments
for example when I played you recently in London I could sense you were tired after working all day
Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA
Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2019 6:20 pm
by Matt Bridgeman
Much praise to the unsung hero’s of English chess, like John Merriman. He’s happy to come off a long working week and grind away in long games against the best domestic players around, and regularly gets some terrific results. It’s quite a feat to be be fit and match ready on top of a full-time job.
Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA
Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2019 6:44 pm
by Phil Makepeace
Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA
Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2019 6:52 pm
by Matt Bridgeman
Now closed for a fair play violation.
Re: Statement made by the B&DCL and DCCA
Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2019 7:09 pm
by Matt Mackenzie
JustinHorton wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2019 1:59 pm
Daniel Gormally wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2019 1:33 pm
the idea that you can improve that much in your fifties (he had advanced his rating by about 200 points by the end) seemed ga-ga land to me.
With no prejudice to the rest of your argument, is this a completely sound assumption? (I was wondering about, say, Terry Chapman as a possible counter-example.)
But weren't they a once strong player who effectively gave up chess for several years?