| |
Main
Date: 04 Dec 2008 01:58:53
From: gsgs
Subject: Elo by age
|
how much do ELO-numbers decrease in average (e.g. per decade) when
people get older ?
is there a list of average ELO of top 100 players for each 5(or other)-
year-age group ?
|
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2008 21:00:46
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: GetClub ratings
|
> =A0 That's a neat new parlor trick, but how do you
> account for the fact that, for instance,GetClub's
> Advance level has *lost* the vast majority of its
> games, yet it is still ranked number two?
>
> =A0 In an objective system, a record like that would
> result in a low ranking, and in a player (or level)
> having a very low rating relative to those of us
> who won most of our games. =A0 Your funky
> rankings and ratings seem largely arbitrary.
Ratings of Advance Level will always be 2300
Ratings of Master Level will always be 2100
Ratings of Normal Level will always be 1900
So every player playing with above levels will get same increase in
his ratings. Remember earlier Zebediah made Master Level rating =3D 360.
Now new players playing with Master will not get any increase while
the old players played with high rated Master level.
Keeping the three levels to a fixed rating will allow quick increase
of your rating. That is the reasion many people are able to achieve
higher ratings quickly by winning game against Master & Normal Levels.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2008 11:37:22
From: help bot
Subject: GetClub ratings
|
On Dec 7, 11:18=A0am, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:
> A new feature added to GetClub Chess.
>
> At GetClub now you are shown a Graph which shows your rating along
> with time. You can compare ratings of other players along with yours.
>
> With this Chart there is Back & Next Button to move backward and
> forward in timeline.
>
> See the Chart for Top Players:http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
>
> So you can see what were the times your rating dropped and what were
> the time your ratings increased.
>
> With the line Chart you can see the slopes and compare how well you
> are playing along with other players.
>
> This Chart will keep you updated of other players that may overtake
> your rating.
>
> When you see your profile thoise players who has close ratings will be
> shown
>
> You can remove the players graphs that you do not wish to look by
> checking the Check Boxes along with the players name.
>
> You can also see each players performance over time.
That's a neat new parlor trick, but how do you
account for the fact that, for instance, GetClub's
Advance level has *lost* the vast majority of its
games, yet it is still ranked number two?
In an objective system, a record like that would
result in a low ranking, and in a player (or level)
having a very low rating relative to those of us
who won most of our games. Your funky
rankings and ratings seem largely arbitrary.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 07 Dec 2008 08:18:13
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Elo by age
|
> =A0 Well, of course they were really complaining
> that other people's ratings were going up and
> up, while theirs wasn't; but this was not just a
> figment of the imagination, for when the bonus
> and feedback was eventually discontinued, we
> saw a falling off in the ratings of "stable" adult
> players, over time.
A new feature added to GetClub Chess.
At GetClub now you are shown a Graph which shows your rating along
with time. You can compare ratings of other players along with yours.
With this Chart there is Back & Next Button to move backward and
forward in timeline.
See the Chart for Top Players: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
So you can see what were the times your rating dropped and what were
the time your ratings increased.
With the line Chart you can see the slopes and compare how well you
are playing along with other players.
This Chart will keep you updated of other players that may overtake
your rating.
When you see your profile thoise players who has close ratings will be
shown
You can remove the players graphs that you do not wish to look by
checking the Check Boxes along with the players name.
You can also see each players performance over time.
Bye
Sanny
See the Chart for Top Chess Players: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 07 Dec 2008 07:50:34
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Elo by age
|
On Dec 7, 1:30=A0am, Kenneth Sloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> > =A0 The real test would involve tracking the same individuals over thei=
r
> > full careers, as Elo did. So you'd have, say, Karpov at 20, 25, 30,
> > 35, 40 etc., plus the same with however many other GMs it would take
> > to make a statistically significant sample.
> You will, of course, control for the possibility that the rating system
> itself changes over time?
While I'm not familiar with all the changes that
have affected the FIDE ratings, I can easily
recall a few dramatic changes with regard to
the USCF ratings system.
Many, many years ago, experienced players
who had gone into semi-retirement to protect
their fragile egos/ratings, complained that the
rapid influx of scholastic players, along with a
policy of "bonus and feedback", was trashing
the integrity of the system.
Well, of course they were really complaining
that other people's ratings were going up and
up, while theirs wasn't; but this was not just a
figment of the imagination, for when the bonus
and feedback was eventually discontinued, we
saw a falling off in the ratings of "stable" adult
players, over time.
Think about the effects of this sort of willy-
nilly manipulation of the ratings pool. About
the way ratings inflation could serve to bring
more people into active play-- to convince
others or even themselves that they are
improving at chess. And think about the
unintended consequences of suddenly
jerking the rug out from under all these
"improved" players, who then watch their
bloated ratings fall, more and more.
True, controls are nice. So too would be
the use of logic and reason-- but that is
asking a bit much from these chaps. All I
wanted was to dramatically increase the
number of players whose ratings are being
considered; to go from a tiny sample size
of only elite players to one of reasonable
-- oops, there's that troublesome word
again -- size, and breadth. I'm no math-
ematician, but this seems to be just plain,
common sense.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 07 Dec 2008 07:34:32
From: Sanny
Subject: Tactics is more important So Paul Morphy will win.
|
> =A0 =A0There really is no point in discussing the
> match-up of Paul Morphy versus a mediocrity
> like Dr. IMnes; it would be a walkover. =A0 More
> interesting is the idea of a match between a
> modern grandmaster and PM; between more
> theoretical knowledge, and more raw talent.
> I expect the modern grandmaster would try
> to close the position, out of fear of PM's
> tactical wizardry in open positions.
I feel Tactics is more important than theory. Earlier I used to teach
theory to getclub Chess It used to take a lot of time. Now I just ask
it to see deeper. And now it is tactically strong.
So now because of Tactics GetClub is unbeatable. .... The Higher
Levels (Baby & Beginner are still beatable.)
So Paul Morphy because of better tactics will out do the Bookish
knowledge person.
As Paul Morphy will see the combinations of win faster than the
theorician. So I feel Paul Morphy will rule the room for most of the
Strong players.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 07 Dec 2008 05:54:13
From:
Subject: Re: Elo by age
|
On Dec 7, 1:30=A0am, Kenneth Sloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > =A0 The real test would involve tracking the same individuals over thei=
r
> > full careers, as Elo did. So you'd have, say, Karpov at 20, 25, 30,
> > 35, 40 etc., plus the same with however many other GMs it would take
> > to make a statistically significant sample.
>
> You will, of course, control for the possibility that the rating system
> itself changes over time?
>
No, I won't personally be controlling for that possibility, because
I'm not conducting such research. But yes, for anyone who might,
that's another variable that, ideally, should be accounted for.
|
| |
Date: 05 Dec 2008 15:51:41
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Elo by age
|
On Dec 5, 4:01=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
Idunno-- a rant in which he expressed a deep
envy of Rybka, imagined himself (yet again) to
be nearly-an-IM instead of a USCF Expert, and
so forth. The only noticeable progress was
that /this time/ there was no mention of the
ineffectual shield of his rote book knowledge
(purportedly in the Pelikan Sicilian and hedge-
hog, as Black).
You know, the last time I faced a grandmaster
over the board, he no doubt had a /huge store/
of rote book knowledge behind which to hide,
but it made no difference. In that game, I can't
tell you where we left the books, because I
simply don't know! What I can say is that the
fellow hung the exchange in the early middle
game, then instead of offering a draw did what
he does best (I looked up his other games
afterward): bounced his Queen all over the
place, pressing his time advantage and the
fact that my position was difficult to play. I
took my time, knowing full well I could not
make time control (G61)... and eventually
blundered.
There really is no point in discussing the
match-up of Paul Morphy versus a mediocrity
like Dr. IMnes; it would be a walkover. More
interesting is the idea of a match between a
modern grandmaster and PM; between more
theoretical knowledge, and more raw talent.
I expect the modern grandmaster would try
to close the position, out of fear of PM's
tactical wizardry in open positions.
In a way, we have "forced" poor Dr. IMnes
back into his delusional nearly-an-IM state,
by matching him against his vast superior.
That was both cruel and pointless.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 05 Dec 2008 15:16:08
From: Offramp
Subject: Re: Elo by age
|
No one except me has actually said what Elo is talking about. The Elo
system is primarily a gerontological tool; it forms a bell-jar graph.
It exhibits the mental capabilities of all sentient animals. It goes
up and then it goes down. The bell-jar shape can be flat or high.
Problem solved!!
|
| |
Date: 05 Dec 2008 14:38:50
From:
Subject: Re: Elo by age
|
On Dec 5, 4:41=A0pm, gsgs <[email protected] > wrote:
> http://db.chessmetrics.com/DL/DL148.htm
Chessmetrics ratings are not Elo ratings, as far as I know. The guy
who runs that site has some peculiar ideas about chess strength. For
example, if a player is inactive for a few years, as Lasker was at
several points in his career, his CM rating goes down, even if when he
returns to competition his strength is undiminished, as was true for
Lasker circa 1924-25 and 1934-35.
> ff
> I took one list per year, 1967-2001
>
> only 11 players in the 55-60 group for some years
>
> age
> =A0 =A0 =A0 average ELO of n best players
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0difference
> -------------------------------------------------
> 20-25 =A02583
> 25-30 =A02608 =A0+25
> 30-35 =A02614 =A0+06
> 35-40 =A02598 =A0-16
> 40-45 =A02574 =A0-24
> 45-50 =A02546 =A0-28
> 50-55 =A02516 =A0-30
> 55-60 =A02469 =A0-47
>
> it becomes less reliable for >50 years
OK, so you're comparing the older players to younger, year by year?
Say, the 20-25ers of 1980 to the 50-55ers of 1980, and so on? That's
not really going to measure exactly what you asked about in your
original post, but I suppose as a quick-and-dirty guesstimate it's
better than nothing.
The real test would involve tracking the same individuals over their
full careers, as Elo did. So you'd have, say, Karpov at 20, 25, 30,
35, 40 etc., plus the same with however many other GMs it would take
to make a statistically significant sample.
|
| | |
Date: 07 Dec 2008 00:30:48
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Elo by age
|
[email protected] wrote:
> The real test would involve tracking the same individuals over their
> full careers, as Elo did. So you'd have, say, Karpov at 20, 25, 30,
> 35, 40 etc., plus the same with however many other GMs it would take
> to make a statistically significant sample.
You will, of course, control for the possibility that the rating system
itself changes over time?
--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/
|
| |
Date: 05 Dec 2008 13:41:02
From: gsgs
Subject: Re: Elo by age
|
http://db.chessmetrics.com/DL/DL148.htm
ff
I took one list per year, 1967-2001
only 11 players in the 55-60 group for some years
age
average ELO of n best players
difference
-------------------------------------------------
20-25 2583
25-30 2608 +25
30-35 2614 +06
35-40 2598 -16
40-45 2574 -24
45-50 2546 -28
50-55 2516 -30
55-60 2469 -47
it becomes less reliable for >50 years
|
| |
Date: 05 Dec 2008 13:07:57
From: gsgs
Subject: Re: Elo by age
|
On 5 Dez., 14:51, [email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 5, 6:00=EF=BF=BDam, gsgs <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I examined the average score of the world best
> > =EF=BF=BD11 chess-players for 5-year-age groups from 1967-2001 ELO-list=
s:
>
> > age =EF=BF=BD: ELO =EF=BF=BD diff
> > -----------------
> > 15-20:2480
> > 20-25:2614 +134
> > 25-30:2635 =EF=BF=BD+21
> > 30-35:2638 =EF=BF=BD+03
> > 35-40:2624 =EF=BF=BD-14
> > 40-45:2603 =EF=BF=BD-21
> > 45-50:2581 =EF=BF=BD-22
> > 50-55:2535 =EF=BF=BD-46
> > 55-60:2508 =EF=BF=BD-27
> > 60-65:2480 =EF=BF=BD-28
>
> > strong decline at ages ~50-55
>
> > (could still be data-bias due to the small sample)
>
> =EF=BF=BD Could you explain your methodology more clearly? Are you saying=
you
> tracked the same 11 players from age 15 thru age 65? Or you took the
no
> average Elo rating for the top 11 in each age group? The latter method
yes
> would not be a valid approach to your question, IMO.
I'm aware of that, but I think it's a good approximation for now
> =EF=BF=BD I'm not clear on how you got "ELO-lists" from 1967. FIDE did no=
t
> start using Elo ratings until 1970.- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
>
http://db.chessmetrics.com/DL/DL588.htm
|
| |
Date: 05 Dec 2008 13:01:16
From:
Subject: Re: Elo by age
|
On Dec 5, 2:47=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 5, 12:05=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> =A0"Really, how strong would a Morphy be these days?"
>
> > > =A0 =A0Far better than most humans, but far worse
> > > than Rybka, is a safe bet.
> > What does that mean exactly? Rybka is 3000-ish, but 'most humans'
> > are ? USCF averages about 1600 for rated players.
>
> =A0 It means PM is no 3000, but he is no duffer, either.
Well, that is a useful range to explain to the people here, bet they
didn't not that. Bet you don't get more exact in your definitions
either - what's the fun of arguing anything against a whatever
broadband type.
Sure you are right, somewhere 1650-3000, that's our Morphy. Now, what
specific things do you deduce from this observation?
> > What an old romantic you are! That is the 2nd or 3rd assertion without
> > any basis being offered. It is merely a speculation therefore - maybe
> > a correct one, but maybe not? Of all those Petersburg players I used
> > to write with [a 2650+ club], no-one thought even Lasker could deal
> > with current top GMs.
>
> =A0 They were stupid (and obviously wrong).
My correspondent doesn't want to go there. He is content to be
flippant. Having thus rubbished top flite Russian talent, the rest
should come easy...
> > As for Morphy, would he, given one of those wild
> > open positions, get his compelling shot in first? Before Topalov or
> > Carlsen, Anand or Svidler?
>
> =A0 Drifting wildly ...from Dr. IMnes versus PM, to
> surrogate players standing in his place. =A0 This
> reminds me of the somewhat freaky thinking
> of a Larry Parr, who always tries to substitute
> Mr. Evans for himself when he feels way over-
> matched.
I am 'over matched' by your observation Morphy is 1650-3000? True, it
is a breath-taking statement, though possibly not in the way you might
cherish my observation.
> > His play is wonderful - but look at his opponents? How strong are
> > they? Look what they allowed him to do. I don't think even an IM would
> > allow Morphy those positions these days.
>
> =A0 Obviously, the IMs in your country are not the
> same as the ones over here in the Midwest.
Just talked with one. Admitted he was but 2300 these days. Like me who
was an almost IM, he is now a has-been IM, and though of the same
current strength... um - what is your point again?
> =A0I
> would like you to try an experiment sometime:
> take *random* games (not only their best
> ones) and run them through Rybka; do you
> find her "struggling" to defeat their moves, or
> is her main problem determining which
> blunders were the most decisive of them all?
Tal answered that.
If you use Rybka you are cheating - besides the likes of you lives
vicariously as if YOU were Rybka, right? ;)
You raise the principal, or operans, above, and here we go... I doubt
you even understand Rybka's moves and as such relegate yourself to
worshipping the thing like some cargo-cult object. This has certain
emotional significance for you since you don't like we strong chess
players, and need to relegate us by mentioning your surrogate
identity, Rybka-bot! You even adopt a version of its inhuman name as
your own.
> > I think Nakamura would, but
> > from a very different principle of encouraging a slug-fest, and
> > Nakamura is the best pugilist on the chess scene since Fischer.
>
> =A0 Uh oh. =A0 Now we have drifted all the way to
> Mr. Fischer-- this can't be a good sign. =A0If it
> were TK, I'd automatically convict of back-
> pedalling. =A0 Try to focus: the idea was *you*
> successfully playing against Paul Morphy.
> (Not Mr. Fischer or Mr. Nakamura.)
Okay - let's get back to me and Morphy...
> > Otherwise you write as you do - dismissing a couple hundred wins
> > against the best software.
>
> =A0 Repetition is not progress. =A0What do you
> fear? =A0 (Has your chap lost overall, and lost
> badly, just like me?)
Probably my chap has. OTOH, he has 3 Nobel assists, which AFAIK is 3
moire than you and me combined.
> > Let me hide inside Khalifman's then. You understand what I am saying?
> > Or you want to inist on your own level of understanding? Its not rote
> > book lines - its understanding why they are played. Its understanding
> > the positional dynamic, so you get both the forest and the trees.
>
> =A0 Whatever you're selling, I'm not buying any.
Good - that is a healthy attitude.
Besides, I am in too good a mood this afternoon since I have been
listening to Leonard Cohen, which is a form of homeopathic gloom
therapy... Probably Our Taylor of the Records could splain it.
> =A0 Open your Chess Lies magazine, and turn
> to the game where a GRANDMASTER lost
> first move out of book in a Caro Kan. =A0This
> is nonfiction. =A0 Your fantasies are irrelevant.
Unfortunately, there has never been any chess in Chess Slight which
remotely interested a player of my level, and neither is reading the
Advice to the Daft column by Joel Benjamin column to my taste.
I did once like that column they had called Insult-a-Yank, or was it
Amateurs-Duh Pro-Moves Compared? That had attitude, but the gulf
attempted to be bridged was, while correctly identified as a gulf the
size of the gulf-war, it was not the columnist's genious to identify
anything whatever to do about bridging it.
> =A0 Books cannot save you. =A0 Your grandmaster
> "friends" cannot save you. =A0 Only Fritz could
> save you (and we don't allow computer help).
>
> > But you think Morphy superior to the guy I played?
>
> =A0 I have no opinion whatever on the strength of
> alleged opponents who have no names, and
> indeed, no existence, apart from what *you*
> see fit to *say* they have.
You are pleased to be sceptical about others, and others only! Maybe
you can get away with that - after all, only Our Taylor [ion a rage]
and myself ever write to you, so that's two suckers right there.
> =A0 Please note: you
> have the same sort of record as Sanny in this
> area-- one of deliberately making false claims.
That's a low blow! Besides, I am 46 times better than yesterday.
> =A0 *Don't blame me-- you did this to yourself.*
Get over your ratings hatred, patzer. It ALWAYS happens with strong
players and weaker ones - since the resentment is natural as a
function of dealing with them, but it is a progession of things, so
that, for example, the stronger player me can say to the weaker player
you, you lack confidence and risk, and write like a woman, so you play
like one.
Stop whining about other people, since chess is doing it, not whatever
you are up to here with your Rybka-worship.
Fucking hell! You are such a girl-guide you can't even write your own
fucking name to your posts! But you think you can advice other
people?
Get it, patzer? Talk from your experience or mouth off. One is
assessed by people reading this as true because its maybe there
experince too, and all the rest is jerking off.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 05 Dec 2008 11:47:36
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Elo by age
|
On Dec 5, 12:05=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
"Really, how strong would a Morphy be these days?"
> > =A0 =A0Far better than most humans, but far worse
> > than Rybka, is a safe bet.
> What does that mean exactly? Rybka is 3000-ish, but 'most humans'
> are ? USCF averages about 1600 for rated players.
It means PM is no 3000, but he is no duffer, either.
> What an old romantic you are! That is the 2nd or 3rd assertion without
> any basis being offered. It is merely a speculation therefore - maybe
> a correct one, but maybe not? Of all those Petersburg players I used
> to write with [a 2650+ club], no-one thought even Lasker could deal
> with current top GMs.
They were stupid (and obviously wrong).
> As for Morphy, would he, given one of those wild
> open positions, get his compelling shot in first? Before Topalov or
> Carlsen, Anand or Svidler?
Drifting wildly ...from Dr. IMnes versus PM, to
surrogate players standing in his place. This
reminds me of the somewhat freaky thinking
of a Larry Parr, who always tries to substitute
Mr. Evans for himself when he feels way over-
matched.
> His play is wonderful - but look at his opponents? How strong are
> they? Look what they allowed him to do. I don't think even an IM would
> allow Morphy those positions these days.
Obviously, the IMs in your country are not the
same as the ones over here in the Midwest. I
would like you to try an experiment sometime:
take *random* games (not only their best
ones) and run them through Rybka; do you
find her "struggling" to defeat their moves, or
is her main problem determining which
blunders were the most decisive of them all?
> I think Nakamura would, but
> from a very different principle of encouraging a slug-fest, and
> Nakamura is the best pugilist on the chess scene since Fischer.
Uh oh. Now we have drifted all the way to
Mr. Fischer-- this can't be a good sign. If it
were TK, I'd automatically convict of back-
pedalling. Try to focus: the idea was *you*
successfully playing against Paul Morphy.
(Not Mr. Fischer or Mr. Nakamura.)
> Otherwise you write as you do - dismissing a couple hundred wins
> against the best software.
Repetition is not progress. What do you
fear? (Has your chap lost overall, and lost
badly, just like me?)
> Let me hide inside Khalifman's then. You understand what I am saying?
> Or you want to inist on your own level of understanding? Its not rote
> book lines - its understanding why they are played. Its understanding
> the positional dynamic, so you get both the forest and the trees.
Whatever you're selling, I'm not buying any.
Open your Chess Lies magazine, and turn
to the game where a GRANDMASTER lost
first move out of book in a Caro Kan. This
is nonfiction. Your fantasies are irrelevant.
Books cannot save you. Your grandmaster
"friends" cannot save you. Only Fritz could
save you (and we don't allow computer help).
> But you think Morphy superior to the guy I played?
I have no opinion whatever on the strength of
alleged opponents who have no names, and
indeed, no existence, apart from what *you*
see fit to *say* they have. Please note: you
have the same sort of record as Sanny in this
area-- one of deliberately making false claims.
*Don't blame me-- you did this to yourself.*
> Turn the book =3D off. See if your gods are really so great.
You idiot! I have reported here countless
times that I never installed the opening book
in the first place. Every time I comment on
the openings analysis, I am looking at the
computer's actual calculations, and have
no idea what sort of book moves may exist
in the full version. What a dolt! We went
over this with that drunken grandmaster,
who agreed with me that Rybka's penchant
for blocking in her Queen revealed a serious
problem.
> Interesting. Staunton, even by retro analysis, and certainly by his
> games, doesn't appear better than 2350 does he?
Why are you asking me this? The ratings
are published in Dr. Elo's book and at the
Web sites, such as chessmetrics.com.
> I think that means
> that all masters have a fair chance of beating him.
Fine. You can toy with terms like "master",
twisting them to mean whatever you like. As
for me, I take "master" to mean USCF 2200-
2399. Mr. Staunton would smash such
players, on the whole.
> Who do we think was even of master level in his era?
All the very top players. Do you want to
talk about "international masters" instead?
> Please to tell us more about this math, if it is so simple.
Sure. Go to: www.USCF.org and look
around.
> I am not putting any chess heroes down
You've got everything wrong. It is not that
PM is some sort of hero in terms of chess
strength (that would be GK, MB, EL, BF); it
is simply that chess games are lost, not
won.
The loser is the guy -- like say you or I --
who makes the worst mistakes. As you
must know, a century and a half or so ago,
*everyone* made more mistakes than PM.
It's that simple. This guy was a phenom,
an unstoppable force (most of the time),
who bowled over the world's best players
(who were much better than you give them
credit for).
Openings theory is too small and feeble
a shield to save you, my boy. What is
needed is a substitution-- instead of you,
let PM play against a worthy opponent;
let's say a modern grandmaster. You can
play Mr. Kingston, on board 15.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 05 Dec 2008 09:05:06
From:
Subject: Re: Elo by age
|
On Dec 5, 11:04=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 5, 9:13=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > =A0 As for Dr. IMnes and /his fantasy/, I expect
> > > that his openings theory would come to a
> > > screeching halt early on, with the poor chap
> > > thrown onto his own, rather limited resources,
> > > pitted against a true genius of chess. =A0 Lest
> > > we forget-- this is the same fellow who utterly
> > > demolished folks for minor infractions like
> > > playing p-h3, and who routinely offered the
> > > likes of Dr. IMnes QN-odds. =A0 It is amusing
> > > that the good doctor imagines he could hide
> > > behind the safety of rote book knowledge,
> > > even in the face of Mr. Morphy's genius.
> > I even thought I could offer pawn odds. But let us not elaborate or
> > disfigure it with lipstick before we determine what is heroic fantasy,
> > and what not.
>
> > Recently, a player tried to suppress tactical genius Anand, and did so
> > at the expense of allowing the strategic genius of Anand to show
> > through. But I think Morphy is no Anand. Really, how strong would a
> > Morphy be these days?
>
> =A0 =A0Far better than most humans, but far worse
> than Rybka, is a safe bet.
What does that mean exactly? Rybka is 3000-ish, but 'most humans'
are ? USCF averages about 1600 for rated players.
> > The structural inhibition even I can place on
> > tactical monsters is enough to go 20 moves without discomfort.
>
> =A0 You are dreaming. =A0 Your only power over
> a Paul Morphy lies in your ability to choose
> whether to resign, to lose on time, or to be
> checkmated.
What an old romantic you are! That is the 2nd or 3rd assertion without
any basis being offered. It is merely a speculation therefore - maybe
a correct one, but maybe not? Of all those Petersburg players I used
to write with [a 2650+ club], no-one thought even Lasker could deal
with current top GMs. As for Morphy, would he, given one of those wild
open positions, get his compelling shot in first? Before Topalov or
Carlsen, Anand or Svidler? I doubt he would even sniff the possibility
of doing so.
His play is wonderful - but look at his opponents? How strong are
they? Look what they allowed him to do. I don't think even an IM would
allow Morphy those positions these days. I think Nakamura would, but
from a very different principle of encouraging a slug-fest, and
Nakamura is the best pugilist on the chess scene since Fischer.
> > It is not rote memory of moves which is the issue - but strategic
> > understanding of how to play tactically or inhibit tactical chess.
>
> =A0 =A0It was *you* who brought up the idea of
> hiding within the supposed safety of your
> book knowledge (e.g. the Pelikan Sicilian).
You wish to insist on what I mean? Up to you. It is, after all, your
obsession, and your romance on Morphy we are discussing.
> > I see that my buddy Dr. Alberts has a second MAMS title out - and he
> > has scored 100s of victories over the strongest chess programs.
>
> =A0 In match play, Rybka has demolished all
> but the world champions, and now routinely
> offers pawn-and-move or better to all
> comers. =A0 If you wish to stand upon the win-
> loss record of someone else (??), then
> please play fair and list his losses and
> draws, to compare to your questionable
> claim of his wins.
But why don't you do this yourself? I offered you the chance to review
his first title, but you were too... long on opinion, and AFAIK don't
have a clue about what you are saying. You want me to convince you of
something, but you neglect to notice that you have to do your own work
to even understand the issue.
Otherwise you write as you do - dismissing a couple hundred wins
against the best software.
> > Possibly Morphy could do something similar, despite his absent
> > knowledge of an intervening 100 years of chess development - but I
> > doubt it.
>
> =A0 You just don't get it. =A0 You cannot hide inside
> the imaginary safety-net of your rote book
> knowledge.
Let me hide inside Khalifman's then. You understand what I am saying?
Or you want to inist on your own level of understanding? Its not rote
book lines - its understanding why they are played. Its understanding
the positional dynamic, so you get both the forest and the trees.
You don't get that patzer, you stay where you are!
> =A0 A player from the old days will
> leave your books behind, and venture off into
> the world of terra incognita-- a world in which
> you are very alone, where your grandmaster
> "friends" cannot come to your rescue.
Another assertion by the local Swami - who doesn't like any
experience, whether mine, Alberts or Khalifmans. pfft! Dime-a-dozen on
usenet.
> > > =A0 And Paul Morphy losing on time-- that's
> > > funny!
> > Why is that funny?
>
> =A0 Because it is you who would most likely be
> fighting the clock.
More Swami stuff with legal weasel words like 'likely'.
Why don't you explain what you understand about the speed Morphy would
play - especially against modern chess? You maybe don't because you
believe stuff. If you had a basis for your views - and none so far -
surely you would have mentioned them, since this is the umteenth time
I asked why you think as you do.
So instead of actually discussing this issue of Morphy's strength, you
instead assert things about Morphy which are entirely conjectural. You
don't want to evaluate him, you just want to be right by putting
everyone else down.
> > I would fancy my chances at a clock-blitz with him.
>
> =A0 =A0A five-minute game? =A0 Maybe he could
> forget to press the clock or something.
You happen to know that Morphy was good at 5 min blitz? <ggg >
> =A0At
> one time, I was pretty mean at blitz-- more
> than one opponent "had a cow" at my
> vastly superior speed, but I must say that
> because I played *legally*, my speed was
> nothing compared to the speed of some
> cheaters I knew (who knocked pieces
> over deliberately, then set them up only
> after slapping the clock-button).
Is that the basis of your opinion about Morphy?
> > I did same against a twice Euro youth champ [same as world youth at
> > that time] who became Russian champion. And I did it with black bits.
>
> =A0 =A0Alas, I had thought we were discussing
> what might occur if a Paul Morphy were
> magically transported to today-- to the here
> and now. =A0 =A0Apparently, you are thinking
> about some now-distant past, in which you
> play the role of a 2450-rated nearly-an-IM.
3 years ago.
But you think Morphy superior to the guy I played?
ROFL!!
Look, there is an even weaker player than a GM who caused GMs great
tribulations. He passed a few years ago, but he was maybe the best
blitz player in the best chess city in the world. You ever hear of
master Genrikh Chepukaitis?
Didn't matter how strong you were, everyone respected this character.
> It is a fine piece of fiction, but it is hardly
> the same character or plot as in the
> original story.
Swami say fiction. Swami continue ignore all facts, insist own vision
paramount. Good luck getting disciples.
> > Kelp bot might try and arbitrate all these things; especially the huge
> > retrograde Leo ratings proposed by Taylor Kingston, and the historical
> > understanding of the technical aspects of chess in the post-Karpov
> > era.
>
> =A0 I like to go with the statistical odds, based
> on actual performance ratings and results.
> But on matters like the imaginary safety of
> rote book knowledge, I am forced to use
> logic instead.
You are determined not to understand, and thereby your logic is
applied only to that which your emotions are not upset by. Nothing new
in that. You can get that from Nancy for 10cents.
> > It may only seem impossible if you've never tried this out against
> > strong players
>
> =A0 In my rather limited experiences against
> "strong players", it is most unwise to hold
> a book-monkey contest, for the higher-
> rated player usually wins.
That is not the proposition. Its not /any/ book monkey issue. Its
specific ones. But then again, you dismiss MAMS studies, and also
these strategic ideas about the level of calculated risk you can
deploy to unbalance a position.
> =A0 Indeed, the trick seems to be a crazy
> combination of his overconfidence, his
> low opinion of your abilities, and getting
> him out of book and on his own. =A0 =A0This
> last part is a very tall order indeed, but it
> can be done.
?
> > or if you have romantic views about their skill
> > levels.
>
> =A0 Impossible. =A0 Now that Rybka laughs and
> makes snide remarks about so many GMs
> behind their backs, it is difficult to retain any
> significant respect for what were at one
> time regarded as the gods of chess.
Turn the book =3D off. See if your gods are really so great. Inform
yourself about them, speculate and glorify them less.
You have a poor attitude as a chess player. A lack of confidence in
what you can do.
> =A0 I just have to keep reminding myself: without
> Intel's speedy microprocessors, Rybka would
> be as helpless as a child.
>
> > Wouldn't you think any modern master could defeat Stuanton?
>
> =A0 No.
Interesting. Staunton, even by retro analysis, and certainly by his
games, doesn't appear better than 2350 does he? I think that means
that all masters have a fair chance of beating him. If you think he is
a lot stronger - who in turn were his opponents? Who do we think was
even of master level in his era?
> > So just how much better was Morphy - or better asked - what is the basi=
s
> > of deciding the worth of Staunton, and what increment would we add for
> > Morphy, and why.
>
> =A0 =A0Different styles; and the difference in their
> results is very easy to determine, via retro-
> ratings, or a comparison of results by hand.
> =A0 Since these two were in the same pool, in
> the same time period, this is simple math.
Please to tell us more about this math, if it is so simple.
<snip >
I am not putting any chess heroes down - I am simply asking why they
are on a pedestal, and one apparently floating above the ground.
It is, despite our inconclusive conversation - still an interesting
argument.
Phil Innes
|
| | |
Date: 05 Dec 2008 09:34:02
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Elo by age
|
On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 09:05:06 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>> � A player from the old days will
>> leave your books behind, and venture off into
>> the world of terra incognita-- a world in which
>> you are very alone, where your grandmaster
>> "friends" cannot come to your rescue.
>Another assertion by the local Swami - who doesn't like any
>experience, whether mine, Alberts or Khalifmans. pfft! Dime-a-dozen on
>usenet.
Hard to resolve this question without a good Medium or a functioning
Ouija board, but try this:
(1) Turn the "book" off on your super engine of choice (Fritz or
Rybka or something comparable).
(2) This one is optional but might be interesting: tweak some of the
engine's style parameters to make it more Morphy-esque.
(3) Give yourself a comfortable time advantage.
(4) Set up the initial position of the Pelikan or another of your
favorite theoretical openings.
(5) Play a few games.
As the other Phil (Dr.Phil, that is) might say, "How'd that work out
for you?"
|
| |
Date: 05 Dec 2008 08:50:42
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Elo by age
|
> Impossible. Now that Rybka laughs and
> makes snide remarks about so many GMs
> behind their backs, it is difficult to retain any
> significant respect for what were at one
> time regarded as the gods of chess.
> I just have to keep reminding myself: without
> Intel's speedy microprocessors, Rybka would
> be as helpless as a child.
Today I played one game between Beginner & Rybka at 5 seconds. Rybka
found a Mate in 14. While Beginner Level found it after 2 moves.
Rybka at 5 sec / move plays as good as Easy Level. (60 sec / move)
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 05 Dec 2008 08:04:42
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Elo by age
|
On Dec 5, 9:13=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> > =A0 As for Dr. IMnes and /his fantasy/, I expect
> > that his openings theory would come to a
> > screeching halt early on, with the poor chap
> > thrown onto his own, rather limited resources,
> > pitted against a true genius of chess. =A0 Lest
> > we forget-- this is the same fellow who utterly
> > demolished folks for minor infractions like
> > playing p-h3, and who routinely offered the
> > likes of Dr. IMnes QN-odds. =A0 It is amusing
> > that the good doctor imagines he could hide
> > behind the safety of rote book knowledge,
> > even in the face of Mr. Morphy's genius.
> I even thought I could offer pawn odds. But let us not elaborate or
> disfigure it with lipstick before we determine what is heroic fantasy,
> and what not.
>
> Recently, a player tried to suppress tactical genius Anand, and did so
> at the expense of allowing the strategic genius of Anand to show
> through. But I think Morphy is no Anand. Really, how strong would a
> Morphy be these days?
Far better than most humans, but far worse
than Rybka, is a safe bet.
> The structural inhibition even I can place on
> tactical monsters is enough to go 20 moves without discomfort.
You are dreaming. Your only power over
a Paul Morphy lies in your ability to choose
whether to resign, to lose on time, or to be
checkmated.
> It is not rote memory of moves which is the issue - but strategic
> understanding of how to play tactically or inhibit tactical chess.
It was *you* who brought up the idea of
hiding within the supposed safety of your
book knowledge (e.g. the Pelikan Sicilian).
> I see that my buddy Dr. Alberts has a second MAMS title out - and he
> has scored 100s of victories over the strongest chess programs.
In match play, Rybka has demolished all
but the world champions, and now routinely
offers pawn-and-move or better to all
comers. If you wish to stand upon the win-
loss record of someone else (??), then
please play fair and list his losses and
draws, to compare to your questionable
claim of his wins.
> Possibly Morphy could do something similar, despite his absent
> knowledge of an intervening 100 years of chess development - but I
> doubt it.
You just don't get it. You cannot hide inside
the imaginary safety-net of your rote book
knowledge. A player from the old days will
leave your books behind, and venture off into
the world of terra incognita-- a world in which
you are very alone, where your grandmaster
"friends" cannot come to your rescue.
> > =A0 And Paul Morphy losing on time-- that's
> > funny!
> Why is that funny?
Because it is you who would most likely be
fighting the clock.
> I would fancy my chances at a clock-blitz with him.
A five-minute game? Maybe he could
forget to press the clock or something. At
one time, I was pretty mean at blitz-- more
than one opponent "had a cow" at my
vastly superior speed, but I must say that
because I played *legally*, my speed was
nothing compared to the speed of some
cheaters I knew (who knocked pieces
over deliberately, then set them up only
after slapping the clock-button).
> I did same against a twice Euro youth champ [same as world youth at
> that time] who became Russian champion. And I did it with black bits.
Alas, I had thought we were discussing
what might occur if a Paul Morphy were
magically transported to today-- to the here
and now. Apparently, you are thinking
about some now-distant past, in which you
play the role of a 2450-rated nearly-an-IM.
It is a fine piece of fiction, but it is hardly
the same character or plot as in the
original story.
> Kelp bot might try and arbitrate all these things; especially the huge
> retrograde Leo ratings proposed by Taylor Kingston, and the historical
> understanding of the technical aspects of chess in the post-Karpov
> era.
I like to go with the statistical odds, based
on actual performance ratings and results.
But on matters like the imaginary safety of
rote book knowledge, I am forced to use
logic instead.
> It may only seem impossible if you've never tried this out against
> strong players
In my rather limited experiences against
"strong players", it is most unwise to hold
a book-monkey contest, for the higher-
rated player usually wins.
Indeed, the trick seems to be a crazy
combination of his overconfidence, his
low opinion of your abilities, and getting
him out of book and on his own. This
last part is a very tall order indeed, but it
can be done.
> or if you have romantic views about their skill
> levels.
Impossible. Now that Rybka laughs and
makes snide remarks about so many GMs
behind their backs, it is difficult to retain any
significant respect for what were at one
time regarded as the gods of chess.
I just have to keep reminding myself: without
Intel's speedy microprocessors, Rybka would
be as helpless as a child.
> Wouldn't you think any modern master could defeat Stuanton?
No.
> So just how much better was Morphy - or better asked - what is the basis
> of deciding the worth of Staunton, and what increment would we add for
> Morphy, and why.
Different styles; and the difference in their
results is very easy to determine, via retro-
ratings, or a comparison of results by hand.
Since these two were in the same pool, in
the same time period, this is simple math.
What is harder is to accurately estimate
the difference between such players of old
and a somewhat lesser player of today.
While they -- thank god -- have never seen
my games, I on the other hand, have seen
many of theirs-- including their losses. So
I know not to ever play p-h3 against PM; in
fact, I know better than to let him take the
Black pieces in the first place! I will make
him play White, and then split him in half
with my d-pawn, thrust deep into his mid-
section. Then, having divided his army in
two, I blunder, struggle to recover, blunder
again, and summarily lose like a carrot.
But I had him; I had him, I tell you!
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 05 Dec 2008 07:31:19
From: Sanny
Subject: Monkey playing with Tigers Tail
|
> =A0 Now, as for India-- here is some useful
> advice:
>
> =A01. Never play with a tiger's tail.
Here is a video of Monkey playing with Tigers Tail. Very funny.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DsshbHTDSwCk
This monkey really smart and very quick in his action. Despite Tiger
efforts Monkey always wins.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| | |
Date: 05 Dec 2008 07:47:07
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Monkey playing with Tigers Tail
|
On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 07:31:19 -0800 (PST), Sanny <[email protected] >
wrote:
>> � Now, as for India-- here is some useful
>> advice:
>> �1. Never play with a tiger's tail.
>Here is a video of Monkey playing with Tigers Tail. Very funny.
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sshbHTDSwCk
The background music should have been the old country song by Buck
Owns and the Buckaroos:
"I've Got A Tiger By The Tail, it's plain to see;
I won't be much when you get thru' with me.
Well, I'm a losing weight and a turnin' mighty pale.
Looks like I've Got A Tiger By The Tail." (Buck Owens)
|
| |
Date: 05 Dec 2008 07:15:03
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Elo by age
|
On Dec 5, 12:18=A0am, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:
> Today everyday new medicines are developing and some are anti aging.
> In next 20 years Humans will live till age of 100. And In next 50
> years Humans will be livng till age of 120.
Medicine may well be improving, but here in
the USA people are becoming more and more
obese, lazy, and manipulated by the mass
media. The result of this "fast food mentality"
is that we eat more, excercise less, and as
people get older, they are hit with a barrage of
advertising for *drugs* to cure whatever ails
them.
I think this easily offsets much of the /recent/
gains made thus far in the field of medicine.
You can't cure lethargy and poor diet by merely
popping more and more prescription pills.
> I mean they will live a healthy life till that age. So they can play
> strong Chess till 100 years age.
>
> In year 1800 Average Life was just 40 years.
Back then, infant and youth mortality was
vastly greater, and this skewed the averages
dramatically downward.
> and in 1900 It became 50
Perhaps washing one's hands to get rid of
deadly germs had a major impact.
> and in year 2000 it has become 65.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy
>
> Neanderthal 20
> Upper Paleolithic 33
> Neolithic 20
> Bronze Age[3] 18
> Classical Greece[4] 20-30
> Classical Rome[5][6] 20-30
> Pre-Columbian North America[7] 25-35
> Medieval Islamic Caliphate[8] 35+ The average lifespans of the
> scholarly class were 59=9684.3 years in the Middle East[9][10] and 69=967=
5
> in Islamic Spain.[11]
> Medieval Britain[12][13] 20-30
> Early 20th Century[14][15] 30-40
> Current world average[16][17] 66.12 (2008 est.)
>
> So we are seeing a steep increase in Life Expactency due to Medical
> Research and medicines to cure old age problems.
Non sequitur (it does not follow).
I think what we are seeing may well be the
fact that some of the world's most deadly
diseases have been all but wiped out, except
in the very poorest countries.
We are also seeing the results of having
enough food produced so that large numbers
of people do not necessarily have to starve.
This has little to do with keeping old folks
alive vastly longer, but it does affect the
average lifespan immensely.
Here is another interesting statistic that I
just made up: in 1800, bears, cougars and
snakes killed a significant number of folks
hereabouts. But today, all the bears are
dead, all the cougars are dead, and even
the snakes have been driven into hiding.
Thus, the number of deaths due to such
things in my area is very nearly zero. Can
you see how this has nothing whatever to
do with "curing old age problems", and
everything to do with increasing average
lifespans?
Now, as for India-- here is some useful
advice:
1. Never play with a tiger's tail.
2. Do not get in an elephant's way.
3. Watch out for cobras.
4. When monsoon season nears, get a
*heavy duty* umbrella.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 05 Dec 2008 06:13:02
From:
Subject: Re: Elo by age
|
> =A0 As for Dr. IMnes and /his fantasy/, I expect
> that his openings theory would come to a
> screeching halt early on, with the poor chap
> thrown onto his own, rather limited resources,
> pitted against a true genius of chess. =A0 Lest
> we forget-- this is the same fellow who utterly
> demolished folks for minor infractions like
> playing p-h3, and who routinely offered the
> likes of Dr. IMnes QN-odds. =A0 It is amusing
> that the good doctor imagines he could hide
> behind the safety of rote book knowledge,
> even in the face of Mr. Morphy's genius.
I even thought I could offer pawn odds. But let us not elaborate or
disfigure it with lipstick before we determine what is heroic fantasy,
and what not.
Recently, a player tried to suppress tactical genius Anand, and did so
at the expense of allowing the strategic genius of Anand to show
through. But I think Morphy is no Anand. Really, how strong would a
Morphy be these days? The structural inhibition even I can place on
tactical monsters is enough to go 20 moves without discomfort.
It is not rote memory of moves which is the issue - but strategic
understanding of how to play tactically or inhibit tactical chess.
I see that my buddy Dr. Alberts has a second MAMS title out - and he
has scored 100s of victories over the strongest chess programs.
Possibly Morphy could do something similar, despite his absent
knowledge of an intervening 100 years of chess development - but I
doubt it.
> =A0 And Paul Morphy losing on time-- that's
> funny!
Why is that funny? I would fancy my chances at a clock-blitz with him.
I did same against a twice Euro youth champ [same as world youth at
that time] who became Russian champion. And I did it with black bits.
Kelp bot might try and arbitrate all these things; especially the huge
retrograde Leo ratings proposed by Taylor Kingston, and the historical
understanding of the technical aspects of chess in the post-Karpov
era.
It may only seem impossible if you've never tried this out against
strong players - or if you have romantic views about their skill
levels. Wouldn't you think any modern master could defeat Stuanton? So
just how much better was Morphy - or better asked - what is the basis
of deciding the worth of Staunton, and what increment would we add for
Morphy, and why.
Phil Innes
> =A0 -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 05 Dec 2008 05:51:30
From:
Subject: Re: Elo by age
|
On Dec 5, 6:00=A0am, gsgs <[email protected] > wrote:
> I examined the average score of the world best
> =A011 chess-players for 5-year-age groups from 1967-2001 ELO-lists:
>
> age =A0: ELO =A0 diff
> -----------------
> 15-20:2480
> 20-25:2614 +134
> 25-30:2635 =A0+21
> 30-35:2638 =A0+03
> 35-40:2624 =A0-14
> 40-45:2603 =A0-21
> 45-50:2581 =A0-22
> 50-55:2535 =A0-46
> 55-60:2508 =A0-27
> 60-65:2480 =A0-28
>
> strong decline at ages ~50-55
>
> (could still be data-bias due to the small sample)
Could you explain your methodology more clearly? Are you saying you
tracked the same 11 players from age 15 thru age 65? Or you took the
average Elo rating for the top 11 in each age group? The latter method
would not be a valid approach to your question, IMO.
I'm not clear on how you got "ELO-lists" from 1967. FIDE did not
start using Elo ratings until 1970.
|
| |
Date: 05 Dec 2008 05:25:26
From:
Subject: Re: Elo by age
|
On Dec 4, 11:42=A0pm, "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 4, 1:51 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > We have come from an age of Morphy, who perhaps
> > I could beat in a Pelikan, or Adorjan's ...
>
> You mean, you could almost beat him, right?
>
> Regards,
>
> =A0 =A0 W=B3od
I have almost beaten the entire newsgroup at chess Wlod. The only
players who I haven't beaten are the ones who don't play chess ;)
But seriously, what's so funny about taking out Morphy? And what is
the basis of thinking he could accommodate and surpass hypermodern
chess OTB as he played?
Phil Innes
|
| | |
Date: 05 Dec 2008 07:35:36
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Elo by age
|
On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 05:25:26 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>I have almost beaten the entire newsgroup at chess Wlod. The only
>players who I haven't beaten are the ones who don't play chess ;)
Slight correction: You must mean "the ones who don't play e-mail
chess" on your preferred server.
If you're ever slumming over on playchess.com feel free to humble-ize
poor old "MikeMurray" -- you might have to send me a message so that I
can tweak my challenge range to accommodate you (currently set at
2000-2350).
|
| |
Date: 05 Dec 2008 05:22:39
From:
Subject: Re: Elo by age
|
On Dec 4, 6:07=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 13:51:34 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
> >We have come from an age of Morphy, who perhaps I could beat in a
> >Pelikan, or Adorjan's defence with the black bits
>
> Perhaps? =A0Hard to argue with "perhaps". =A0
You are doing fine, Mike.
> But, =A0most likely, he would trounce you ninety-nine times of a hundred
> while giving you your choice of opening, losing the hundredth game on
> time (since you're using modern openings, you'd surely play with a
> clock?) when he became distracted watching Larry Evans grinding down
> Help-bot on the next board.
More supposing. Let's say that Morphy is able to go, with a clock, 20
moves into a Cheliabinsk, indeed, surviving Kasparov's mid game pawn
sac offer of h4 - I know another dozen moves than that. Even super
geniuses will need to work it all out over the board - and if you can
stay within your preparation, strategically and tactically, then this
is the way to clip GMs.
Morphy's romantic chess simple has no means to deploy itself in
certain openings - unless radical sacrifices are involved - even then,
sacrifices that eluded GMs for 40 years.
Even Kasparov honored [then] IM Sveshnikov as having a great weapon
with the black bits in the Pelikan. Sveshnikov drew everybody with
it.
The differential between today's players and that of yesteryear is
huge. In terms of clock-games current masters would have a massive
advantage against top romantic-era players - since the critical
element is performance, not knowledge nor theory.
This is a dread subject: but what elo would such as Morphy, St. Amant
and Staunton have if they just showed up and started playing? Would
they even be IMs?
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 05 Dec 2008 03:00:31
From: gsgs
Subject: Re: Elo by age
|
I examined the average score of the world best
11 chess-players for 5-year-age groups from 1967-2001 ELO-lists:
age : ELO diff
-----------------
15-20:2480
20-25:2614 +134
25-30:2635 +21
30-35:2638 +03
35-40:2624 -14
40-45:2603 -21
45-50:2581 -22
50-55:2535 -46
55-60:2508 -27
60-65:2480 -28
strong decline at ages ~50-55
(could still be data-bias due to the small sample)
|
| |
Date: 04 Dec 2008 23:46:41
From: gsgs
Subject: Re: Elo by age
|
considering 4 of those 500-tables I change this to :
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
top-chessplayers between 40 and 60 in age lose about 6.5 ELO-points in
average per year
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| |
Date: 04 Dec 2008 21:18:58
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Elo by age
|
> > > =A0 Perhaps, but human biology hasn't changed
>
> > =A0 Wrong. =A0 In fact, human biology has changed.
>
> =A0 No. Man is still the same animal he was a hundred years ago.
> Evolution does not work that fast.
Today everyday new medicines are developing and some are anti aging.
In next 20 years Humans will live till age of 100. And In next 50
years Humans will be livng till age of 120.
I mean they will live a healthy life till that age. So they can play
strong Chess till 100 years age.
In year 1800 Average Life was just 40 years. and in 1900 It became 50
and in year 2000 it has become 65.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy
Neanderthal 20
Upper Paleolithic 33
Neolithic 20
Bronze Age[3] 18
Classical Greece[4] 20-30
Classical Rome[5][6] 20-30
Pre-Columbian North America[7] 25-35
Medieval Islamic Caliphate[8] 35+ The average lifespans of the
scholarly class were 59=9684.3 years in the Middle East[9][10] and 69=9675
in Islamic Spain.[11]
Medieval Britain[12][13] 20-30
Early 20th Century[14][15] 30-40
Current world average[16][17] 66.12 (2008 est.)
So we are seeing a steep increase in Life Expactency due to Medical
Research and medicines to cure old age problems.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 04 Dec 2008 20:42:42
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: Elo by age
|
On Dec 4, 1:51 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> We have come from an age of Morphy, who perhaps
> I could beat in a Pelikan, or Adorjan's ...
You mean, you could almost beat him, right?
Regards,
W=B3od
|
| |
Date: 04 Dec 2008 17:06:36
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Elo by age
|
On Dec 4, 6:07=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> >We have come from an age of Morphy, who perhaps I could beat in a
> >Pelikan, or Adorjan's defence with the black bits
> Perhaps? =A0Hard to argue with "perhaps". =A0
>
> But, =A0most likely, he would trounce you ninety-nine times of a hundred
> while giving you your choice of opening, losing the hundredth game on
> time (since you're using modern openings, you'd surely play with a
> clock?) when he became distracted watching Larry Evans grinding down
> Help-bot on the next board.
You should be more specific-- is Mr. Morphy
on a higher, or a lower board than Mr. Evans?
And why in the name of heaven has not Mr.
Evans already finished off the help bot, thus
forcing PM to observe some other game?
The bit about having to "grind down" poor bot
seems to imply a sort of titanic struggle--
surely, you jest! In his prime, Mr. Evans was
a tactical monster; back then, even his
writings on chess revealed sharpness in
thinking. OTOH, if we were to raise help bot
to his ultimate peak (like everyone else here),
who knows but that you may not be all that
far from the truth?
As for Dr. IMnes and /his fantasy/, I expect
that his openings theory would come to a
screeching halt early on, with the poor chap
thrown onto his own, rather limited resources,
pitted against a true genius of chess. Lest
we forget-- this is the same fellow who utterly
demolished folks for minor infractions like
playing p-h3, and who routinely offered the
likes of Dr. IMnes QN-odds. It is amusing
that the good doctor imagines he could hide
behind the safety of rote book knowledge,
even in the face of Mr. Morphy's genius.
And Paul Morphy losing on time-- that's
funny!
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 04 Dec 2008 22:23:25
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Elo by age
|
On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 17:06:36 -0800 (PST), help bot
<[email protected] > wrote:
> And why in the name of heaven has not Mr.
>Evans already finished off the help bot, thus
>forcing PM to observe some other game?
> The bit about having to "grind down" poor bot
>seems to imply a sort of titanic struggle--
>surely, you jest! In his prime, Mr. Evans was
>a tactical monster;
Heh, heh, heh. He wanted to do it slowly so you'd suffer longer.
|
| |
Date: 04 Dec 2008 14:14:34
From:
Subject: Re: Elo by age
|
On Dec 4, 5:03=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 4, 4:14=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > =A0 I agree that a larger sample size would be nice. Feel free to s=
upply
> > > > data from any studies involving larger samples, if you can.
>
> > > =A0 And you, Mr. Kingston, may feel free to do
> > > the same.
>
> > =A0 Our Greg always wants someone else to do his research for him.
>
> =A0 It looks as though Mr. Kingston wants someone
> else to do his research for him, and prods me by
> saying "feel free". =A0 But when I suggest he do his
> own work, he attempts to turn things backwards.
>
> > > > > =A0 As with demanding physical sports like tennis
> > > > > or running, the average age at which players
> > > > > peak has been rapidly declining. =A0
>
> > =A0 On what do you base this claim?
>
> =A0 =A0On what is this objection based? =A0On the
> fact that due to numerous blunders I've
> pointed out in the past, TK feels emotionally
> obligated to disagree with me on every point?
>
> =A0 As someone else already observed in
> another thread, this nastiness, whether
> directed toward myself or the inimitable Dr.
> IMnes, tells us nothing about the targets of
> Mr. Kingston's ire; it only reveals his own
> great frustrations.
>
> > A few contrary examples:
>
> > =A0 The current world champion
>
> =A0 Again, the uber-narrow focus on the world's
> elite. =A0 But do continue... .
>
> > Vishy Anand, is 38. His Elo rating has
> > peaked twice at 2803, at ages 36 and 38.
> > =A0 Garry Kasparov reached his highest Elo rating, 2851, at age 36.
> > =A0 Veselin Topalov's peak so far , 2813, came in late 2006, =A0when he
> > was age 31.
> > =A0 GM Alexei Shirov's peak so far, 2755 on the 01/2008 FIDE list, came
> > at age 35
>
> =A0 One notes that the more recent players in
> this miniscule sample peaked earlier than
> the older players did.
>
> > =A0 These jibe with the trend Elo found, that players peak between 30
> > and 40.
>
> =A0 Indeed. =A0 But a full decade is an easy target.
>
> > =A0 One could certainly make a case for chess talent developing earlier
> > than it did, say, 100 years ago, but that's not the topic of this
> > thread. The OP asked about how chess strength declines with age.
>
> =A0 =A0Always one to stick /narrowly/ to the subject,
> you'll not find Mr. Kingston discussing, say, WWI
> on a chess newsgroup-- no. =A0 (chuckle)
>
> > > > =A0 Perhaps, but human biology hasn't changed
>
> > > =A0 Wrong. =A0 In fact, human biology has changed.
>
> > =A0 No. Man is still the same animal he was a hundred years ago.
>
> =A0 Read it again-- slooowly this time. =A0 What
> was the original claim? =A0 That human biology
> has not changed. =A0 Obviously, the comment
> regarding being open to correction was just
> a dishonest ploy.
>
> > Evolution does not work that fast.
>
> =A0 =A0I would love to talk about evolution here,
> but I'm afraid it is not the subject. =A0 Just to
> toss the poor chap a bone though... many
> opponents of the theory of evolution have
> it as "humans evolved from apes", which
> of course is wrong. =A0 Both humans and
> apes evolved from a creature which is not
> classed as either "ape" or "human", which
> was also probably a poor chessplayer.
>
> > > =A0 Just one example suffices as proof: humans
> > > have gotten fatter, on average. =A0
>
> > =A0 That is not a change in human biology, it is an environmental
> > change.
>
> =A0 =A0The trend continues. =A0 Yes, the environment
> has changed, but that we call "global warming".
> (Okay-- all you who are in denial regarding this
> may now have your fits.)
>
> > The trend reflects differences in diet and lifestyle compared
> > to previous eras.
>
> =A0 Agreed. =A0 In particular, the use of machines
> to do work, of cars to replace horses /and
> walking/, and worst of all, the introduction of
> television to replace thinking, have resulted
> in dramatic lifestyle changes.
>
> =A0 One of the unfortunate results appears to
> be the mass-production of humans who can
> neither think for themselves, nor reason at all.
I should have known better than to try to elicit anything worth
reading from our Greg.
|
| |
Date: 04 Dec 2008 14:03:06
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Elo by age
|
On Dec 4, 4:14=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > > =A0 I agree that a larger sample size would be nice. Feel free to sup=
ply
> > > data from any studies involving larger samples, if you can.
>
> > =A0 And you, Mr. Kingston, may feel free to do
> > the same.
>
> =A0 Our Greg always wants someone else to do his research for him.
It looks as though Mr. Kingston wants someone
else to do his research for him, and prods me by
saying "feel free". But when I suggest he do his
own work, he attempts to turn things backwards.
> > > > =A0 As with demanding physical sports like tennis
> > > > or running, the average age at which players
> > > > peak has been rapidly declining. =A0
>
> =A0 On what do you base this claim?
On what is this objection based? On the
fact that due to numerous blunders I've
pointed out in the past, TK feels emotionally
obligated to disagree with me on every point?
As someone else already observed in
another thread, this nastiness, whether
directed toward myself or the inimitable Dr.
IMnes, tells us nothing about the targets of
Mr. Kingston's ire; it only reveals his own
great frustrations.
> A few contrary examples:
>
> =A0 The current world champion
Again, the uber-narrow focus on the world's
elite. But do continue... .
> Vishy Anand, is 38. His Elo rating has
> peaked twice at 2803, at ages 36 and 38.
> =A0 Garry Kasparov reached his highest Elo rating, 2851, at age 36.
> =A0 Veselin Topalov's peak so far , 2813, came in late 2006, =A0when he
> was age 31.
> =A0 GM Alexei Shirov's peak so far, 2755 on the 01/2008 FIDE list, came
> at age 35
One notes that the more recent players in
this miniscule sample peaked earlier than
the older players did.
> =A0 These jibe with the trend Elo found, that players peak between 30
> and 40.
Indeed. But a full decade is an easy target.
> =A0 One could certainly make a case for chess talent developing earlier
> than it did, say, 100 years ago, but that's not the topic of this
> thread. The OP asked about how chess strength declines with age.
Always one to stick /narrowly/ to the subject,
you'll not find Mr. Kingston discussing, say, WWI
on a chess newsgroup-- no. (chuckle)
> > > =A0 Perhaps, but human biology hasn't changed
>
> > =A0 Wrong. =A0 In fact, human biology has changed.
>
> =A0 No. Man is still the same animal he was a hundred years ago.
Read it again-- slooowly this time. What
was the original claim? That human biology
has not changed. Obviously, the comment
regarding being open to correction was just
a dishonest ploy.
> Evolution does not work that fast.
I would love to talk about evolution here,
but I'm afraid it is not the subject. Just to
toss the poor chap a bone though... many
opponents of the theory of evolution have
it as "humans evolved from apes", which
of course is wrong. Both humans and
apes evolved from a creature which is not
classed as either "ape" or "human", which
was also probably a poor chessplayer.
> > =A0 Just one example suffices as proof: humans
> > have gotten fatter, on average. =A0
>
> =A0 That is not a change in human biology, it is an environmental
> change.
The trend continues. Yes, the environment
has changed, but that we call "global warming".
(Okay-- all you who are in denial regarding this
may now have your fits.)
> The trend reflects differences in diet and lifestyle compared
> to previous eras.
Agreed. In particular, the use of machines
to do work, of cars to replace horses /and
walking/, and worst of all, the introduction of
television to replace thinking, have resulted
in dramatic lifestyle changes.
One of the unfortunate results appears to
be the mass-production of humans who can
neither think for themselves, nor reason at all.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 04 Dec 2008 13:51:34
From:
Subject: Re: Elo by age
|
On Dec 4, 4:14=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 4, 3:27=A0pm, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 4, 11:21=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > =A0 I agree that a larger sample size would be nice. Feel free to sup=
ply
> > > data from any studies involving larger samples, if you can.
>
> > =A0 And you, Mr. Kingston, may feel free to do
> > the same.
>
> =A0 Our Greg always wants someone else to do his research for him.
He wants research suitably vigourous to make ascribed comment upon -
while he will, no doubt, make his own point as he is capable of doing,
what he says here is essentially that there is scarce research, and
what you yourself quote is very partial, thin...
Did you understand his criticism suffient to challenge him?
> > > > =A0 As with demanding physical sports like tennis
> > > > or running, the average age at which players
> > > > peak has been rapidly declining. =A0
>
> =A0 On what do you base this claim? A few contrary examples:
Before going there - the Women's 100-metre dash was achieved in 20
seconds in 1910, and about 10 seconds in 2000. In terms of chess;
young players keep busting the limit for every level of performance.
Indeed - these are not just rapid, but significant declines in
performance level - why is it questioned by Taylor Kingston?
> =A0 The current world champion, Vishy Anand, is 38. His Elo rating has
> peaked twice at 2803, at ages 36 and 38.
> =A0 Garry Kasparov reached his highest Elo rating, 2851, at age 36.
> =A0 Veselin Topalov's peak so far , 2813, came in late 2006, =A0when he
> was age 31.
> =A0 GM Alexei Shirov's peak so far, 2755 on the 01/2008 FIDE list, came
> at age 35
But these are not exactly typical. And the trend is to younger
performance level to the first tier of chess. Why doe Taylor Kingston
not mention Magnus Carlsen, eg? Magnus is more typical these days than
not.
> =A0 These jibe with the trend Elo found, that players peak between 30
> and 40.
Used to be. Perhaps 30 now.
> > Today, there
> > > > is a lot of emphasis on the use of computers,
> > > > on rapid play, and on (mental) endurance, so
> > > > the numbers that Dr. Elo came up with are
> > > > undoubtedly outmoded. =A0
>
> =A0 One could certainly make a case for chess talent developing earlier
> than it did, say, 100 years ago, but that's not the topic of this
> thread. The OP asked about how chess strength declines with age.
Which generally speaking, it does. How it does can be answered
generally, but cannot accommodate individual performances such as
Korchoi's, as I mentioned before. The question, to me, seemed to
address generalities, and should be answered that way, noting
exceptions.
> > > =A0 Perhaps, but human biology hasn't changed
>
> > =A0 Wrong. =A0 In fact, human biology has changed.
>
> =A0 No. Man is still the same animal he was a hundred years ago.
> Evolution does not work that fast.
I have lost the thread of which comment stems from Kelp-bot and which
from T-Kingston, though I admonish any reader to accept the comment
above - so many things move faster than biology is admitted to do,
including the planesphere. And chess too - we have gone from the age
of Romantics, to the post-computer age in appreciation.
We have come from an age of Morphy, who perhaps I could beat in a
Pelikan, or Adorjan's defence with the black bits - to Fischer and
Kasparov, and now to Carlsen and Anand.
<snippagge on the effect of fat people on intelligence, even if
somewhat merited for the fattest people [Americans] >
> > > While latter-day top players tend to reach higher
> > > levels at younger ages than Elo's sample, I suspect that the overall
> > > pattern of their post-peak decline is pretty close to what Elo
> > > discovered.
>
> > =A0 =A0An interesting mere speculation. =A0My thinking
> > is that because of the significant skewing of
> > strength toward the younger end, the whole
> > picture is changed to reflect a gradual decline
> > in one's thirties and fourties, followed by a
> > somewhat faster decline afterward. =A0 The idea
> > is that when approaching middle-age, one
> > loses mental quickness but at the same time
> > gains in chess experience. =A0But after a certain
> > point, any further gains in chess experience
> > become superfluous-- nearly irrelevant.
>
> =A0 To paraphrase your own words, that is interesting, but mere
> speculation. As usual, Greg, you deride other's comments as
> speculative, but offer nothing substantive yourself.- Hide quoted text -
There is no objective measure for any opinion, except to note the
trend that younger people are better than previous generations. This
is not disputed - so what is? Taylor Kingston is not yet clear on his
point.
Things are progressing so fast that various questions that heretofore
seemed spurious, now seem likely;
When will he first Americanchampion emerge whose gender is female?
When will the first Chinese Woman enter the fray at the same or
superior level as has Judit Polgar?
When will she become W Ch, and
When will she defeat the best computer at blitz or longtime chess?
This are no longer idle speculations. They are in fact directly before
us.
Phil Innes
> - Show quoted text -
|
| | |
Date: 04 Dec 2008 15:07:52
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Elo by age
|
On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 13:51:34 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>We have come from an age of Morphy, who perhaps I could beat in a
>Pelikan, or Adorjan's defence with the black bits
Perhaps? Hard to argue with "perhaps".
But, most likely, he would trounce you ninety-nine times of a hundred
while giving you your choice of opening, losing the hundredth game on
time (since you're using modern openings, you'd surely play with a
clock?) when he became distracted watching Larry Evans grinding down
Help-bot on the next board.
|
| |
Date: 04 Dec 2008 13:14:19
From:
Subject: Re: Elo by age
|
On Dec 4, 3:27=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 4, 11:21=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > =A0 I agree that a larger sample size would be nice. Feel free to suppl=
y
> > data from any studies involving larger samples, if you can.
>
> =A0 And you, Mr. Kingston, may feel free to do
> the same.
Our Greg always wants someone else to do his research for him.
> > > =A0 As with demanding physical sports like tennis
> > > or running, the average age at which players
> > > peak has been rapidly declining. =A0
On what do you base this claim? A few contrary examples:
The current world champion, Vishy Anand, is 38. His Elo rating has
peaked twice at 2803, at ages 36 and 38.
Garry Kasparov reached his highest Elo rating, 2851, at age 36.
Veselin Topalov's peak so far , 2813, came in late 2006, when he
was age 31.
GM Alexei Shirov's peak so far, 2755 on the 01/2008 FIDE list, came
at age 35
These jibe with the trend Elo found, that players peak between 30
and 40.
> Today, there
> > > is a lot of emphasis on the use of computers,
> > > on rapid play, and on (mental) endurance, so
> > > the numbers that Dr. Elo came up with are
> > > undoubtedly outmoded. =A0
One could certainly make a case for chess talent developing earlier
than it did, say, 100 years ago, but that's not the topic of this
thread. The OP asked about how chess strength declines with age.
> > =A0 Perhaps, but human biology hasn't changed
>
> =A0 Wrong. =A0 In fact, human biology has changed.
No. Man is still the same animal he was a hundred years ago.
Evolution does not work that fast.
> =A0 Just one example suffices as proof: humans
> have gotten fatter, on average. =A0
That is not a change in human biology, it is an environmental
change. The trend reflects differences in diet and lifestyle compared
to previous eras.
> > While latter-day top players tend to reach higher
> > levels at younger ages than Elo's sample, I suspect that the overall
> > pattern of their post-peak decline is pretty close to what Elo
> > discovered.
>
> =A0 =A0An interesting mere speculation. =A0My thinking
> is that because of the significant skewing of
> strength toward the younger end, the whole
> picture is changed to reflect a gradual decline
> in one's thirties and fourties, followed by a
> somewhat faster decline afterward. =A0 The idea
> is that when approaching middle-age, one
> loses mental quickness but at the same time
> gains in chess experience. =A0But after a certain
> point, any further gains in chess experience
> become superfluous-- nearly irrelevant.
To paraphrase your own words, that is interesting, but mere
speculation. As usual, Greg, you deride other's comments as
speculative, but offer nothing substantive yourself.
|
| | |
Date: 05 Dec 2008 10:06:57
From:
Subject: Re: Elo by age
|
On Dec 5, 12:34=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 09:05:06 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
> >> =A0 A player from the old days will
> >> leave your books behind, and venture off into
> >> the world of terra incognita-- a world in which
> >> you are very alone, where your grandmaster
> >> "friends" cannot come to your rescue.
> >Another assertion by the local Swami - who doesn't like any
> >experience, whether mine, Alberts or Khalifmans. pfft! Dime-a-dozen on
> >usenet.
>
> Hard to resolve this question without a good Medium or a functioning
> Ouija board, =A0but try this:
>
> (1) Turn the "book" =A0off on your super engine of choice (Fritz or
> Rybka or something comparable). =A0
>
> (2) This one is optional but might be interesting: =A0tweak some of the
> engine's style parameters =A0to make =A0it more Morphy-esque.
>
> (3) Give yourself a comfortable time advantage. =A0
>
> (4) Set up the initial position of the Pelikan or another of your
> favorite theoretical openings. =A0
>
> (5) Play a few games. =A0
>
> As the other Phil (Dr.Phil, that is) might say, "How'd that work out
> for you?"
As an added bit of potentially helpful information, Morphy's
historical Elo rating is 2690. If, like Fritz, the program Phil uses
allows adjustable playing strength, the rating it should be set at or
near that.
|
| |
Date: 04 Dec 2008 12:27:23
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Elo by age
|
On Dec 4, 11:21=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> =A0 I agree that a larger sample size would be nice. Feel free to supply
> data from any studies involving larger samples, if you can.
And you, Mr. Kingston, may feel free to do
the same. Say, why do we need each
other's permission, when we are supposedly
"free men", living in a supposed democracy?
(Have we recently been overthrown?)
> > =A0 As with demanding physical sports like tennis
> > or running, the average age at which players
> > peak has been rapidly declining. =A0 Today, there
> > is a lot of emphasis on the use of computers,
> > on rapid play, and on (mental) endurance, so
> > the numbers that Dr. Elo came up with are
> > undoubtedly outmoded. =A0
> =A0 Perhaps, but human biology hasn't changed
Wrong. In fact, human biology has changed.
Just one example suffices as proof: humans
have gotten fatter, on average. (In fact, I just
read a story about how even in China, humans
are now much bigger than they used to be; the
claim was that the average six year old boy is
twelve pounds heavier and two inches taller
than just a decade earlier!)
> While latter-day top players tend to reach higher
> levels at younger ages than Elo's sample, I suspect that the overall
> pattern of their post-peak decline is pretty close to what Elo
> discovered.
An interesting mere speculation. My thinking
is that because of the significant skewing of
strength toward the younger end, the whole
picture is changed to reflect a gradual decline
in one's thirties and fourties, followed by a
somewhat faster decline afterward. The idea
is that when approaching middle-age, one
loses mental quickness but at the same time
gains in chess experience. But after a certain
point, any further gains in chess experience
become superfluous-- nearly irrelevant.
In Dr. Elo's small study, experience gained
in the famous masters' thirties was still a
crucial factor-- experience that now would
already be "baked in" from one's twenties.
You see, travel is vastly safer and easier
today than it was in the time of masters like
Lasker and Capablanca, and we now have
computers -- both chess engines and
databases -- which allow youngsters to
train /at a very high level/, 24/7, without
even traveling to Moscow.
> =A0 However, I am open to contrary evidence, if anyone can supply it. I
> merely wished to supply what I could in reply to the OP's
> question
No apology needed. Your answer was a
good one, but it hardly constituted state-of-
the-art theory as Dr. Elo's book is terribly
dated, his sample size, both small and
skewed toward the world's most famous.
A simple Google search would likely turn
up materials involving much larger samples,
and indeed, Chess Lies is likely to have at
some time or another published statistics
from which one could derrive some sort of
decline rate. But a sure-fire source would
be the chessmetrics Web site-- but again,
focused on the world's elite.
But it is not necessary to do any research
at all in order to notice how dated Dr. Elo's
book is, how small his sample size was,
and so forth; all that is needed is a mind
free from petrification... .
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 04 Dec 2008 11:54:22
From: Offramp
Subject: Re: Elo by age
|
> Wouldn't it be better to gather facts, rather than toss out
> estimates? I strongly suggest you get the Elo book as a start.
I want to. But the nurses are stealing my clothes.
|
| |
Date: 04 Dec 2008 10:41:25
From:
Subject: Re: Elo by age
|
On Dec 4, 1:23=A0pm, gsgs <[email protected] > wrote:
> we have estimates of 100 points decline between age 40-60 and 160
> points =A0(for 20 years)
>
> can we make a poll here ? Give your estimates !
This is not a question that can be answered by polling, only by
factual research. A poll will only tell us how some people think chess
strength changes with age, not how it actually does change.
> My estimate:200 points
Wouldn't it be better to gather facts, rather than toss out
estimates? I strongly suggest you get the Elo book as a start.
|
| | |
Date: 05 Dec 2008 01:09:25
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Elo by age
|
[email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 4, 1:23 pm, gsgs <[email protected]> wrote:
>> we have estimates of 100 points decline between age 40-60 and 160
>> points (for 20 years)
>>
>> can we make a poll here ? Give your estimates !
>
> This is not a question that can be answered by polling, only by
> factual research. A poll will only tell us how some people think chess
> strength changes with age, not how it actually does change.
>
>> My estimate:200 points
>
> Wouldn't it be better to gather facts, rather than toss out
> estimates? I strongly suggest you get the Elo book as a start.
Would you accept a vertical study instead of a horizontal one?
--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/
|
| |
Date: 04 Dec 2008 10:23:08
From: gsgs
Subject: Re: Elo by age
|
we have estimates of 100 points decline between age 40-60 and 160
points (for 20 years)
can we make a poll here ? Give your estimates !
My estimate:200 points
|
| |
Date: 04 Dec 2008 10:18:28
From: gsgs
Subject: Re: Elo by age
|
thanks for the replies.
I found a huge list here:
http://roman.krumsieck.com/bestever.htm
but without age of players
is there a list with ages ?
Actual ELO-list with some thousand players and their age would be
fine.
Also for Blitz-Schach.
Is it reasonable to assume that Blitz-ELO degrades faster than normal
ELO ?
|
| |
Date: 04 Dec 2008 09:27:30
From: Offramp
Subject: Re: Elo by age
|
> No, I don't remember specific page numbers, I just remember that a
> certain book deals with a certain topic.
You'll find that this skill declines with age.
I still am not sure if that previous reply was being snotty or not...
|
| |
Date: 04 Dec 2008 08:21:46
From:
Subject: Re: Elo by age
|
On Dec 4, 11:06=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 4, 9:26=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > =A0 I recommend you get the book "The Rating of Chessplayers, Past and
> > Present" by Dr. Arpad Elo, inventor of the Elo rating system. I can't
> > possibly present here everything it has relevant to your question, but
> > the most pertinent thing is probably the "Composite Player Development
> > Curve" on page 97. This graph was created by tracking and averaging
> > out performance by age for 36 masters
>
> =A0 =A0That's a pretty small sample size.
I agree that a larger sample size would be nice. Feel free to supply
data from any studies involving larger samples, if you can.
> > ranging from world champions
> > Lasker and Capablanca to lesser lights such as Bird and Schallop. They
> > were tracked from about age 15 to about age 65.
> > =A0 Elo found that these players tended to peak between the ages of 30
> > and 40, and that their peak level was about 0.65 of a class interval
> > (i.e. 130 rating points) above their strength at age 20. After age 40
> > decline proceeded in pretty much straight-line fashion, until at age
> > 60 they were about half a class interval lower, i.e. about 100 points
> > below their strength at age 40.
> > =A0 So to answer your question, Elo's stats indicate a decline of 50
> > points per decade, on average, for the players he tracked. It should
> > be kept in mind that Elo was tracking players of the 19th century and
> > first half of the 20th. I can't say whether the same trends have
> > occurred with later players.
>
> =A0 As with demanding physical sports like tennis
> or running, the average age at which players
> peak has been rapidly declining. =A0 Today, there
> is a lot of emphasis on the use of computers,
> on rapid play, and on (mental) endurance, so
> the numbers that Dr. Elo came up with are
> undoubtedly outmoded. =A0
Perhaps, but human biology hasn't changed, and the age-related
performance decline is due primarily, perhaps almost exclusively, to
biological factors. While latter-day top players tend to reach higher
levels at younger ages than Elo's sample, I suspect that the overall
pattern of their post-peak decline is pretty close to what Elo
discovered.
However, I am open to contrary evidence, if anyone can supply it. I
merely wished to supply what I could in reply to the OP's
question.
|
| | |
Date: 04 Dec 2008 10:38:28
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Elo by age
|
On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 08:21:46 -0800 (PST), [email protected]
wrote:
>....human biology hasn't changed, and the age-related
>performance decline is due primarily, perhaps almost exclusively, to
>biological factors.
Even so, it would be interesting if researchers could fine tune the
causes of age-related decline. Most likely, not all faculties decline
at an equal rate. For example, in the physical realm, speed and
reaction time deteriorate at a much higher rate than strength and
endurance.
Is age-related deterioration in chess performance related to decline
in memory (less ability to assimilate advances in theory), speed of
mental computation (in which case, blitz performance should
deteriorate faster than events with standard time controls), endurance
(in which case, a higher rate of blunders in the last hour of play,
compared to younger competitors), or maybe just a decline in
motivation as one realizes he or she has peaked?
>While latter-day top players tend to reach higher
>levels at younger ages than Elo's sample, I suspect that the overall
>pattern of their post-peak decline is pretty close to what Elo
>discovered.
Today's training techniques and facilities, and opportunities for
top-flight competition far exceed those of the good old days. One can
play over several times as many games and variations using a computer
compared to a physical board and set, one has competitors of almost
every strength on sites such as Playchess.com and ICC, and today's
talented kids get much more in the way of scholastic programs, lessons
and training than they used to.
So, a contemporary beginner starts younger, in general, and, in
effect, compresses a decade's experience into, what, four years?
> However, I am open to contrary evidence, if anyone can supply it. I
>merely wished to supply what I could in reply to the OP's
>question.
|
| |
Date: 04 Dec 2008 08:06:03
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Elo by age
|
On Dec 4, 9:26=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> =A0 I recommend you get the book "The Rating of Chessplayers, Past and
> Present" by Dr. Arpad Elo, inventor of the Elo rating system. I can't
> possibly present here everything it has relevant to your question, but
> the most pertinent thing is probably the "Composite Player Development
> Curve" on page 97. This graph was created by tracking and averaging
> out performance by age for 36 masters
That's a pretty small sample size.
> ranging from world champions
> Lasker and Capablanca to lesser lights such as Bird and Schallop. They
> were tracked from about age 15 to about age 65.
> =A0 Elo found that these players tended to peak between the ages of 30
> and 40, and that their peak level was about 0.65 of a class interval
> (i.e. 130 rating points) above their strength at age 20. After age 40
> decline proceeded in pretty much straight-line fashion, until at age
> 60 they were about half a class interval lower, i.e. about 100 points
> below their strength at age 40.
> =A0 So to answer your question, Elo's stats indicate a decline of 50
> points per decade, on average, for the players he tracked. It should
> be kept in mind that Elo was tracking players of the 19th century and
> first half of the 20th. I can't say whether the same trends have
> occurred with later players.
As with demanding physical sports like tennis
or running, the average age at which players
peak has been rapidly declining. Today, there
is a lot of emphasis on the use of computers,
on rapid play, and on (mental) endurance, so
the numbers that Dr. Elo came up with are
undoubtedly outmoded. Even when Mr.
Kingston says he tracked them up to the age
of 65, we notice the problem of just how far
we've come since then; today, even chess-
players may live and play, well beyond such
an age.
This might make for a very interesting
article for, say, Chess Life (instead of the
nonsense they routinely churn out). But it is
important to start with a much larger sample,
and to include players of all ranks, not just
the elite.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 05 Dec 2008 10:51:09
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Elo by age
|
On Dec 5, 11:32=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> I might? I play blitz on a Russian server provided by Convekta. Its
> free, and I can manage 2200 at blitz still, same as in correspondance!
And what, precisely, do these two modes of play
have in common? That's right-- they both are
played remotely, where there is no way of knowing
for sure if you are playing man, machine, a two-
man team, or even space aliens!
Doctor, all you would ever need to do in order to
render your online fantasies credible is to play one
OTB tournament which fits your character to the
overall plot; you as heroic 2450-rated nearly-an-IM,
and your OTB opponents as hapless victims of
your infinite mastery of the game of chess. Now,
where is the difficulty-- which part is the obstacle
you cannot seem to overcome? I noticed that in
your neck of the woods there are numerous
tourneys and driving distance between states is
ridiculously small. Consider the great Western
states, where one might die of thirst crossing a
dessert en route to some weekend Swiss in
Arizona or Utah. You, by comparison, have it
made in the shade.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 05 Dec 2008 08:32:55
From:
Subject: Re: Elo by age
|
On Dec 5, 10:35=A0am, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 05:25:26 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
> >I have almost beaten the entire newsgroup at chess Wlod. The only
> >players who I haven't beaten are the ones who don't play chess ;)
>
> Slight correction: =A0You must mean "the ones who don't play e-mail
> chess" on your preferred server.
I do?
> If you're ever slumming over on playchess.com feel free to humble-ize
> poor old "MikeMurray" -- you might have to send me a message so that I
> can tweak my challenge range to accommodate you (currently set at
> 2000-2350).
I might? I play blitz on a Russian server provided by Convekta. Its
free, and I can manage 2200 at blitz still, same as in correspondance!
But I don't play much Blitz anymore. I'm stuck with correspondance.
Haven't beatem a 2350 for a while. Managed to beat a 2220 recently by
not playing like Morphy - more Capablanca sensible classical
refutation of a gambit, and I drew a 2300. But am sucking against a
2450. [none of these ratings are elo]
While I am not wasting your time here, I'm still working at that old
chess course.
Phil Innes
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Dec 2008 08:54:34
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Elo by age
|
On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 08:32:55 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>But I don't play much Blitz anymore. I'm stuck with correspondance.
>Haven't beatem a 2350 for a while. Managed to beat a 2220 recently by
>not playing like Morphy - more Capablanca sensible classical
>refutation of a gambit, and I drew a 2300. But am sucking against a
>2450. [none of these ratings are elo]
It's a good question how well the online ratings at faster time
controls map to OTB standard Elo. My experience on PlayChess is that
they're usually roughly in the same ballpark, but much more volatile.
I suspect this is because one can play many more rated games in a
short period of time, and whatever contributes to a hot or cold streak
gets amplified.
I played a OTB unrated 10-minute tournament at the Washington Class
this last weekend and finished 4-1, losing miserably to William
Schill, whom I had last played in 1973 when he was about 17 and a
couple hundred points lower rated.
This weekend, four of us (82, 75, 64, 64) are planning a geezer
infusion into the Washington QuickChess (30 minute games).
The fast time controls have the advantage that you don't suffer as
long in bad positions.
|
| | |
Date: 04 Dec 2008 08:17:27
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Elo by age
|
On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 08:06:03 -0800 (PST), help bot
<[email protected] > wrote:
>Even when Mr.
>Kingston says he tracked them up to the age
>of 65, we notice the problem of just how far
>we've come since then; today, even chess-
>players may live and play, well beyond such
>an age.
Gawd, I hope so.
|
| |
Date: 04 Dec 2008 08:00:13
From:
Subject: Re: Elo by age
|
On Dec 4, 10:47=A0am, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 4, 7:26 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 4, 4:58 am, gsgs <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > how much do ELO-numbers decrease in average (e.g. per decade) when
> > > people get older ?
>
> > > is there a list of average ELO of top 100 players for each 5(or other=
)-
> > > year-age group ?
>
> > =A0 I recommend you get the book "The Rating of Chessplayers, Past and
> > Present" by Dr. Arpad Elo, inventor of the Elo rating system. I can't
> > possibly present here everything it has relevant to your question, but
> > the most pertinent thing is probably the "Composite Player Development
> > Curve" on page 97. This graph was created by tracking and averaging
> > out performance by age for 36 masters, ranging from world champions
> > Lasker and Capablanca to lesser lights such as Bird and Schallop. They
> > were tracked from about age 15 to about age 65.
> > =A0 Elo found that these players tended to peak between the ages of 30
> > and 40, and that their peak level was about 0.65 of a class interval
> > (i.e. 130 rating points) above their strength at age 20. After age 40
> > decline proceeded in pretty much straight-line fashion, until at age
> > 60 they were about half a class interval lower, i.e. about 100 points
> > below their strength at age 40.
> > =A0 So to answer your question, Elo's stats indicate a decline of 50
> > points per decade, on average, for the players he tracked. It should
> > be kept in mind that Elo was tracking players of the 19th century and
> > first half of the 20th. I can't say whether the same trends have
> > occurred with later players.
> > =A0 BTW, don't put "Elo" in all caps. It's a man's name, not an
> > acronym. :-)
>
> Good, you read a lot of Books. I am amazed that you even remember the
> page number "97". Do you keep remembering the page number of Books you
> read?
No, I don't remember specific page numbers, I just remember that a
certain book deals with a certain topic. I just take the book off my
shelf, find what I'm looking for, and get the relevant page number(s)
from the book itself. I keep my chess library of several hundred books
in my home office, thus they are close at hand whenever a question
like this comes up.
|
| |
Date: 04 Dec 2008 07:47:20
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Elo by age
|
On Dec 4, 7:26 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 4, 4:58 am, gsgs <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > how much do ELO-numbers decrease in average (e.g. per decade) when
> > people get older ?
>
> > is there a list of average ELO of top 100 players for each 5(or other)-
> > year-age group ?
>
> I recommend you get the book "The Rating of Chessplayers, Past and
> Present" by Dr. Arpad Elo, inventor of the Elo rating system. I can't
> possibly present here everything it has relevant to your question, but
> the most pertinent thing is probably the "Composite Player Development
> Curve" on page 97. This graph was created by tracking and averaging
> out performance by age for 36 masters, ranging from world champions
> Lasker and Capablanca to lesser lights such as Bird and Schallop. They
> were tracked from about age 15 to about age 65.
> Elo found that these players tended to peak between the ages of 30
> and 40, and that their peak level was about 0.65 of a class interval
> (i.e. 130 rating points) above their strength at age 20. After age 40
> decline proceeded in pretty much straight-line fashion, until at age
> 60 they were about half a class interval lower, i.e. about 100 points
> below their strength at age 40.
> So to answer your question, Elo's stats indicate a decline of 50
> points per decade, on average, for the players he tracked. It should
> be kept in mind that Elo was tracking players of the 19th century and
> first half of the 20th. I can't say whether the same trends have
> occurred with later players.
> BTW, don't put "Elo" in all caps. It's a man's name, not an
> acronym. :-)
Good, you read a lot of Books. I am amazed that you even remember the
page number "97". Do you keep remembering the page number of Books you
read?
I never recall page numbers.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 04 Dec 2008 06:26:42
From:
Subject: Re: Elo by age
|
On Dec 4, 4:58=A0am, gsgs <[email protected] > wrote:
> how much do ELO-numbers decrease in average (e.g. per decade) when
> people get older ?
>
> is there a list of average ELO of top 100 players for each 5(or other)-
> year-age group ?
I recommend you get the book "The Rating of Chessplayers, Past and
Present" by Dr. Arpad Elo, inventor of the Elo rating system. I can't
possibly present here everything it has relevant to your question, but
the most pertinent thing is probably the "Composite Player Development
Curve" on page 97. This graph was created by tracking and averaging
out performance by age for 36 masters, ranging from world champions
Lasker and Capablanca to lesser lights such as Bird and Schallop. They
were tracked from about age 15 to about age 65.
Elo found that these players tended to peak between the ages of 30
and 40, and that their peak level was about 0.65 of a class interval
(i.e. 130 rating points) above their strength at age 20. After age 40
decline proceeded in pretty much straight-line fashion, until at age
60 they were about half a class interval lower, i.e. about 100 points
below their strength at age 40.
So to answer your question, Elo's stats indicate a decline of 50
points per decade, on average, for the players he tracked. It should
be kept in mind that Elo was tracking players of the 19th century and
first half of the 20th. I can't say whether the same trends have
occurred with later players.
BTW, don't put "Elo" in all caps. It's a man's name, not an
acronym. :-)
|
| |
Date: 04 Dec 2008 04:03:07
From:
Subject: Re: Elo by age
|
On Dec 4, 4:58=A0am, gsgs <[email protected] > wrote:
> how much do ELO-numbers decrease in average (e.g. per decade) when
> people get older ?
Dear GS,
a) interesting question. I think the general answer is that there
seems to be a stage when numbers decrease significantly, rather than
any constant decline. My general sense is that the high point is about
the age 30, and that this declines approx 250 points over the next 3
decades.
b) naturally, there are notable exceptions - at a high level Viktor
Korchnoi is one - at other levels of play some people with 2,000
ratings increase that over a decade or so to 2,300 for example [which
may only indicate they did not achieve their max potential when they
were younger]
c) I note you use the spelling "ELO" and recently in this newsgroup a
certain poster has gone to some lengths to complain about this
spelling - he insists we say "Leo" points. Of course I may have
misunderstood him, but he was quite vehement about it while,
naturally, saying he is not a Great Pedant as one might first suppose.
d) finally, these days players are scoring norms and achieving high
ratings at ever-younger ages - and I don't know if this generation of
players accord to the suggested norm above.
> is there a list of average ELO of top 100 players for each 5(or other)-
> year-age group ?
e) I don't know of a list. I did notice recently at the Olympiad in
Dresden that the top boards for each country seemed to average about
age 26-32 per country, and these players were about 2700 rated. You
might try to google chess metrics, a website mainting various
statistics on players. If you discover an answer to your own question,
will you be kind enough to inform us here what it is?
Cordially, Phil Innes
|
|
