Aerosvit 2008 Final Round
Friday night Magnus and I (and our luggage!) arrived back home after a pleasant and successful trip to Foros, Crimea.
For the record, please find a few words about the last round below.
Having already won the tournament, the last round was important to Magnus for other reasons.
Most of his rated games against his young rival S.Karjakin has ended as draws, and Magnus did not want to destroy his Foros statistics losing the last round.
At the same time he was eager to try to win. Quite a challenging combination with the black pieces:-)
Karjakin, mostly a 1.e4-player, chose 1.d4 against Magnus. Maybe it was an attempt to surprise Magnus or simply to avoid the Sicilian Dragen.
But, Sergey had played 1.d4 against Van Wely in round 9, so Magnus was not entirely surprised to see the queen pawn opening. The psychology battle continued when Magnus caught Sergey somewhat by surprise playing the Gruenfeld, an opening he has not played in classical games for several years.
According to the computers, white does not have much of an advantage in the line chosen, and when Karjakin played 13.Bh6 Magnus felt quite comfortable with his position.
The f2-f4-f5 advance creates some attacking chances for white but neither the players nor the computers could find anything decisive.
When Karjakin played 22.f6+ and offered a draw, Magnus felt confident enough to choose to play on.
However, after the exchange of queens, the position is fairly even and he probably overestimated his chances. The plan Ke8 and Kd8 may be acceptable, but after 29...Re8? black is worse.
Magnus was getting slightly short on time, and obviously the long tournament and the tension felt as the tournament leader most of the way was taking its toll. He wisely offered a draw at this point, and was happy to discover that Karjakin was still in a peaceful mood.
0,5-0,5, and a sole win with 8/11 for Magnus!
Ivanchuk followed his recipe from last year. He continued his winning streak by beating Eljanov with the white pieces in a nice game. With his 3,5 out of 4 finish and 7 points overall, the first round game Carlsen-Ivanchuk did indeed turn out to be decisive to the tournament result.
With 6/11, Karjakin took the 3rd place on tie-break ahead of Eljanov. Volokitin finished in style with a win against Alekseev and captured 5th place on tie-break so that Magnus was the only foreigner to break the Ukrainian domination of the event.
Shirov also finished in style with a nice black win against Onischuk reaching 8 decisive games out of 11 and winning his first two and last two games!
At the closing ceremony special prizes were awarded for the most black wins (Carlsen, Shirov, Ivanchuk and Eljanov two each, and with Magnus getting the trophy having beaten the others), the best endgame (Volokitin for his win against Alekseev) and best attack (Shirov winning against Onischuk). Congratulations!
I would like to thank the organisers for a nice and strong tournament held in friendly atmosphere in beautiful surroundings!
Lastly, a few words about rating.
According to Hans Arild Runde?s live rating at http://chess.liverating.org/ Magnus is unofficially #2 in the World !
(It's congested up there, he is 7 points behind Anand and just 4 points ahead of number 5 V.Kramnik).
Unfortunately the uncertainty regarding the inclusion of the Aerosvit 2008 tournament in the July list has left FIDE in a bit of a tangle.
With the long history of indecisiveness and policy changes, we do appreciate their attempt to create transparency and clear rules. However, when the Executive Board decision of having a clear deadline made in Antalya in November is accompanied by a very discreet external communication (I had to browse through the minutes twice before finding the reference at page 24 under "Qualification Commission" and I have not seen any other communication or reference at fide.com or any other chess website), by inadequate internal communication (not reaching the relevant persons within FIDE), lack of consistency by making an exception for FIDE events but not for more important top events, and finally the contradicting statements this week from FIDE officials, they have put FIDE in a less than envious position.
Well, July 1st we'll probably know the outcome :-)
With the school semester ending simultaneously with the Foros tournament, Magnus is currently enjoying summer vacation and has a full month of relaxation prior to the Biel tournament starting July 19th.
Henrik Carlsen,
Lommedalen, June 22, 2008
For the record, please find a few words about the last round below.
Having already won the tournament, the last round was important to Magnus for other reasons.
Most of his rated games against his young rival S.Karjakin has ended as draws, and Magnus did not want to destroy his Foros statistics losing the last round.
At the same time he was eager to try to win. Quite a challenging combination with the black pieces:-)
Karjakin, mostly a 1.e4-player, chose 1.d4 against Magnus. Maybe it was an attempt to surprise Magnus or simply to avoid the Sicilian Dragen.
But, Sergey had played 1.d4 against Van Wely in round 9, so Magnus was not entirely surprised to see the queen pawn opening. The psychology battle continued when Magnus caught Sergey somewhat by surprise playing the Gruenfeld, an opening he has not played in classical games for several years.
According to the computers, white does not have much of an advantage in the line chosen, and when Karjakin played 13.Bh6 Magnus felt quite comfortable with his position.
The f2-f4-f5 advance creates some attacking chances for white but neither the players nor the computers could find anything decisive.
When Karjakin played 22.f6+ and offered a draw, Magnus felt confident enough to choose to play on.
However, after the exchange of queens, the position is fairly even and he probably overestimated his chances. The plan Ke8 and Kd8 may be acceptable, but after 29...Re8? black is worse.
Magnus was getting slightly short on time, and obviously the long tournament and the tension felt as the tournament leader most of the way was taking its toll. He wisely offered a draw at this point, and was happy to discover that Karjakin was still in a peaceful mood.
0,5-0,5, and a sole win with 8/11 for Magnus!
Ivanchuk followed his recipe from last year. He continued his winning streak by beating Eljanov with the white pieces in a nice game. With his 3,5 out of 4 finish and 7 points overall, the first round game Carlsen-Ivanchuk did indeed turn out to be decisive to the tournament result.
With 6/11, Karjakin took the 3rd place on tie-break ahead of Eljanov. Volokitin finished in style with a win against Alekseev and captured 5th place on tie-break so that Magnus was the only foreigner to break the Ukrainian domination of the event.
Shirov also finished in style with a nice black win against Onischuk reaching 8 decisive games out of 11 and winning his first two and last two games!
At the closing ceremony special prizes were awarded for the most black wins (Carlsen, Shirov, Ivanchuk and Eljanov two each, and with Magnus getting the trophy having beaten the others), the best endgame (Volokitin for his win against Alekseev) and best attack (Shirov winning against Onischuk). Congratulations!
I would like to thank the organisers for a nice and strong tournament held in friendly atmosphere in beautiful surroundings!
Lastly, a few words about rating.
According to Hans Arild Runde?s live rating at http://chess.liverating.org/ Magnus is unofficially #2 in the World !
(It's congested up there, he is 7 points behind Anand and just 4 points ahead of number 5 V.Kramnik).
Unfortunately the uncertainty regarding the inclusion of the Aerosvit 2008 tournament in the July list has left FIDE in a bit of a tangle.
With the long history of indecisiveness and policy changes, we do appreciate their attempt to create transparency and clear rules. However, when the Executive Board decision of having a clear deadline made in Antalya in November is accompanied by a very discreet external communication (I had to browse through the minutes twice before finding the reference at page 24 under "Qualification Commission" and I have not seen any other communication or reference at fide.com or any other chess website), by inadequate internal communication (not reaching the relevant persons within FIDE), lack of consistency by making an exception for FIDE events but not for more important top events, and finally the contradicting statements this week from FIDE officials, they have put FIDE in a less than envious position.
Well, July 1st we'll probably know the outcome :-)
With the school semester ending simultaneously with the Foros tournament, Magnus is currently enjoying summer vacation and has a full month of relaxation prior to the Biel tournament starting July 19th.
Henrik Carlsen,
Lommedalen, June 22, 2008
Comments:
Posted by: stein
Congratulations on a fantastic result!
And with all the references to chess.liverating.org lately, it's almost like the live rating is more important now than the official one, at least for chess fans.
And with all the references to chess.liverating.org lately, it's almost like the live rating is more important now than the official one, at least for chess fans.
Posted by: Simen S
Stein. That is a good point.
It's my impression that the only thing that FIDE accomplishes, by not rating the Aerosvit tournament on the July list, is to make their own "official rating" even less relevant to chess fans.
From Magnus' perspective I guess there are both pro's and con's associated with the delayed rating of Aerosvit:
(-) He doesn't get to be rated as #2 in the world at age 17.5
(+) He gets the benefit of being "underrated" at the Biel Chess Festival and in the Bilbao Grand Slam final, thus making it easier (but still far from easy) to reach 2800 and the #1 spot before his 18th birthday.
It's my impression that the only thing that FIDE accomplishes, by not rating the Aerosvit tournament on the July list, is to make their own "official rating" even less relevant to chess fans.
From Magnus' perspective I guess there are both pro's and con's associated with the delayed rating of Aerosvit:
(-) He doesn't get to be rated as #2 in the world at age 17.5
(+) He gets the benefit of being "underrated" at the Biel Chess Festival and in the Bilbao Grand Slam final, thus making it easier (but still far from easy) to reach 2800 and the #1 spot before his 18th birthday.
Posted by: Klemens
Hi Magnus and Henrik, enjoy your vacation and get some rest bafore the next tournaments and chess events start!
Hopefully the summer in Norway is as nice and warm as it is here in Germany. All the very best for both of you. Hoping to get a chance to watch a live game sometimes! Klemens
Hopefully the summer in Norway is as nice and warm as it is here in Germany. All the very best for both of you. Hoping to get a chance to watch a live game sometimes! Klemens
Posted by: jeremy Williams
very nice, how close magnus might be to garry?probably ahead now!
Posted by: Babson
Congratulations to Magnus for a fine victory.
(and his father for his dedication to the blog!)
Well done all round.
(and his father for his dedication to the blog!)
Well done all round.
Posted by: Christian
Flott referat. Ha en fin sommer, og lykke til i Biel!
Posted by: T
Well done on a fantastic tournament Magnus! And thank you to Henrik for the blog; it really gives an insight into Magnus' thoughts during his tournaments.
Simen,
Do you really think Magnus will be underrated at the Biel and Bilbao tournaments? I would be very surprised if most of the top players had not followed Magnus' amazing progress in this tournament - especially Anand, given the scare he had that he might lose his number one spot to a 17-year old. So far the only pro I can see from this is that Magnus now knows the official world no.2 position (and perhaps world no.1, now) is reachable. But who am I to say things like that? He probably knew that before the tournament started!
All the best for future tournaments.
T
Simen,
Do you really think Magnus will be underrated at the Biel and Bilbao tournaments? I would be very surprised if most of the top players had not followed Magnus' amazing progress in this tournament - especially Anand, given the scare he had that he might lose his number one spot to a 17-year old. So far the only pro I can see from this is that Magnus now knows the official world no.2 position (and perhaps world no.1, now) is reachable. But who am I to say things like that? He probably knew that before the tournament started!
All the best for future tournaments.
T
Posted by: Simen S
T: By "underrated" I was referring to the fact that if Magnus' performance at Foros is not rated it would give him a rating of 2775 whereas if it is rated, it would give him a rating of 2791. With a current rating of 2791 the _rating system_
will expect him to score more wins than with a rating of 2775.
Thus if Magnus scores +3=X-0 it might give him a rating increase with a current rating of 2775, but it may only be sufficient to maintain his current rating with a current rating of 2791.
I am NOT saying that he will be "underestimated" by his opponents.
It is pretty clear (e.g. ref. the Aerosvit draw against Aleksejev) that most elite chessplayers dislike the Magnus "grind" so much by now, that they are more than happy to accept a draw (even in slightly advantageous positions).
will expect him to score more wins than with a rating of 2775.
Thus if Magnus scores +3=X-0 it might give him a rating increase with a current rating of 2775, but it may only be sufficient to maintain his current rating with a current rating of 2791.
I am NOT saying that he will be "underestimated" by his opponents.
It is pretty clear (e.g. ref. the Aerosvit draw against Aleksejev) that most elite chessplayers dislike the Magnus "grind" so much by now, that they are more than happy to accept a draw (even in slightly advantageous positions).
Posted by: Tom Chivers
I think ratings and rankings, live or otherwise, would seem less important if there was a clear, regular and reliable set-up for the World Championship. I am sure in that case the best players in the world would be more concerned about that than about which list an event is graded in, and that amateur fans would follow these things less too.
Anyway. Congratulations Magnus!
Anyway. Congratulations Magnus!
Posted by: Zarathustra
We have problems understanding the obsession with rating. As far as concerns fascination with numbers, reaching 2800 or more, is interesting just at the moment or right before it is achieved.
The moment Magnus' rating is 2800 or higher, fascination fades. This has to do with how the human mind works and mass tourism might be an appropriate analogy: to see to have seen, not to stop delving into, the glance moving quickly between attractions, superficially.
Reaching 2800 and...then what? What will new goals be? Even higher rating? Winning the greatest number of tournaments? Winning with the hightest number of points? Have the highest TPR ever? Solve chess?
Speaking of ratings, Fischer had 2780 when he retired back in 1972 (not counting his "rematch" in 1992) and we strongly doubt that Magnus at the age of 17 is as strong as a Fischer in top form.
To us it seems that a rating deduction on app. 100 points would bring the ratings to a more comparative level, but as things are, people seem to be mesmerized and spellbound by the mere appearance of numbers and we would really like to see chessplayers' focus elsewhere.
Regards,
Zarathustra
The moment Magnus' rating is 2800 or higher, fascination fades. This has to do with how the human mind works and mass tourism might be an appropriate analogy: to see to have seen, not to stop delving into, the glance moving quickly between attractions, superficially.
Reaching 2800 and...then what? What will new goals be? Even higher rating? Winning the greatest number of tournaments? Winning with the hightest number of points? Have the highest TPR ever? Solve chess?
Speaking of ratings, Fischer had 2780 when he retired back in 1972 (not counting his "rematch" in 1992) and we strongly doubt that Magnus at the age of 17 is as strong as a Fischer in top form.
To us it seems that a rating deduction on app. 100 points would bring the ratings to a more comparative level, but as things are, people seem to be mesmerized and spellbound by the mere appearance of numbers and we would really like to see chessplayers' focus elsewhere.
Regards,
Zarathustra
Posted by: jon
So sprach Zarathustra!
But wait, fascination always fades, regardless of chessplayer, tournaments, and ratings. I guess Magnus' (dis-) interest in rating is at a healthy level. Yes, _some_ chessfans are perhaps exaggerating, so what?!
But wait, fascination always fades, regardless of chessplayer, tournaments, and ratings. I guess Magnus' (dis-) interest in rating is at a healthy level. Yes, _some_ chessfans are perhaps exaggerating, so what?!
Posted by: Simen S
Zarathustra, you (I don't know why you refer to yourself in plural) are perhaps right that Magnus' still isn't as strong as Fischer was when he retired. At least not
compared to his peers at the time.
Fischer's relative strength as compared to his competitors when he retired, and Garry Kasparov's relative strength as compared to the rest of the field (at the prime of his career) represent the two times in the entire history of chess when the world #1 player has been most dominant.
I think it would be fantastic if Magnus could become such a dominant force as those two great players, and I even think he even has a chance to achieve such greatness - if he stays interested in chess.
Still, I don't see why you bring this up, or why it is even relevant as critizism of the admiration that me and others have expressed for the ease with which Magnus has approached the 2800 rating barrier.
Sure, ratings are just numbers, and sure there is some inflation, but the FIDE ratings (or maybe preferably the live ratings) still represent the best available tool by which one may track an individual player's changes in playing strength.
To me it seems as though you are just overly eager to find a negative spin on things. Consider how you make your comparisons:
- Landing A manned spacecraf on the moon is a great achievement even if landing it on Mars would have been even more incredible.
- A girl can be pretty attractive even if she hasn't had 50 cover page appearances in women's magazines over the last year.
- A golfer can be pretty good even if he hasn't won all 4 Majors in the same year.
- A US president may have made a difference even if he didn't serve 4 full terms.
- A chess player can be remarkably good even if he still isn't as dominant as Fisher was when he retired.
compared to his peers at the time.
Fischer's relative strength as compared to his competitors when he retired, and Garry Kasparov's relative strength as compared to the rest of the field (at the prime of his career) represent the two times in the entire history of chess when the world #1 player has been most dominant.
I think it would be fantastic if Magnus could become such a dominant force as those two great players, and I even think he even has a chance to achieve such greatness - if he stays interested in chess.
Still, I don't see why you bring this up, or why it is even relevant as critizism of the admiration that me and others have expressed for the ease with which Magnus has approached the 2800 rating barrier.
Sure, ratings are just numbers, and sure there is some inflation, but the FIDE ratings (or maybe preferably the live ratings) still represent the best available tool by which one may track an individual player's changes in playing strength.
To me it seems as though you are just overly eager to find a negative spin on things. Consider how you make your comparisons:
- Landing A manned spacecraf on the moon is a great achievement even if landing it on Mars would have been even more incredible.
- A girl can be pretty attractive even if she hasn't had 50 cover page appearances in women's magazines over the last year.
- A golfer can be pretty good even if he hasn't won all 4 Majors in the same year.
- A US president may have made a difference even if he didn't serve 4 full terms.
- A chess player can be remarkably good even if he still isn't as dominant as Fisher was when he retired.
Posted by: Zarathustra
Re: Simen S:
You seem to miss the point.
Z
You seem to miss the point.
Z
Posted by: Nietzsche
Magnus next goal after 2800?
-Beat the Kasparov 2851 record.
-Play with computers
and...
-Get a hot girl friend
Congrats Magnus and keep up with the same motivation!
-Beat the Kasparov 2851 record.
-Play with computers
and...
-Get a hot girl friend
Congrats Magnus and keep up with the same motivation!
Posted by: Simen S
Zarathustra: What exactly was your point? I really fail to see anything but random inconsistent negativism in your above post. If that was your point, then - sure - I'll grant you the right to be in a bad mood. :-)
Posted by: Zarathustra
Re: Simen S
The point should not be THAT difficult to spot. Read the post one more time and see if you find it, and besides, we are never logically inconsistent in our postings. Neither are we negative though we might be critical in the sense of having a different, though well founded, opinion than the rest.
Z
The point should not be THAT difficult to spot. Read the post one more time and see if you find it, and besides, we are never logically inconsistent in our postings. Neither are we negative though we might be critical in the sense of having a different, though well founded, opinion than the rest.
Z
Posted by: Mattovsky
Zarathustra, I think your posting was very much to the point. There is something horrible about the whole rating system and I almost wish it had never been introduced. For many years there were no ratings at all and everybody was happy. Nowadays, it's sad to see that many so-called chess fans care much more about ratings than about chess itself. One could almost get the impression that the whole point of playing chess is to improve one's rating.
But there's so much more to it! A chess player is much more than a soulless number, please don't forget that.
But there's so much more to it! A chess player is much more than a soulless number, please don't forget that.
Posted by: NilesCrane
You seem to be very impressed with yourself Zarathustra. :)
And what is this bullshit with referring to yourself as "we"?
hahaha...you really made my day!
:D
And what is this bullshit with referring to yourself as "we"?
hahaha...you really made my day!
:D
Posted by: Simen S
Zarathustra, I have read your post multiple times, and I would be happy if you would be able to clarify to me exactly what your well founded criticizm is supposedly targeted at, which I haven't already rebutted in my above post.
Posted by: Mattovsky
Simen S,
as Zarathustra made clear in in his very first sentence, his criticism was targeted at the obsession with ratings. And you haven't responded to that at all.
as Zarathustra made clear in in his very first sentence, his criticism was targeted at the obsession with ratings. And you haven't responded to that at all.
Posted by: Pamphilus
Regarding obsession with ratings, there seems to be a distinction between using ratings to compare players from different eras and using them to measure contemporary players' relative 'strength'.
Even without considering rating inflation, it appears to me that using raw numbers to compare Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov and Carlsen is a fairly futile exercise.
If we use ratings as an 'imperfect-but-only-one-we've-got' measure of relative performance of contemporary players, then it is surely appropriate to pay attention when Magnus approaches the highest echelons of world chess.
Like in other sports, chess players will set targets of performance/achievement when they compete; using ratings is a fairly simple means of keeping track of progress or otherwise.
Zarathustra (and his comrades?) seem(s) to be confused - arguing, on the one hand, that our rating obsession is a bad thing, and on the other, that we should adjust current ratings down by 100 points - to what end?
Why, to make comparisons
between todays chess elite and those of yesteryear!
Surely this would only make the obsession worse?
Even without considering rating inflation, it appears to me that using raw numbers to compare Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov and Carlsen is a fairly futile exercise.
If we use ratings as an 'imperfect-but-only-one-we've-got' measure of relative performance of contemporary players, then it is surely appropriate to pay attention when Magnus approaches the highest echelons of world chess.
Like in other sports, chess players will set targets of performance/achievement when they compete; using ratings is a fairly simple means of keeping track of progress or otherwise.
Zarathustra (and his comrades?) seem(s) to be confused - arguing, on the one hand, that our rating obsession is a bad thing, and on the other, that we should adjust current ratings down by 100 points - to what end?
Why, to make comparisons
between todays chess elite and those of yesteryear!
Surely this would only make the obsession worse?
Posted by: Zarathustra
Re: NilesCrane
Indeed, we are very impressed with ourselves and why should we not?
Speaking about grammar preferences we prefer the slightly older journalistic form using "we" rather than the more individualistic pronoun " I" , which is far more widespread today than just a few years ago. With this settled, could we again focus on the topic in question.
Our point is simply, as pointed out by Mattovsky, that the ratinghype tends to present players stronger than they really are, especially when ratings of different areas conflate. This means that 2780 in Fischer's heyday, is qualitatively different from 2780 of today.
Take Ivanchuk as a prime example, performing extremely well against 2680 opposition and reaching 2 place on the world rankings with 2787. However, when faced with tougher resistance, his rating agains slides. Why? For the simple reason that when performing brilliantly against weaker opposition, his rating will of course sky rocket, but 2787 against 2680 is different from 2787 against 2787. Morozevich is another good example of players who's rating fluctuates depending on the opposition.
Instead of making rating a goal in itself (a point which Pamphilus seems to miss) we would prefer to leave rating to itself, save Magnus this hype and focus on his chess rather being focussed on when he reaches the nr. 1 spot or whatever.
Intercontinentally yours
Zarathustra
Indeed, we are very impressed with ourselves and why should we not?
Speaking about grammar preferences we prefer the slightly older journalistic form using "we" rather than the more individualistic pronoun " I" , which is far more widespread today than just a few years ago. With this settled, could we again focus on the topic in question.
Our point is simply, as pointed out by Mattovsky, that the ratinghype tends to present players stronger than they really are, especially when ratings of different areas conflate. This means that 2780 in Fischer's heyday, is qualitatively different from 2780 of today.
Take Ivanchuk as a prime example, performing extremely well against 2680 opposition and reaching 2 place on the world rankings with 2787. However, when faced with tougher resistance, his rating agains slides. Why? For the simple reason that when performing brilliantly against weaker opposition, his rating will of course sky rocket, but 2787 against 2680 is different from 2787 against 2787. Morozevich is another good example of players who's rating fluctuates depending on the opposition.
Instead of making rating a goal in itself (a point which Pamphilus seems to miss) we would prefer to leave rating to itself, save Magnus this hype and focus on his chess rather being focussed on when he reaches the nr. 1 spot or whatever.
Intercontinentally yours
Zarathustra
Posted by: Pamphilus
Z, I appreciate the difficulty of reaching a consistent position when there are several of you fighting over use of the keyboard, but why are you so interested in Fischer-era ratings vs. today's if you are also arguing that we should ignore the ratings and just enjoy the chess?
The 'who-is-the-greatest-ever' debate will never be decided objectively simply because the greats from different eras competed in chess environments with varying theoretical knowledge, technology, travel access etc.
If the ratings of the world's top ten today were similar to the top ten of 35 years ago, we would, I suggest, still not have any basis for a conclusive 'X in 1972 was better than Y in 2008', other than where they stood relative to their contemporaries.
By my calculation, dropping everyone's rating by 100 points would leave their relative positions unaltered.
I assume you were referring to a post from 'Strawman_Pamphilus' with your comment about 'making rating a goal in itself' - certainly not something I either suggested or agree with.
The alternative extreme, to take no notice of ratings whatsoever, does seems to a rather reactionary and unnecessary position to take in the 'war against rating hype'.
Hilsen
Pamphilus
The 'who-is-the-greatest-ever' debate will never be decided objectively simply because the greats from different eras competed in chess environments with varying theoretical knowledge, technology, travel access etc.
If the ratings of the world's top ten today were similar to the top ten of 35 years ago, we would, I suggest, still not have any basis for a conclusive 'X in 1972 was better than Y in 2008', other than where they stood relative to their contemporaries.
By my calculation, dropping everyone's rating by 100 points would leave their relative positions unaltered.
I assume you were referring to a post from 'Strawman_Pamphilus' with your comment about 'making rating a goal in itself' - certainly not something I either suggested or agree with.
The alternative extreme, to take no notice of ratings whatsoever, does seems to a rather reactionary and unnecessary position to take in the 'war against rating hype'.
Hilsen
Pamphilus
Posted by: Simen S
Mattovsky,
I did respond to that.
If I may quote myself my response was: "...Sure, ratings are just numbers, and sure there is some inflation, but the FIDE ratings (or maybe preferably the live ratings) still represent the best available tool by which one may track an INDIVIDUAL player's changes in playing strength..."[emphasis added].
I'm looking at the ratings and concluding that Magnus is getting better. Not compared to Kasparov, not compared to Fischer, but compared to his own previous playing level. I believe that there is little dissent in the chess community that ratings may be used for this purpose (especially when rating change isn't a minor fluctuation).
Zarathustra, however, misguidedly interprets our celebration of Magnus (rating) achievements as a implicit critizism of
what appears to be his own preferred chess icon (Fischer), and thus launches the nonsensical view that all ratings talk should be avoided because said ratings could never fairly be used to compare any current player with Fischer.
Additionally, I guess I agree with most of what Pamphilus wrote in his post.
I did respond to that.
If I may quote myself my response was: "...Sure, ratings are just numbers, and sure there is some inflation, but the FIDE ratings (or maybe preferably the live ratings) still represent the best available tool by which one may track an INDIVIDUAL player's changes in playing strength..."[emphasis added].
I'm looking at the ratings and concluding that Magnus is getting better. Not compared to Kasparov, not compared to Fischer, but compared to his own previous playing level. I believe that there is little dissent in the chess community that ratings may be used for this purpose (especially when rating change isn't a minor fluctuation).
Zarathustra, however, misguidedly interprets our celebration of Magnus (rating) achievements as a implicit critizism of
what appears to be his own preferred chess icon (Fischer), and thus launches the nonsensical view that all ratings talk should be avoided because said ratings could never fairly be used to compare any current player with Fischer.
Additionally, I guess I agree with most of what Pamphilus wrote in his post.
Posted by: Mattovsky
Simen S,
sorry, I overlooked that sentence amidst all the irrelevant stuff. Still, I don't agree with your attitude, which, I'm afraid, is representative of the majority of chess fans. In my opinion, the best way to assess a player's improvement is not to look at his rating but at his chess moves. You look at Magnus's rating and conclude that he's getting better. I look at his games. Can you tell me, by looking at the rating, in which aspect Magnus has improved? What are his strengths? How does he outplay his opponents? Which weaknesses remain?
Ratings are an extremely poor indicator of a chess player's capabilities. You should better not look at them at all. Look at the games, for heaven's sake.
The important thing is that Magnus keeps improving and that he wins big tournaments. Whether his rating happens to be 2770 or 2800 or 2820 is of no importance whatsoever.
sorry, I overlooked that sentence amidst all the irrelevant stuff. Still, I don't agree with your attitude, which, I'm afraid, is representative of the majority of chess fans. In my opinion, the best way to assess a player's improvement is not to look at his rating but at his chess moves. You look at Magnus's rating and conclude that he's getting better. I look at his games. Can you tell me, by looking at the rating, in which aspect Magnus has improved? What are his strengths? How does he outplay his opponents? Which weaknesses remain?
Ratings are an extremely poor indicator of a chess player's capabilities. You should better not look at them at all. Look at the games, for heaven's sake.
The important thing is that Magnus keeps improving and that he wins big tournaments. Whether his rating happens to be 2770 or 2800 or 2820 is of no importance whatsoever.
Posted by: Simen S
Mattovsky, Of course I look at the chess moves. I would say that 99% of the time I spend on enjoying top-level chess is by watching games, watching the moves, and trying (usually with some help of a computer and/or a more skilled commentator) to try to understand the underlying ideas, strategies and objectives that lie behind the moves.
I think that having seen hundreds of live games between Super-GM's live actually does make me capable of distinguishing between different styles of play, having my own opinion on who excerts the most creativity, who seems to be better prepared, who is the strongest opening theorist, who has the strongest psyche, who chooses safety and who has the greater willingness to win, who plays comparatively best against Super-GM's and who plays comparatively best against 25-2600 GM's.
And, yes, by looking at Magnus' games I can describe many ways in which his play has improved over the last two years. I think he plays with more patience. I believe his opening knowledge has grown a lot. He a) seems to effortlessly be able to fend off openings challenges posed to him when playing black,
and b) also seems to have prepared a set of sound (but perhaps uncommon) alternate moves in many variations (as both white and black) that pose a challenge to his opponents.
I'm not going to claim that I understand everything which is going on (that would just be silly), but I feel I understand enough to find it highly entertaining.
I still think it's adequate to reserve the last 1% of the time to talk about ratings and achievements. Ratings are a cumulative aggreagation of _results_ . Winning a lot of tournaments is more or less equivalent with having and keeping a high rating. Even though lower rated players occationally draw and/or beat higher rated players the ratings _do_ have very good predictive power (better than any other mechanism) when it comes to determining the outcome of a matchup between two players.
I think that having seen hundreds of live games between Super-GM's live actually does make me capable of distinguishing between different styles of play, having my own opinion on who excerts the most creativity, who seems to be better prepared, who is the strongest opening theorist, who has the strongest psyche, who chooses safety and who has the greater willingness to win, who plays comparatively best against Super-GM's and who plays comparatively best against 25-2600 GM's.
And, yes, by looking at Magnus' games I can describe many ways in which his play has improved over the last two years. I think he plays with more patience. I believe his opening knowledge has grown a lot. He a) seems to effortlessly be able to fend off openings challenges posed to him when playing black,
and b) also seems to have prepared a set of sound (but perhaps uncommon) alternate moves in many variations (as both white and black) that pose a challenge to his opponents.
I'm not going to claim that I understand everything which is going on (that would just be silly), but I feel I understand enough to find it highly entertaining.
I still think it's adequate to reserve the last 1% of the time to talk about ratings and achievements. Ratings are a cumulative aggreagation of _results_ . Winning a lot of tournaments is more or less equivalent with having and keeping a high rating. Even though lower rated players occationally draw and/or beat higher rated players the ratings _do_ have very good predictive power (better than any other mechanism) when it comes to determining the outcome of a matchup between two players.
Posted by: Edgar B
The funny thing is that the players themselves still refer to the ratings! Karjakin recently said that him being rated 80 points higher than Short, he stands a good chance of winning their match.
I do think certain players are deserved of their 2700+ ratings, they have earned it with good performances in Super-GM tournaments e.g Eljanov, but, then you get the odd player with a 2700+ rating that I don't think will survive in a super-gm tournament e.g Hua Ni from China.
So, the point I am trying to make is that certain players can hold there own among the elite and others can't! Some deserve their 2700+ ratings, others don't.
Magnus deserves his 2791.5 rating!!!!
I do think certain players are deserved of their 2700+ ratings, they have earned it with good performances in Super-GM tournaments e.g Eljanov, but, then you get the odd player with a 2700+ rating that I don't think will survive in a super-gm tournament e.g Hua Ni from China.
So, the point I am trying to make is that certain players can hold there own among the elite and others can't! Some deserve their 2700+ ratings, others don't.
Magnus deserves his 2791.5 rating!!!!
Posted by: Leo
Zarathustra:
Although I can agree with your point that the preoccupation with rating, and the 2800 mark, is not entirely "healthy", it seems to me that your criticism of the rating system as a whole and as a method of comparison between players is somewhat off the mark.
First of all, I fail to see what the point of detracting 100 pts from today's ratings would be. If anything, wouldn't it be more interesting to calculate what Fischer's rating would (could) have been if he had competed as regularly as today's top GMs?
I also do not see the point you are trying to make with the examples of Ivanchuk and Morozevich. This is equally true at any level, club or 2700+.
Anyway, it's not like Carlsen's games haven't got the attention they deserve ... or?
Although I can agree with your point that the preoccupation with rating, and the 2800 mark, is not entirely "healthy", it seems to me that your criticism of the rating system as a whole and as a method of comparison between players is somewhat off the mark.
First of all, I fail to see what the point of detracting 100 pts from today's ratings would be. If anything, wouldn't it be more interesting to calculate what Fischer's rating would (could) have been if he had competed as regularly as today's top GMs?
I also do not see the point you are trying to make with the examples of Ivanchuk and Morozevich. This is equally true at any level, club or 2700+.
Anyway, it's not like Carlsen's games haven't got the attention they deserve ... or?
Posted by: Mattovsky
Simen S, nice to see that we seem to agree, after all. Still, you can't deny that the general attention to ratings has grown to alarming proportions (certainly much more than 1 %!) , which is also fuelled by the chess media (e.g. Chessbase constantly pointing out players' rating performances or referring to the live list). Unfortunately , as Edgar B pointed out, a lot of top players seem to care very much about ratings themselves. For instance, Tiviakov, after winning the European Championship, said that this was only the second best tournament in his career because he won only 22 rating points while once he managed to win 28. A sad comment.
On lower levels, it's even worse. I see guys (mere club players!) who are depressed because they lost some 10 or 20 points. I see 10-year-olds making draws in good positions "because he is rated 50 points higher". I see talented juniors who are denied participation at championships because they happen to have lost a few points in one bad tournament after five good ones. I see people treating me like an idiot when I lose against a lower-rated guy after playing too riskily. It's driving me crazy. It's taking all the fun out of playing chess.
It might be a general problem of our society that we care too much about performance and not enough about inner values. But here's probably not the right place to start such a discussion.
On lower levels, it's even worse. I see guys (mere club players!) who are depressed because they lost some 10 or 20 points. I see 10-year-olds making draws in good positions "because he is rated 50 points higher". I see talented juniors who are denied participation at championships because they happen to have lost a few points in one bad tournament after five good ones. I see people treating me like an idiot when I lose against a lower-rated guy after playing too riskily. It's driving me crazy. It's taking all the fun out of playing chess.
It might be a general problem of our society that we care too much about performance and not enough about inner values. But here's probably not the right place to start such a discussion.
Posted by: Zarathustra
Re: Simen S
You still miss the point!
One last ditch attempt:
We are not at all concerned with Magnus and his achievments or accomplishments.
What we are getting at, is that peoples' fascination with the rating numbers as to if they express objective chess strength or merely performances is ill founded, and should be abandoned.
People are still posting as Magnus might be the greatest ever. If epochs are incomparable all such talk is rendered meaningless. Epochs can be compared only if they have some common ground making comparisons possible.
To us it seems counter intuitive that a 17 year old can hold a rating higher than the greatest player ever and this should urge two things: let fascination go and improve the ratingsystem to bring it more in balance with chess knowledge and performances to make comparisons more credible.
Zarathustra
You still miss the point!
One last ditch attempt:
We are not at all concerned with Magnus and his achievments or accomplishments.
What we are getting at, is that peoples' fascination with the rating numbers as to if they express objective chess strength or merely performances is ill founded, and should be abandoned.
People are still posting as Magnus might be the greatest ever. If epochs are incomparable all such talk is rendered meaningless. Epochs can be compared only if they have some common ground making comparisons possible.
To us it seems counter intuitive that a 17 year old can hold a rating higher than the greatest player ever and this should urge two things: let fascination go and improve the ratingsystem to bring it more in balance with chess knowledge and performances to make comparisons more credible.
Zarathustra
Posted by: Zarathustra
More precise:
As far as we can see, there will inevitably be conceptual problems as the ratingsystem is used nowadays and the claims on who being the greatest.
If Fischer is claimed to be the greatest with 2780, well,. since Magnus' rating is higher, then he will be the greatest, but in the light of Fischers achievements, this seems counter intuitive and something needs to be done, either our way of using the concept "the greatest" or change the ratingssystem to fit more adequately to our concepts of describing and perceiving players.
If the rating inflation is 70 pts, as it is said to be, well, then Fischer wil have 2850 and still among the greatest and Magnus will be 2720.
What we are concerned with, is the conceptual problems of denominating someone as the greatest but still unable to have a confirming rating(Fischer) and using a ratingsystem trying to express our admiration.
To us, the relationship between the concept of Fischer as the greatest and his rating being substantially lower than todays ratings and the inherent inflation in the rating system leads to serious conceptual problems that need to be solved.
Zarathustra
As far as we can see, there will inevitably be conceptual problems as the ratingsystem is used nowadays and the claims on who being the greatest.
If Fischer is claimed to be the greatest with 2780, well,. since Magnus' rating is higher, then he will be the greatest, but in the light of Fischers achievements, this seems counter intuitive and something needs to be done, either our way of using the concept "the greatest" or change the ratingssystem to fit more adequately to our concepts of describing and perceiving players.
If the rating inflation is 70 pts, as it is said to be, well, then Fischer wil have 2850 and still among the greatest and Magnus will be 2720.
What we are concerned with, is the conceptual problems of denominating someone as the greatest but still unable to have a confirming rating(Fischer) and using a ratingsystem trying to express our admiration.
To us, the relationship between the concept of Fischer as the greatest and his rating being substantially lower than todays ratings and the inherent inflation in the rating system leads to serious conceptual problems that need to be solved.
Zarathustra
Posted by: Simen S
Zarathustra,
"We are [I am] not at all concerned with Magnus and his achievments or accomplishments."
- still you decide to bring this discussion up on Carlsen's dad's blog :-)
"What we are [I am] getting at, is that peoples' fascination with the rating numbers as to if they express objective chess strength or merely performances is ill founded, and should be abandoned."
- abandoned and replaced with what? Nothing? A better rating system (it would still be ratings)?
"People are still posting as Magnus might be the greatest ever. If epochs are incomparable all such talk is rendered meaningless. Epochs can be compared only if they have some common ground making comparisons possible."
- You're the one who seems overly keen on beeing able to determine which is the greatest player ever. You even seem to have a subjective persuation that his name is Fischer (regardless of what any player may achieve in the future). In my opinion a comparative discussion of two players from different eras will always be very hypothetical and highly subjective.
"To us it seems counter intuitive that a 17 year old can hold a rating higher than the greatest player ever and this should urge two things: let fascination go and improve the ratingsystem to bring it more in balance with chess knowledge and performances to make comparisons more credible."
- As an isolated ratings observation, the fact that Magnus (at 17.5) has surpassed Fischer's highest ever rating, is an extremely poor argument against the current ratings system. What is perhaps a better argument against the current rating system is the apparent general inflation tendencies. Still it is equally easy to argue that Magnus (or some other 2700+ player), if he was allowed to "travel back in time" armed with his current skillset and all the theoretical knowledge and computer assisted novelties that have been collectively accumulated since the late 1970's, would quite likely win a match against Fischer (in his prime) with a nice and comfortable margin. But, as I said above, even though this sounds plausible to me, I cannot object to the counterargument that my theory is both subjective and hypothetical.
"We are [I am] not at all concerned with Magnus and his achievments or accomplishments."
- still you decide to bring this discussion up on Carlsen's dad's blog :-)
"What we are [I am] getting at, is that peoples' fascination with the rating numbers as to if they express objective chess strength or merely performances is ill founded, and should be abandoned."
- abandoned and replaced with what? Nothing? A better rating system (it would still be ratings)?
"People are still posting as Magnus might be the greatest ever. If epochs are incomparable all such talk is rendered meaningless. Epochs can be compared only if they have some common ground making comparisons possible."
- You're the one who seems overly keen on beeing able to determine which is the greatest player ever. You even seem to have a subjective persuation that his name is Fischer (regardless of what any player may achieve in the future). In my opinion a comparative discussion of two players from different eras will always be very hypothetical and highly subjective.
"To us it seems counter intuitive that a 17 year old can hold a rating higher than the greatest player ever and this should urge two things: let fascination go and improve the ratingsystem to bring it more in balance with chess knowledge and performances to make comparisons more credible."
- As an isolated ratings observation, the fact that Magnus (at 17.5) has surpassed Fischer's highest ever rating, is an extremely poor argument against the current ratings system. What is perhaps a better argument against the current rating system is the apparent general inflation tendencies. Still it is equally easy to argue that Magnus (or some other 2700+ player), if he was allowed to "travel back in time" armed with his current skillset and all the theoretical knowledge and computer assisted novelties that have been collectively accumulated since the late 1970's, would quite likely win a match against Fischer (in his prime) with a nice and comfortable margin. But, as I said above, even though this sounds plausible to me, I cannot object to the counterargument that my theory is both subjective and hypothetical.
Posted by: Leo
Z,
indeed, the concept of "denominating someone the greatest but still unable to have a confirming rating" seems to be your problem rather than anyone else's. I'm guessing if Fischer had reached 2900 at some point, we would not be having this discussion, as the current rating system would then still be justifiable by your standards.
indeed, the concept of "denominating someone the greatest but still unable to have a confirming rating" seems to be your problem rather than anyone else's. I'm guessing if Fischer had reached 2900 at some point, we would not be having this discussion, as the current rating system would then still be justifiable by your standards.
Posted by: Bowditch
Like Zarathustra and his alter ego,
many people don't understand that the ratings actually has been deflated.
Fischer taken in time machine from 1972 would struggle badly against todays 2780.
See, opening theory has developed enormously, generally understanding of the game has developed. Add training with computers and on the internet etc.
If Magnus makes like 2850 which seems very likely, he will be the strongest player ever.
many people don't understand that the ratings actually has been deflated.
Fischer taken in time machine from 1972 would struggle badly against todays 2780.
See, opening theory has developed enormously, generally understanding of the game has developed. Add training with computers and on the internet etc.
If Magnus makes like 2850 which seems very likely, he will be the strongest player ever.
Posted by: Gegga
Simen, please don't feed the troll(s)...
Posted by: Garry
Magnus must be rich now. Why doesn't he invest in a huge team on GM's that would prepare him some novelties so that he stays ahead of his opponents for a long time?
Magnus can have all his close rivals prepared extensively so that he would rarely lose against them even when they are very eager to beat him.
Didn't Kasparov use that method to become 2851 on the FIDE rating list?
Personaly I have never seen a 2nd world ranked still with his father at important tournaments. Every method has it's limits and I think it's reaching the point where it becomes ridiculious, even if it helped him before hand to stand where he's now.
Magnus can have all his close rivals prepared extensively so that he would rarely lose against them even when they are very eager to beat him.
Didn't Kasparov use that method to become 2851 on the FIDE rating list?
Personaly I have never seen a 2nd world ranked still with his father at important tournaments. Every method has it's limits and I think it's reaching the point where it becomes ridiculious, even if it helped him before hand to stand where he's now.
Posted by: Tihana
Just one more thing Z...
I'd just like to point out that to my knowledge, self-reference in polished journalism has never taken the form of "we". Only royalty refers to themselves in first person by using "we, our person", etc.
And as someone once said, "God divided up beauty and brains in people very equitably. Everybody believes that they are the most beautiful and most intelligent of all."
So I agree, Z. You have every right to be very impressed with yourself.
I'd just like to point out that to my knowledge, self-reference in polished journalism has never taken the form of "we". Only royalty refers to themselves in first person by using "we, our person", etc.
And as someone once said, "God divided up beauty and brains in people very equitably. Everybody believes that they are the most beautiful and most intelligent of all."
So I agree, Z. You have every right to be very impressed with yourself.
Posted by: Albos
Garry, you're absolutely right, although I don't see any problem if Magnus continues to travel with Henrik as his manager and friend. Of course, he should also be accompanied by some kind of staff (strong GM(s)) helping him prepare.
I've the impression that Magnus himself is satisfied and feels comfortable the way things are at the moment. Of course some average norwegian GM won't be of great help and Magnus might feel uncomfortable working with somebody he doesn't know or who does't speak his mother-tongue.
However, professional decisions have to be made at the top level and it is Henrik's responsibility to look for at least one capable GM to support his son even if Magnus is sceptical about it. Some regular sessions with Kasparov
wouldn't harm either and this might not be as unlikely or impossible as it seems at first glance...
I've the impression that Magnus himself is satisfied and feels comfortable the way things are at the moment. Of course some average norwegian GM won't be of great help and Magnus might feel uncomfortable working with somebody he doesn't know or who does't speak his mother-tongue.
However, professional decisions have to be made at the top level and it is Henrik's responsibility to look for at least one capable GM to support his son even if Magnus is sceptical about it. Some regular sessions with Kasparov
wouldn't harm either and this might not be as unlikely or impossible as it seems at first glance...
Posted by: Zarathustra
Re: Tihana
You need to read more. Even Kotov writes "we" in his book "Think like a GM".
Re: Simen S
Our intuition stands; there are conceptual problems to be solved.
The reason why we brought this up in this blog should be intuitively evident, as Magnus' rating progress has been calculated and discusses minutely in this blog and elsewhere so why not? But we are not concerned with Magnus and his achievements at all. How difficult is it to set the conceptual problems apart from Magnus' chess?
Regards
Zarathustra
You need to read more. Even Kotov writes "we" in his book "Think like a GM".
Re: Simen S
Our intuition stands; there are conceptual problems to be solved.
The reason why we brought this up in this blog should be intuitively evident, as Magnus' rating progress has been calculated and discusses minutely in this blog and elsewhere so why not? But we are not concerned with Magnus and his achievements at all. How difficult is it to set the conceptual problems apart from Magnus' chess?
Regards
Zarathustra
Posted by: Simen S
Gegga: Point taken!
Garry and Albos: Magnus has said in recent interviews (after Aerosvit) that he is quite happy with his recent progress and the means by which he has achieved that progress.
I believe Magnus has had the resources to travel with seconds for a while now, but I guess he has only chosen to do so on a couple of occasions. I guess whatever he decides in this area, will be based on what he feels is best.
On the one hand I guess a good second can provide research and ideas about upcoming opponents during tournaments, but on the other hand such planning sessions with your second(s) between games may also interfere with a particular player's preferred mental recovery/preparatory process.
Garry and Albos: Magnus has said in recent interviews (after Aerosvit) that he is quite happy with his recent progress and the means by which he has achieved that progress.
I believe Magnus has had the resources to travel with seconds for a while now, but I guess he has only chosen to do so on a couple of occasions. I guess whatever he decides in this area, will be based on what he feels is best.
On the one hand I guess a good second can provide research and ideas about upcoming opponents during tournaments, but on the other hand such planning sessions with your second(s) between games may also interfere with a particular player's preferred mental recovery/preparatory process.
Posted by: Zarathustra
Hola!
Here is our problem explicitly stated:
How does a numerical, imperfect rating system relate to natural languages when expressing our admiration?
Regards
Zarathustra
Here is our problem explicitly stated:
How does a numerical, imperfect rating system relate to natural languages when expressing our admiration?
Regards
Zarathustra
Posted by: Rolfo
Let say Magnus has a special mind and intuition for chess and he is developing his gift in the way that suits him, why let
some trainer interfere now? May be as supplement later on.
Letting
phantacy and intuition have it's way may prove to be the whole difference in the developing of one's talent
some trainer interfere now? May be as supplement later on.
Letting
phantacy and intuition have it's way may prove to be the whole difference in the developing of one's talent
Posted by: Tihana
Unfortunately Z, I haven't read Kotov's book, so I will have to take your word for it that he does and that in the novel he is referring to himself.
However, you seem to have mixed up what we were disputing; I believe it was journalistic articles and styles of self-referencing in journalism? I would be very glad if you could show me an example of polished journalism (which does not mean it has to be chess related) in which this occurs. This should be easy to do, as you said that this style was so widespread only a few years ago.
However, you seem to have mixed up what we were disputing; I believe it was journalistic articles and styles of self-referencing in journalism? I would be very glad if you could show me an example of polished journalism (which does not mean it has to be chess related) in which this occurs. This should be easy to do, as you said that this style was so widespread only a few years ago.
Posted by: Leo
Z,
I do not have the Kotov book in fresh memory, but if he uses "we", given the nature of the book, I would rather interpret it as the voice of a teacher addressing or presenting a problem to his students. I may be mistaken, but I too would really like to see a better example than that.
As regards your definition of the problem at hand, you probably realize that the question you are posing is in fact a very general philosophical and/or linguistic one. Do you wish to discuss philosophy and linguistics? Forgive me, but it seemed at first that you were just bothered by the fact that the system has allowed other players to surpass Fischer's rating.
There seems to be little question that the ELO system is imperfect as a means of comparing players of different periods, let alone draw any conclusions about their general merits as chess players or whether they deserve our
"admiration".
I would certainly agree that any opinion of Carlsen founded exclusively on his rating would be misguided, but I think it's obvious that there are several other factors behind people´s fascination with him (his youth, his quick development as a chess player, perhaps to some extent his nationality, &c.) - otherwise, would not people also have to conclude that, say, Ivanchuk is greater than Fischer?
I do not have the Kotov book in fresh memory, but if he uses "we", given the nature of the book, I would rather interpret it as the voice of a teacher addressing or presenting a problem to his students. I may be mistaken, but I too would really like to see a better example than that.
As regards your definition of the problem at hand, you probably realize that the question you are posing is in fact a very general philosophical and/or linguistic one. Do you wish to discuss philosophy and linguistics? Forgive me, but it seemed at first that you were just bothered by the fact that the system has allowed other players to surpass Fischer's rating.
There seems to be little question that the ELO system is imperfect as a means of comparing players of different periods, let alone draw any conclusions about their general merits as chess players or whether they deserve our
"admiration".
I would certainly agree that any opinion of Carlsen founded exclusively on his rating would be misguided, but I think it's obvious that there are several other factors behind people´s fascination with him (his youth, his quick development as a chess player, perhaps to some extent his nationality, &c.) - otherwise, would not people also have to conclude that, say, Ivanchuk is greater than Fischer?
Posted by: Your mum
Folks: Please stop arguing. If you want to argue, please do it on a discussion group, not in this blog.
I look forward to the Biel tournament in july. Carlsen is the clear favourite (at least rating-wise), and it's too easy to take it for granted that he'll win yet again. However, I do hope he wins and that he continues to show that he's in prime shape this year.
Here's an article from Los Angeles Times:
"Magnus Carlsen, Aerosvit winner, nears championship level":
www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-ca...un29,0,5495862.story
I look forward to the Biel tournament in july. Carlsen is the clear favourite (at least rating-wise), and it's too easy to take it for granted that he'll win yet again. However, I do hope he wins and that he continues to show that he's in prime shape this year.
Here's an article from Los Angeles Times:
"Magnus Carlsen, Aerosvit winner, nears championship level":
www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-ca...un29,0,5495862.story
Posted by: Des Tann
Four groups are permitted use of the royal 'we:'
pregnant women, royalty, those with tapeworms and schizophrenics.
pregnant women, royalty, those with tapeworms and schizophrenics.
Posted by: Martin from Freiburg/Germ.
Phew, thanks Des, I had almost forgotten about the third group... ;)
Posted by: Leo
Hehe, good point, Des - although of course only the "we" used by royalty is in fact "royal". Perhaps your different uses of "we" could be labelled "gestational", "royal", "intestinal" and "delusional" respectively.
Bye all, we now leave it up to you to guess if we are with child, a reigning monarch, infected with some organism, or just plain crazy ;)
Bye all, we now leave it up to you to guess if we are with child, a reigning monarch, infected with some organism, or just plain crazy ;)
Posted by: jeremy Williams
my fascination will not fade if magnus reaches 2800. with fischer i would of watched and watched and watched.
Posted by: Zarathustra
Re: Thihana
We see no reason to be obliged to educate you on the issue concerning the use of pronouns, but books written before the 1970's more often than not, use "we", possibly to distance the writer from the text (who writes what is not strictly relevant) whereas nowadays, it has become more important to note WHO says what as some kind of selfpromotion.
Kotov's work was the first chess related that sprang to mind, but in other areas as well, "we" was more widespread, and if you went to a library, for instance, you would see this for yourself not needing to have us pointing this out to you.
By the way, the Kotov book is not a novel, but a book on chess thinking. In all our writings we use we, except when writing children's stories in English.
Re: Leo
No, as a philosopher we had absolutely no idea that our question was a philosophical and a linguistic one. Absolutely none! Thank you for informing us about that. How could we possibly so wrongly misjudge our audience?
You as well seem to have missed the point: the question you read, is the problem most precisely formulated.
And, no, you are not forgiven as we never forgive people, not quite sure what is given. Besides, we have too strong a memory.
Zarathustra
We see no reason to be obliged to educate you on the issue concerning the use of pronouns, but books written before the 1970's more often than not, use "we", possibly to distance the writer from the text (who writes what is not strictly relevant) whereas nowadays, it has become more important to note WHO says what as some kind of selfpromotion.
Kotov's work was the first chess related that sprang to mind, but in other areas as well, "we" was more widespread, and if you went to a library, for instance, you would see this for yourself not needing to have us pointing this out to you.
By the way, the Kotov book is not a novel, but a book on chess thinking. In all our writings we use we, except when writing children's stories in English.
Re: Leo
No, as a philosopher we had absolutely no idea that our question was a philosophical and a linguistic one. Absolutely none! Thank you for informing us about that. How could we possibly so wrongly misjudge our audience?
You as well seem to have missed the point: the question you read, is the problem most precisely formulated.
And, no, you are not forgiven as we never forgive people, not quite sure what is given. Besides, we have too strong a memory.
Zarathustra
Posted by: Bowditch
Whatever, rhetorically the "we" gives a very ridiculous and pompous impression. Together with the emptiness of your argument, it is difficult to resist laughing :-)
"To us, the relationship between the concept of Fischer as the greatest and his rating being substantially lower than todays ratings and the inherent inflation in the rating system leads to serious conceptual problems that need to be solved."
ROFL
"To us, the relationship between the concept of Fischer as the greatest and his rating being substantially lower than todays ratings and the inherent inflation in the rating system leads to serious conceptual problems that need to be solved."
ROFL
Posted by: Zarathustra
Re: Bowditch
It actually does not take more to knock you people off your perch than using a slightly unusal pronoun. Mind you telling us why? Not that we care, but it would be interesting to get a glance into how your minds work.
We do not mind you laughing, as long as you cannot pinpoint logical inconsistency or factual mistakes in our argument. You know what a conceptual problem is?
Zarathustra
It actually does not take more to knock you people off your perch than using a slightly unusal pronoun. Mind you telling us why? Not that we care, but it would be interesting to get a glance into how your minds work.
We do not mind you laughing, as long as you cannot pinpoint logical inconsistency or factual mistakes in our argument. You know what a conceptual problem is?
Zarathustra
Posted by: MSC
Zarathustra,
Your supercilious tone and general style is strongly reminiscent of Edward Winter.
Is this intentional?
He (or is it they?) often, perhaps always, refers to himself as 'we', as even a casual perusal of
his writing will show.
For instance, on page 15 of his book Chess Explorations, the article under the heading of 'What Went Wrong' includes the following: "We won't insult readers' intelligence...' There are many other examples, of course. This book was published in 1996.
Using 'we' in this manner is perfectly correct, but it does seem to be a useless affectation, or conceit, especially in a chess blog.
If, however, the ideas surrounding it are sound, who cares?
Your supercilious tone and general style is strongly reminiscent of Edward Winter.
Is this intentional?
He (or is it they?) often, perhaps always, refers to himself as 'we', as even a casual perusal of
his writing will show.
For instance, on page 15 of his book Chess Explorations, the article under the heading of 'What Went Wrong' includes the following: "We won't insult readers' intelligence...' There are many other examples, of course. This book was published in 1996.
Using 'we' in this manner is perfectly correct, but it does seem to be a useless affectation, or conceit, especially in a chess blog.
If, however, the ideas surrounding it are sound, who cares?
Posted by:
Sorry Henrik for continuing this on your blog, but I couldn't resist another(last, hopefully) message.
Dear Philosophers,
aside pure correct deductive logic you need judgement, relevance, context, purpose etc. to make sense.
First, the admiration of whatever chess players relative their ELO is not a serious problem. For example climate change is. We don't need to synchronize our admiration with exact ELO numbers, we can for example just let it flow by intuition, elan vital style. And everybody don't need to agree of whom to admire.
Then, as philosophers often do, you create problems by unnecessary blurring concepts just to get something to solve.
"To us, the relationship between the concept of Fischer as the greatest and his rating being substantially lower than todays ratings and the inherent inflation in the rating system leads to serious conceptual problems that need to be solved."
Crawling myself up from the floor, seems like one concept and two facts presented here.
- As mentioned above, the "concept" of admiration of Fischer urge no definition or agreement.
- The "the inherent inflation" is ill-defined term and even false from the most natural definition: ELO as an absolute strength measure. 2780 today beats 2780 of 1972 for very natural reasons already described.
- "his rating being substantially lower" - No, 2780 is not substantially lower than todays top players.
Furthermore, saying Fischer is greatest + ratings inflated + ELO measures greatness, is internally consistent even if his rating was lower.
And finally for your pleasure, a direct logical mistake:
"If the rating inflation is 70 pts, as it is said to be, well, then Fischer wil have 2850 and still among the greatest and Magnus will be 2720."
No, that is 140 points inflation. May I laugh now? :-)
Dear Philosophers,
aside pure correct deductive logic you need judgement, relevance, context, purpose etc. to make sense.
First, the admiration of whatever chess players relative their ELO is not a serious problem. For example climate change is. We don't need to synchronize our admiration with exact ELO numbers, we can for example just let it flow by intuition, elan vital style. And everybody don't need to agree of whom to admire.
Then, as philosophers often do, you create problems by unnecessary blurring concepts just to get something to solve.
"To us, the relationship between the concept of Fischer as the greatest and his rating being substantially lower than todays ratings and the inherent inflation in the rating system leads to serious conceptual problems that need to be solved."
Crawling myself up from the floor, seems like one concept and two facts presented here.
- As mentioned above, the "concept" of admiration of Fischer urge no definition or agreement.
- The "the inherent inflation" is ill-defined term and even false from the most natural definition: ELO as an absolute strength measure. 2780 today beats 2780 of 1972 for very natural reasons already described.
- "his rating being substantially lower" - No, 2780 is not substantially lower than todays top players.
Furthermore, saying Fischer is greatest + ratings inflated + ELO measures greatness, is internally consistent even if his rating was lower.
And finally for your pleasure, a direct logical mistake:
"If the rating inflation is 70 pts, as it is said to be, well, then Fischer wil have 2850 and still among the greatest and Magnus will be 2720."
No, that is 140 points inflation. May I laugh now? :-)
Posted by: Martin, Freiburg/Germ.
Zarathustra,
sorry, but you ARE hilarious... my personal favourite: "In all our writings we use we..." - LOL...
Btw, how do you differentiate when really meaning "we" according to common sense?!
sorry, but you ARE hilarious... my personal favourite: "In all our writings we use we..." - LOL...
Btw, how do you differentiate when really meaning "we" according to common sense?!
Posted by: Tihana
Oh dear...Z, once again, you've missed the point. I was never arguing with you about books that used the form "we". I'm well aware they are out there. You said specifically that you preferred "the slightly older journalistic form using we".
I presumed you understood the difference between styles of journalism and styles of writing used in books or novels. Unfortunately it seems I was wrong.
But knowing that you've made almost everyone on this blog who read your writing laugh out loud, doesn't it make you feel good to know that you've made someones day every time you write a comment?
I presumed you understood the difference between styles of journalism and styles of writing used in books or novels. Unfortunately it seems I was wrong.
But knowing that you've made almost everyone on this blog who read your writing laugh out loud, doesn't it make you feel good to know that you've made someones day every time you write a comment?
Posted by: Zarathustra
Re:
Tihana
Now, we understand what you mean regarding the difference. Our head was not properly fastened when reading. Of course you are right! There is a difference between writing books and journalism concerning magazines and books. We were thinking of the style in books, not magazines. We might have simply conflated the concepts understanding "writing" and "journalism" somehow closely related and then transferred this (mis)understanding to our writing when choosing form. (However, there is a much more personal reason also behind this choice, beginning already back in 1989, but this we keep to ourselves)
We suggest people stick to the form they are more comfortable with and those who apparently have problems accepting this, consider it an exercise of tolerance, where, hopefully, practice makes master.
And yes, or no, we do not mind at all if our posts make people laugh.
And speaking about logical mistakes; of course, we are not mathematicians: we thought fairly straight forward that if the inflation was 70 points, we assumed that the 1970 ratings was not inflated, and todays are, so we had to add the inflation to the 70's ratings and subtract this from todays writing. A friend of ours notified this already a couple of days ago.
Re: Martin (Freiburg)
Don't you worry, we know exactly when to use "we" and when to use "I". Intuition is not always that easy to convert into words but if you look through all our writings, you will see a rare consistency.
Zarathustra
Tihana
Now, we understand what you mean regarding the difference. Our head was not properly fastened when reading. Of course you are right! There is a difference between writing books and journalism concerning magazines and books. We were thinking of the style in books, not magazines. We might have simply conflated the concepts understanding "writing" and "journalism" somehow closely related and then transferred this (mis)understanding to our writing when choosing form. (However, there is a much more personal reason also behind this choice, beginning already back in 1989, but this we keep to ourselves)
We suggest people stick to the form they are more comfortable with and those who apparently have problems accepting this, consider it an exercise of tolerance, where, hopefully, practice makes master.
And yes, or no, we do not mind at all if our posts make people laugh.
And speaking about logical mistakes; of course, we are not mathematicians: we thought fairly straight forward that if the inflation was 70 points, we assumed that the 1970 ratings was not inflated, and todays are, so we had to add the inflation to the 70's ratings and subtract this from todays writing. A friend of ours notified this already a couple of days ago.
Re: Martin (Freiburg)
Don't you worry, we know exactly when to use "we" and when to use "I". Intuition is not always that easy to convert into words but if you look through all our writings, you will see a rare consistency.
Zarathustra
Posted by: Leo
I too apologize to Henrik Carlsen for my contributing to this ever more pointless discussion. This will be my last entry on this matter.
Z,
You are a philosopher? All right. That makes your arguments even more surprising to me, and you in turn are obviously missing my point. Philosophy or linguistics are hardly the appropriate tools for resolving doubts or questions regarding the Elo rating system of chess. It is just an algorithm, for heaven´s sake.
Again, I agree with you that the preoccupation with rating and rating achievements is unfortunate. However, if that is indeed the most precise formulation of your problem, I fail to see its relevance, at least to this forum - in fact, considering the impression of yourself that you convey, I have to ask myself what your real problem may be. Nevertheless, I of course wish you good luck with your quest to unveil the relation between the Elo system, human language, and what not.
Finally: the first paragraph in your response to me seems to indicate that you have the capability to appreciate irony and subtext. I therefore find it hard to believe that you actually thought I was looking for your forgiveness.
My final statement would have to be a resounding "whatever!".
/Leo
End of communication.
Z,
You are a philosopher? All right. That makes your arguments even more surprising to me, and you in turn are obviously missing my point. Philosophy or linguistics are hardly the appropriate tools for resolving doubts or questions regarding the Elo rating system of chess. It is just an algorithm, for heaven´s sake.
Again, I agree with you that the preoccupation with rating and rating achievements is unfortunate. However, if that is indeed the most precise formulation of your problem, I fail to see its relevance, at least to this forum - in fact, considering the impression of yourself that you convey, I have to ask myself what your real problem may be. Nevertheless, I of course wish you good luck with your quest to unveil the relation between the Elo system, human language, and what not.
Finally: the first paragraph in your response to me seems to indicate that you have the capability to appreciate irony and subtext. I therefore find it hard to believe that you actually thought I was looking for your forgiveness.
My final statement would have to be a resounding "whatever!".
/Leo
End of communication.
Posted by: Gegga
Please, could everyone stop writing anything to Z.?
He could start his own blog or something, if he wants to write essays.
He could start his own blog or something, if he wants to write essays.
Posted by:
JEZUZZZ
Posted by: Des Tann
And the answer is:
schizophrenia, along with narcissism and delusions of grandeur.
In addition to the pompous and inappropriate use of 'we,' the perseveration in its use is diagnostic, as is
the confused logic.
The projection displayed by phrases like 'knocking you off your perch' confirms the diagnosis.
These types, particularly on the internet tend to be failures in life.
Drawing attention to themselves by this behavior is their chief aim, so responding is counter productive, since even negative responses encourage the behavior.
At the very least, it's a good idea to avoid using their names, especially narcissistic pseudonyms.
=o)
schizophrenia, along with narcissism and delusions of grandeur.
In addition to the pompous and inappropriate use of 'we,' the perseveration in its use is diagnostic, as is
the confused logic.
The projection displayed by phrases like 'knocking you off your perch' confirms the diagnosis.
These types, particularly on the internet tend to be failures in life.
Drawing attention to themselves by this behavior is their chief aim, so responding is counter productive, since even negative responses encourage the behavior.
At the very least, it's a good idea to avoid using their names, especially narcissistic pseudonyms.
=o)
Posted by: Zarathustra
To all:
We just asked a question and you turned this into something else. Had you been able to read what we wrote or tried to focus more on content than form, all this noise of yours would have been avoided.
Re: leo
The reason the question was formulated was the sense of there being a problem somewhere seeing how overly obsessed people are with rating and the problem between numerical systems and natural language.
And no, we are not a philospher, we are into welding.
The defence rests you honour!
Zarathustra
We just asked a question and you turned this into something else. Had you been able to read what we wrote or tried to focus more on content than form, all this noise of yours would have been avoided.
Re: leo
The reason the question was formulated was the sense of there being a problem somewhere seeing how overly obsessed people are with rating and the problem between numerical systems and natural language.
And no, we are not a philospher, we are into welding.
The defence rests you honour!
Zarathustra
Posted by: Rolfo
It wasn't that bad Zarathustra using "we", I think it was funny :)
And he is a welder, quite forgiving in itself..
And he is a welder, quite forgiving in itself..
Posted by: Henrik C.
All,
thank you for your enthusiasm in the above contributions.
And don't appologize!
I (or "we" if you like) happen to think that I know Z quite well and consider him a likeable fellow.
There are far worse things going on in this world than fairly humorous and philosophical discussions as above.
I honestly find much of the internet chess blog comments of impressively high quality compared to for instance Norwegian journalism in general.
A lot of you obviously have many talents. Thank you!
Henrik C.
thank you for your enthusiasm in the above contributions.
And don't appologize!
I (or "we" if you like) happen to think that I know Z quite well and consider him a likeable fellow.
There are far worse things going on in this world than fairly humorous and philosophical discussions as above.
I honestly find much of the internet chess blog comments of impressively high quality compared to for instance Norwegian journalism in general.
A lot of you obviously have many talents. Thank you!
Henrik C.
Posted by:
Des Tann is a wise man !
Posted by:
Thank you Henrik, for your gentle, gracious comments. When I saw the
Otto Jespersen interview of Magnus on Rikets Røst I was impressed by the modesty and humor of Magnus.
It is a great tribute to his father that a young man of such extraordinary talents appears so well adjusted.
I am among those whose abilities in chess prevent me from truly appreciating the way the game is played at the highest level, but it is fun nonetheless to follow Magnus's games, especially when they are available live.
As a Norwegian American I confess some chauvinism in following his career.
A note on language:
As a native English speaker, I am in awe of the fluency displayed by those of you who learned it as a second tongue.
I am grateful, and although I do not speak or write this difficult language perfectly, I care about its subtleties.
The use of the royal 'we' may be one of those usages that native speakers who only aspire to perfection are hypersensitive to.
Thanks again.
Otto Jespersen interview of Magnus on Rikets Røst I was impressed by the modesty and humor of Magnus.
It is a great tribute to his father that a young man of such extraordinary talents appears so well adjusted.
I am among those whose abilities in chess prevent me from truly appreciating the way the game is played at the highest level, but it is fun nonetheless to follow Magnus's games, especially when they are available live.
As a Norwegian American I confess some chauvinism in following his career.
A note on language:
As a native English speaker, I am in awe of the fluency displayed by those of you who learned it as a second tongue.
I am grateful, and although I do not speak or write this difficult language perfectly, I care about its subtleties.
The use of the royal 'we' may be one of those usages that native speakers who only aspire to perfection are hypersensitive to.
Thanks again.
Posted by: Des Tann
I forgot to sign my name to the above.
Posted by: Tassilo
"I honestly find much of the internet chess blog comments of impressively high quality compared to for instance Norwegian journalism in general."
Definitivt sant. Det gjelder for øvrig også for tyske journalisme :-D
Definitivt sant. Det gjelder for øvrig også for tyske journalisme :-D
Posted by: Jorge
usa here.Magnus speaks better English than most of us. As a chess fan one can just
admire the skill
of the great players, past and present. But Magnus brings a breath of most invigorating air to the game. His unassuming way and self deprecating ironic humor
enable him to look at positions objectively. Underneath it all is a unquenchable fighting spirit. One question: considering his rapid rise the last 2 years what
area in his game does Magnus see as most improved, or is it a combination of factors?
admire the skill
of the great players, past and present. But Magnus brings a breath of most invigorating air to the game. His unassuming way and self deprecating ironic humor
enable him to look at positions objectively. Underneath it all is a unquenchable fighting spirit. One question: considering his rapid rise the last 2 years what
area in his game does Magnus see as most improved, or is it a combination of factors?
Posted by: Kjell Arne
Hi Hope Magnus will continue his progress and beat Anand by the autum!!
Posted by: SEDAT
Salut Magnus Carlsen,le petit "Prince" des échecs,le génie créatif,un "Mozart" échiquéen musical,bientôt
couronné "Roi" des échecs...!
Bon vent de la bise...!
Reynaldo.
P.S
C'est toi,qui m'inspire le plus,dans ce monde de brutes.
couronné "Roi" des échecs...!
Bon vent de la bise...!
Reynaldo.
P.S
C'est toi,qui m'inspire le plus,dans ce monde de brutes.
Posted by: Tony
Good luck for Biel Magnus.
Its good to see you showing loyalty to the organisers.
Its good to see you showing loyalty to the organisers.
Trackback
Trackback-URL for this entry:
http://blogsoft.no/trackback/ping/5959200
http://blogsoft.no/trackback/ping/5959200
