The graph of played moves shows one thing - only the moves of Wilhelm Steinitz were markedly weaker than of the all other World Champions. If we could exchange Morphy on the place of Steinitz even that would be not the case. So the observation that in the past players played rubbish does not stand. Basically Capablanca Alekhine and Fischer would even nowadays be in the top five players ( this shows the graph of the moves checked by computers ). By chessometric some standard they calculated that Alekhine was 2670 which would be then couple of years ago number 18 in the world and Capablanca was 2680 which would be number 12 in the world. Complete nonsense - nobody could name 17 better modern day chess players than Dr Alekhine and 11 better chess players than Jose Capablanca. What is the truth than nowadays you have 15 times more excellent players than in the past but that does not mean that the geniouses like Morphy, Capablanca, Dr Alekhine and Fischer would not be the very top even nowadays. Winning today some 21 category tournament when is inflation of high elo ( at the same time by deflation of other elo caused by lowering of the initial elo down to 1000 from 2200 ) does not mean that winner can suddenly spring on the classification over the very best classical chess players ever ( Morphy, Capablanca, Dr Alekhine, Fischer ), it is just one more nonsense of chessometrics and their so called statistics .
Posted on: Sat, 01 Feb 2014 04:29:47 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015