The independent home for discussions on the English Chess scene.
https://ecforum.org.uk/
Absolutely! Keep your eyes glued because some guys are only number 1 very briefly.Tryfon Gavriel wrote:This is a "Must see!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2DHpW79w0Y
Cheers, Tryfon
Assuming it's reliable as to who was top at any one time, the absolute values appear to have been normalised to make the top player almost always in the range 2750 to 2800. If you wanted to measure absolute standard by quality of moves, it becomes necessary to resort to the witch finding approach where you correlate player choice to that of an engine or two. Even that is relative in assuming absolute knowledge for a current generation of chess engines.Tim Harding wrote: Absolutely! Keep your eyes glued because some guys are only number 1 very briefly.
You have to distinguish two things here. Firstly the data they are using, which for the period up to WW1 is chiefly Rod Edwards's very reliable annual calculations (see http://www.edochess.ca).The monthly changes for that period they have however got from somewhere else though they attribute to Rod; he does not break things down by month.Roger de Coverly wrote:Assuming it's reliable as to who was top at any one time, the absolute values appear to have been normalised to make the top player almost always in the range 2750 to 2800. If you wanted to measure absolute standard by quality of moves, it becomes necessary to resort to the witch finding approach where you correlate player choice to that of an engine or two. Even that is relative in assuming absolute knowledge for a current generation of chess engines.Tim Harding wrote: Absolutely! Keep your eyes glued because some guys are only number 1 very briefly.
If you want to attempt measurement of an absolute measure of chess strength, comparing the moves selected by the players to the moves selected by engines is a way to achieve it. If they reach the same positions, comparing how players handle them is another method, if a bit hit and miss.Tim Harding wrote: I don't know why you mention engines. We are talking about human versus human results, not move quality which is unmeasurable in this sense.
First of all, I should emphasise it is not one of my videos, so I have no egotistical investment if people say they think the video is rubbish etc!. In my opinion, the video I think they did is only as good as the historical data they used. That historical data of ratings as far as I can see is relative to the population available at that point in history. So fore example, if the pool of players was such in Morphy's era that he could beat everyone - then surely it is correct to say that not only he would be in effect Rank 1, but also be 2700. It would be like playing on a weak server and beating millions of "bunnies" in a row - but if the same person goes to another server, they would lose maybe 50% of games. Morphy basically by dominating his peers would have in effect a high rating as well as a high ranking - is that the premise behind those that do historical rankings and ratings?!MJMcCready wrote:That video is at best titillation and at worst utter nonsense. It''s not history as the title claims, it is, if it is anything non-history.
I think it is arguable.Tryfon Gavriel wrote:First of all, I should emphasise it is not one of my videos, so I have no egotistical investment if people say they think the video is rubbish etc!. In my opinion, the video I think they did is only as good as the historical data they used.MJMcCready wrote:That video is at best titillation and at worst utter nonsense. It''s not history as the title claims, it is, if it is anything non-history.