Modern Day vs Old Masters

[TexAg06]

I started this thread because I think the discussion is interesting but don't want to hi-jack the Aronian-Kramnik thread too badly. Here are the rules.

Two teams of 5 players will be assembled (hypothetically, of course) and will play in a 10-game match, in which each player from one team plays each member of the other team with both white and black. One team will have the top 5 players in the world today, from the latest FIDE rating list, and the other team will have the top 5 players in the world from the January 1953 list on chessmetrics.com (I picked 1953 because I like Zurich 1953, really any year will work).

Simple question. Which team would win and why?

Team 2012
1) Carlsen
2) Aronian
3) Kramnik
4) Anand
5) Radjabov

Team 1953
1) Botvinnik
2) Reshevsky
3) Smyslov
4) Najdorf
5) Geller

[valenzuela]

new masters.

[Dorilla]

Team 2012 will win. They would win even in fischer random. I just think the modern players should at least beat the 50's.

[Noir_Desir]

I think new GMs are generally stronger than those from the past era. Like the 1950s generation of soviet masters would have kicked Lasker's ass. Chess training and education builds on the wisdom of the old, adding new insights in the process. You would need a pretty exceptional figure like the early 70s Fischer or a sober Alekhine at his peak to break this trend. These were the guys who seemed ahead of their time.

[Pokerfarian]

Take the population of players who played chess in the 40s & 50s. Make it much bigger. Take the proportion of players who had access to decent tournaments. Make it much bigger. Take the knowledge known at that time. Build on it repeatedly for 70 years, in all aspects of the game. Make that knowledge far, far more accessible to the player base. Invent wonderful tools like databases and engines so strong they can almost be considered the "right answer". Allow all the top players to have spent most of their lives learning from these tools.

Tada, you have 2012. Now pick the best 5 players of this new population. Hmmm, I wonder if they're better than the best 5 players from the original population?

Cf nearly all sports & games.

Chess has a large drawing % and a relatively large advantage to white and yet I'd still expect the modern day masters to score over 75%.

[mightytiny]

Alright what about 1970's USSR vs the world match. Spassky vs Larsen....Fischer vs Petrosian...Korchnoi vs Portisch.... Heck Stein subbed on one board in the fourth round


so a team of Spassky, Larsen, Fischer, Petrosian, and Korchnoi....


Lets talk about this lineup...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_..._Belgrade_1970

Has the lineup for the ten boards of this event.....Lots of big names

[smilingbill]

Getting closer but the old dudes are still drawing pretty slim. My well calibrated guesstimator says they'd have a chance, unlike the first lineup.

[ganstaman]

Originally Posted by mightytiny

so a team of Spassky, Larsen, Fischer, Petrosian, and Korchnoi....

I'm not really familiar enough with the other old team to judge them, but this team looks really strong to me. I definitely give them the win.

[NajdorfDefense]

Ill take the 1970s team with Fischer Spassky Petrosian Korch et al and its not that close. I would take 2012 over 1953.

[mightytiny]

Over under on how many games Leko-Petrosian would draw in a 24 game match...21

[John_Douglas]

Ok, well obviously given the modern opening knowledge, the old masters would have serious problems even getting out of the opening. But modern players would have the edge even if something was done to lessen the effect of opening knowledge.

The players these days are simply much stronger than in the past. They have to be good because the competition is so much tougher. It's not just computers, it's the whole approach to chess, analyzing openings in depth, playing extremely concretely, giving maximum resistance.

I believe that Spassky, Fischer, Tal, Smyslov, etc. could reach the level of Aronian et al. if given the chance to adapt to modern chess. But if we are comparing the level of chess skill that they actually reached, then the modern elite players are much stronger.

[TomCowley]

Pretty sure the o/u on the 1940s crew is like .5 out of 10. The 1970s crew gets brutalized too, maybe their line is 1. They're just flat busted out of the opening every time as black and some of the time as white.

Fischerrandom would be far more interesting. I still take team 2012 with like 8.5 points and 7 points respectively.

[roblin]

what rating would you give Fischer at 960 compared to the modern guys? Naka/Carlsen -100?

[NajdorfDefense]

Originally Posted by mightytiny

Over under on how many games Leko-Petrosian would draw in a 24 game match...21

Over 21 for max, pls!

[NajdorfDefense]

Originally Posted by John_Douglas

I believe that Spassky, Fischer, Tal, ... then the modern elite players are much stronger.

It is laughable to say one of today's modern 'elite' [Grischuk? Ivanchuk? Adams? Karjakin?] is much stronger than Fischer. Prima facie absurd.