Allen,

Hope Howard laid some good odds, because even if you were to attain 1900 strength in this time, and we assume Howard's to be 1800, you'd still expect to score ~5/8.

As to your question regarding the layoff, I haven't played a game in over nine years, and know I'd be rusty as hell, though I often get on chessgames.com and check out different things there. When I quit playing (to take up poker, fool that I am!) I was 2200 US and FIDE 2186. Be lucky if that were much more than 2000 now.

Yeah puzzles would help with positions like #1 but just playing a lot would help with positinos like #2. I would eliminate mistakes like #2 first.

You can set up the puzzles on a real board. Also, I'm short, but when I play live I will at times sit up tall to get more of an overhead view of the board, almost makes it look more 2D.

I think I'm ready to sidebet on Allen C. When is the game to be played?

GL finding any takers..

cunningham will never get to 2100 in a year. depending on what his current skilll level is. I think the hardest part would be getting from 2000 to 2100

The prop bet is actually "just" to beat Howard Lederer in a game.

Pierre.

GL allen!!

nice

Might be interested under the right terms. However, the original post by Allen said something like he just has to beat him once and didn't really stipulate whether there was a limit on the # of attempts. I think Howard can hold him off for a few games, but obviously Allen should win the bet if they play 10 games or something.

I'm in the minority here, but I think a true 2100 player doesn't drop anywhere near as much as many of you think due to inactivity. Whether Howard was a "true" 2100 player is certainly up for debate.

I always remember a quote I read in CL many years ago from (I think) either Ilya Gurevich or Maxim Dlugy where they came back after some relatively long period of inactivity and stll performed reasonably well, where they said that serious chess study means you learn certain things about chess, and those things don't go away, and to beat them, you still have to overcome that knowledge. I don't think someone who misses Nd7 or Qe8 in the most recent two examples is going to do that (no offense Allen).

I think it was clarified that they would play one game.

There's a huge difference between the chess knowledge of a 2100 expert and a 2500 GM and I'd guess that relatively speaking, inactivity would impact a 2100 more than a 2500.

I might give some action too, depending on when the game is played and conditions

Yes but I also have my own experience to draw on as a rather out of practice 2100 level player as well

isn't Howard's current rating under 2000?

I looked it up, its 1951. This is why I want to bet. If Howard was 2100 I would not want to bet

I believe that rating is like 25-30 years old (maybe more). A 1951 in 1980 is different than a 1951 now.

And even more different is someone who has a 25 year old 1951 rating who hasn't played since.

For me, the key is that Howard said he won't prepare at all. If that's the case, then he will be very rusty and I like Allen's chances.

If Howard were to prepare even a little, that would change everything. Even say 10 hours of playing blitz would shake off a lot of rust IMO.

I think this effect is greatly exaggerated, especially when using USCF ratings. The top USCF rating lists had pretty high ratings even 20-25 or so years ago if I recall. Also I played actively 20 years ago, and I see no reason at all why 2100's today are any weaker than 2100s 20 years ago.

You're not even that old to have played actively 20 years ago. LOL. j/k

He may not be old but he may be wise.

Just consider the resources that Cunningham has that Lederer never in his chessplaying career had access to. The ICC, engines, ChessBase, much more opening theory, much higher level of training software and material available for all players. I think that it's a wildly inaccurate misconception that players who had USCF ratings of like 2200-2400 20-30 years ago, are better than the same rated players today.

It does depend a lot on the rate of inflation in the rating system, however the increase in overall playing strength helps to combat that effect a little bit, and I do believe from all I've seen that the inflation is much more rampant when it comes to FIDE ratings.

When I played in Boston this summer, players were commenting on how rating deflation was a problem in the USCF in recent years.

Presumably, if their comments had merit, it is being caused by the large # of scholastic players (with sub 1000 ratings) playing in adult tournaments and doing well.

I think the inflation talk is more of a relative than absolute strength problem. I think a 2100 USCF today would beat a 2100 20 years ago just because of computers, databases, and the like; however, a 2100 20 years ago was probably in a higher percentile overall than today.

Sounds correct to me, but we aren't talking about percentile, we are talking about absolute strength

so do you think Carlsen now would beat Kasparov in his prime?

Carlsen: 2826
Kasparov: 2851