Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
"Old School" Poker Argument Brought to Chess "Old School" Poker Argument Brought to Chess

05-12-2024 , 02:59 PM
Fide rating or online rating ? cause if fide they would be FMs or IMs

after 6 months , they would be able to neutralize all the 'old opening repertoires' and get an equal position quite easily , disallowing any 'brain' edge that BF could have ..

after 1 year they would be GMs and basically only play equal or slightly better positions , which would inevitably lead to them being a favorite to win

another year just studying endgames , and i dont think Bobby would have any change of getting off with more than a draw on a classical game, and most likely get destroyed in rapid and blitz


if we're talking about Gary Kasparov at his prime , when he had a crazy opening repertoire , basically openings that he 'made up' that are still used nowadays as computers proved that some of them we're actually 'GTO' couple of examples , the 'no castling' Najdorf , and the kings indian defense as black , but he did get quite stubborn with white , as when he lost the world championship vs Kramnik was because he always got an equal position after 10 moves vs the berlin defense , and didnt get a win with white 'iirc' as at the time the berlin was considered a 'bad response' to the spanish , and today its considered the best , and people usually play the sicilian, petrov or french with black if they need a win . In this Berlin match after 10 or 20 moves of theory , white comes out with very few pieces and a very small advantage that usually leads in a draw, and if white pushes too much , it gets double edged , reason why d4 and c4 and the italian became more popular in the last 5 to 10 years or so


IMO:

Fischer would get easily outplayed
Kasparov would fair better , but if it was after the WC with Kramnick , im pretty certain that he would've studied the Berlin and would be able to still be a favourite as his tactic skills match no other
vs Carlsen obv absolutely no change to be a favourite as he has access to computers too

Note : that all 3 of these have/had an 180/190 IQ, so even a 2500 GM doing nothing else but studying for 2 years , the numbers of combinations in chess , they would pbb improve 100 points max , maybe(?) get to 2700, quite unlilkely tho, and still be an underdog vs Kasparov and Carlsen regardless.. Fischer im not so sure , he didn't play for too long and the game was still pretty unexplored

Last edited by MartimC; 05-12-2024 at 03:08 PM.
"Old School" Poker Argument Brought to Chess Quote
05-12-2024 , 04:36 PM
just think that fisher was the first to give a higher material count to a bishop vs a knight , at that time they were both worth 3 pawns , and fisher said that the bishop was worth 3.15 , kasparov came up with 3.25, but the engines after millions of games agree with fisher .. at a time that people were still figuring out that bishops were better than knights , i really don't see how any IM studying openings and endgames for 2 years would not be able to get an equal position or better after the opening .. yeah they could get outplayed after .. but if you come out of the opening at 0s or -0.2/-0.5 , you're not a favourite to win vs an IM nowadays
"Old School" Poker Argument Brought to Chess Quote
05-13-2024 , 07:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MartimC
after 1 year they would be GMs and basically only play equal or slightly better positions , which would inevitably lead to them being a favorite to win
... are you saying anyone who's an IM can become a GM with one year of study? Come on.
"Old School" Poker Argument Brought to Chess Quote
05-13-2024 , 12:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil S
... are you saying anyone who's an IM can become a GM with one year of study? Come on.
i mean i thought we were talking about up and coming players .. maybe i should've mentioned that ...

but i still think that there are a decent amount of IMs in their 30's that stagnated their game, and just dont wanna bother putting in the work..
ofc if its a 2300 IM , in his 40s/50s , that already peaked at 24++ , then no.. ī

but 2400 to 2500 should be doable for most IMs with intense studying and playing, obv not talking about getting the title in itself, as that takes way more time, and getting the norms requires over the board games.. but they could be at 2500 FIDE

2500 to 2600 would be another story...
"Old School" Poker Argument Brought to Chess Quote
05-13-2024 , 02:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MartimC
i mean i thought we were talking about up and coming players .. maybe i should've mentioned that ...

but i still think that there are a decent amount of IMs in their 30's that stagnated their game, and just dont wanna bother putting in the work..
ofc if its a 2300 IM , in his 40s/50s , that already peaked at 24++ , then no.. ī

but 2400 to 2500 should be doable for most IMs with intense studying and playing, obv not talking about getting the title in itself, as that takes way more time, and getting the norms requires over the board games.. but they could be at 2500 FIDE

2500 to 2600 would be another story...
OP said players in their 20s, which these days aren't the up and comers.
"Old School" Poker Argument Brought to Chess Quote
05-13-2024 , 03:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil S
OP said players in their 20s, which these days aren't the up and comers.
i truly believe than any IM in their 20s with a coach + studying openings and tactics , could reach 2500 Fide in 1 year , and the difference between that and 2500 to 2600 is massive , and for some regardless of how much study they put in , some might just not be able to do it , while others could .. but im discussing getting from 24++ to 2500 , and keeping that elo , which should give them the GM title sooner or later

can see by the games that results are still pretty close between a 24++ IM vs a 2500-2550 GM, and how they get clearly ouplayed vs a 26++ GM

there's also other ways to do this in an easier way, by playing selected tournments , and assuming 100% focus on getting a GM title , it really shouldnt be that hard for a 20y/o IM

theres quite some GMs that bumhunted tournments to get they norms .. but theres no such 'cheat codes' to reach 2600

and the difference between a 2500 and a super GM is massive, simply because of that i think

Last edited by MartimC; 05-13-2024 at 03:29 PM. Reason: super gm 2700+
"Old School" Poker Argument Brought to Chess Quote
05-14-2024 , 03:42 AM
I think some people here have no idea how fisher was over the top at his peak to believe a 2400 today would be greater after 2 years…
I mean why it doesn’t happen more often from the last years to see many players going from 23-2400 to 2700 ?
Are we suppose to assume all those 2300-2500 players aren’t taking chess seriously ?

Fwiw an old fisher came back 20 years later in 1992 and evaluated around 2650 being around still 10-15 top players in the world !
No one ever had such a huge gap that fisher created with the number 2 of the world in 1972.
Which means his true elo was probably even higher then what it really was .
there is no way in my mind a 2400 in 2 years could be as strong as peak fisher .
200 elo rating from 2400 to 2600 is light years different then 2000 to 2200 .

Anyway here is a thought .
just give fisher 6 months with a computer of today …


Again i think this is a pretty good representation with this ę little Ľ video…
I especially like the last 1min to make a clear picture of what we really speaking about imo.


Last edited by Montrealcorp; 05-14-2024 at 03:47 AM.
"Old School" Poker Argument Brought to Chess Quote
05-14-2024 , 02:13 PM
well he mastered 2 openings at the time , d4/c4 , and always played the sicilian ...
when challenged by an up and rising Karpov that was extremely positional too and would dry out the position quite fast against d4/c4 , and was also an expert on 1.d4 , but could also play 1.e4, whilst fischer never really played enough games with e4, which most likely would be necessary to not come out of the opening with equal positions vs a player that he could try to outplay , but Karpov never gave much room for tactics and avoided big complicated lines by closing the position if needed , which is way more difficult to do vs 1.e4, and thats really why Fischer retired , cause he thought he could lose .. yeah he came out of retirement and played spassky again , and yeah he used e4, but that was 20 or so years later , where i bet he spent a lot of time looking at e4 and analyzing games from other top pros ..

if you only play d4/c4 nowadays , and your opponent knows it , and esp someone like Karpov that at the time knew pbb all the side lines used at the time , its quite easy to neutralize the opening if you solely have to prepare for d4/c4 for a match , and as white if you know your opponent is always gonna play the sicilian , you can literally decide if you wanna play for a small advantage, for a draw or go into the more tactical lines , like the najdorf or the dragon , but can also just avoid all of that , and play an equal position .. fischer would not be up to par to trying to play other openings vs a 2400 with 1 year to prepare for those openings , theres just no chance ...

and thats where i think you guys are confusing everything , his opening repertoire it would not be enough to cause enough issues to anyone that could blitz out the first 20 moves and always get an equal or better position ..

compare that to 10 or 15 years later , and you have kasparov playing 1.e4 , 1.d4 , 1.c4 , 1.Nf3 , and would play both 1.e5 and 1.c5 vs 1.e4 , with some karos and frenchs and petrovs in there , and would play the QGD and Kings indian Defense vs d4, and c5 is not really an opening you can play every single time and expect to get an advantage vs a well prepped player

having to prepare vs 2 openings , or 6 or 7 , its obviously a massive difference , and enough to completely change the outcome


and if anyone says , fischer would change his openings , yeah gl with that , any 2400 knows more theory about those than fischer ever did , cause computers, and way more info nowadays , theres no way he would be able to get an edge out of another opening, truth is that he avoided Karpov and even when he came back to play , it was against someone he knew very well , that was already approaching his 60's while fischer was 10 years younger still, his fear of losing , made him part ways with chess due to losing motivation .. nowadays we know in psychology that lost of motivation can be caused by the fear of not being successful


yeah give fischer a computer for 6 months.. i mean that would obviously change everything ,and make this thread pointless as ofc he would keep outplaying everyone

Last edited by MartimC; 05-14-2024 at 02:29 PM. Reason: giving fischer a pc for 6 months , wasnt part of the deal :D
"Old School" Poker Argument Brought to Chess Quote
05-14-2024 , 04:27 PM
I really think Fischer would've lost that match , he would be trying to play Karpov at his own game , equal positions , and slowly outplay him, which was pbb what karpov ate for breakfast, so he would struggle to get a win out of Karpov playing d4/c4 only... He would not be prepared or not have enough time to prepare to play the Ruy-Lopez vs Karpov + he knew that if he always played the sicilian , he was in a disadvantage , as he would have to work much harder to squeeze a win with white compared to Karpov , so not having the Spanish up to par, he would've most likely lost the match , and for those same reasons i think he would lose vs someone that could study openings for 2 years thats already an IM . he would lose in the first move ..

he did get a win and a draw vs spassky actually playing the ruy lopez with white , but he didnt play it a lot overall , so maybe its not that black and white, but doenst change my reasoning , after drawing he didnt play e4 again , and it was a quick draw , so i still stand by him not thinking he could get enough with d4. vs karpov, and didnt think playing e4 would be a good idea vs Karpov

Last edited by MartimC; 05-14-2024 at 04:39 PM. Reason: misinformed
"Old School" Poker Argument Brought to Chess Quote
05-14-2024 , 05:09 PM
Martin….
To think a 2400 player with 2 years of training could be as strong has the goat of chess of his time just because you think fisher couldn’t adjust openings is just ludicrous .
There is a reason it took like 20 years before anyone could reach his peak elo, solely by another goat .

Ps: fisher wasn’t dominating just because of his opening btw …
Fisher played for years the same general great opening and an entire country like Russia with full of top GM and all time great couldn’t do a damn thing ….
And u think a low 2400 with 2 years training could top them ???

At best the 2400 will equalize in the opening and get destroy in The middle game vs peak fisher .

FWIW just look at the video I post .
His a IM at the time , he surely already study hard with computer and still see a huge difference between him and a super GM .
Today I think his a GM now and still lagging behind ..

Fisher was not just great because of his talent , he might of been the hardest worker ever in studying too.
"Old School" Poker Argument Brought to Chess Quote
05-14-2024 , 06:05 PM
If you took a random IM and gave him time to prep specifically against peak Fischer's repertoire, then let him play one game in isolation against Fischer, he might win by some opening trap that wasn't known in the 70s. That is, it was possible if the IM got lucky and Fischer played one of the openings he was able to prepare against, and it was one with a glaring weakness. Fischer did generally stick to the openings he liked, but the openings he liked were very deep and well studied even then. But the Soviet system had the same advantage and THEY couldn't beat him.

So it's important to ask: are we talking about a one-game ambush, or serious match play?
"Old School" Poker Argument Brought to Chess Quote
05-14-2024 , 06:27 PM
either way , its hard to find since he never played Karpov.. which was just not one of the top gms in the USSR , he was a young prodigy that was already challenging for the world championship and bobby just didnt wanna play 24 games against him, he wanted to play less.. Everyone is entitled to their opinion , but Kasparov is undeniably the goat of his era , and maybe even the goat , with what he had at the time , and how much he dedicated to chess, and all he did for it .. 'Kasparov leads Karpov with 28 wins, 20 losses, and 119 draws in 167 games'

think it was pretty clear but fischer didn't wanna face him , his style would drain Fischer out , and karpov was very versatile .. he would at least lose rating points , and never be able to reach 2800 ..

as contrary to kasparov and carlsen who both reached 2850+ without 'selecting opponents' , for Fischer he'd knew he would lose rating points , he knew he could lose the match , ofc he didnt want to play 24 games , that for me it shows that his peak rating was not gonna pass 2800 with an uprising Karpov , so why bother , he had a big issues ... and he was the one that said it 'if i win im an hero, if i don't im not'


theres no need to play complicated middle games with todays opening theory , like i said , if he deviated he would pbb end up with a worse position .. and its 2 years of studying openings vs 1970s openings , match starts , you play 2 days 1 day off.. long games , theres just no brain capacity that would be able to adjust to completely new openings that are completely sound
"Old School" Poker Argument Brought to Chess Quote
05-14-2024 , 06:42 PM
And you think your 25 year old IM, who either quit before hitting GM or couldn't get the norms, has the brainpower to withstand this match?
"Old School" Poker Argument Brought to Chess Quote
05-14-2024 , 07:39 PM
well, you only reach your intellectual peak at 35 y/o, theres not a lot of money to be made in chess , only the top 20/30 live from chess income (tournments), most of those IM could arguably reach GM with more study, they pbb realized that that would be a lot of effort and they would still never be a 2600 GM, but 2024 openings vs 70s openings , i mean its such a huge difference .. 80s/90s ? not so much.. and a truly dominating player like kasparov kept on playing main line berlin vs kramnik , because 'it had to be worse' even without getting a win out of it , i think fischer would be equally stubborn , and even if he wasn't , would take him countless hours to check out one line in a new opening , while you can check it in 5m on a computer
"Old School" Poker Argument Brought to Chess Quote
05-14-2024 , 08:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MartimC
either way , its hard to find since he never played Karpov.. which was just not one of the top gms in the USSR , he was a young prodigy that was already challenging for the world championship and bobby just didnt wanna play 24 games against him, he wanted to play less.. Everyone is entitled to their opinion , but Kasparov is undeniably the goat of his era , and maybe even the goat , with what he had at the time , and how much he dedicated to chess, and all he did for it .. 'Kasparov leads Karpov with 28 wins, 20 losses, and 119 draws in 167 games'

think it was pretty clear but fischer didn't wanna face him , his style would drain Fischer out , and karpov was very versatile .. he would at least lose rating points , and never be able to reach 2800 ..

as contrary to kasparov and carlsen who both reached 2850+ without 'selecting opponents' , for Fischer he'd knew he would lose rating points , he knew he could lose the match , ofc he didnt want to play 24 games , that for me it shows that his peak rating was not gonna pass 2800 with an uprising Karpov , so why bother , he had a big issues ... and he was the one that said it 'if i win im an hero, if i don't im not'


theres no need to play complicated middle games with todays opening theory , like i said , if he deviated he would pbb end up with a worse position .. and its 2 years of studying openings vs 1970s openings , match starts , you play 2 days 1 day off.. long games , theres just no brain capacity that would be able to adjust to completely new openings that are completely sound
For your information , fisher was so high he did lose elo pts even by winning the WC match …..
Fisher had more of a mental problem then being scared to play karpov or anyone else .
And for your information , fisher did surprise everyone by opening C4 once in the WC match vs spasky and he destroyed him .

And fwiw , in world championships match , Karpov fought Kasparov 5 time and over 144 games , the difference is only 2 wins more for kaspy !
They were extremely close in strength.
Basically imo karpov just choked some matches .

Anyway there is no way in my mind a 2400 just in 2 years would beat fisher while the entire world backed by countries like Russia or other players themselves couldn’t do it even tho they knew exactly what was fisher was going to play in advance already …..
"Old School" Poker Argument Brought to Chess Quote
05-14-2024 , 09:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montrealcorp
For your information , fisher was so high he did lose elo pts even by winning the WC match …..
Fisher had more of a mental problem then being scared to play karpov or anyone else .
And for your information , fisher did surprise everyone by opening C4 once in the WC match vs spasky and he destroyed him .

And fwiw , in world championships match , Karpov fought Kasparov 5 time and over 144 games , the difference is only 2 wins more for kaspy !
They were extremely close in strength.
Basically imo karpov just choked some matches .

Anyway there is no way in my mind a 2400 just in 2 years would beat fisher while the entire world backed by countries like Russia or other players themselves couldn’t do it even tho they knew exactly what was fisher was going to play in advance already …..
fisher played c4 almost always vs spassky .. he didnt shock the world with c4, as he was alternating between c4 and e4 for the most part ..

well 1st WC match was actually cancelled by the USSR , as karpov took a lead and kasparov started recovering , the match didnt end , ence Karpov kept the title

Kasparov was in a much bigger disadvantage in terms of politics , he was the first player to ever take a stance against the USSR in public, after the match was canceled .. someone form the USA in the 70s/80s would have much more protection than Kasp did, he rebelled against the system , came back and won.. rules were changed in their 2nd WC match , if the game ended in a draw after 24 games , the champion would keep the title , and yeah everyone knew that FIDE was controlled by the USSR , larger than Russia, but he actually did smtg about it , and that changed everything at the time .. it would be way less privileged compared to someone coming from the USA

other than that you're just stating what i said .. you have magnus and kasparov as all time n1s , and karpov / fischer at close n2s

but we're getting off topic now , and you're just an american defending fischer with teeth and nails , errrm.. kasparov had balls of steal to do what he did , and yeah he was just slightly better than karpov . but one was backed up by the ussr , the other was a foreign that they REALLY didnt want him to become WC in moscow, so much that they played again 3 years later , and they played in spain .. and kasp won

theres little argument about this .. kasp was in a worse situation , and yeah everyone knew fide was 'rigged' but , just if he could win over the board ... and he did it .. and he didnt have the USA to back him up, Fischer didnt refuse to play the match , in the USSR , he wanted to play less games FYI

Last edited by MartimC; 05-14-2024 at 09:23 PM.
"Old School" Poker Argument Brought to Chess Quote
05-14-2024 , 10:42 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gler9fDuhRY

dont underestimate the material people have access to nowadays , going from not knowing the rules to 1950 rapid on chess.com in 1 year is pure demonstration of dedication and something completely impossible even 5 years ago
"Old School" Poker Argument Brought to Chess Quote
05-14-2024 , 11:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MartimC
fisher played c4 almost always vs spassky .. he didnt shock the world with c4, as he was alternating between c4 and e4 for the most part ..

well 1st WC match was actually cancelled by the USSR , as karpov took a lead and kasparov started recovering , the match didnt end , ence Karpov kept the title

Kasparov was in a much bigger disadvantage in terms of politics , he was the first player to ever take a stance against the USSR in public, after the match was canceled .. someone form the USA in the 70s/80s would have much more protection than Kasp did, he rebelled against the system , came back and won.. rules were changed in their 2nd WC match , if the game ended in a draw after 24 games , the champion would keep the title , and yeah everyone knew that FIDE was controlled by the USSR , larger than Russia, but he actually did smtg about it , and that changed everything at the time .. it would be way less privileged compared to someone coming from the USA

other than that you're just stating what i said .. you have magnus and kasparov as all time n1s , and karpov / fischer at close n2s

but we're getting off topic now , and you're just an american defending fischer with teeth and nails , errrm.. kasparov had balls of steal to do what he did , and yeah he was just slightly better than karpov . but one was backed up by the ussr , the other was a foreign that they REALLY didnt want him to become WC in moscow, so much that they played again 3 years later , and they played in spain .. and kasp won

theres little argument about this .. kasp was in a worse situation , and yeah everyone knew fide was 'rigged' but , just if he could win over the board ... and he did it .. and he didnt have the USA to back him up, Fischer didnt refuse to play the match , in the USSR , he wanted to play less games FYI
lol Iím Canadian Ö
Itís ok I spend enough time in a useless subject .
If u believe a 2400 with 2 years training can be as strong as the entire Russian chess school in the 1970 its fine by me .
Its delusional but its ok .
I just donít think u appreciate how a 300 elo points over 2400 really means .
The 1970s arenít the 1850s .


About the material people have access to , remember that endings in chess do not change Ö.
And fisher was a great ending players.
"Old School" Poker Argument Brought to Chess Quote
05-15-2024 , 01:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montrealcorp
lol I’m Canadian …
It’s ok I spend enough time in a useless subject .
If u believe a 2400 with 2 years training can be as strong as the entire Russian chess school in the 1970 its fine by me .
Its delusional but its ok .
I just don’t think u appreciate how a 300 elo points over 2400 really means .
The 1970s aren’t the 1850s .


About the material people have access to , remember that endings in chess do not change ….
And fisher was a great ending players.
your words , not mine..

at no point did i make such claim , all i said was that Fischer repertoire was limited , and could be exploited by a strong and young IM with 2 years of solo dedication to chess
i emphasized that studying for a bigger repertoire would become close to impossible ..

also i said several times that an IM can reach 2500 FIDE and get a GM title without actually having your average 2550-2600 GM skills , and i said that going from 2400 to 2500 in 2 years would def be possible and that above that things would change a lot ..

endgames haven't evolved ? ok
"Old School" Poker Argument Brought to Chess Quote
05-15-2024 , 10:12 AM
I'm not sure it matters whether general intellect peaks at 35, when we know some fields do require a different kind of thinking that leads to earlier or later peaks. Mathematicians tend to peak in their 20s. Chess players do too. Their 30s are when they tend to retire from top flight play.

Yeah you can find exceptions, but that's the bell curve for you.
"Old School" Poker Argument Brought to Chess Quote
05-15-2024 , 01:44 PM
i mean its easy to cherry pick the points that are ofc dubious on my part.. but thats all you guys are doing , and not addressing any of the others

kasparovs peak rating - 35 y/o
magnus peak rating - 28 y/o
fischers peak rating - 28 y/o
karpov's peak rating - 43 y/o m, he was 23 when he challenged fischer

there's clearly a correlation here of players reaching their peak later , just cause so much more was found about the game ,and even at later ages , those small things , could increase their rating

think assuming that someone in their 20s has reached their peak is just plain wrong

look at Hikaru, pretty much quit chess ... plays almost solely blitz online , and equalled his best result in the candidats , getting 2nd , at 28 and 36.. theres other factors that you're not including , age is a number nowadays , fischer would've been much older at 28 compared to someone nowdays being 28

theres only magnus carlsen and fischer that i can think of that retired at 30, and magnus didnt even fully retired as he can still crush everyone .. so dont know what you on about there



fischer quit before he even reached his peak ... he was scared .. if he'd lost to karpov on tha WC, which was a serious possibility , this thread wouldn't exist ..

maybe you reach your peak at their late 20s/ early 30s nowadays , but that wasn't the case pre solvers time, as people would come out with new ideas all the time , but in their 20s?? just no


and then there's players who choke , Caruana , Karpov .. and player who don't , Kasparov , Carlsen .. thats way more important than age. and then there's those who quit cause they know they can choke

sample size too small, Paul Morphy before Fischer for me .

no one asked , but my top 5 is

Kasparov
Carlsen
Karpov
Fischer /
Morphy

can only imagine how far Kasparov could go with the tools we have today , man saw 20 moves ahead tactical lines that not even stockfish can see nowadays, won the WC vs Anand with a 20 move prep game where the entire Anand's team missed 1 move on move 18 or smtg.. anand had spent 1h , while kasparov spent 10m cause he wasnt even at the board, and had a completely winning position just from prepping

man said something was fishy about his 2nd game with the IBM team 'Deep Blue' then ofc he went nuts and said that Karpov was involved etc.. only 20 years later the IBM team admitted to be lucky enough to have introduced that specific Karo-can variation in the morning before the game , otherwise they would've def lost

Last edited by MartimC; 05-15-2024 at 02:10 PM.
"Old School" Poker Argument Brought to Chess Quote
05-15-2024 , 03:59 PM
I am fairly competent to answer this question, having played competitive chess also pre-computer era, even beating a few grandmasters on classical time controls.

First of all, let's not underestimate how strong Fischer at his prime was. Chess was already quite developed, I mean we are not talking about the times of Morphy. I'm guessing Fischer would be around 2600 despite having a huge handicap in openings. People who think he would be higher don't understand how much chess has developed. Opening strategy, the middlegame strategy that obviously has a lot to do with the openings and even some relevant endgame discoveries (for example some R+4p vs R+3p). People who get slightly worse positions every game tend to look worse than they actually are (imo this is what often happens between strong amateurs and +2500 pros). Fischer would be the guy getting a slightly worse position in nearly every game as black and often getting nothing real as white.

Second, young guys with exactly 2400 now would on average have maybe 2475-2500 after two years of full-time study. The best of them might be 2600, so I don't think the correct answer is exactly zero, but of course it's close to it. I'm going with 2.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky
My question should have only concerned 2400s of today who haven't been using computers to this point. I realize such people probably don't exist but what I was actually interested in was whether the computers can add 300 points to an already excellent player.
Ah. No, I don't think the computer influence is not that huge. Also I'd say a simple database with all the meaningful games is as important as an engine. All this information available equalizes the field a bit. It's also important to understand that the distance from 2400 to 2700 is many times bigger than for example from 1400 to 1700. By maybe around 100 times?
"Old School" Poker Argument Brought to Chess Quote
05-15-2024 , 05:00 PM
change that 2400 to 2500 and that 2700 to 2800 and i think you get 100 times yeh

Last edited by MartimC; 05-15-2024 at 05:04 PM. Reason: with the same title GM
"Old School" Poker Argument Brought to Chess Quote
05-15-2024 , 05:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by amok
Ah. No, I don't think the computer influence is not that huge. Also I'd say a simple database with all the meaningful games is as important as an engine. All this information available equalizes the field a bit. It's also important to understand that the distance from 2400 to 2700 is many times bigger than for example from 1400 to 1700. By maybe around 100 times?
That's kind of why I kept assuming this was about Stockfish + Chessbase, not just an engine in isolation.
"Old School" Poker Argument Brought to Chess Quote
05-16-2024 , 09:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil S
That's kind of why I kept assuming this was about Stockfish + Chessbase, not just an engine in isolation.
a simple sub on chess.com gives you full access to a database with millions of games + stockfish 14 + every opening and variations , famous puzzles , can analyse every game .. one does not come without the other ... come on
"Old School" Poker Argument Brought to Chess Quote

      
m