Yeah, that’s largely why I’m following it.
Yeah, even allowing for Magnus being absent, Ding and Nepo figure in the top 20 players of all time by elo.
Elo inflation is a thing though. Don’t think either of them belong in an all time top 20 list, not just yet anyway.
Games have been pretty good so far I think, as top level classical chess goes.
Ding seems out classed atm, he seems to be playing on Nepo’s terms inside of like 8 moves every game.
Even though I think it’s a joke, I don’t think we could find 20 guys in the history of chess who were better than Nepo and Ding. For example, everyone would put Capablanca on that list, and I think both Nepo and Ding would crush him easily.
This is standard “can’t compare generations” stuff like in all sports. Morphy would get crushed by modern GMs and probably IMs as well, but the way he schooled his peers is still classy as heck.
I prefer to think of it as what if morphy didn’t quit early age where many today keep going AND he had engines to train AND he had competition to push himself where he’d be rather than lol he’d be IM at best today lol. I’m sure someone evaluated his games at IM level at best but he had to travel months on a boat just to play anyone good in that era and got sick with LOL doctors and got ducked by the only other guy who might’ve put up a fight in that era (who thought he wouldn’t beat him obviously) anyway.
but he did completely lose his mind at one point which is like most in chess
also absolutely wild to me we’ve had more decisive games than draws after five
that can’t have happened in some time
Yeah I think you have to consider strength compared to contemporaries and career achievements as well as raw strength. If it was just raw strength it would probably be like Kasparov and maybe Karpov and then 18 guys from the era of modern engines.
Man, Nepo looked on life tilt at that press conference. I have to have Ding as a solid fave at this point. Nepo is not known for mental strength, really doubt he can keep his shit together for another 8 games.
Those single game performance ratings from chess.com seem like total bullshit. How am I over 2000 against bots but less than 1000 with the same accuracy against people?
Yeah, I guess the best way to put it is that there are really two lists. There is a GOAT list and there is a raw strength list. Neither is probably on the GOAT t20 list yet (winner probably will be). They’re both on the raw strength t20.
Performance and ratings against bots doesn’t really mean anything.
The rating system for individual games is completely useless regardless of opponent. I think one could argue that separating your accuracy score over the three game stages could help spot some deficiencies but the number as a whole is not representative of one’s actual ability.
For sure. I do feel for him though. Chess press are so bad. Just the dumbest and least professional questions.
The knowledge gap between chess journalist and chess grandmaster is probably bigger than in any other sport.
They can only ask stupid questions.
I’m not sure that they’d be any stronger in terms of ‘raw strength’ than say players like Svidler or Shirov or any other top 5ish tournament players in the 90s or early 00s. They’d have only one obvious edge, which is deeper/more accurate opening prep, but I’d be surprised if they’re any better out of book, in the middle game or in the end game.
I agree with you up to a point. But the one journalist who asked the exact same question as the previous journalist today was incredibly cringe. And the question last year about whether Ian cut his hair out of shame from a loss was just plain unprofessional. There’s dumb and then there’s oblivious.
Yeah, that’s the advantage. Maybe ‘raw strength’ wasn’t the best term to use on my part.
If we just have them play some chess960, peak Fisher might just crush them all.
I played a few closed games recently and analyzed them with Stockfish through chess.com. I really get the sense that Stockfish hates closed games. For example, I played a 24 move game (opponent couldn’t see obvious mate in 1 threat) and 6 moves were regarded as inaccurate because all 6 opted to continue the closed game rather than trade off pieces to open it.
Are closed games genuinely symbolic of suboptimal play or are chess engines not good at analyzing them? Personally, I like closed games because they force opponents to make difficult decisions which often leads to blunders that I can capitalize on. I also suspect that weaker players get bored/go on tilt and play poorly if the game doesn’t break open early.