Possible highest rated players of all time list.

[Kurt Meyer]

Agree: It deserves an Ig Nobel prize...

[Branko Radovanovic]

Karpov defeated Annand in a Championship match so there is a discrepancy right there.

There is no discrepancy, actually. The quote says: "These models can then be used to compute the win/draw/lose probability for any given match between two players." So, all outcomes of a match are possible - including that of a weaker player winning - they just have different probabilities.

BTW, Kenneth W. Regan used to argue that, contrary to what many believe, Elo ratings of modern players are not inflated (https://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/pape ... 12IPRs.pdf). Looking at Alliot's rankings, though, it seems that even if modern-day masters do generally play better than their predecessors, their ratings are inflated to some extent (e.g. Kasparov being ranked lower than Fischer).

[Leo]

Karpov defeated Annand in a Championship match so there is a discrepancy right there.

There is no discrepancy, actually. The quote says: "These models can then be used to compute the win/draw/lose probability for any given match between two players." So, all outcomes of a match are possible - including that of a weaker player winning - they just have different probabilities.

BTW, Kenneth W. Regan used to argue that, contrary to what many believe, Elo ratings of modern players are not inflated (https://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/pape ... 12IPRs.pdf). Looking at Alliot's rankings, though, it seems that even if modern-day masters do generally play better than their predecessors, their ratings are inflated to some extent (e.g. Kasparov being ranked lower than Fischer).

I guess I meant to say the ratings here are not etched in stone be any means.

[Leo]

Agree: It deserves an Ig Nobel prize...

What does IG mean?

[Leo]

Karpov defeated Annand in a Championship match so there is a discrepancy right there.

There is no discrepancy, actually. The quote says: "These models can then be used to compute the win/draw/lose probability for any given match between two players." So, all outcomes of a match are possible - including that of a weaker player winning - they just have different probabilities.

BTW, Kenneth W. Regan used to argue that, contrary to what many believe, Elo ratings of modern players are not inflated (https://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/pape ... 12IPRs.pdf). Looking at Alliot's rankings, though, it seems that even if modern-day masters do generally play better than their predecessors, their ratings are inflated to some extent (e.g. Kasparov being ranked lower than Fischer).

Very interesting paper.

[Dirt]

Agree: It deserves an Ig Nobel prize...

:roll:

What does IG mean?

It's just word play. Ignoble means not noble.

[Kurt Meyer]

About Ig Nobel prize

http://www.improbable.com/ig/

[Leo]

Agree: It deserves an Ig Nobel prize...

What does IG mean?

It's just word play. Ignoble means not noble.

I get it.

[MikeGL]

1 Carlsen
2 Kramnik
3 Fischer
4 Kasparov
5 Anand
6 Khalifman
7 Smyslov
8 Petrosian
9 Karpov
10 Kasimdzhanov
11 Botvinnik
12 Ponomariov
13 Lasker
14 Spassky

It is a very good and very thorough paper, but there are also weaknesses on this. Stockfish is very strong and would flag a repetition move as very bad and a blunder if the winning move is not played outright. There are position where a player needs to improve his clock by repeating moves thereby nearing the 40-move limit for a new time control and if you repeat position twice, SF would flag it as blunder even though the strong/optimum move is still available and will be played later after the repetition.

You will notice this if you watch live games at chessbomb where inferior moves are colored red by stockfish, and all repetition moves are always colored red even if a player has already seen the strongest optimal move.

I am sure this was not taken into consideration on that study. I was listening to some tutorial of Karpov and he was also playing some repetitive moves just to gain time, and those moves will be considered a blunder by SF8 when, in truth, it is not.

The weakness is evident when the World Champion Capablanca who has the fewest professional loses in history of chess is not listed on top 14. Maybe partly because, there's another weakness. Capablanca would simplify into a winning endgame with 1 pawn up rather than play accurately the complex lines in a winning position. Simplifying might not be the best, like choosing a +6.00 complex midgame winning line versus eval of +2.00 endgame with 1 pawn up would be considered wrong by SF.

[corres]

All chess engines have only one strong side: chess tactics. So to make comparisons between chess player with the help of a chess engine (Stockfish or not Stockfish) gives great advantage to chess players playing tactically and cause great drawback to chess players playing strategically.
Moreover without endgame database chess engines play endgames very irregular manner. To recite the endgame knowledge of a chess engine from Capablanca or other endgame experts is a stupid thing.
I think this article is only a play with statistics and Stockfish.