Will a human ever make 2900?

[Terry McCracken]

To paraphrase Inigo: "That number you keep using... I do not think it means what you think it means."

An Elo of 2900 is not some sort of absolute measure of chess strength. It represents a relative value compared to a standardized pool of talent. If the talent pool changes, the number moves, even though the real strength did not change.

You can run most Elo calculation programs and get them to parrot back any number that you like by simply setting a different baseline (or starting Elo for the members of the pool).

A "recalibrated" max rating list has RJF at 2881 for a period of one year:
http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/Peak ... 0000010100

and a total of 14 over 2800

• Player Name Average Rating 1 year peak range
  #1 Bobby Fischer 2881 1972-Jan through 1972-Dec
  #2 Garry Kasparov 2879 1990-Jan through 1990-Dec
  #3 Mikhail Botvinnik 2871 1946-Jan through 1946-Dec
  #4 José Capablanca 2866 1919-Jan through 1919-Dec
  #5 Emanuel Lasker 2863 1894-Jan through 1894-Dec
  #6 Alexander Alekhine 2851 1931-Jan through 1931-Dec
  #7 Anatoly Karpov 2842 1989-Jan through 1989-Dec
  #8 Viswanathan Anand 2828 1998-Jan through 1998-Dec
  #9 Vladimir Kramnik 2822 2002-Jan through 2002-Dec
  #10 Siegbert Tarrasch 2818 1895-Jan through 1895-Dec
  #11 Géza Maróczy 2815 1906-Jan through 1906-Dec
  #12 Harry Pillsbury 2813 1901-Jan through 1901-Dec
  #13 Viktor Korchnoi 2803 1978-Jan through 1978-Dec
  #14 Wilhelm Steinitz 2802 1886-Jan through 1886-Dec

+10!

[deefree49]

I wonder about Fischer's play in today's chess. He had a singular focus and a tremendous brain for chess. If he was at his peak and had access to today's computers and was able to study today's players, I think he would be either top or near the top.

Have human brains changed that much in 40 years? Fischer had a way of distilling chess down to its essence, its elemental truths while at the same time he could be brutally correct with his play. I have to say that he would compete favorably with Carlsen, Anand and Nakamura. The one I think that would have given him trouble was Kasparov in his prime!

This is all speculation of course and we will never really know. Chess is better now but Fischer had that burning desire and amazing ability plus, he could be so hard to deal with in a match!

[jorose]

It might have been more interesting, but honestly I think Anand today is stronger then Fischer was most of his career. As previously mentioned however its a completely unfair comparison. Computers have massively improved human play in my opinion. The focus has also shifted, other traits have become more important compared to previously.

In the end I think we should honor the greats of every generation for exactly what they were. Absolutely phenomenal players who under the conditions given to them outperformed their peers and got as close to perfection as was possible for their time.

Comparing generations any more than that is simply not objective. Would Carlsen have been able to thrive in the financial situation of chess at the end of the 19th century before Fianchettos were popular? Would Lasker have been able to thrive after the world war 2? would Kasparov be so dominant if he played today when all his opponents are far better prepared then even he was just 15 years ago? I cannot claim to know.

[reflectionofpower]

It might have been more interesting, but honestly I think Anand today is stronger then Fischer was most of his career. As previously mentioned however its a completely unfair comparison. Computers have massively improved human play in my opinion. The focus has also shifted, other traits have become more important compared to previously.

In the end I think we should honor the greats of every generation for exactly what they were. Absolutely phenomenal players who under the conditions given to them outperformed their peers and got as close to perfection as was possible for their time.

Comparing generations any more than that is simply not objective. Would Carlsen have been able to thrive in the financial situation of chess at the end of the 19th century before Fianchettos were popular? Would Lasker have been able to thrive after the world war 2? would Kasparov be so dominant if he played today when all his opponents are far better prepared then even he was just 15 years ago? I cannot claim to know.

''

I agree with all your statements except the one where Anand was better than Fischer in his career. The one thing that stands out in my mind as a huge gulf between the 2 is the killer instinct. Anand is too nice of a guy whereas Fischer wanted to destroy,kill,cripple his opponents. This is why he is going uphill against Carlsen.

[Henk]

What about the rating of Philidor ?

Perhaps the ELO rating should be corrected somehow for the amount of available chess knowledge at that time or perhaps whether there was a (world) war going on so they could not play.

For instance if you are the best player in 1915 but you can not play chess.
Or you must join the army for otherwise you get shot.

[Henk]

Also remarkable is that Steinitz became world champion when he was fifty years or older. His opponent Zukertort died two years later when he was 46.

The match of 1886 in St Louis must almost have been a match of live or death.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1132645

[reflectionofpower]

What about the rating of Philidor ?

Perhaps the ELO rating should be corrected somehow for the amount of available chess knowledge at that time or perhaps whether there was a (world) war going on so they could not play.

For instance if you are the best player in 1915 but you can not play chess.
Or you must join the army for otherwise you get shot.

No Philidor,yeah, you can search on chessmetrics site and he's not there but it's probably because their is not enough info around to compare him to.

[reflectionofpower]

Also remarkable is that Steinitz became world champion when he was fifty years or older. His opponent Zukertort died two years later when he was 46.

The match of 1886 in St Louis must almost have been a match of live or death.

Yeah, Zukertort started off great,lost the first game won 4 straight and then only won 1 game in the next 15! it probably was the death of him. I do recall him feeling "unwell" after Steintz started tearing him apart. Zukertort dying at 46 is not that long of a life.

[Henk]

Strange as a human when you have a rating of 2000-2200 you are considered an expert but a chess engine doesn't need much knowledge to achieve that rating.

So looks like they are an expert of nothing (in respect of knowledge). Deep search is enough.

http://en.chessbase.com/post/arpad-elo- ... ing-system

[reflectionofpower]

Strange as a human when you have a rating of 2000-2200 you are considered an expert but a chess engine doesn't need much knowledge to achieve that rating.

So looks like they are an expert of nothing (in respect of knowledge). Deep search is enough.

http://en.chessbase.com/post/arpad-elo- ... ing-system

It's like an expert player spends much time in refining his game and then someone gets a pet rock and it plays better than him,heehee.