GameKnot: play online chess

↔

GameKnot Forum
[ mod this thread ] << - < - > - >>

From

Message

hewhomateswins

11/05/2008
12:37:04
[ report abuse ]

Subject: How do top Gameknot games compare to GM games?

Message:
I am interested to know how games played on this site between the top players compare to the games of grand masters, or even world championship games in terms of quality. Are they of lesser quality because the players (although excellent) are not professional and therefore do not dedicate most of their time to chess like professionals do, or are the games of an even higher quality than GM's games because of the much longer time allowed per move and the luxury of being able to refer to databases and play out possible variations on a board instead of in the mind?

ccmcacollister

11/05/2008
17:57:12
[ report abuse ]

Very interesting question...

Message:
I would imagine some are pretty well comparable. I haven't personally looked at enough to say about that, but look forward to some others commenting on it. I suppose I could say this: I know a player here who went over 2500 in FIDE play who is over 2450 here now. Tho correspondence and otb skills vary, and a player may be rated differently in both or the same ... usually the correspondence play is objectively stronger. I would think he must be playing a game as good here as someone perhaps rated 2600 to 2800 in otb would be. Meaning comparing the game quality of the two, they should approximate that range of equivalency, if one can compare Postal to being like GK. And how much better their game is when they go correspondence generally depends how many/much actual correspondence skills they choose to utilize. It would be very informative if that player might choose to answer this as well. Or those in similar circumstance.
My own outlook on the Question comes from comparison of GM games to those of persons Postal CHesss Master and above. In that actual arena, it was my feeling that a person Postal rated 2300 (in a quality organization, say national level) for instance, could produce a game quality pretty regularly, that would take an otb player of 2500 to even 2700 to replicate. With spurts into games of 2800+ quality being not so uncommon either.
So a postal IM/GM might easily enough be making games suitable to be seen in an otb WC. imo
}8-)

Ps// And while otb has its adventuresome GM, into new things like Morosevich (or maybe Ivanchuk back while he was 'trying to find himself', so to say, with the Black pieces), it seems to me that correspondence players may be a bit the more adventuresome! (My own corr. games ranged from about 62-72% involving some sac or gambit by one of the players. And much time spent combing MCO for misassessments, and much looking for new ideas on a board.) Of course they can also be all the quicker to shut down a game that is going no where new ... rather then spend a year or two looking at that!~

ccmcacollister

11/06/2008
21:58:34
[ report abuse ]

Suprised ...

Message:
you havent gotten more input. I was really hoping to see what others thought.

Was thinking a bit more about this the other night. Perhaps I am wrong, since my study of current GM games is a bit limited to put it lightly. But it seems to me another question arises: Compared to current GM games or past GM games, say in the 70's. It seems to me that the games then were perhaps cleaner, perhaps due to longer time controls.

How do others feel about that, I wonder? Is it true? It seems to me the nature of the otb game Has changed.

hewhomateswins

11/10/2008
11:40:21
[ report abuse ]

Thanks ccmcacollister

Message:
Thanks for your enlightening views ccmcacollister. And yes it is a shame that nobody else made any comments on what I thought was an interesting and original thread. Perhaps if I had asked a lame and pointless question such as "Who would win a fantasy match between Fischer and Kasparov?" half the people on the site would have something to say. Never mind.

ganstaman

11/10/2008
17:54:31
[ report abuse ]

Message:
I think this is an interesting topic, but I don't have anything to add. It's hard for you to know who supports your thread when too many of us (I'm assuming) feel unqualified to answer your question.

wschmidt

11/12/2008
12:32:07
[ report abuse ]

I second ganstaman's message.

Message:
I know just enough about the game to know what I don't know, i.e., the nuances of master-level play are mostly beyond me unless a master level annotator is pointing them out to me. Comparing the quality of top-level GK play to OTB GM games is simply something I can't do.

This brings up an interesting question though. Why is it that people who can't play music can authoritatively compare high level musicianship (not just likes and dislikes, but skill)? Similarly, mediocre football players can make informed judgments about high-level players. Same for people who don't write fiction. What's different about chess? Are there other areas of endeavor where this holds true? What about architecture?

blake78613

11/21/2008
09:52:33
[ report abuse ]

Message:
the anology to football escapes me. I don't understand why a mediocre football player couldn't make an informed judgment about high-level players. Seems like some very good coaches were mediocre players.

bogg

11/21/2008
10:02:13
[ report abuse ]

wschmidt

Message:
I would guess that the reason that people can be knowledgeable on subjects that they can't perform would be because there are two components necessary for performing while only one necessary for understanding.

CTC (Bogg)

Post a reply to this message:

[ Help | Site map | Rules and Policies ]