World Chess Champs start tomorrow

Thanks - Damn good site. Have you ever tried their training programs? I'm getting interested in chess again.

yogibear wrote:

This site usually has live games and computer analysis from all the major tournaments.

http://chessbomb.com/

ventolin^3 wrote:

J.R. wrote:Are you serious. Do people really sit and watch a chess match for hours?

Well not me, that's for sure.

not since karpov in mid-80s

he wouda edged fisher in '75

karpov - best player of all-time at his peak

That was the most retarded thing I´ve read in a long time, moron. Plain drivel, you offer nothing.

most chess players seem autistic (able to focus on one thing and subpar in everything else)? Kasparov seems to be an exception since he has taken on Putin.

mako wrote:

llort wrote:

Running is more trainable than the ability to play truly world class chess. IMO, at the pointy end of chess those guys are more genetically gifted than the top marathoners.

The lady from this document:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wzs33wvr9E

and her sisters and father don't agree. They say anyone can become a world class chess player if training properly. She and her sisters were a scientific experiment of his father: he placed an advertisement looking for a woman with whom he could have children and train them to excellence. He succeeded.

I agree with this and that's what Fischer did, he learned how to train, how to improve, and dedicated his life to it.

dkny64 wrote:

for "converting" running speed to chess rating, I believe speed [in MPH] for 5 miles x200 works well. This gives:

14 mph [4:17 pace] -> 2800 = among the best in the world

13.5 mph [4:27 pace] -> 2700 = solid pro but not at the top of the sport

13 mph [4:37 pace] -> 2600 = might be able to eek out a living as a pro, very impressive for an amateur

12 mph [5:00 pace] -> 2400 = high-level amateur or promising junior

11 mph [5:27 pace] -> 2200

10 mph [6:00 pace] -> 2000

9 mph [6:40 pace] -> 1800

8 mph [7:30 pace] -> 1600

7 mph [8:34 pace] -> 1400

and so on. Basically, as a former hack 1850, I feel comfortable saying that once you get below 1800 in chess, you're talking about kids and adults who never quite got the hang of the game, and players between 1800 - 2200 are typically making some effort but also have big flaws in their play.

.

Those comparisons seem about right. However, according to Running USA, the median 5k time is 28:31 ( 9:10 pace). And the average tournament player is about 1400 (minus scholastics).

A 2200 rated chess player is above the 98th percentile among chess players and a 16:00 5k (26:40 5mile, 11.3 mph) runner is comparible to the 2200.

36:12 / 1875elo wrote:

This is too generous to the runners. You can get to a 6:00/mi 5mi in a year and no one is an expert in a year.

Using 10k times:

26:40 -> 2800

27:00 -> 2750

28:00 -> 2700

29:00 -> 2650

30:00 -> 2550

31:00 -> 2450

32:00 -> 2350

33:00 -> 2250

35:00 -> 2000

37:00 -> 1800

40:00 -> 1500

.

Why do you think that you (anyone) can get to a 30 min 5 miler in one year?! I asure you that just anybody can not reach 6:00 min pace for 5 miles in one year. Some runners would fail after many years of training to run that fast.

A 40:00 10k (6:44pace) is certainly better than a 1500 chess rating. The 33:00 is pretty close to 2250 though.

That lines up well with me...1450 in high school, 18:12 5k PR

michael furey wrote:

Subfive wrote:

.

Carlsen most likely wins. He's about half the age of Anand and age matters.

Plus he he's the higher rated player.

I think these grandmasters are like sub 13 5k runners If that's about right, a master (2200) would be like a sub 16 5k runner. And a 1400 rated player like a sub 25 5 k runner?

Hmm lemme see here...

"Super grandmaster" => under 13 mins, the best in the world. Actually on second thought under 13:10.

Grandmaster (this doesn't mean as much as it used to) => sub 13:30

International Master => sub 14

>2200 elo => sub 15

>2000 elo => sub 16

And then for every 200 elo points, 1 extra minute added to the 5k time, (17 mins =1800, 19 mins = 1400)

I'm amused because my own take is that anyone who takes Chess truly seriously for a year can become an expert, but relatively few people, no matter how seriously they take running, can break 30' for 5M.

Anyway, my little 5 mile race 200 xmph thing started from observing the distribution of race results in NYRR events, which strike me as attracting a similar range of abilities as large, relatively low entry fee chess tournaments.

And I have to add, 1500s [at least when I was playing in the late 70s / early - mid 80s] were truly bad players - just not even close to as good at playing chess as 40 minute 10k runners are at running.

dkny64 wrote:

I'm amused because my own take is that anyone who takes Chess truly seriously for a year can become an expert, but relatively few people, no matter how seriously they take running, can break 30' for 5M.

Anyway, my little 5 mile race 200 xmph thing started from observing the distribution of race results in NYRR events, which strike me as attracting a similar range of abilities as large, relatively low entry fee chess tournaments.

And I have to add, 1500s [at least when I was playing in the late 70s / early - mid 80s] were truly bad players - just not even close to as good at playing chess as 40 minute 10k runners are at running.

This is an idiotic post, all of it.

Camazotz wrote:

Hank Moody wrote:

I'm shocked that people actually know the names of chess players. Not making fun at all - just shocked. Is it on espn? Did you guys grow up playing or something?

Is it "shocking" that people "actually know the names" of professional distance runners? If not, then why would you be shocked that there are those who know the names of professional chess players?

You're joking right? Running might not be super mainstream but come on, don't be an idiot.

Greatest distance runner of all time.... Haile Gebrselassie (debatable, I know)

Greatest chess player of all time... Gary Kasparov

On every continent except Africa, Kasparov's name is more recognizable.

*Garry

Actually it's Gasparov, you might as well say Gary if you're gonna say Kasparov.

Accent on the second syllable, too.

Idiotic because no one really cares about 2nd rate runners or 2nd rate chess players

OR

idiotic because you see an obviously better way to establish a rough equivalence between runners and chess players?

dkny64 wrote:

Idiotic because no one really cares about 2nd rate runners or 2nd rate chess players

OR

idiotic because you see an obviously better way to establish a rough equivalence between runners and chess players?

Idiotic because you said someone can become a chess expert in a year. I stopped reading after that

Interesting. I learned the rules when I was a little kid, started playing tournaments in HS, worked at it some but never as seriously as I think I "should" have and got to be an A player but never made it to expert. I came away with the impression that if I had ever tried as hard at chess as I did later in life at running, that I could have become an expert with one solid year of effort, but I can't claim to have empirical evidence that's true. I do feel comfortable saying that low experts [at least when I was playing] were seriously flawed players, and that I had enough contact with players up to the 2500 level or so to think I had some sense of the differences between a "typical" 2000, "typical" 2200, etc.

Do you play in chess tournaments nowadays, and if so, what is your take on the level of play + how it compares to the quality of running in, say, local road races?

Well, actually, it's neither. It's Garik Kimovich Weinstein.

I hope you're catching the smug sarcasm here...

And it is Kasparov with a K.

http://www.kasparov.com/

dkny64 wrote:

I'm amused because my own take is that anyone who takes Chess truly seriously for a year can become an expert, but relatively few people, no matter how seriously they take running, can break 30' for 5M.

Anyway, my little 5 mile race 200 xmph thing started from observing the distribution of race results in NYRR events, which strike me as attracting a similar range of abilities as large, relatively low entry fee chess tournaments.

And I have to add, 1500s [at least when I was playing in the late 70s / early - mid 80s] were truly bad players - just not even close to as good at playing chess as 40 minute 10k runners are at running.

.

It's difficulty to believe that you believe that; "anyone who takes chess truly seriously for one year can become an expert"????! That's ridiculous. Did you really play in tournaments as an A player?

You're correct about few people being able to break 30 min for 5 miles. The same applies to becoming an expert chess player.

And then you go and say that 1500 players are "truly bad players". Truly bad??? These are slightly above average tournament players. It seems over the top to say they are truly bad.

interested to here why wrote:

Subfive wrote:

Carlsen most likely wins. He's about half the age of Anand and age matters.

Does history show that it's helpful to be below a certain age when it comes to chess? Better neural connections or something? I'd be really interested to here why.

Age matters just as it does in any human activity. In running, performance drops due to aging a bit sooner than in chess.

The mean age of the top 100 chess players in the world is 30.12 years. The youngest is 17 and the oldest is 48. Anand is 42, the 4th oldest of the top hundred. Carlsen is 22 and is the strongest player in the world and probably not at his peak.

And you'll notice that Kasparov is inactive, he's 50. Karpov is 62 and not even in the top 100 anyomore and yet he was the strongest player in the world...when in his 20s. I doubt if the strongest players lose their powers just because they've lost interest in competing at chess at the highest level.