@playingsomerapid said in #29:
> and why do you think that the top-10 is a well chosen group size and 2000 some particularly relevant year? Also it is a bit questionable that the elo inflation in the early 2000s and the elo deflation of late 2010s early 2020s was not mentioned at all. Same with the drastically changed chess landscape in general (more tools, more focus on blitz) So in that way older players may be an interesting sample to compare with if we assume that chess progress was in some way slower in - let's say 60s-80s compared with today, at least outside of the absolute top players. Also many of the players of this generation kept their lifestyle for decades which can't be said for many of the 2000 top players in your sample. You mentioned yourself that motivation is a huge factor as well (which might be not that easy to implement in a formal model)
>
> So it is an interesting observation but rather a starting point than something to draw conclusions from IMO.
OFC this is not a completely decisive conclusion, but it is an observation from which we can draw conclusions. While they could be much more precise, they still can have value. OFC the ratings have also changed, but no one thinks that Topalov for instance is dropping rating every time he plays because of rating definition.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
Very nice blog @ebk1977, and a very interesting and relevant topic for all of us as we get older. Having only started to play chess as an adult, like a lot of users here, I can still hope to improve as I learn more (because I never hit a peak as a youngster to deteriorate from).
Of course, you are talking about the very top elite players and when they might go past their peak in this piece. You mentioned Ivanchuk, and I'm sure most of us have seen the recent heartbreaking video of him playing Danya and breaking down in tears afterwards, maybe because he was frustrated to still be brilliant but not quite as fast as he was in earlier years?
It is really refreshing to see a genuine blog article, not written by an AI and on a relatable level for a lot of players. Keep up the writing and I look forward to your next blog.
@Clementlau said in #28:
> Are you sure it is nonsense? I suppose the opposite. Besides, the author of this blog didn't even say it's a low level and 1980 chess was bad or something like that. And of course, the players you listed's prime were actually BEFORE they were 40.
Nope. Polugaevsky peaked in his 40s when he played candidates SF vs Korchnoi and almost won. He came closer in the 1980 match, at which time he was 46. Korchnoi lost the World Championship 6-5 that's obviously his peak. He was 47 years old then. Smyslov played candidates in his 60s.
Obviously the post I outlined is nonsense. You were demonstrably 100% wrong factually on their peaks but agree with the post because you want to believe it's true.
Finally that's not science or even statistics. No one has done any kind of experiment here where age is a separate variable and other things constant.
There is direct evidence already that world-class chess is possible long past 40s as I've shown here and all that's here is this vague sciency sounding, but utterly non-scientific vibes driven dribble.
@ebk1976 said in #23:
> @GlennJamesMax
> I appreciate you taking the time to comment, but I have to disagree with your assessment. This could only be true if I cherry picked evidence, which I did not. I took the top 10 from 2000, excluding cases who quit chess not because of age. I am not saying no one above age 40 plays well, Anand is an example I mention. This is a general principle, not a sweeping statement applying to all instances.
Why 2000? Did human physiology change in the year 2000? Or is that because it's an arbitrary date chosen because it doesn't contradict your random hypothesis?
Obviously given your point is about human physiology evidence from earlier is equally valid. Quality of chess is objectively measurable and as examples and Korchnoi and Polugaevsky show elite level chess is possible in late 40s at the very very minimum, although my opinion is mid-60s or even late 60s is also possible.
Human physiology didn't change in the last century. If it was possible to play at that standard in 1980s obviously it's still possible. That's why I'm calling this unscientific nonsense and an abuse of statistics.
Until you explain why a 2000 cutoff makes sense there isn't even any statistical validity.
If you made such a post on racial or gender lines you know what reception you'd get. Even if you inserted some "scientific" evidence. You deserve the same response for this illogical mass categorization.
Emanuel Lasker was still world champion at the age of 57, and was still among the top 10 at the age of 69.
!!!
@Clementlau said in #26:
> @GlennJamesMax
> It's true that other players have played very well long beyond this deadline here, but then you are only listing SOME players, ebk1976 is talking about average. But even to this point, you should appreciate how ebk1976 made this blog and stop using dang churlish words.
Such 'churlish' words would be the least of reactions if he made this post about women or black people for example, with 'scientific evidence'. I find this post to be basically the same thing. Illogical and denigratory generalizations based on pseudo-science.
Alexander Alekhine was world champion at the age of 51.
Adolf Anderssen was a top 5 player at the age of 59.
Wilhelm Steinitz was a top 5 player at the age of 62.
Alexandre Deschapelles was world champion at the age of 61.