From: tafrakes@athena.mit.edu (T. Andy Frakes)
Subject: Re: Fischers performance - rough calculation
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 16:22:44 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.084937.16378@husc3.harvard.edu>, glickman@husc10.harvard.edu (Mark Glickman) writes:
|> In article <arc5.63.718997647@chempc1.york.ac.uk> arc5@chempc1.york.ac.uk (Alastair Cargill) writes:
|> >With reference to the various calculations been given to show Fischers grade
|> >for the match - I have plugged the figures into the BCF way of calculating 
|> >grades and it shows that Fischer is playing at a grade 88 Elo better than 
|> >Spassky - whatever level you choose for him. This is only a rough calculaton 
|> >based on Fischers score of 11/18 i.e. 61%. If anyone finds fault with this 
|> >please dont flame as this was done on back of an envelope over a cup of 
|> >coffee!!
|> >Al
|> 
|> I get a rating difference of about 79 points (this was done on the front of a
|> TI-55 calculator, so no flames here either! :-)  ).  This assumes
|> the USCF rating assumptions.
|> 
|> I think it's difficult to estimate Fischer's and Spassky's current
|> abilities using their FIDE ratings as useful information (this is 
|> clearly true in Fischer's case, and debatable, I suppose, in Spassky's
|> case).  But the game outcomes from the last two months provide evidence
|> that Fischer and Spassky's abilities convert to a rating difference
|> of less than 100 points.  And if you believe that Spassky is no
|> better than 2550 (his most recent FIDE rating?), then simple arithmetic
|> tells you how strong Fischer probably is now.
|> 
|>               - Mark Glickman

One thing people might want to consider is how people often play
quite differently under different situations.  For example, if
you're playing a lower rated opponent in the first game of a
tourney, you have a lot higher chance of losing than if you played
that same person at the end of the tourney and you have a lot of
money on the line and he's already locked out of the prizes.  In
Fischer's case, it's even more so, I would suspect, given his
personality.  He has absolutely NO incentive to beat Spassky 10-0
as opposed to 10-8.  He could care less about ratings and all that
garbage.  He gets more money if he wins and that's the only
difference.  He believes he is the best chess-player in the world
and, as such, deserves an immediate match with Kasparov regardless
of how badly he beats Spassky. I'm sure he'd be playing much better
chess right now if he was playing Kasparov for the title.  Don't you?
The only reason to make a big deal about Fischer only being rated X
number of points above Spassky is lack of anything more concrete.
I would expect Fischer's rating to be higher than his performance
would indicate -- how much so, we cannot say for sure.  We won't
know for sure if he's still the best until he beats the "World
Champion" or loses a match with someone.  The quickest and surest
path to this much-sought-after answer is obviously through a match
with Kasparov.  The chessplaying community wants to know the
answer as soon as feasibly possible and will pay good money to
see it.

-- 
T. Andy Frakes (tafrakes@athena.mit.edu)