Re(1): Actually, we have talked about it Posted on March 30, 2023 at 11:06:52 AM by Craig G
That's good. I was mistaken with the 'nobody wants to tackle' and 'not addressed' comments. Not in 'the literature' - that part was correct - but it was initiated by yourself in the forum.
However, if I had written, "adequately addressed", then by my standards the statement would have been correct.
Here is an embodiment of what I am talking about. The Evergreen Game
We have a very brilliant player, Adolf Anderssen, with a supremely clever masterpiece game that may never be forgotten. Then, a year later the game was dissected by world class analyst Howard Staunton. (the style of chess pieces we are all familiar with are known as 'Staunton chess set') Then, 26 years later, the first official world champion analyzed it even further. The article goes on to state that the game has been extensively analyzed for 170 years.
Now, no disrespect intended, but as I see it, if we give the Evergreen analysis a 10, the investigation of the descending stats pattern for top players is more like a 2 or 3. Best case 4.
Do you disagree? Are you content with the conclusions? Have we gone as far as we reasonably can without having the 'game points' data? Replies:
