|
First, there is an intrinsic problem with just using a person's age in years when talking about chess is that, with individuals reaching such heights at younger and younger ages, 20 going on 21 and just turned 19 becomes a huge difference in age. For instance, look at how the list of youngest grandmasters is now tabulated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_grandmasters#R...). Carlsen reached the world #1 something like 18 months before Kasparov - this is a large difference on these scales. Second, rating inflation is a continuing trend. According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methods_for_comparing_top_chess...), "the average of the top 100 active player rose from 2644 in July 2000 to 2689 in January 2010, a 45 point increase." As such, we can presume that Carlsen's rating is also about 45 points inflated, and thus closer to a 2770 compared to Kasparov's 2853 - an enormous difference at that level of play. Moreover, there have never been several others over 2800. In fact, only 5 have ever surpassed that mark, and Kasparov was the first - followed by Kramnik about the time he beat Kasparov for the championship, followed by Anand, Topalov, and Carlsen. It is a highly elite club that few, even with inflation, will ever join. Finally, of course the contests were close - that is the nature of chess. The position begins drawn, and only through tiny blunders on the part of one player does the position become unbalanced to the point of being won for one player or the other. I suppose what I mean, to be more precise, is that it is often the opinion of those within the chess community that Kasparov was, equivocally, the best chess player during the two decades beginning with his ascension to the Championship until his retirement from the game. |