Bit of fun this.
So, one time you beat player A. Another time, A beat B - who also has beaten C. C beat D, D . . . How long is that chain until you reach Player Z who beat Kasparov? Well, how long is, in fact, your Kasparov Number. And this is the website that will work it out for you.
For instance, Adam FF beat David Howell in 2001. Two years later, Howell beat Speelman - who had in 1996 beat Yermolinksy. And way back in 1975, Yermolinsky beat Kasparov. So Adam has a Kasparov Number of 4. Impressive!
Of course, not every Streatham & Brixton Chess Club player will be on Chessbase Megabase 2005, which IBeatGarry.com use to work out these degrees of separation. I'm not, for instance. But then I beat Antony Cullen earlier this year - and he's there, with a Kasparov Number of 6. So, my Kasparov Number is 7. Dang, I need to work on that!
What's your Kasparov Number?
So now now we'll be queuing up to play Adam for a K number 5...better than taking on Tom for a measly 8....
I've beaten Peter Sowray, so I'll have a 3.
Speelman beat Kasparov in a televised speedchess game.
Doesn't that give Adam a Kasparov number of one less than stated? Or don't speed chess games count?
*Martin* - phew! I'm relieved. But I bet Adam is quaking.
*Justin* - wow! I don't know anyone with a 2, either. You're top of the S&BCC leader board!
*Jonathan* - they use ChessBase MegaBase 2005. I think that all on that database ought to be serious, meaningful, rated games.
So, I imagine, that means no blitz or bullet, novelty games, odds games, ICC games, simultaneous games, blindfold games, etc. I think if it included all of these less-than-serious games, most people would have a Kasparov rating of 3, and it would be a bit trivial. Although may be it does include a few examples, I'm not sure.
Anyhow - I don't think it'd be a good idea to include every game ever played. I for instance have beaten Fritz before at 1+0. Fritz has beaten Kramnik. Kramnik has beaten Kasparov. (Maybe Fritz has beaten Kasparov too, who knows.) But I don't think that really counts.
I have a Kasparov number of 2 if speed chess/or simul games are allowed. I beat Adams in a normal game****waits for wow*****- ok he was 11 at time (albeit junior under 11 world champion) and he has beaten Kasparov in a simul and rapidplay. If this doesn't count, I am sure there are 1,000 ways to 3 via him.
(Andrew posting btw)
Andrew - I don't think simuls count. I replied to jonathan about something similar at length, but on the ChessWorld chess forum Paul Georghiou put it a more concisely:
"I don't think you can really count simuls otherwise anything can count. GM Colin McNab has drawn with Kasparov and I beat McNab at Scrabble. Does that count?!!?"
So, you're currently o'only' at 5!
Has Adams (not Adam) never beaten Kasparov in a game at normal time limits?
No Adams has not beaten Kasparov in a normal time limit game and never will do now. Surely I am on 3 not 5 as I am sure that Adams must have beaten over 50% of the players who have beaten Kasparov. I have also beaten McShane (when he was an IM) and there should be a route there in 4 and possibly 3.
Also beaten Forintos (FIDE rated game) who has beaten Smyslov, who has beaten Kaspaov
*Justin* - nope, I have two wins on my database. One in a simul, one in a speed game.
*Andrew* - of course you're three as you've beaten Adams, who is two. I was just kidding you around before :)
I'll have a 4 please, as I beat David Howell at the International Students Congress in London a few years ago!
Mm, maybe it was a mistake letting my non-chess friends know about the blog . . . !
It's a shame dodgy games don't count.
I've beaten Luke McShane's Dad - I'm assuming LM'sD has beaten LM at some form of chess at some time - even if it was only by sending him to bed then winning on time.
By that reckoning I might have been on for a Kasparov Number of 4 or 5 according to an early reply.
As it stands I'm pretty sure my real Kasparov number is infinity. My best chance is beating somebody who's beaten David Howell. That would give me a five. I assume it's happened - a lot of Surrey League players must have beaten him when he was likkle - but who knows whether it's true or not?
On a happier note, that probably also means old Garry has a Bryant number of infinity.
The reverse question is quite interesting too! GK has a Chivers Number of 3 via Basman, who beat me in the Civil Service Open eearlier this year, that one is easy.
I wonder if there's anyone in the club with a lower Kasparov Number than Kasparov has Their Number though? That'd be impressive. Or if there's any regular play in the world, for whom Kasparov has a Their Number of infinity?
Kasparov number now 4...
Post a Comment