[billw55]

Jlall, on Apr 8 2010, 08:19 PM, said:

billw55, on Apr 8 2010, 08:13 PM, said:

It may be lol, but your conclusion in your first sentence is basically the same as I was making from my sports analogy.  Sometimes lol works? 

Once I was playing chess and I made the same move a grandmaster would have. I explained my reasoning to him and he was like lol. And I was like...but we came to the same conclusion so my thought process must have been good!

Only once?

But yeah .. when I play bridge, I make the same play/bid that Hamman would make, numerous times per session. But alas I am still lol. A man can dream

[Lobowolf]

Phil, on Apr 8 2010, 10:37 AM, said:

In sports, your available pool of players now versus 50 years ago is immensely larger. Combined with better training, the best players of this generation will rate to be better than the best of the old generation, and the field is certainly much 'deeper'.

In tennis, wouldn't you bet on a #20 seed of today against a Rod Laver?

Interestingly, with respect to bridge, the metric of pool size is at odds with the metric of "accumulated theoretical knowledge." i.e. we assume that the bigger pool creates better top players, but in bridge, we have a smaller pool than in the past. However, that is counterbalanced by the increased knowledge base available to all.

With respect to almost any predominantly physical sport, I suspect that training and evolution are as much to credit as pool size. They're just generally bigger, stronger, faster (though obviously this is mitigated somewhat in sports with weight classes).

[Fluffy]

jdonn, on Apr 8 2010, 05:26 PM, said:

billw55, on Apr 8 2010, 11:30 AM, said:

For your tennis analogy - even out equipment, and I definitely take Laver over the #20 player today.

I would take you up on that bet for a LOT of money, and frankly I'm sure Laver would lose 6-0 6-0. It's not just equipment. It's the population, both of the world and that play particular sports. It's knowledge about training. It's knowledge about nutrition.

WTF? Haven't you seen Rocky Balboa? he comes back and (almost) wins

[the hog]

If Tommy Haas was forced to play with a wooden frame raquet, then I would back Laver.

[zasanya]

Being from India I can't help asking.Is Sachin Tendulkar a better batsman than Sir Donald Bradman? ROFL

[jjbrr]

zasanya, on Apr 9 2010, 04:49 AM, said:

Being from India I can't help asking.Is Sachin Tendulkar a better batsman than Sir Donald Bradman? ROFL

I've been wondering the same thing.

[cherdanno]

billw55, on Apr 8 2010, 08:23 PM, said:

mgoetze, on Apr 8 2010, 07:09 PM, said:

I believe it is generally acknowledged that top professional Go players played near-perfect endgames as far back as the 16th century. In fact, the quality of professional endgame play has been declining sharply since the mid-20th-century due to altered playing conditions (a championship match is now over in 6 hours, rather than 6 months or more).

The opening, on the other hand... they are maybe a bit closer now but still far away from perfect. We'll need a few more centuries of accumulated knowledge, unless computers get there first.

True and it's not just the endgame. Openings and middlegames are less thorough was well. Game times have been shortened starting in the 1940s and on, to accomodate spectators, commetary, even television, and public interest in general. That has succeeded, in a way; the playing population has boomed. But mistakes do work their way in.

Go is an interesting model, because there has been a core of professionalism for more than four centuries. Bridge or even chess cannot compare to this. When this same debate comes up on the go forums, we see more players advocating ancient masters as greatest-ever candidates, and realtively fewer modernists who believe that the best players right now are the best players ever.

Hmm, I want to challenge that. Of course 3 hour time-limit games are played on a worse level than games without time limit. But on equal conditions, and playing with komi, I would take any of the Korean superstars against the oldtime masters.
(Just think about how much the level of go has improved in the last 25 years - it's not that the Japanese stars got worse, but they just got surpassed by new young players who are on a new level.)

Of course go is played at a much higher level than bridge anyway, so the difference between the 19th century masters and today is not very big.
(ducks and runs)

[hrothgar]

awm, on Apr 9 2010, 03:07 AM, said:

Of course, bidding is an entirely different story. Hamman was among the first American players to really emphasize having a coherent system, and surely the many methods designed (and adopted) by players since the 1960s are a significant advance. I find it easy to believe that Bob Hamman's bidding system is a lot better than it was in the 1960s.

This is almost laughable

The coaching staff of the Dallas Aces required that the players adopt well defined systems.

Some of the players - most noteably Bobby Goldman - responded by spending significant time / effort to develop a coherent systems.

Others, most noteably Hamman, decided that the path of least resistance was to copy, almost verbatim, a well defined system used by a dominant team.

Moreover, when I think about "Hamman", the words "innovative bidding system" don't spring to mind. "Brilliant declarer" does. Same with "Fierce competitor" and "Great Judgement".

It's entirely possible that the long term partnership with Wolff slowed down Hamman's ability to innovate and tinker. Even so, I really think that there are much better examples.

[cherdanno]

You forgot to mention "great defensive plays" in connection with Hamman. When I have read about a remarkable defensive play only found at one table of an important event (e.g. old World Championship finals) it was quite often next to the name Hamman.

[hrothgar]

On the sports front, there has been a phenomenal change in the size and speed of professional football players (American football) over the past 25-30 years.

Compare the stats for the average size of an offensive linesman in the early 80s with what it is now.

Then take a look at how fast these guys are able to run.

These folks are barely playing the same game...

I'm guessing that a middling foot team from this decade would crush any Superbowl winner from the 70s.

[jjbrr]

While Hamman's preferences for general approach might not be everyone's cup of tea and "innovative" might not be a good way to describe his approach, there are definitely no loose ends in his bidding. I know for a fact he is still looking for ways to improve his agreements, too.

[mgoetze]

cherdanno, on Apr 9 2010, 03:29 PM, said:

Of course go is played at a much higher level than bridge anyway, so the difference between the 19th century masters and today is not very big.
(ducks and runs)

So that's why you're concentrating on bridge nowadays...

[Jlall]

hrothgar, on Apr 9 2010, 09:44 AM, said:

Moreover, when I think about "Hamman", the words "innovative bidding system" don't spring to mind. "Brilliant declarer" does. Same with "Fierce competitor" and "Great Judgement".

This is definitely the world view of Hamman, but it is false. Hamman is actually a mad scientist at heart, and thinks about bidding and systems much differently than most people. You should really see some of his stuff, it is both weird and logical/good.

His reputation does indeed come from his partnership with Wolff, who would not even play keycard or transfers let alone any more exotic stuff. Since he left Wolff though his true colors have shown (most notably, you should have seen some of the stuff he was playing with Compton, the one partner he had for a while who would actually induldge Bob with his ideas).

That being said, of course Adam is right that the reason the teams today are much better than the teams then is that bidding has improved greatly, as well as general knowledge/principles/theory. Hamman is a good example because his cardplay is probably worse now than it was back then (no knock against Bob, simply an age thing), and his bidding judgement is probably only a little bit better, but everyone's systems now are much better than 50 years ago.

The fact that you think of Bob as someone who is a great cardplayer/judgement goes towards Adam's point unless you think that Bob and people in general do not play bridge at a much higher level now than 50 years ago. It's not just Bob who plays better methods and has better fundamental knowledge of bidding, it's all good players now compared to players 50 years ago.

[Jlall]

hrothgar, on Apr 9 2010, 09:44 AM, said:

This is almost laughable

The coaching staff of the Dallas Aces required that the players adopt well defined systems.

Yes but the point is card play theory then compared to card play theory now is basically the same, except signalling has improved on defense.

The best systems then are basically a joke now, and the general knowledge of the fundamentals of constructive bidding were not nearly as well known then as now.

The fact that the Aces and the Blue Team were required to have very well defined systems and lots of agreements doesn't matter much when their systems were so bad and they didn't know as much.

If you were to agree that the top teams now are much better than the top teams in the 60s (obv), and that Bob Hamman was a member of one of the top teams in the 60s, and is a member of one of the top teams now, then you would probably agree Bob Hamman is a much better player now than then.

Do you think it's because his cardplay or bidding judgement has improved? Obv no, it's because he has better agreements, more knowledge of constructive auctions, and bids better in general.

[Jlall]

cherdanno, on Apr 9 2010, 09:29 AM, said:

Of course go is played at a much higher level than bridge anyway, so the difference between the 19th century masters and today is not very big.
(ducks and runs)

Yeah, that's the thing to remember, bridge is still not played very well by anyone. This is mainly bidding and signalling though, and probably leads (not sure how good leads can become since they are random by nature, but I'm sure they could be much better than they are now). General declarer play and defense is not going to get much better at the top though, in my opinion, and hasn't gotten much better in a long time.

However in 2060 when we look back on the bidding and leads in 2010 I'm sure we're gonna be like lol what a joke, similar to how we do now when we look back at the auctions and leads in the 60s even between the aces and the blue team. There is a LONG way to go in bidding and in how well bridge is played in general.

[Lobowolf]

Jlall, on Apr 8 2010, 08:19 PM, said:

billw55, on Apr 8 2010, 08:13 PM, said:

It may be lol, but your conclusion in your first sentence is basically the same as I was making from my sports analogy.  Sometimes lol works? 

Once I was playing chess and I made the same move a grandmaster would have. I explained my reasoning to him and he was like lol. And I was like...but we came to the same conclusion so my thought process must have been good!

1. e4?

[gwnn]

hm weird what jlall says. it seems to me that not much fantastical news is in bidding theory nowadays... nothing as revolutionary as 1/1 forcing or weak twos. the progress is surely slower and slower, it doesn't look like today's systems are so ridiculously far from optimal..

[billw55]

Jlall, on Apr 9 2010, 01:42 PM, said:

The fact that the Aces and the Blue Team were required to have very well defined systems and lots of agreements doesn't matter much when their systems were so bad and they didn't know as much.

I would be interested in examples of ways in which their systems were bad.

[billw55]

cherdanno, on Apr 9 2010, 09:29 AM, said:

(regarding Go)

Hmm, I want to challenge that. Of course 3 hour time-limit games are played on a worse level than games without time limit. But on equal conditions, and playing with komi, I would take any of the Korean superstars against the oldtime masters.
(Just think about how much the level of go has improved in the last 25 years - it's not that the Japanese stars got worse, but they just got surpassed by new young players who are on a new level.)

Of course go is played at a much higher level than bridge anyway, so the difference between the 19th century masters and today is not very big.
(ducks and runs)

You are certainly not alone in thinking so. But you are not in such a large majority as the modernists in the bridge discussion, either.

Yeah the Koreans are astonishing. But there is some hope for Japan in the latest generation of young stars, for example Iyama Yuta, having taken the Meijin title at only 21 years old.

[Jlall]

gwnn, on Apr 9 2010, 03:26 PM, said:

hm weird what jlall says. it seems to me that not much fantastical news is in bidding theory nowadays... nothing as revolutionary as 1/1 forcing or weak twos. the progress is surely slower and slower, it doesn't look like today's systems are so ridiculously far from optimal..

This could not be more wrong. Funny you mention 1/1 forcing, how many top natural pairs play transfers over 1C now compared to 10 years ago? How many do you think will in the future?

Playing natural bidding over 1C in combination with walsh is just clearly not even close to optimal. You bypass diamonds almost always...gee that's awesome you almost never get to bid the first step over 1C. How can that be right? It's not, obviously re-ordering the steps so that 1D shows hearts and 1H shows spades is better if your entire system is geared around showing the 4 card majors first etc.

Walsh was an improvement over "up the line." Transfers are an improvement on Walsh, etc etc and so it goes.

How many good natural-based pairs bid 2C over 1M with all balanced GFs now? How many did 10 years ago? I remember when it was like zomg, maybe with 4-4 in the blacks we should bid 2C over 1H. Then it was like wow maybe with 4333 and stuff we should still bid 2C, etc etc.

This is a pretty obvious improvement, but still most pairs don't play artificial bids over the 2C bid which is another obvious improvement. Not saying that you are bad if you don't do this or that you can't win, I'm just saying it's clear that

1) Bidding is evolving in major ways in a lot of fundamental situations.
2) Bidding has a long way to go.

These are not even the "details" they are huge basic structural things.

This is not to even mention polish club or strong club etc. I know nothing about polish club or how evolved it is or how far it can go, but strong club auctions are pretty much in their infancy still. Meckwell do a lot of stuff, but few of the other top pairs who play strong club do much at all.

Of course memory issues will always exist. I'm not even talking about having completely artificial systems necessarily, I'm just talking about the right bids in basic situations similar to 1H p 2C wtih 3343 or 4324 etc etc.

The real innovations lately are coming in competitive auctions and slam bidding. Slam bidding and understanding of slam bidding/cuebidding now compared to even 10 years ago let alone 50 years ago is just soooooooooo much improved it's ridiculous. But it still has a long way to go.