The great chess masters of the past never had access to computers to analyse their games, nor would they spend so many hours a day reading chess books.  However, they created the greatest chess masterpieces.  I mean people like Capablanca, Marshall, Morphy to name just a few.  Chess players nowadays are not genuine, they use computers, read books, train with masters and rely so much on memorisation to play good chess.  This is not what chess is all about: using other people's ideas and getting help from every possible source to increase their chances of achieving victory in matches.  In fact, it's not them who win or lose but the people and softwares from which they have received their chess ideas. Chess today is simply artificial.  The golden age of chess ended more than 60 years ago.

Interesting opinion.

I disagree with you, but interesting anyway.

I agree to disagree.

Are trying to convince me that Bobby Fischer masterpieces weren't genuine because he read chess books?

If anything, IMO, I think that the chess is more genuine now, since the brillancies that occur are much more magnificent. Nowadays chess is much more competitive due to all the information out there. When a truly magnificent play occurs now, In my mind it might stand even more, not less significance than say Morphy tearing apart the competition. 

I can understand your point as far as opening goes, where some lines are quite extensive and there is just memorization. But no two chess games are alike and eventually you will be out of book and to produce winning games at the top levels nowadays, the middlegame imagination has to be extremely acute to pull a win out. 

Chess has always been a game of knowledge as well as skill, all that has changed is an increase in the body of knowledge.  You really think people like Capablanca et al didn't rely heavily on other people's work?  Of course they did.  You really think it's possible to memorise enough lines to play an entire game from memory?  Of course it isn't.

Ah, that darn German & his printing press caused all the problems.  If it wasn't for the printing press, those serfs would still be in their places digging with sticks instead of wasting their time reading.  And, now, that evil machine that can only count zero and 1 must be the cause of it all.  The same cries were, probably, raised against fire and the wheel.  Who says mankind has evolved?   

Sorry zuke!  They weren't better only different.  And, they had no one to be compared with. 

The computers are very dumb machines.  They just work very fast because they don't have to be concerned with the reason behind the question asked after children learn that one and one equals two.  The children say: "That's great teach!  What's a two?"  The computers have to convert it to zeros and ones and have no understanding of some thing as simple as two.  And a three --- Oh my God! What will we have to deal with next?  Armageddon?  

What does IMO mean?  I imagine its internet speak for some type of refutation or put-down.

IMO ... In My Opinion :) ... A terribly insulting putdown that should be banned :P

Thanks!

Uh duh, I can't think of a response to the question... Must be my lack of imagination....

idk i think chess games long ago were more interesting because masters back then used many different openings not just the few that are considered sound but i still think its great to watch to masters play

I find todays games infinity more interesting and compelling.

I would love to sacrifice my queen for mate in 6, but unfortunately it doesnt work out as planned and I look like a tool of the grandest scale.

uuuuuhhhhh using books and computers is called studying.

I believe that it was Spassky that was asked a similar question concerning top level chess of today as compared to the days of his peak and even generations before and his answer made a lot of sense to me. He said that before there was so much money in chess the greatest players strove to create beautiful games, games that would outlive them and through their masterpieces they would never be forgotten. He said that now many are more concerned with maintaining a high rating and getting a nice check and getting invited back to the elite tournaments so they dont risk/fight as much as they used to because they risk more..... I think this makes a lot of sense and seems a very reasonable explanation.

I think creativeness defines true genius. It's not that everyone can memorize lots of opening combinations. Many (most) can't. However, memorization is NOT what makes chess attractive.  It's the deep and creative thinking that most poeple love. I think the game has probably reached a point where most of the high level players of today would beat some of the champions of the past just based on their opening memorization because it would give them such a substantial edge (at least until the great players caught up).  I don't think that's an attractive situation. Anything that moved the game towards greater thinking and creativeness and away from memorization would be a good thing.   

I think I can speak with some authority here.  I had my "formative" years in chess when there were no computers/databases, only my hard work studying what books I decided to buy. 

There is still creativity in chess.  All you have to do is look at the recent WC match between Anand and Kramnik to see what I mean.  Yes, they used databases for research along with their seconds.  But, what resulted was both exciting and beautiful, especially in the Meran variations of the Slav that Anand employed so successfully.

If you think there is no beauty in chess just because of databases, I would say what you're really thinking is that you are frustrated.  You believe you could never play such great games because of all the database study you'd have to do just to get "up to speed."  However, nothing could be further from the truth.  It still requires inspiration (not to mention perspiration) to come up with the new idea, the new move, in any situation.  So what if the TN comes at move 20 rather than move 15? 

What I'm trying to say is, don't worry about the databases.  They're a tool, just like the books were for me.  I remember quite well how young players would say with dismay that they'll never catch up - they'll never be able to read as many chess books as I did "in order to get good."

It's a point of view, my friend, that's all...a point of view.

Regards, Zug

Well said, Master Zug.  well said.  and, I would add: some truly clever games can occur regardless of a player's rating.

One does not need to be a GM to produce a brilliant game - for that player.

If you memorize openings and spend all your time leaning over some database computer, you won't get better, you'll just go insane. Those tools are helpful, just like a steering wheel is in driving a car. But at the end of the day no one has their database open when their playing in the WC.

BTW, Zug said it brilliantly. Well done.

Zug,

I understand what you are saying and agree.  But since there has been a shift towards greater memorization and database use in recent decades, I think it almost has to have reduced the level of creative thinking.  It matters if the creative thinking starts at move 20 instead of move 15. Maybe not a lot, but it matters. That's 5 less moves for something new and brilliant to show up because it has already been studied to death.

I think that was one of Bobby Fischer's main goals behind Fischer random chess. He wanted to eliminate as much memorization as possible so that pure chess talent was a bigger factor in deciding who won over the long haul. In theory, a great player from 50 or even 100 years ago could step right in and compete with today's best players because he wouldn't be as disadvantaged by opening theory.