How bad were the old "GM's" really

I mostly agree with you. I would rule out Philidor, Morphy, Steinitz and Lasker, though. Especially Lasker.

Then again one has to remember that only with Steinitz started a more systemic understanding of chess. Up to Steinitz, there was the Romantic era of chess, where players just wanted to play wild combinations and sacrifices to checkmate the oposite king. It was Steinitz, who with his superior understanding of chess (for that time) who smoked his oposition and showed that there was more to chess than just wild crazy ass sacrifices and combinations. 

Perhaps you could. Back then, the main requirement was money. If you could put up enough money to play Steinitz or Lasker (who had defeated Steinitz in 1894) for the title, he may well have played you. You would have gotten your tail handed to you though. 

Hastings, 1895 was the big event of that year. Most of the best players in the world played that tournament, won by Pillsbury. The best games from that tournament are some of the best games ever. James Mason, who finished 13/22, was probably about expert strength by today's standards. But the top 5 were close to GM strength.

Lasker had defeated Steinitz in 1894, and had played at about 2470 strength. Do you really think you're +2400 strength?

No but remember I would have a far superior knowledge of openings at my disposal plus the knowledge that the King is not really an attacking piece. We all know games are often won or lost in the first 13 moves, that would be my edge.

You should also keep in mind that I have actively resisted getting a chess title for almost 20 years ,my rating is much higher than you might think.

SmyslovFan wrote:

"Nunn didn't argue that the best players of the 19th Century were Class A players. He argued that even the best players were not as good as today's best players, and they weren't even close. ..."

Where is there a quote of John Nunn expressing the view that "even the best players ... weren't even close [to being as good as today's best players]"?

SmyslovFan wrote:

"... Nunn ... analysing the Karlsbad tournament ..."

Lasker and Capablanca were not at the 1911 Karlsbad tournament.

SmyslovFan wrote:

"The St. Petersburg 1914 tournament was the first time 'Grandmasters' were officially awarded titles."

It is understandable that you believe this, but you might want to check out the efforts that have been made to find confirmation of this sort of claim. See the book about the tournament that Brandreth published. I think the Oxford Companion dealt with early uses of the grandmaster title.

http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/74417/NIPS2007_0931.pdf

This looks pretty accurate to me.

Yes, Louis Eichborn was clearly +2600 strength at a time when Morphy was 2200 strength, and Lasker was clearly inferior to Steinitz. 

The essay, written by Microsoft researchers, does not compare performances, just wins, draws and losses. This is a recipe for failure whenever comparing 19th Century chess players because there are so few tournament games played. 

Regan's method is to look at the moves made, not just the results. 

@ Jaime, thank you for sharing J.Mieses vs. H.N.Pillsbury, the Vienna Opening, Pillsbury third move is not bad and good alternate 3...Bb4 it avoids the tactical mayhem of 3...Nxe4, 3...Nc6 and "4...Bc5"is extremely risking move, so positionally wise 3..Bb4 is great move and safe. And for the tactically inept the final position 23.Kxe4 Qe2+ 23.Kd5 Be6 mate. 

 Pillsbury's exhange sacrifice is not only correct but aesthetically beautiful and brilliant, by a chess genius. If Pillsbury was born in 1990, he be in the top ten elite players.

That's a joke, right?

A most excellent graph, it basically proves my point for a second time, but I am saying that in a whisper as Duck season is clearly open and like most messengers and prophets of truth my insights do not sit well with some of cc's more aggresive members. 

The Microsoft paper and its methodology is ludicrous.  It has Spassky topping out at just under 2400.  Fischer at about 2500. Vishy and Kasparov at over 3000.

This paper was not checked against real world considerations, such as published ratings.

<EPIC FAIL>

i already told, chess is sport about stamina. what you are asking?

clearly as you age you understand more!

but of course you dont have stamina. it has nothing to do with old and new

Are you really this dense that you can't read the paper or the graph?

Ridiculous!!! Eichborn being almost 3000 elo, this study is not even valid,  Eichborn is higher than the two great chess genius Morphy and Anderssen. Well here is Anderssen outplay Eichborn positionally.  

Comparing this calculation against that of other players through history leads to the conclusion that Eichborn is the best chess player of all time. For example, whilst Garry Kasparov's best rating was 2851, andBobby Fischer's was 2785,^[7] Eichborn's performance against Anderssen would have given him a rating of almost 3000.^[2][6]

However, these calculations are highly unlikely to be accurate, particularly because it is not known how many games in total he lost against Anderssen - it is speculated that there may have been many.^[1] It is also unclear whether these games were played at odds - based on Anderssen's play in the surviving games, it has been suggested that any drawn game counted as a win for Eichborn.^[5] Realistically, the lack of known games played by Eichborn makes it difficult to assess his playing strength, although it is clear from his surviving games that he was a strong player.^[1]

The paper I posted doesn't use Elo.  If you're not going to bother to read any of it, don't waste time typing ignorant comments.

TheLastManOnEarth wrote: 

JamieDelarosa wrote:

The Microsoft paper and its methodology is ludicrous.  It has Spassky topping out at just under 2400.  Fischer at about 2500. Vishy and Kasparov at over 3000.

This paper was not checked against real world considerations, such as published ratings.

<EPIC FAIL>

Are you really this dense that you can't read the paper or the graph?  

It is hilarious how stupid you are. Dummy, this is not valid. Of you are too weak of player to understand this.

Hey, maybe you know better than the professionals who wrote the paper, but I doubt it.

TheLastManOnEarth wrote:

The paper I posted doesn't use Elo.  If you're not going to bother to read any of it, don't waste time typing ignorant comments.  

Look dumbass, estimate rating and strength and again too weak to understand the real strength of player. I played many games of past masters and you can barely understand how to move a knight. You probably believe the easter bunny is the current world champion.

Lighten up, Francis.

I do know better.  They failed to "truth" their findings. 

If their goal was to introduce a new rating system (TrueSkill), rather than integrate their methodolgy within the existing system, then they must necessarily pass the "sniff test". Stating Morphy has a rating of 2300, or Vishy has a rating of 3000, on their scale means very little for comparative purposes, because these are not the Elo ratings almost all chess players recognize.

TrueSkill fails the sniff test.