I'm randomly curious about how a high-rated player from before Steinitz, back when the goal of chess was to sack pieces in spectacular ways (oh, and checkmate), would stack up in modern chess.  It seems like it would be too easy to say that they didn't have positional chess theories, so we're just unilaterally better.  Chess masters from any period are, after all, chess masters.

Or, to put it another way, if I, a USCF 1650 nobody, were to be accidentally zapped into the past, in which centuries if any would I be able to set myself up as a chess guru?

You'd end up losing tactically I think.

You'd probably get some nice positions out of the openings though!

No, a 1600 would be destroyed by the chess masters of any era :)  But like goldendog said, you'd likely get a nice opening.

OK, how about a relatively low-level master from today? I would guess that an FM or NM should be able to get recognized as the best player in the 1700s, despite the lack of official "champion" status.

1600s don't know any theory   They've barely moved beyond not hanging pieces to 2 move combos 9 out of 10 games.  Extensive opening knowledge?  Take a 1600 out of book on move 4 and he's as lost as any amateur.

Knowing why knights are worth 3?  lol.  People 200, 400, 600 etc years ago weren't mentally handicapped.  A person with a large talent for chess intuitively will know basics like tempo and the worth of minor pieces (in terms of the board position).  A leading chess player of any era will be a fantastic calculator as well.

A 1650 be a top player?  Only if after they traveled back in time they gained at least 400 points worth of playing strength.

Yeah, an FM of today would be WC or considered a contender probably in any year before Steinitz.  Of course Morphy would be better, but such a person would easily be in the top 10, IMO.

To be fair, Chess existed a long time before Steinitz... and I don't know any good players dating back any further than Morphy's time.

I wasn't disagreeing :) I also think the top players of Morphy's day were about class A, give or take.  I think Morphy was stronger than FM though... Specifically, I think in a head to head 10 game match Morphy would win (not without losses of course).

Take one of my more intriguing losses or wins, and I would seem as a master... or D player.  I think it's more than reasonable to look at more than one game if you want to determine a playing strength.

Morphy's average rate of error was much higher than a mere class player as seen in the analysis of 20 some games over 800+ moves at the top of page two here http://web.zone.ee/chessanalysis/summary450.pdf

How about some of his games vs non-NN players.  How about his simultaneous blindfold display. 

I think Morphy was just screwing around in games like this, not really caring about the outcome.  I don't like Morphy worship either, but I think it's clear he was better than a class player.

Not from the two games you've posted though of course :p  Those two games were very amateurish.  Morphy was only active for a few years, if he was taking this game seriously, maybe it was an earlier one.

I think if somehow we brought Morphy back to life and sat him across from Magnus Carlsen or Vishy Anand he would be crushed. Style of play and ideas change over time

How many times do you see GMs today playing wild-ass new openings? They spend hundreds of hours studying theory and don't deviate from the standard line without lots of thought and preparation. Do you expect guys like Morphy and Anderssen to behave any differently? To judge players by their opening theory when the opening book of their era was only a few pages long is ludicrous. You might as well judge them horrible at Fischer Random because they were only good at one starting position!

Reb, a question for you:

Let's say we resurrect Morphy, one game at a time, and have him play solely with his archaic knowledge of the game vs. FMs and IMs and GMs.

He has no memory of these "time-travel" games when he starts a new one. Each time he has only his archaic knowledge. Similarly, his opponents don't know it's Morphy or anyone special at all. For them it's a game vs. an unknown. So no prepared play tailored for a 19th century master on their part.

What kind of performance rating do you think he'd have after a hundred or more such games?

^ Do you think that prehistoric people did not know how to breathe, because they didn't write it down? Lack of evidence is not evidence of lacking. If you show some games where Morphy or Anderssen threw away the bishop pair for no reason, that would help your argument.

Very nicely put!

Morphy is recognised as one of the most brilliant tacticians of all time whose weapons included a very well developed strategic nous to get him in those favourable positions. Who is this Calvin f...wit?

This seems to be something that a lot of people have trouble with...

If you are making an argument that flies in the face of all kinds of experts, it is on YOU to prove it! I do not have to prove to you that your wild-ass idea is wrong!