Of course there are a whole host of logical reasons as to why this isn't so. None of which are worth bringing up as your only response is reference to your "expert opinion".
But in terms of progress or decline in chess over time (at the top), the genuine "expert opinions" regularly disagree. What makes yours the one to trust over infinitely stronger players?
Of course there are a whole host of logical reasons as to why this isn't so. None of which are worth bringing up as your only response is reference to your "expert opinion".
But in terms of progress or decline in chess over time (at the top), the genuine "expert opinions" regularly disagree. What makes yours the one to trust over infinitely stronger players?
Isn't the OP just sarcastically making fun of those who claim that players from older eras would stand a good chance in the top level today?
No just wins.
As always in these arguments, the real question is not whether a time traveling Philidor would beat these players just showing up at a tournament (obviously not, and most people never argue this point at all), it's whether a Philidor truly immersed in today's chess environment, with today's resources, would be better or worse. This cannot be answered.
And yes, this is just veiled sarcasm about Fischer/Karpov or Kasparov/Carlsen threads.
With most other people I would agree. Polar Bear being who he is though, I actually think he was being serious.
Ok lets set things straight a little bit.
World's most amazing and influential players ever. 1-3 Kasparov/Carlsen/Fischer. There are very very very few others who i would say someone could reasonably stick in the top 3 ever. Emanuel lasker, Tal, and a couple of the other old guys. Philidor would have absolutely no chance, i mean Carlsen plays the engine #1 about 70% of the time, you can't really beat that. Question, How many draws would they make? maybe one or two in Philidor was very very lucky. other then that they just beat him, are you serious????? This isn't as bad as some thread i've seen, but ok show me this guys brilliant games? Then you have some proof, though they'll probably turn out to be like Morphy's games, Morphy was a genius, but never had good enough opponents.
Ok lets set things straight a little bit.
World's most amazing and influential players ever. 1-3 Kasparov/Carlsen/Fischer. There are very very very few others who i would say someone could reasonably stick in the top 3 ever. Emanuel lasker, Tal, and a couple of the other old guys. Philidor would have absolutely no chance, i mean Carlsen plays the engine #1 about 70% of the time, you can't really beat that. Question, How many draws would they make? maybe one or two in Philidor was very very lucky. other then that they just beat him, are you serious????? This isn't as bad as some thread i've seen, but ok show me this guys brilliant games? Then you have some proof, though they'll probably turn out to be like Morphy's games, Morphy was a genius, but never had good enough opponents.
Your statement isn't in accordance with reality, Steve Collyer measured it six months ago - 20 Carlsen's last games then, and obtained quite different results:
ok sure whatever, doesn't matter, post some of this guys genius games to prove your point.
Is Kermuy de Legal the one who is named for the Legal's Mate/Trap?
It is implausible they could win a single game and impossible to win a match, because:
François-André Danican Philidor was the most dominant player of all eras. Hence he must have been the strongest, since top level play actually declines, as everybody indeed knows.
But the question is different: they could make a draw here and there if they were lucky. How many draws they would make in classic 24-games match?