Are Older Chess Players Bitter? Is the Grand Era of Chess over with the Advent of Computers?

If you really wanted to improve more, after reading a few basic chess books ofc, spar against chess engines. Takebacks allowed ofc. After playing 50 games and losing 50 games, I guarantee you're a better player before the sparring session.

The players did quite a bit of that adjournment analysis themselves, and they did check the work of their seconds before resuming play. Plus independent off-competition analysis. Having adjournments surely boosted their endgame knowledge while today's short time controls often mean that endgames are played in semi-constant time-pressure.

This very much depends. Carlsen has studied the classics, and many players from former Soviet republics are brought up on it, but there are a number of players who haven't (they openly admit to it). I'm not saying one method is better than the other, but I'd say that the advantages show themselves in different stages of the game.

Indeed. We all have a tendency to a 'Best Games Collection' view of the top players. It's enough to follow a broadcast from today or look through games in an old tournament book to find many examples of bad blunders.

Nezhmetdinov's monologue from 1970 or so, as reported by Yakov Damsky in The Century of Chess.
"I do try to do something unexpected: after the opening, I'm trying to find a plan that was not used by anyone before, and this plan leads to non-standard playing, most often to beautiful combinations. So, I have unexpected moves that advance the new plan, and unexpected moves that advance the attack based on particular properties of the position.
Others' evaluation of me is often wrong, or, should I say, one-sided: they think of me as a player who always throws himself into super-complicated positions, creates wild attacks, plays more on the psychological side. But I play combinations only when the position is ripe; I'm never counting on my opponent overlooking anything. I never play intentionally worse moves that lead to incredible complications, but give the partner some chances. Tal likes playing like that. I play much less intuitive sacrifices than you think. Stylistically, I'm closer to Bronstein, who always calculates until the end, or at least tries to do so. Of course, there are positions that cannot be calculated over the board in full.
By the way, Bronstein is now playing better, but his results are worse. There's no paradox in that. Armed with experience, Bronstein sees in his old combinations that element of unreliability that he'd never noticed before. As he starts a combinations, he now sees the opponent's every reply, even the only refutation among a myriad of losing moves. If Bronstein sees this variant, he would rather offer draw than play out the combination. I like him for this, should I say, scrupulousness. But still, every combination, no matter how correct, is beautiful! Combination is the best thing in chess. Combination is what excites us, overturns the soul, creates great mood."

Another significant quote by Nezh....from 1973!

"Creativity and beauty will be gradually leaving chess, with the sport/tournament side prevailing. We will be replaced by a new generation of chess players whose main skill is outcalculating the opponents. The depth of strategical and tactical thought, the subtlety of non-standard ideas, everything we call "romanticism" will be losing importance."

When was the last time you saw a Beauty Prize awarded at a chess tournament?

I do not think older players are bitter....they are just telling the truth!

'Players die, tournaments are forgotten, but the works of great artists are left behind them to live on for ever in memory of their creators.' Tal on Nezhmetdinov in Learn from the Grandmasters. 

Agreed!

I still celebrate great moves and games as I witness them in the games of the great Masters of pre-computer era!

I'm not sure that's the case. First of all, there are far too many positions to memorize for this to be manageable. Secondly, I think the general theoretical and practical endgame knowledge very much depends on the background of the individual player.

By the way, I strongly believe that our scoring system (1-0, 0-1, 1/2-1/2) is anticuated. If we can evaluate each move to the minutest numerical detail, then we should also be able to evaluate performance with more detail as well.

A year or two ago (maybe last year?) a young player gave Carlsen a run for his money for about 40 moves. Eventually he lost the game, but I find it unfair that such an effort gives you a ZERO. it is a bit ridiculous that the same score is applied if you lose in 17 moves or if you make the best player in the world sweat it out for 40- plus moves. There should be a numerical differentiation between the two performances.

But this is one subject where both young and old hold steadfast against change.

The current scoring system is medieval, and does not correspond to this "computer age". If we are going to use computers effectively, let us then measure performance with all its nuances, instead of the primitive 1-0, 0-1 format.

It's like going to space dressed as a Neanderthal.....

Well yes each player is different, but I'm really talking about those top 10-20 guys who aspire to be the best in the world. I'm not really saying they memorise exact positions, more how to arrange the pieces in certain scenarios. Such as the best way to press a rook + bishop vs rook ending, or defend it with the lone rook. Or the 4 vs 3 and 3 vs 2 pawn endings. 

Like a losing bonus point in rugby? For me it should be 3 for a win, 1 for a draw, 0 for a loss. 

I don't think I get your point.....

That regardless of where the pieces are placed when the endgame begins, they know where they should be aiming to put them so that they are ideally placed to give them the best chances. Thus they know ideas, not exact positions necessarily. 

It could be even more detailed....

Holding a 2800-player to a dogfight for 30-40 moves should be worth more than losing to a 2600 in 15 moves.

Think about it! We can evaluate EVERY MOVE.....why not then, evaluate performance in a more sophisticated way?

You go to a tournament, battle well for 5 hours against a strong GM, and you go home with a 0? I don't think so!

We can divide the unit in decimals....let us apply this sophistication to our scoring system!

Yes.....Capablanca was famous for that!

But what if the engine analysis is not absolutely perfect? 

Still, there should be a numerical approximation to your actual performance, I believe.

Anna Muzychuk won a beauty prize in Gibraltar, and a well deserved one!

Good!