Chess players of the 19th century?

Gomer_Pyle, Obviously my point was that I'm not going to blindly study a bunch of seemingly random names on a list if I have no idea who they are.  Obviously some people on that list should have priority over others for practical reasons, but unfortunately I'm not a chess historian... hence why I got on a chess forum to ask if people could help break it down.  It was a fairly simple question, I might add, so unless you have something to contribute, don't waste my time.

Thanks to dashkee94, batgirl, and anyone else with useful information.

            Don't get pissy kid; Gomer Pyle was just trying to help. Unless you have something to ASK, don't waste our time.

I apologize if my question wasn't abundantly clear.  And next time I need a bunch of smartass replies, I'll be sure to post here.

          Apology accepted;  moving on.

Wow, Ronald! You should go to every thread and demand an apology!

I would add Akiba Rubinstein, born in the 1880s.  Although he played his important games in the early 20th century, that is also true of others on your list  (for example, Aron Nimzowitsch, born in the late 1880s).

Honestly, I think being a 19th century chess player would be awesome. No computers, no super GMs, no over-all positional concepts. The best player in the world would probably only be about 2100 modern elo. I'd love to be drinking in a pub betting money and playing odds games on chess. Nobody takes me up on the offer in today's world. Think of all the interesting games you would see. People playing all sorts of gambits and unsound lines that nobody can properly refute. Anything is playable!

Yes but never forget the context in which they played.  You may think at some point, "Who other than a careless beginner would play that opening?" Then remember they didn't find the refutation back then. 

Interesting game, especially since Jean-Jacques Rousseau died 23 years before he played it.

Rudolph Speelman

All Attacks

All The Time

I think you'll find the La Bourdonnas-M'Donnell match worthwhile.  Even Alekhine did a deep study of the match and it often seems quite modern.  In his chess column for the Ledger, Morphy chose to spend all his time on these games.  Like Morphy, Alexander M'Donnell was famous for giving odds, often incredible odds against strong players and mostly always winning.  Howard Staunton was also known for giving odds, but his purpose quite often seems to be similar to that of Deschapelles in that even losing when giving odds, you retained your reputation.  

John Cochrane was a player known for his inventiveness and daring. He mostly played in India and his most frequent opponent was Moheschunder Bannerjee, probably the stongest Calcutta player. Cochrane also gave Staunton a run for his money but of course, Staunton usually published his own wins.

Anderssen and Morphy everyone knows.  Harrwitz, who was from Anderssen's home town of Breslau, was a surprisingly strong player, as was the Cafe de la Regence house player he supplanted, Lionel Kieseritzky.  

Louis Paulsen, the great blindfold player, was Steinitz' inpsiration to approach chess scientifically.  His games are strong, if seldom brilliant.

Petroff was the strongest Russian player in the first half of the 19th century. He played some neat games, but he was followed many years later by Tschigorin, one of my favorite players.  Another player from that region that I like was the Georian/Russian/Ukrainian Andrei Dadian of Mingrelia. Romantic chess at it's best.

Lasker, while he became wc in the 1890s always seemed 90% imbedded in the 20th century, as did Tarrasch. Pillsbury came so late and played so modern, he also had a 20th centuty feel to him (to me).  You might also look at the games of the amazing Ellen Gilbert, Queen of Chess.

One more player no one mentioned that I saw was Samuel Rosenthal. He played sparkling chess.

Although he was born in the 19th century, Spielmann didn't really start playing high level chess until the 20th century. But his style was certainly Romantic.

Louis Paulsen, Johann Lowenthal, Nelson Pillsbury can be added to your list.

Cochrane, Kieseritzky, and Petroff(!)--I knew I spaced on some biggies.  Thanks for the reminder, BG.  And I deliberately left Dadian out for you; I was wondering how far this post would go before you mentioned him.

Yeah it seemed odd to me too but Chessbase made that the year. 

So, the lesson might be not to trust Chessbase  :-D

8 or 10 years ago three of us tried to put together a pgn of all Morphy's games.  Sounds easy?  We scoured books, magazines, newspapers, existing compilations and came up with all the recorded games and fragments but with tons of discrepancies - in move scores, opponents, venue, dates.  We examined each and every discrepancy and narrow things down to the obvious or at least the most likely. The project took us over a year.  But the worst offenders, those with the most errors were databases, of which we examined all the poular ones and all those online.  I tend to think that all databases are contructed from other databases, perpetuating mistakes and contributing more mistakes with every generation.

How about Ignz Koisch (1837 - 1899)! He was a rarity, turned his invested his chess winnings into financial savings and financilal speculations. And becamae a millionaire. And then a  became a chess benifactor. Chess has big thankyou to Kolisch.