nameno no the facts dont remain, ims and gms still use and teach capablancas theories. thats probably one ofthe reason they are no patzers and sub 2400 are patzers....
to a GM they are but the are chess gods compared to you... and yes, even Capablanca, though he was instrumental in the discovery of a few examples of chess theory still used today, you argue all you like, but the game isn't the same...
Well, I found this wording confusing, in any case. Now that I think of it, you were saying even Capablanca would look like a chess god to Tetsuo Shima? I was confused because I thought "they" referred to the sub-2400 players and "even Capablanca" referred to who they would smash since it is next tocTetsuo Shima. I thought the last sentence of chess changing was intended to clarify that that was the intention, but I suppose I was mistaken.
Capablanca is less than sub-2400??? I know chess openings have changed in the past century, but I think such an assertion is flat-out wrong. Generally, I don't just parrot what computers had to say about a player's level of skill, but the fact that very strong computers consider Capablanca the most accurate player is certainly significant. Just because computers say it doesn't make it true, but certainly, opening theory aside, Capablanca was stronger than sub-2400 level???
Of course openings are a large part of chess, especially the modern game. However, I'm talking about the game as a whole, and I'm disputing that sub-2400 players are not only stronger all-around players than Capablanca but that they are so much stronger than he is to be considered chess gods compared to him.
I am not sure who you are disputing, but I don't thing Capa was or is a patzer, even by todays standards, in spite of the fact, the game isn't the same today. The relative strength of players seems to have increased over time, but the elite GM's in my mind would be on par with on another's talent or perhaps better said, belong at the same table playing each other.
I was trying demonstrate the relativety and subjectivety of some one being a patzer, depending upon who we are talking about. (Example) a 2400 might be a considered a patzer to Carlsen or Anand, but to me they are like a chess god or playing against an engine.
Nevermind what was written here (I made a grammatical correction that was actually unnecessary. I was confused by my own sentence!)
1700 Fide = Cut off for patzer
Which means I still am a patzer.
Thanks for bumping a year old thread to tell us.