How bad were the old "GM's" really

First third of the 20th century!

"Average centipawn loss" is essentially a measurement of the human players moves against what the engines scores as best.  Engine scoring is unaffected by nationality, age, favorites, fads, trends, or fanboyism.

So here is another one: Steinitz v von Bardeleben, Hastings 1895

Steinitz: 0 inaccuracies, 0 mistakes, 0 blunders, 7 average centipawn loss

von Bardeleben: 2 inaccuracies, 3 mistakes, 0 blunders, 31 average centipawn loss

"As Steinitz demonstrated immediately afterward, there is a mate in ten moves which can only be averted by ruinous loss of material; analysis follows: ...Kh8 25. Rxh7+ Kg8 26. Rg7+ Kh8 27. Qh4+ Kxg7 28. Qh7+ Kf8 29. Qh8+ Ke7 30. Qg7+ Ke8 31. Qg8+ Ke7 32. Qf7+ Kd8 33. Qf8+ Qe8 34. Nf7+ Kd7 35. Qd6#"

I think any of the superclass Grandmasters today would be happy to play as game as brilliant as this one by the 59-year old ex-World Champion.

Jamie, the best games from the past don't make your argument. Dr. Nunn analysed all of the games from a tournament and compared it directly to Biel, 1993. You know the result.

This one comes from the last round at Hastings, 1895.  Pillsbury needed a win to secure first place ahead of Chigorin, who was 1/2 point behind.

Pillbury - Gunsberg http://www.chessgames.com/perl/nph-chesspgn?text=1&gid=1054736

Pillsbury: 0 inaccuracies, 0 mistakes, 0 blunders, 16 average centipawn loss

Gunsberg: 2 inaccuracies, 2 mistakes, 0 blunders, 39 average centipawn loss

Gunsberg's game fell apart beginning around move 27.  Pillsbury's endgame technique after that cannot be improved upon.

Take a look at ths endgame analysis video by Greg Shahade: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5jKvDKt4JE

SmyslovFan wrote:

"Jamie, the best games from the past don't make your argument. Dr. Nunn analysed all of the games from a tournament and compared it directly to Biel, 1993. You know the result."

I am unaware of any statement by John Nunn about "the best games from the past" whether it be from his look at Karlsbad 1911 or anything else.

John Nunn analysed all of the games from several tournaments played ~1850-1930 and was shocked by just how poorly the games were played. Yeah, there are some immortal games from that period, but the overall quality was shockingly low, especially considering these players were acclaimed as masters.

We tend to remember the brilliancies, but there were some real duds out there too. In fact, the rarity of the brilliancies in that period make them shine even more.

Today's GMs are consistently much better than players of previous generations. The brilliancies played today are instantly scrutinized and minimized because they aren't computer-perfect. That's our loss. Every GM tournament today contains beautiful games that would rival anything from the 1850-1930 time frame, but they won't be remembered in large part because the games dont stand out from the rest.

It's hard to be impressed with a gem in a field of gems

Ever your servant

Smyslovfandude

there is an echo in here...

PremiumDuck wrote:

"John Nunn analysed all of the games from several tournaments played ~1850-1930 and was shocked by just how poorly the games were played. ..."

About 31 hours ago, you acknowledged that the quote was about ONE tournament. John Nunn wrote about Karlsbad 1911. I have not seen you produce ANY quote of a John Nunn conclusion based on an analysis of all of the games from several tournaments played - 1850-1930.

Dear Batgirl

This photo is of some folks waiting for a train 38% into the 20th century. 

Never one to split hairs or challenge the next guy I am however pushed to ask how it relates to the topic of 1800 patzer GM's. I use the term ' patzer GM's' in the most respectful way of course. They were relatively good compared to the avarage A class player today and could wipe the floor with any group of pub players at will but the topic is really on how they compare to GM's post 2000 AD.

I collect all your posts ever made on my threads Batgirl ( 3 in total) and have them tattoo'ed in floral script on my elderly mother who is wheel-chair bound and also has Alzheimer's , it makes her look younger somehow.

Getting the " Levitsky" tattoo was already a bit awkward but seriously I am not getting dudes on a platform done especailly not with that caption caption. Her skin is totally wrinkly ,photos of any kind are never going to work.

Please could you be a little more thoughtful in your posts and stick to text?

Your greatest fan

PremiumDuck

When truth becomes relative, there is no more truth.  So it goes with the OP's posts.

It has been stated by the OP that chess masters from the "1700s to the 1900s [years] cannot be compared to any GM today," and that "they are not much stronger than about 1800-1900 [rating] max today."

Citing the quality of the play of the past masters, and using unbiased engine scoring, precisely makes that comparison.

Always attacking me for some reason Jamie , while I am merely the messenger here, Smyslovfan wrote that post as I very clearly indicated.

Yet in a blind show of aggression bordering on hatred you have pinned it on me. I will not judge the next guy , it is simply not in my nature, perhaps you are going through some personal stuff that is causing you to lash out in this manner , perhaps you have financial problems or an addiction of sorts, perhaps you are just an old dude , there could be many explanations but you should know that I am one for peace and co-operation on the forums.

I build bridges of chess friendship, just consider that when posting next. 

All my love

PremiumDuck

In your previous account, under the name of "Solastalgia," you made several a number of threatening and harassing statements.

The present "Love Guru" act isn't playing.  Sorry.

PremiumDuck wrote:

"... I am merely the messenger here, Smyslovfan wrote that post as I very clearly indicated. ..."

I apologize for failing to notice that PremiumDuck was responding with a SmyslovFan quote, but that doesn't change the basic fact that, in response to the raising of a question about what John Nunn said, we got an unsubstantiated SmyslovFan claim.

@Jamie....You are not sorry. 

You are the type who will delve into a person's ancient past and upon finding some speck of dirt will blow it up into a pile of mud to throw at that guy. You are not a builder. 

Look at your profile pic ... a big breatsed woman who has just killed  a large earthworm who clearly had both hands up in a bid to surrender.A lot of information on you right there.

Then there is your very racist thread about ' the Indian f****r' 

Like I said I am never one to judge but you are not the class of individual I think that is conducive to building chess bridges. I will politely and formaly ask that you withdraw from this thread in a civil manner.

And I thank you for acknowledging friend , good form.

This isn't the first time in this thread that someone attacked my citation. I wrote that John Nunn analysed all of the games from several tournaments. That is a true statement. In fact, he has republished some of those tournaments using algebraic notation for Bastford and Gambit. (You can look up the publishing houses' book lists if you are interested.) He has published his analysis in many books. I never claimed that he analysed every game ever played. I claimed that he was shocked by the low standard of chess that was played. After being challenged, I produced the quote about the 1911 tournament, and provided a citation. That apparently isn't enough.

Please read what I wrote. 

And then, kindly address the point you are trying to make by criticizing my citations. Do you disagree with Dr. Nunn's point that the quality of chess was poor? What precisely is your point?

Btw, PremiumDuck is wrong if he stated that the best players of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were only 1800-1900 strength. Howard Staunton's chess was perhaps that low, but not Morphy's or any of the champions after him. Morphy was about 2350 strength at his best, and Lasker and Steinitz were about GM strength.