in the good old days when everything went smoothly.
How bad were the old "GM's" really
Sort:
Aug 9, 2015
0
#203
old gms are much stronger than new gms. they just dont have stamina.
see even in 1930's the old guys were loosing to players like gruenfeld, pirc, vajda.... obviously they are much better but facing new openings and too old
i am a old gm, retired by digusting lack of respect new gms have for chess
Chigorin vs Caro? ...I think there's been A HUGE mistake! I demand you remove that game from the forum immediately, I don't know how you got that-- but those are MY moves! ...wait...*clears throat*, I'm sorry, I do recall now...I signed a deal with Google Play and iTunes: They created an app featuring a computer, designed after my extraodinary skills, called "Play Ron" ...Then it was high-jacked by some 13 year old kid who sent himself back from the future to make [his future self] even more money with his advanced knowledge of futuristic chess strategies...Magnus Carlsen owes me money!!
that's an interesting perspective, Trash!
...of course, he changed all my moves...the nerve!!
JamieDelarosa wrote:
Take a look at ths endgame analysis video by Greg Shahade: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5jKvDKt4JE
Thanks, hadn't seen that before, impressive endgame calculation.
So in conclusion : No-one is really sure how good they were but they were not as good as we thought although they did dress better than any GM today, having agreed to that we should repect them though as they were key figures in the development of better chess.
I think this is a precise and objective summary of the thread and we can officially call it closed for any furhter debate on the topic.
Uhohspaghettio1 wrote:
TheGreatOogieBoogie wrote:
Modern grandmasters are simply stronger. The standard of play increases with each passing generation as new knowledge, training, and dietary techniques are discovered.
They increase by less each generation. Kasparov in his prime could beat anyone.
Dietary is untrue, diet has nothing to do with it.
Have you ever tried playing on a full stomach or after eating a doughnut? Diet matters as it contributes to focus and stamina. Dietary and nutrition science is a very important aspect of sports even at the Little League, and chess is no exception.
Or have you ever played OTB against anybody that has eaten any traditional German meal 2-3 hours previously!? You can't breathe.
Have you ever drink a fifth of whiskey, drink a 32.oz of beer and smoke weed and play blitz; now that is a real man game.
SmyslovFan wrote (about 13 hours ago):
... I wrote that John Nunn analysed all of the games from several tournaments. ...
The record currently shows that SmyslovFan wrote (about 3 days ago):
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 45 hours ago, I raised the question of whether or not there was any quote of John Nunn about the shockingly poor play apparent from an analysis of "all of the games from several tournaments played ~1850-1930". I have still seen no such John Nunn quote produced.
SmyslovFan wrote (about 45 hours ago):
Nunn edited and updated several old tournament books.
About 45 hours ago, I expressed a desire for the names of a few.
SmyslovFan wrote (about 13 hours ago):
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.)
Is SmyslovFan claiming that he knows of some specific examples of these "several old tournament books [edited and updated by John Nunn]" and choosing not to identify a single one?
that sounds like a dare!
Aug 9, 2015
0
#214
look at bogolyubow in his heyday. he clearly could beat even anish giri
ylblai2: Much ado with no reading the topic before.
Aug 9, 2015
0
#216
Sounds like sockpuppetry.
I may have conflated Soltis' algebraic tournament books with Nunn's algebraic game collections. They both updated many classics during the same period. Some of Soltis' books include St. Petersburg 1914 by Tarrasch and New York 1924 by Alekhine. That doesn't change my point, or Nunn's point. That doesn't make Nunn's statements about the play of the old masters wrong.
I still have no clue what your point is. Are you in some way suggesting that Nunn did not play through entire tournaments, including NY 1924, St. Petersburg 1914, and so on? That Nunn is in some way wrong in his conclusions regarding the 1911 tournament?
Here is a partial list of the books that Nunn edited and updated:
Paul Keres: The Road to the Top
Alexander Alekhine's Greatest Games By Alekhine and Alexander
My 60 Memorable Games By Fischer
Logical Chess, Move By Move by Chernev
Richard Reti's Best Games by Golombek
The Art of Attack in Chess by Vukovic
Dr. Nunn is one of the world's leading authorities on chess. He has written and edited many books on chess history. His statement about the old masters does not apply to a single tournament, but to the state of chess knowledge at that time.
So I ask again, what is your point?
Aug 9, 2015
0
#217
Trash_Aesthetic wrote:
look at bogolyubow in his heyday. he clearly could beat even anish giri
Really? Maybe you should take another look at the Alekhine-Bogo World championship matches. There were some endgames that made Bogo look like a fish. But to be fair, go through the entire matches. Don't select a single game.
Aug 9, 2015
0
#218
Harley-Rebel wrote:
1932 is in the first third of the 20 th century, lol.
Howard Staunton was considered by some to be below 2000 ELO standard, in spite of chessmetrics assessment. Must check a few of his games. Here's one! played a few short years before he was regarded as the best. He doesnt really get into the game and his play looks sub-1800 in this one match.
Let me point out that the OP specified the time period "1700's to 1900's"
The 1930s are in the 1900s.
Aug 9, 2015
0
#219
Btw, there's no way of knowing how strong players before ~1850 really were because with only a few exceptions because there are so few extant games, and many of those were "best" games. An exception is the LaBourdonnais-McDonnell matches.
I have not done any rigorous studies of the games of the great players before Morphy but I have analysed many games from that period. I strongly suspect that Philidor was almost as strong as Morphy, but there's not really a good way of finding out because there are so few games, and we don't know the conditions those games were played in. La Bourdonnais and McDonnell were almost certainly better than Staunton, but I don't know how much better.
I think an educated guess regarding the strength of Philidor, La Bourdonnais and McDonnell is 2200 for Philidor, 2100 for La Bourdonnais, and ~2000 for McDonnell.
1932 is in the first third of the 20 th century, lol.
Howard Staunton was considered by some to be below 2000 ELO standard, in spite of chessmetrics assessment. Must check a few of his games. Here's one! played a few short years before he was regarded as the best. He doesnt really get into the game and his play looks sub-1800 in this one match.