How bad were the old "GM's" really

The Wookie vs. droids scene! In that context, "upset" was translated as "soliviantar". Doesn't it sound lovely?

14.e4 was really a bummer. Instead 14.e3 would have secured a nice solid += advantage. If the computer thinks that the level of play in the compared games was similar, then I think it's a safe assumption that its judgement in this regard is not very reliable. I very much respect the old masters and their pioneers' work, but if someone showed me that Staunton game and said it were played by two modern masters, my guess would have been something between 3-minutes blitz or bullet.

The strong woman reference eludes me ,this is all I am seeing. 

And I clearly stated the breasts are oversized and probably uncomfortable requiering a bra made  of pure steel, how does that minimize the image?

Lastly the poor beast is throwing up what appears to be an under developed little foot growing out of its head in a bid to surrender , it doesn't even have eyes .

I am agoing to tell you straight man,this together with the soul collector thing is pretty creepy, like medication type creepy.

So the final answers were:

no so great

Wookies

and

huge boobies

JamieDelarosa wrote: 

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: 

Jaime, one my favor grandmaster is Pillsbury and he did no have the same tools  today GMs computer aid, games data base, and trainers to become one the top player; he just pure chess genius and would beat Lasker in a match.

PremiumDuck wrote:

@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.  

Jaime has made contrubute more to this thread than your illogical arguments. Plus she a lot stronger player than you, so you have go to bottom of the pit and make sexist comments towards her. You choice to ignore the great contributions of the past masters; Jaime gives good example of Pillsbury's games and what great chess genius he was. Maybe if you listen and learn, instead of your meanless comments amounting to nothing and you are ignorant of past masters contribution to chess.

thats about as clueless as Jamie's posts.

 Today players make mistakes that should not be made, some grandmasters not able to win B+N+K versus lone king endgame, making mistakes in a simple rook and pawn endgame,and making blunders in their games; Kasparov playing so bad in 1990 world championship and blundering a exchange and worst Karpov could not win that simple game, it take a Fischer to point out the winning move.   

If chess is so advance why did a FIDE master played a bad move rook and pawn endgame.  

 At least past masters had an excuse because lack of knowledge, What is today players excuse? 

Adolf Anderssen, considered the among the elite at the time was beaten about 32-2 by a relatively little known player. Chess has advanced maybe far more than some people think.

How many Andersson's games did you play over? Andersson played weak players and very strong masters. Do you know who is Kolisch? So don't give me your grabbage, you don't know a thing about chess.Show me some of your analysis before run your mouth. 

 Okay Harley-Rebel, give me your analysis in how to draw or win the above rook and pawn endgame, if you think you understand chess.

you post that and you know nothing of me! you're trolling even worse than Jamie did. I will give you analysis if you can behave like an adult.

Yeah, you look it up in your endgame book ( my advice don't use a engine because they won't give you the right solution). All you have is a big mouth without any substance. I show many games of Andersson and you could not explain his moves or any give accurate analysis. These players can give you a piece up and beat you.

I agree with you that Pillsbury's play in this game is strong and pleasant to the eye. But it seems to me that Gunsberg made it rather easy for him. Gunsberg's opening/middlegame play is terrible. Playing a flawless game of chess is quite doable if the opponent makes so many positional concessions.

And I mean no disrespect by that. The old masters had to create every bit of knowledge that we take for granted today.

LOL, the level of expertise on this thread is in parts astonishing. How about getting his name correct, as a start?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Anderssen

See, i asked you to behave as an adult and it turned out to be too much for you! All i have is a big mouth ? Mick Jagger might enjoy a conversation with you :)

And you are incorrect about my abilities, throw as much crap as you want but it's only sticking to your own hand.

You're talking about the banker Louis Eichborn, one of four children born to Johann and Juliane Eichborn. He was born in 1812 and died in Wroclaw in 1882.  His father was a merchant and upon his death in 1837, Louis inherited his business.  He was a frequent opponent of Anderssen who probably used him for experimentation and training. After Eichborn's death, a notebook was found containing the scores of his wins and draws vs. Anderssen.  His losses weren't recorded there. Gottschall published many of these in his book on Anderssen.  Not everything is as it seems superficially.

maybe, maybe not.

I don't see your point. Humans make mistakes. Humans forget or neglect a certain field of study. The past masters don't need excuses for their mistakes, and neither do the present ones.

If you examine hundreds of games from generation to generation, you will find that the later games always have a higher average quality. Does this lessen in any way what the older generations did? No. On the contrary, they would be lousy pioneers if the newer generation had learned so little from them.

Batgirl

Are you aware of any formal studies to determine the real playing strength of players from these time periods?

It's all comparative - such as what Elo, Sonas and Edwards have done.  The 19th century chess really can't be judged by 20th century standards and to do so, in my opinion, is a foolish expediency.