Ratings don't win games, concrete analysis wins.
How bad were the old "GM's" really
Sort:
Aug 10, 2015
0
#283
Harley-Rebel wrote:
Is there anybody you think is not a sockpuppet besides yourself, cool clean Jamie ?
PremiumDuck has written about the playing standard of 18th and 19th century masters. Then pfren, JamieDelarosa and yureesystem start throwing their weight around with childish attacks. pure class!
Blah, blah, blah, blah
and to think onorbruno's post was considered spam!
there's your hero's style of post yuree! mature isn't it ?
aaaah CrystalMoon, what does JamieDelarosa's posts qualify as ??
must say it's an honour to be compared to PremiumDuck!
The record showed that SmyslovFan wrote (about 4 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. ...
SmyslovFan wrote (about 3 days ago):
... Nunn edited and updated several old tournament books. ...
SmyslovFan wrote (about 23 hours ago):
... Nunn has clearly studied the classics, ...
The ~4-days-ago statement referred to analyzing "all of the games from several tournaments played ~1850-1930".
SmyslovFan wrote (about 23 hours ago):
... I can state with certainty that he has carefully analysed every game from the Karlsbad 1911 tournament. ...
The ~4-days-ago statement referred to "several tournaments played ~1850-1930".
SmyslovFan wrote (about 23 hours ago):
... I can state with near certainty that he did not look at just one tournament, but many from that period, including Hastings 1895, St. Petersburg 1914, NY 1924 and others. ...
The ~4-days-ago statement did not say, "look at". It referred to analyzing "all of the games from".
SmyslovFan wrote (about 23 hours ago):
... This is what Nunn said:
" Like most contemporary grandmasters, I was familiar with all the standard textbook examples from the early part of the century"[Emphasis added] ...
The ~4-days-ago statement did not say, "familiar with". It said, "analysed". The ~4-days-ago statement did not say, "all the standard textbook examples". It said, "all of the games from several tournaments". The ~4-days-ago statement did not say, "from the early part of the century". It said, "played ~1850-1930".
SmyslovFan wrote (about 23 hours ago):
... He goes on to show that he is familiar with the tournament books of the past:
"Although there are exceptions, tournament books from the early part of the century seem to be strong on flowery rhetoric but weak on pointing out mistakes." ...
Again, the ~4-days-ago statement did not say, "familiar with". It said, "analysed all of the games from". As we can all see, John Nunn did not write, "the past". He wrote, "from the early part of the century". Again, the ~4-days-ago statement said, "played ~1850-1930".
SmyslovFan wrote (about 23 hours ago):
... I can state with confidence that John Nunn, as an editor at a major chess publishing firm, and as a grandmaster with a strong interest in the history of chess (as commented on by Edward Winter and Gary Kasparov, among others), analysed every game from several different tournaments of that period. ...
So, is it the situation that SmyslovFan can identify NO old tournament book edited and updated by John Nunn and NO statement by John Nunn that he "analysed all of the games from several tournaments played ~1850-1930"? If we have no known statement by John Nunn, explicitly mentioning all this analysis, how could we know that he was shocked by just how poorly the games were played? Is that another product of this "confidence" thing?
SmyslovFan wrote (about 23 hours ago):
... Nunn's statements are clear. He believes that the old masters were not nearly as good as today's masters.
... his general conclusion:
"To summarize, the old players were much worse than I expected. The blunders thrown up by Fritz were so awful that I looked at a considerable number of complete games 'by hand', wondering if the Fritz results really reflected the general standard of play. They did."
What reason is there to believe that John Nunn wrote "old players" as a reference to anything other than the "old players" in the Karlsbad 1911 games that he analyzed with the help of Fritz? If John Nunn's perception came from an analysis of "all of the games from several tournaments played ~1850-1930", why would he have "expected" anything other than what he got from his Karlsbad 1911 analysis? Why wouldn't he have explicitly mentioned the support from this supposed analysis of all of the games from tournaments played ~1850-1930 ?
SmyslovFan wrote (about 23 hours ago):
... Ylblai, your attack still doesn't make any sense to me. ...
... I still have no clue why you have taken such a deep personal interest in trying to prove me wrong.
...
Do you disagree with the statement made by Nunn, ...
I suggest that you tackle such issues by first asking yourself if you can identify specific relevant quotes of me. You might, for example, try to identify a specific senseless attacking statement, a specific example of an expression of a personal interest in proving you wrong, and/or a specific expression of disagreement with a specific statement by John Nunn.
Aug 10, 2015
0
#286
Here is another game by Pillsbury. It is the first meeting between 20 year old Harry Nelson Pillsbury and 24-year old Emanuel Lasker (New York, 1893). Lasker won in 55 moves.
Lasker: 2 inaccuracies, 0 mistakes, 0 blunders, 10 average centipawn loss
Pillsbury: 2 inaccuracies, 0 mistakes, 1 blunder (move #53), 28 average centipawn loss
According to the OP, these players would have been rated "1800-1900 max. LOLZ - such foolishness
Aug 10, 2015
0
#287
onurbruno wrote:
[Please do not spam the forums - CM.]
"CM" ? Chief of Mod ? that a new one.
Have any of your topics been spammed ?
Jamie sees you rollin', he trollin'.
Aug 10, 2015
0
#290
Harley-Rebel wrote:
Have any of your topics been spammed ?
Jamie sees you rollin', he trollin'.
Not to worry, jamie got a sockpuppet too, s/he use it when s/he has "left " the website for his/her suppose breaks.
Aug 10, 2015
0
#291
kco wrote:
Harley-Rebel wrote:
Have any of your topics been spammed ?
Jamie sees you rollin', he trollin'.
Not to worry, jamie got a sockpuppet too, s/he use it when s/he has "left " the website for his/her suppose breaks.
Really? I had a second account for team diagnostic purposes called "testertester2", but I don't recall ever making a comment with it. Nice try though.
Aug 10, 2015
0
#292
Harley-Rebel wrote:
Have any of your topics been spammed ?
Jamie sees you rollin', he trollin'.
It happens, rarely. But I use plenty of troll repellent prophylactically.
Aug 10, 2015
0
#293
JamieDelarosa wrote:
kco wrote:
Harley-Rebel wrote:
Have any of your topics been spammed ?
Jamie sees you rollin', he trollin'.
Not to worry, jamie got a sockpuppet too, s/he use it when s/he has "left " the website for his/her suppose breaks.
Really? I had a second account for team diagnostic purposes called "testertester2", but I don't recall ever making a comment with it. Nice try though.
No is not a nice try, I know this for a fact.
Guys, there really is a fairly accurate way to show how strong a player is using a computer. There was a study done once where the games of all the world champions plus a few others were compared to a strong computer. Amazingly, the computer showed that the 2 champions least likely to blunder were Kramnik and Capablanca. That's right, Capablanca from the 1920s. (This doesn't mean Capa was the best ever, just the least likely to blunder). Therefore Capa must at least have been 2700 strength, and thus a few of the top players of that era were likely GM strength as well, for certainly he didn't always go undefeated. The only champion that proved worse than the rest was Steinitz, whose play was comparable to a player around 2300 elo today. So if Steinitz was 2300, most of the other masters of the 1800s were likely 2000-2200 strength or so, with the possible exception of Morphy, who may have been higher.
Who cares about computers' opinions on World Champions? He might also care about a car's opinion on Abebe Bikila or Emil Zatopek.
If chess strenght were no more than the ability to avoid blunders, Ivanchuk would be a rather average player. Apart from that, you are much more likely to blunder when playing against a well-prepared 2700+ guy than against the average player from a 1920s tournament.
Capablanca lost 34 games, and went 8 years without a single loss. That's almost always going undefeated
Aug 11, 2015
0
#299
As I have already pointed out many times: Anand, Carlsen, Nakamura, Topalov etc. are weaker than Lasker, Tarrasch, Chigorin, Marshall, Schlechter and Capablanca. I am pretty sure about that and who thinks otherwise is a cheeky moron with zero chess knowledge. Howgh.
Some individuals are gifted with incredible natural chess talent. I think Capablanca is the best example of this. How well this kind of player progresses depends on many different variables: their work ethic, their family environment, how much they like or dislike alcohol, etc. It's hard for me to not believe that if players like Lasker, Capablance, or Alehkine were living now they would have a 2800 rating. I think Morphy would be at least a 2700 player now too.
I said your post was more clueless than Jamie's after your ridiculous post against PremiumDuck. That hurt your feelings ? Ok, I apologise.