How bad were the old "GM's" really

Old GM would probably play poker or Russian roulette these days. Current chess would lack the aesthetics, adrenaline and guts they sought back then over the board.

One problem with ChessMetrics is data bias.  Sonas used a played-games database.  Because many, if not most, games played before records were adequately records, the retro-ratings are skewed toward the winners of published games.

On the otherhand, Elo used wins, losses, and draws from tournament and match tables (more likely to be to be saved); the indivdual game moves were not necessary.

PremiumDuck wrote: 

Harley-Rebel wrote:

thanks for the thread, PremiumDuck!

I got to do a lot of research, discovered a lot. It was good that at least a few good members like Smyslovfan responded. seems to be too much bad blood on chess.com though, not my kinda place.

It is a pleasure Harley-Rebel, unforunately there seems to be a lot of aggresion  around and at one point the thread was actually described as " a dumb troll thread" by a titled member no less.

Like you, I have learned a lot and appreciated the folks that made a positive contribution. I think sharing knowledge in a friendly and healthy manner  is worth so much more than simply attacking the next person on a personal level because their views differ from yours ...or writing your entire misguided post in red because you are a total moron.   

Don't pretend to be altruist, you personally attack Jaime for no reason and worst mading sexist comments towards her. You alone mar this thread with your stupidity and personal attacks. You can disagree in a nice way but you choose to be an idiot and it is obvious your biased opinions on past masters is apparent you have a low opinion on them. Here something think about every experts from my chess club have study past masters and maybe that is why they have each such high level; Carlsen is one them did a deep study on past masters, especially Capablanca.

Polar_Bear wrote: 

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.  

I agree to a point, past masters were the pioneers and innovators without them our chess skills would not evolve to higher level. Anand play is beautiful, he has master the art of exchange sacrifice; his win against Carlsen was a masterpiece.

"Scotty! the starboard sarcasm detectors need more power!"

The problem with most players is they never view one past master game and so there is no appreciation for their contribution. Staunton being 1900 is laughable, most amateurs will simply be crush by Staunton. Here is an example of Staunton masterful play.  

If you guys think Staunton played like a mere club player ( 1900 elo), I have not seen club player played like this.

Yuree, you've had this conversation before, and players such as Rumo and Reb ended up agreeing: Staunton's average play really was sub-2000 strength. Yeah,  he really was weaker than you. 

Do you really want to post his one or two best wins again without looking at his body of work?

SmyslovFan, I agree some Staunton's games were bad, but it doesn't mean there are some games with instructional value; some of his ideas were modern and profound, and in my chess club I don't see mere club players innovating. Yes, Staunton at times was tactically inept but some his ideas in the opening and positional wer profound, and no 1900 elo players invent and innovate; Staunton a lot stronger than mere club player strength. Ask yourself a truthful question, do you make a plan after the opening, middlegame and endgame and do you understand the Isolated- queen pawn, most experts just push wood and I see games how 1900 uscf or FIDE play some games are good and most is simply bad.

That's a world of difference from your previous statements, and one I agree with wholeheartedly.

SmyslovFan, Staunton contribution to chess cannot be just a mere club player.  

His play, however, had little influence on other players of the day. William Hartston explains that, "... his chess understanding was so far ahead of his time. A deep strategist living in an era when shallow tactics were still the rule, Staunton's conceptions could not be assimilated by his contemporaries."^[107] Staunton's style and the openings that accompanied it were eclipsed by the more directly aggressive styles of Anderssen and Morphy, which dominated chess from 1851 until Steinitz unveiled his positional approach in 1873.^[108]

There is little evidence that Staunton had much direct influence on modern chess. Although he introduced the English Opening, it has been called "really a twentieth-century invention" that only became fully respectable after future World Champion Mikhail Botvinnik began playing it in the 1930s.^[109] Similarly, although he was an early champion of the Sicilian Defense, which is today the most popular opening,^[110] and the most successful response to 1.e4,^[111] he seems to have had little influence on how the Sicilian is played today: he regarded it as a safe defensive line, while it is now treated as a vigorous but slightly risky counter-attack.^[112] On the other hand, Raymond Keene wrote that "Taimanov revived some old, forgotten ideas of Staunton ..." in the Sicilian.^[113]

Staunton introduced the Staunton Gambit against the Dutch Defense (1.d4 f5 2.e4!?).^[114][115] Although it was once a feared attacking line,^[116] it has been out of favour since the mid-1920s,^[117] and is thought to "offer White equality at best".^[118] Staunton also analysed a different gambit approach to the Dutch, 2.h3 followed by g4.^[119] In 1979 Viktor Korchnoi, one of the world's leading players, successfully introduced this line into top-class competition,^[120] but later authorities concluded, as Staunton had, that Black gets a good game with 2...Nf6 3.g4 d5!^[121]

Staunton also advocated the Ponziani Opening 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3, which was often called "Staunton's Opening".^[122] It is rarely played today because it allows Black to choose between a sharp counter-attack and a safe line that usually leads to a draw.    

So, who agrees with the OP that 19th century grandmasters, such as Morphy, Steinitz, Lasker, and Pillsbury, would be "1800-1999 max" players today.

None?

Got that right!!

I say La Bourdonnais and McDonnell are stronger than Staunton tactically, maybe this is why Morphy prefer La Bourdonnais's games. La Bourdonnais destroy any expert and low rated master, he was truly a chess genius. In another thread it was mention Anderssen was a mere expert 2000 to 2100 elo; if you ever went over his games, his combination alone is GM level.

5 minutes ago · Quote · #375

JamieDelarosa wrote:

According to Wikipedia, which is not a very trustable source, considered by a lot, but is trustable for this, I believe, says that back then, people played chess with STYLE.  Back in the day, it was STYLE that mattered.  A regular odd looking but tactically beautiful checkmate was considered garbage, while a checkmate with STYLE was considered a MASTERPIECE.  Maybe that was the case for those games.  I don't know what people's views of style was back then, but I have to admit, these games were very odd looking, and it may have been because of the stylish views of the past.

You know, some of these self-professed experts like to characterize the "style" of play and compare it to lower-rated players.

The Pillsbury game I posted earlier, with the video link, showed Pillsbury had to calculate ahead over 20 moves to secure the win.  I wonder how many 2400+ rated players would have given that game up as a draw, yet Pillsbury worked out the win in the last round of the strongest tournament ever held to that time.

I know of three patzers who really liked to play the "old openings" when I was learning the game back in the 60's and 70's.  Those patzers were Fischer, Larsen, and Spassky!!!  Hohoho!

What this topic here shows is that we have a few here who thrive on conceit and self-aggrandizement.

Well apart from that Nunn guy and one or two others it would seem I am alone. Then again major prophets and great genius are often alone until the fog of ignorance is lifted from the minds of the unwashed masses.

While your obsession with negativity, criticism ,violence and coming across as clever is  weird to the point of being a concern for someone supposedly living on a beautiful island it is beyond my field of expertise to try and help regardless of how much I would love to see you as a happy ,functioning memeber of society.

If it will make any difference to your day I will say ' well done Jamie ! Bravo! You once again proved what an intelligent and brilliant person your are, you have won yet another argument. We are fortunate to have you on the site. You are loved and wanted! '

Don't let your mind be on an island just because you are on one , you don't have to escape into fantasy worlds of dragons and Valkyries where everything has to be beaten to death, there is a whole world out there that is infinitely more interesting, kind and peace loving.

I hope by reaching out this warm hand of chess frienship toward you your aggression toward me will be lessend.

aslo you pet monkey yureecistern ...is he licensed ?

"Life of Brian"

" The secret life of Walter Mitty"