How bad were the old "GM's" really

In the 2008 book, John Nunn's Chess Puzzle Book, the grandmaster wrote about his decision to "analyse all the games in [the Karlsbad 1911 tournament and the 1993 Biel Interzonal] looking for serious errors. ... take one player: Hugo Suechting ... Having played over all his games at Karlsbad I think that I can confidently state that his playing strength was not greater than Elo 2100 ... - and that was on a good day and with a following wind. ... If we assume Suechting was 2100, then his [11.5/25 score] implies an average rating for the tournament of 2129". The book has much more detail.

PremiumDuck wrote:

I am sure you have a deep understanding of all you mentioned being 150 years old and all but I was not judging,I was merely pointing out they played like 1800-1900 rated players today.

looking at the above games I would say probably even worse  

You have to think these past masters had to figure things out over the board, they develop a set chess principles that to this  day we use: they had conflict in philosiphy about how to approach chess at the board, Steinitz his scientific and set rules (classical school) versus the Chigorin hyper-modern, no set rules and dynamic style. No, they were much stronger than mere club level players, they were the true masters and innovators. :)

no way man, just no way this is GM level

that one may have been played in a bar, long after closing hours.

PrimiumDuck wrote: no way man, just no way this is GM level   

  How do you know what is GM level? Can you please annotate this game fully at FIDE master strength, if you can explain this game I might except your conclusion.

It makes as little sense to compare the strengths of players from different periods as it does to compare Newton with Einstein. Newton revolutionised science and paved the way for future advances and it would be nonsensical to say that Einstein was a better scientist because he developed the Special and General Theories of Relativity and knew about Quantum Physics. Chess is a bit like the scientific endeavour but with a very explicit competitive element, and it even has it's revolutions of understanding. Philidor approached the game with a much more analytical approach and was streets ahead of his contemporaries. Morphy, Steinitz, Tarrasch, Nimzowitch, Capablanca and all the rest continued to add to chess understanding. Understanding and ideas develop through games and analysis over the decades and, obviously, many ideas that seemed fine at one time get refuted by future masters. Ideas often get superceded but it should not of neccesity detract from the brilliance of their originators without whom we wouldn't be where we are today. Standing on the shoulders of giants and all that...    

that's a heck of a game

Well from 24 onward it look like one big rookie blunder.

1800-1900. LOL, Give me a break I'm 1851 and I know I would get WHIPPED, any day of the week if I played Steintz or Lasker.

Just because we never see the Steinitz Gambit with Ke2  (see the above posted Steinitz vs Paulsen game) today, doesn't mean it's no good.  It just means that GMs today are almost always too conservative to play it.  Steinitz wasn't.  Competitive chess has evolved in favor of solid openings with small advantages and fewer practical chances of making a mistake.  By contrast, I think the fortitude of Steinitz and his contemporaries is worth commending in its own right.

At the 1400 level I would imagine that you probably wouldn't beat any of the GM level players after the year 1900 (or even 10 years before for that matter); especially the likes of Steinitz. Lasker would wipe the floor with some of today's titled players probably and Capablanca is where this topic definitely isn't even debatable anymore.

A current 1800 player would easily lose every single game against any of the great masters of the past, and this should come as no surprise.

Opening knowledge would be the main issue, I believe.

But good players can overcome that.  Like when Fischer refuted, over the board, Botvinnik's prepared "improvement" to a Smyslov line.

Botvinnik: 3 inaccuracies, 1 mistake, 0 blunders, 12 average centipawn loss

Fischer: 3 inaccuracies, 0 mistakes, 0 blunders, 8 average centipawn loss.

PremiumDuck wrote: Well from 24 onward it look like one big rookie blunder.  

Show some analysis, don't give one movers. let see if you prove they are mere club players.

I think he means reincarnated?

Didibrains and raven dude you together with that miserable old pfren are attempting to disrupt a perfectly civil thread that is also interesting. I am sorry your 'granny' thread only got one comment but there is no need to get upset with people who are successful. Just try harder. Remember we a close-knit community of chess player,almost like a family please be nice,helpful and relevant.

How else will we get you out of that miserable cavern, you might like it in there but you really need to get out more.

Pfren is the most miserable guy on the planet with a massive chip on his shoulder

See? your frontal lobes are mine....the Duck is controling tiny little brain right now....