He looks like a little doll-person in his photos:)
How bad were the old "GM's" really
Sort:
Reb wrote:
Maybe the abuse is encouraged when someone is being a PremiumDick ?
Sometimes people seek trouble and then act surprised when they find it .
Personally , I think the old masters were better than me , and trysts too !
what is up with titled players man!? Is it your little red letters that make you guys think you entitled (see what I did there) to act all snooty and mightier than thou?
Always insulting unless somebody is talking about the 23 rd variation of some obscure opening.
PremiumDuck wrote:
Reb wrote:
Maybe the abuse is encouraged when someone is being a PremiumDick ?
Sometimes people seek trouble and then act surprised when they find it .
Personally , I think the old masters were better than me , and trysts too !
what is up with titled players man!? Is it your little red letters that make you guys think you entitled (see what I did there) to act all snooty and mightier than thou?
Always insulting unless somebody is talking about the 23 rd variation of some obscure opening.
A few points ... you started with the insults in this thread and titled players are allowed to have opinions too and they may respond to insults with insults . Thats human nature , titled or not .
This is why I refuse to improve my chess to the point where I get a title ,I would much rather be your avarege Joe wood-pusher than join that crowd of grumpy old farts that are always trying to act superior to everybody else.
Well done man ,great example to kids you are.
Aug 6, 2015
0
#67
As I said before I'm 1851 OTB and I wouldn't stand a chance against them
Aug 6, 2015
0
#68
John Nunn analysed all of the games from several tournaments played ~1850-1930 and was shocked by just how poorly the games were played. Yeah, there are some immortal games from that period, but the overall quality was shockingly low, especially considering these players were acclaimed as masters.
We tend to remember the brilliancies, but there were some real duds out there too. In fact, the rarity of the brilliancies in that period make them shine even more.
Today's GMs are consistently much better than players of previous generations. The brilliancies played today are instantly scrutinized and minimized because they aren't computer-perfect. That's our loss. Every GM tournament today contains beautiful games that would rival anything from the 1850-1930 time frame, but they won't be remembered in large part because the games dont stand out from the rest.
It's hard to be impressed with a gem in a field of gems.
SmyslovFan wrote:
John Nunn analysed all of the games from several tournaments played ~1850-1930 and was shocked by just how poorly the games were played. Yeah, there are some immortal games from that period, but the overall quality was shockingly low, especially considering these players were acclaimed as masters.
We tend to remember the brilliancies, but there were some real duds out there too. In fact, the rarity of the brilliancies in that period make them shine even more.
Today's GMs are consistently much better than players of previous generations. The brilliancies played today are instantly scrutinized and minimized because they aren't computer-perfect. That's our loss. Every GM tournament today contains beautiful games that would rival anything from the 1850-1930 time frame, but they won't be remembered in large part because the games dont stand out from the rest.
It's hard to be impressed with a gem in a field of gems.
It is like you took a page from my soul and turned it into the type of text that can be read on a computer. A most brilliant post , finally a man of quality in this harsh desert of thorns.
Aug 6, 2015
0
#70
Btw, I'd bet that Reb could post his 10 best games here, switch out the names for players from the past, and they would be viewed as classic brilliancies. I know I have a handful of games that could have made a Horowitz or Reinfeld collection.
I agree all those old time gm's would be like "C" players today cause they were all kinds of stupid an stuff, hell I could spot Morphy a Rook and win.
Tomorrow I'm gonna play in the back yard and build a fort.
SmyslovFan wrote:
John Nunn analysed all of the games from several tournaments played ~1850-1930 and was shocked by just how poorly the games were played. Yeah, there are some immortal games from that period, but the overall quality was shockingly low, especially considering these players were acclaimed as masters.
We tend to remember the brilliancies, but there were some real duds out there too. In fact, the rarity of the brilliancies in that period make them shine even more.
Today's GMs are consistently much better than players of previous generations. The brilliancies played today are instantly scrutinized and minimized because they aren't computer-perfect. That's our loss. Every GM tournament today contains beautiful games that would rival anything from the 1850-1930 time frame, but they won't be remembered in large part because the games dont stand out from the rest.
It's hard to be impressed with a gem in a field of gems.
Citation, please.
When did Nunn make such a statement?
Aug 6, 2015
0
#73
Dodger111 wrote:
SmyslovFan wrote:
...
Citation, please.
When did Nunn make such a statement?
His statements are quite well known. Here's a quote by fabelhaft, who provides a link:
"fabelhaft wrote:
Some quotes from a very good review by John Watson of John Nunn's Chess Puzzle Book, where Nunn compares Karlsbad 1911 with Biel 1993:
Nunn: "I reasoned that a good way to eliminate differences resulting from 80 years' advance in chess theory was only to look for really serious errors"
Watson: Notice this important step. I'm always hearing (and reading) that "If the players of yesteryear could only catch up with opening theory, they'd be as good or better than today's players"
Nunn: "I was quite surprised by the results. 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."
Nunn: "In order to be more specific about Karlsbad, take one player: Hugo Süchting (1874-1916). At Karlsbad he scored 11.5/13.5 or 'minus 2', as they say these days - a perfectly respectable score. 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 (BCF 187) - and that was on a good day and with a following wind. Here are a couple of examples of his play"
Watson: You have to get the book to see these examples of Süchting's horrendous mistakes and misunderstandings. Nunn also has talks about more positions, and then includes a section of 30 Karlsbad "puzzles", representing all of the players. The positional mistakes by the top players are particularly telling.
Nunn: "Returning then to the question as to how Süchting scored 11.5 points, the answer is simply that the other players were not much better. If we assume Süchting as 2100, then his score implies an average rating for the tournament of 2129 - it would not even be assigned a category today."
Nunn: "It is quite clear that the Karlsbad players were far more prone to severe errors than contemporary players. Even the leading players made fairly frequent blunders. Rubinstein, for example, who was then at virtually the peak of his career (1912 was his best year) failed to win with a clear extra rook against Tartakower ... He also allowed a knight fork of king and rook in an ending against Kostic..."
Nunn: "The second problem area was an inclination to adopt totally the wrong plan...[examples follow]..."
Nunn: "The third main problem area was that of endgame play...[horrendous examples of elementary blown endgames follow]..."
Nunn: "Doubtless, some will respond by searching through contemporary tournaments and finding errors just as serious as those presented here. However, a couple of words of caution. Remember that all the examples given here were played in one tournament. Of course, it is easy to present a player as an idiot by listing the very worst blunders from his (or her) entire career"
http://www.chess.co.uk/twic/jwatsonbkrev82.html
The time limits were of course much more generous a century ago than they are today. Maybe Nunn exaggerates a bit, but it could also be added that the mentioned Süchting was a decent player for his day. In Prague 1908 he drew not only Rubinstein, but Maroczy, Marshall, Vidmar, Teichmann and Spielmann and scored -2 in 19 games. In Düsseldorf the same year he drew Marshall and Spielmann and had scored +1 after the 15 rounds. He drew the three games he played against Rubinstein 1908-11.
Suchting was "a decent player" but no GM, and Nunn was being a jerk, and Rubenstein at his peak was no slouch as Nunn claims.
Screw Nunn.
Mwuhuhuahahahahahaha!
OP right.
Dear OP, I don't hate you or want to argue with you. I am merely pointing you in a constructive direction.
Section A: The undervalued Tactical system
Tactics is the MOTHER of chess.
For that purpose, I HAVE to post one of your games. Please do not be offended.
The above shows that you clearly don't have a tactical analysis system.
Consider your move 23. A simple 23..Nf3+ would have forked your King and Queen. Let me list out all the way you could have avoid blunders like these:
1) Knight colour scan principle: A simple colour scan reveals that his knight is on a dark square, your king and queen are now on dark squares too. Always look out for these color codes when a knight is close by and in striking range.
2) Loose piece principle: You NEED to keep all your and his pieces that are currently unprotected or attacked as many times as defended in your mind and then look at possible tactical strikes against them. In that context, your rook at a1, your bishop at a5 and your queen at d4 MUST be on your radar. Had you borne this principle in mind, you could have again avoided this blunder.
3) Check and forcing move principle: Every check you can deliver and that can be delivered against you must be borne in mind too - because checks are forcing moves. Had you at least applied this principle, again you would have spotted the possible fork.
In other words, this particular move fails at three levels. I am sure that IM and GM and other titled players will be able to share even better tactical systems.
Anyway, It was important for me to point this out, as you will see in the next section.
Section B:
If people's tactical systems are so flawed, why do people feel like they are good, and old masters are bad?
The reason is that 'chess knowledge' passed on through websites, videos, books and fora. People know the Sicilian-Najdorf variation perfectly, and they think that this knowledge of opening makes them superior to masters of the yesteryears. That is SO not true. Modern chess theory is practical and conservative to avoid possibilities of tactical strikes. It takes into account the FULL brilliance of the opposite player. In other words, GMs play conservatively against OTHER GMs, because the opposite GM is tactically perfect too. So aggressive playstyle will be punished eventually. But the same logic doesn't apply to lower level non-titled players.
You would be surprised to note that 'unsound openings' are stronger against <1900 players compared to 'sound openings'. Why?
1. Because 'sound openings' are passive/conservative.
2. Sound openings are bookish and anyone can study a book and offer counterplay.
Go back, master some tactics. Get a 2200+ puzzle rating on chesstempo and then you will see that games these old masters played weren't 'so bad'.
On topic: I do think that many 2000+ players armed with modern knowledge will destroy many 18th-19th century players. But that's not fair comparison. Because we have access to knowledge that were developed over the centuries. We have access to modern computing too. Any Physics graduate of today knows much more physics than Newton. Are we to deride Newton then?
Man...I know...Morphy...Steinitz..Lasker...Capablanca....Alekhine...
whew....what a bunch of patzers....
Any decent 1800 player today could beat the pants off of them.
You fools. You petty ignorant fools.
Perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Aug 6, 2015
0
#79
Dodger111 wrote:
Suchting was "a decent player" but no GM, and Nunn was being a jerk, and Rubenstein at his peak was no slouch as Nunn claims.
Screw Nunn.
---------
You asked for a citation. Apparently you weren't expecting one.
You may wish to learn about cognitive dissonance.
Presumably a smaller percentage of people played chess back then, a smaller percentage of a much smaller global population, for many of which chess was probably entirely unknown. So I'd suggest there were a lot of people out there who were potentially better at chess than those guys. Probably still partially true today.
That's why I possibly think Lionel Messi is the greatest person ever, at anything. Except maybe ancient warriors.
I don't know, Reb, I think I'm taller than Paul Morphy
He was a shorty wasnt he ?