Btw, every aspiring master should study the great games of the old masters. But they shouldn't waste time studying *every* game played back then.
How bad were the old "GM's" really
Sort:
chessmicky wrote:
The grandasters of former times didn't have a "deficit in knowledge and understanding," they were inventing and creating the knowledge and understanding! The reason all the top grandmasters today play the endgame as well (or nearly as well) as Rubinstein is because they have studied the games of Rubinstein. And the same kind of thing holds true across the board. A steinitz, Lasker, or Pillsburry born today would master all the lessons of the past and be super GMs.
Objection! A bold statement....calls for speculation. It is futile trying to un-patzer them with guess work.
Aug 6, 2015
0
#84
Rubinstein is one of my favorite players. And clearly Carlsen, Anand and the rest have studied Rubinstein's best games including Rotlewi-Rubinstein and Cohn-Rubinstein.
wtf ?
Never confuse "word salad" with being in your salad years.
chessmicky wrote:
PremiumDuck wrote:
There might have been some that were a bit better than others but I could definitely have been a title contender 120 years ago.
If the title was "World's Greatest Wanker."
you appear biased.
[COMMENT DELETED]
i can understand his posts perfectly, on the other hand.
So?
i can see what he means, its not so difficult.
Aug 6, 2015
0
#94
PremiumDuck wrote:
Good god !!! I see what you are saying I have never seen a move like that!
Not exactly awesome but even if it was then there is still such a thing as the law of avareges ,even a broken clock is correct twice a day....
Levitsky: 0 inaccuracies, 1 mistakes, 1 blunder, 35 average centipawn loss
Marshall: 1 inaccuracies, 1 mistakes, 0 blunders, 17 average centipawn loss
Levitsky - Move #20 ?? (best Qe4), #21 ? (best Bxe6+), #22 ? (best Bxe6+)
Marshall - Move #3 ?! (best Nf6), #21 ? (best Rxf2)
Marshall played a quite credible game, and his mistake(?) was not taking a less spectacular win.
Is he angry ? could he not simply answer like a well-raised kid ?
Aug 6, 2015
0
#96
Dodger111 wrote:
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.
I have heard the idea, but forgot word, thanks!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Aug 6, 2015
0
#97
HarleenQuinzelMD wrote:
OP right.
- Member Since: Aug 6, 2015
- Last Login: Aug 6, 2015
- Profile Views: 44
- Points: 6
"The reason all the top grandmasters today play the endgame as well (or nearly as well) as Rubinstein is because they have studied the games of Rubinstein"
The top players today have trained professionally since childhood, have read and studied all the classics and have engines to help them, GM coaches, databases, Internet, frequent top tournaments, seconds etc etc, and still you think they might only play nearly as well as Rubinstein, who never finished ahead of Lasker or Capa in his career? If that was correct the talent level must have fallen many classes the last century...
Rubinstein learned to play chess when he was 16, at that age Karjakin had already been a GM for four years. Comparisons of objective playing strength are just not fair. Rubinstein played his first tournament at the same age as Carlsen's when winning his second title match.
i think there is a pont in op topic...
If we could bring back to life this legends @ their peak strength, and have em play right away against some strong players i think they ll have problem. But what if could bring em back young and give em all the "weapons" players have now...
Coach, chess engines, the knowledge we already have thanks to those guys too...
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.
I don't see Nunn calling Rubinstein a slouch there. Of course Rubinstein was great. But he was a player of his time. And the grandmasters of former times had a huge deficit in knowledge and understanding compared to the grandmasters of our times. In my view it's a lack of respect towards modern grandmasters to think that they are not superior to anyone from the Bronze Age of chess.