How bad were the old "GM's" really

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.

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.

Objection! A bold statement....calls for speculation. It is futile trying to un-patzer them with guess work.

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.

Akiba was a mad genius who played endgames better than modern engines.

wtf ?

Never confuse "word salad" with being in your salad years.

you appear biased.

i can understand his posts perfectly, on the other hand.

So?

i can see what he means, its not so difficult.

Is this an example of sockpuppet trolling?

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.

You're either a really terrible troll or a very ignorant and clueless individual. 

Because the king is brought out early you think it must be a bad player? Despite what you may think, bringing out the king early can be perfectly valid in certain openings. Even Super GMs today occasionally go on kingwalks, it's less than in yesteryear but still happens.  

You are generally advised never to bring your king out like that because they're hard to play for people of our level! That's the irony of what you're saying. And people of our level don't know shit about defending and about what constitutes an actually equal situation with the king in the middle vs what constitutes an 100% losing position with the king in the middle, because those positions can be unbelievably complicated. Also even if the computer does say it's bad this does not make it unsound for humans.   

Is he angry ? could he not simply answer like a well-raised kid ?

I have heard the idea, but forgot word, thanks!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

• 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.