How bad were the old "GM's" really

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...

That last one speaks for itself I think

That last one merely shows how to punish a patzer for bringing the queen out early.

Debistro wrote:

That last one merely shows how to punish a patzer for bringing the queen out early.

That last one proves

1.that a random patzer from New Orleans, like McConnel, usually plays like a patzer.

2. that a 12-year old boy can demolish a patzer if his name is Paul Morphy.

3. that the O.P. has no clue what "GM" stands for.

3. Greek Moron ?

Always with the negativity, never a good word for anyone.

So, what else your little game shows? Please enlighten us...

If you want to prove that you could have a chance to win one game out of one thousand against 12-year old Morphy, then you might be right. If you leave one million monkeys banging at one million typewriters for one million years, there is a faint chance that they could rewrite the Bible. Why limit that to monkeys, and leave ducks out?

Untrue. They will all die of starvation within a month and a half. They might even briefly turn to cannibalism and excessive breeding before dying a horrible and pathetic death. 

Is Cecil not enough , must you let more animals suffer!? 

You are cold,hard man pfren.

Also it is not my little game, it is Morphy's little game and whatever your opinion is  about it why can't you just be civil instead of always being hostile and bitter toward everybody around you?

I don't think so, pfren.

First of all, let's assume the monkeys will be banging out 1000 characters per second. Let's also assume that the typewriters do not get their strings or whatever tied up at the fast rate of banging. Let's also assume that the type writers don't break, and the monkeys are also immortal.

The Bible constitutes of approximately 800,000 words. It also constitutes of 31,000 (appr.) verses, and each verse has a few numbers.

So, first of all, there are 26 letters on the keyboard, in addition to the space bar. In addition, the bible wasn't written in english, only translated, so it would be a bit difficult to write the Bible with an English typewriter. XD.

The first sentence of the bible (english translated) is "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Now, there are 55 characters in that one sentence, including space marks. If we take 27^55, we get ~5.3^10*73. That is a huge number. This means that if 1 million monkeys were banging out 1000 characters per second, they would not be able to finish the first sentence in one million years. In terms of probability, finishing the first sentence in zero. Well, technically it is 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000006822...etc.  but... the point is, that is practically zero. And we are talking about just completing the first sentence.

To complete the first sentence with those monkeys, we are talking about eons upon eons of monkey lifetimes. And these monkeys are immortal.

Now imagine completing the whole bible.

Of course, if you prove my calculations incorrect, I would be more than happy to be corrected. I'm not very skilled in this area, but something tells me that the odds would be even lower were one to correct me.

EDIT: LOL at premiumduck.

EDIT2: Just ran some new calculations, it seemed that it would take 2 million years to be able to hit the first 3 words of the bible. Yet the bible is 800k words. There is not even a faint chance that the monkeys will be able to hit the whole bible within 1 million years. Not even a googleplex years. Within a google plex years you might be able to hit the first two sentences.

ha! A most awesome reply , proves that I am once again right even if you disregard the starvation thing.

Why thank you.

About the 1st post: Lichtenberg once wrote - A book is like a mirror. If a monkey looks into it you can't expect that an apostle looks out of it. Imo this is valid for chess games too.

Behold ! A friendly and approachable titled member! Not only that a premium member too!!

What a strange time we live in.

Proof that you don't automatically become bitter and miserable once you cross the 2100 rating mark. 

I am seriously reconsidering becoming a GM for the first time in 20 years after this.

Thank you chesskingdreamer my the Spirit of Chess shine upon your every move.

But how is that valid considering paper is not a reflective surface?

More endless speculation on subjects that have no clear answer. Why waste so much time? How many more times do we have to hear about debates comparing Alekhine, Fisher, Kasparov etc.? We will never know for sure, just move on.

Wrong thread buddy, unless you missed the topic completely, then you are on the right thread but with the wrong answer. 

We have so far basically proven that the so called GM's of the 1800's were not all that. There is a whole lot of proof in the games cited as well as an indepth analysis by Nunn who came to the same conclusion.

Kasparov said of Nunn " What he [Nunn] does not know about chess is not worth knowing"

At this stage we are just eliminating the last pockets of resistance and their illogical arguments and here you are banging a drum about Fisher who is really Fischer, what the hell man!? 

Only if left in a room full of typewriters for a million years.