My apologies, but more nitpicking...
While I agree with you, batgirl, regarding the various spelling of Levitsky, spelling Chigorin as "Tschigorin" is wrong. It's not just idiosyncratic or romantic, it's wrong.
That transliteration has been aproved by my Russian contact.
JamieDelarosa wrote:
Here is Game #2 from the Steintz-Lasker match in 1894. Steinitz played a near-flawless game. 1800 or 1900 level players don't frequently play this well:
Steinitz: 0 inaccuracies, 0 mistakes, 0 blunders, 11 average centipawn loss
Lasker: 4 inaccuracies, 2 mistakes, 0 blunders, 26 average centipwn loss
Jaime not only 1900elo but even 2300 elo can't play like this well.
As I noted in another topic, Elo rating systems are only concerned with game results (won, loss, draw). They do not attempt to measure the quality of the individual moves.
That is another, much more subjective, analysis.
The OP, who is not of sufficient chess strength, attempts to make such a claim. He falls flat on his troll face.
Modern-day computer analysis, which mathematically evaluates individual moves, can be of assistance toward that end. But even they are not infallible.
I read a book about Paul Morphy once, where the author basicly made fun of him & a handful of other classical players for using moves like h3 & h6 in K-pawn games. This went on for 200 pages to almost the last couple of pages where his general consensus changed to, well, maybe its reasonable.
Really? 200 pages to agree that clasical players like Morphy made good & reasonable moves a majority of the time.
Were they perfect? no
Were they superhuman? no
But would you want to see them play chess? YES!
Those thinking of going to the past should be aware that the consequences of that could be disastrous. If one brings a 19th cenury chess player back to the future, it could create a time-paradox the result of which could cause a chain reaction that would unravel the very fabric of the space-time continuum and destroy the entire universe. Granted, that's a worst case scenario. The destruction might, in fact, be very localized, limited to our own galaxy. Still, safety is not guaranteed, and relaxing in a hot tub is a much better way to spend one's time.
Those thinking of going to the past should be aware that the consequences of that could be disastrous. If one brings a 19th cenury chess player back to the future, it could create a time-paradox the result of which could cause a chain reaction that would unravel the very fabric of the space-time continuum and destroy the entire universe. Granted, that's a worst case scenario. The destruction might, in fact, be very localized, limited to our own galaxy. Still, safety is not guaranteed, and relaxing in a hot tub is a much better way to spend one's time.
Are you suggesting a hot tub time machine?
John Nunn analysed all of the games from several tournaments played ~1850-1930 and was shocked by just how poorly the games were played. ...
I thought it was only Karlsbad 1911. http://www.theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/historical-and-biographical-works-installment-3
I read a book about Paul Morphy once
Which book?
I'll post the title & author when I find it.
Where are "GM's of the 1800's" identified?
Jamie feels Steinitz played a near-flawless game (1894 WCC game 2). His opening play was amateurish, but probably good for the time. His hopeful attack was poorly countered by Lasker. 13.... h6 looks the right timing to kick the g5 knight, black being better. Even at move 25 black is ok, two quick blunders costing him the game.
"troll face" .... is that some kind of loser sneeze ?
ylblai2 wrote:
SmyslovFan wrote:
John Nunn analysed all of the games from several tournaments played ~1850-1930 and was shocked by ...
I thought it was only Karlsbad 1911. http://www.theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/historical-and-biographical-works-installment-3
-------------------
Nunn edited and updated several old tournament books. The quote was a direct reference to one tournament. He made a similar pint in Secrets of Practical Chess.
... He made a similar pint in Secrets of Practical Chess. ...
I do not remember you producing any sentence that Nunn wrote about the shockingly poor play apparent from an analysis of "all of the games from several tournaments played ~1850-1930".
SmyslovFan wrote:
"Nunn edited and updated several old tournament books. ..."
Can you name a few?
Point, not pint. I really should stop posting from my phone.
Freudian slip? Thinking about having a beer?!
Although there were chess grand masters in the 1700-1900's they cannot be compared to any GM today.
They were not bad for their day but looking at some of their games I believe they are not much stronger than about 1800-1900 max today.
Would this be an accurate estimate?
I don't understand how few people understand this. These guys were MAKING ALL OF THESE MOVES THEM SELVES!!! How well do you think Komodo would play with it's opening book off? It's not uncommon for GMs these days to not come up with one single move at the board.
My apologies, but more nitpicking...
While I agree with you, batgirl, regarding the various spelling of Levitsky, spelling Chigorin as "Tschigorin" is wrong. It's not just idiosyncratic or romantic, it's wrong. Since the Russian Revolution, the spelling of Чиго́рин has been standard. That can be translated into English as "Tch", but not as "Tsch". That would actually involve another Cyrillic letter, "Ц" and Ч. The most common way to transliterate "Ч" is "Ch". Most modern English translations of the great Jewish master is "Chigorin".
Your spelling uses pre-modern Russian rules.