How bad were the old "GM's" really

So you too read Soviet Middlegame Technique!  Romanovsky's analysis of that game was great and really illustrated the creative nature of Chigorin's play and how taking a concrete, situational approach is the best policy.  

Yes! A fellow scholar, finally someone to share some thoughts with on a  level befitting an intellectual of my ilk.

Speaking of concrete, I never mix more than 33% agrigate in any situation, this is simply the best approach. Analysis of the results show that this is the best technique even if Russians are mixing it for you. The nature of chicory makes for a pretty good coffee substitute I have read. 

I personally think largely due to Romanovsky's analysis of Chigorin's games and playing style Chigorin was better than Steinitz and Steinitz successfully defending his title was a small upset.  Steinitz thought he was better in a cable match game because he used purely general, static criteria such as being a pawn up whereas Chigorin knew the value of his initiative and could convert it into an even better position.    

'

sometimes I imagine a world where people really think like that

Here we have Steinitz-Lasker, Game #14, 1894

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/nph-chesspgn?text=1&gid=1132679

Steinitz: 3 inaccuracies, 0 mistakes, 0 blunders, 17 average centipawn loss

Lasker: 1 inaccuracies, 1 mistakes, 1 blunders, 36 average centipawn loss

Modern Grandmasters would have had considerable difficulty with Steinitz in match play, even at the age of 58!

The comment, "Steinitz and co. playing at their normal time controls might not be far off current GM 5-minute blitz," is pure non-sense.

Have you analysed any games to back up your statement, as I've done Jamie ?

Or are you only able to attack others posts in a trollish manner ?

You could of course use a piece of silicon, as you did earlier if you have any difficulties with your study.

Modern grandmasters are simply stronger.  The standard of play increases with each passing generation as new knowledge, training, and dietary techniques are discovered.  

Interesting critcism for a sock puppet. ;^)

I have dozens of books in my library with games from past masters.

I recently picked up Carlsbad 1929, annotated by Nimzovich; The Hague-Moscow 1948, by Euwe; and A.V.R.O. 1938, by Arthur Antler

I cant say that I have played through every game in every volume, but I would wager I have looked at most of them..  I have had fun recently, comparing select games to a engine scoring.

See, there you go with your "troll", "sockpuppet" stuff again.

If you conquer the troll within, you might learn to address other people with some kind of manners or respect. Whether you will succeed in that or ever be interested in it, I don't know.

I have Antler's book too. I bought my copy because it was the only commentary available at the time. However, there's a better tournament book out now on AVRO:

AVRO 1938 International Chess Tournament; Robert Sherwood & Dale Brandreth; 167 pages; Caissa Editions 2010

http://www.theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/john-watson-book-review-105-biographies-and-game-collections-2

Now you tell me!

Your English has greatly improved in the past few days. ;^)

I was looking at the companion volume by Sherwood and Brandreth, about the 1932 Pasadena (CA) tournament won by Alekhine.  Over 30 years ago, I went through microfische at the Pasadena library, looking for game scores.

Even with the book, there are a number of lost games, though the results were know.

When the US Championship was being held at Ambassador College, I talked with Kashdan about his recollections.  Somewhere, in the recesses of my garaage, I have my notes.

I recall Kashdan saying, in those days, he was called "the little Capablanca."  And about his fantastic Olympiad results.  In the 1930s, it is safe to say he was, with Marshall, Reschevsky, Fine, and Denker, the cream of the crop of American chess.

Spring 1938

Here is a game, Dake-Alekhine, Pasadena 1932, in which Arthur Dake rips the World Champion a new one:

Dake: 2 inaccuracies, 0 mistakes, 0 blunders, 9 average centipawn loss

Alekhine: 2 inaccuracies, 3 mistakes, 0 blunders, 26 average centipawn loss

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/nph-chesspgn?text=1&gid=1012895

Arthur Dake was born in Poland in 1910, but came to the US as a child.  He learned chess at the age of 17 from a Russian in Oregon.  He became a chess hustler (at 25-cents per game) at Coney Island, NY, in the late 1920s.

Dake was a "natural talent" and grew in strength quickly.  He was one of the top Americans during the 1930s, and played on several of the Olympiad teams.

During the Depression, he got a steady job with the Oregon State DMV.  Thus, his chess career went into a hiatus.

He was award the title of International Master in 1954.

Ah that's great! almost midway into the 20th century and the play is getting near top class.

1933

1932=middle of 20th century?

Anyways I don't think that centipawn average loss is such a great indicator of how good a chessplayer is; good is a term that's very hard to make objective.

Edit: looking through the Dake game gives a more legit reason that top players today are better than they were: Be6 deprives Black of the e5 break against the c5 push and so is bad on Black's part. I couldn't imagine a world-class player playing this, but Anand played it in a rapid in 2009 against Nepo, and Navara won with it in 2014. iirc theory still frowns on it now.