How did early masters get so good?

I mean players in the late 1800’s or early 1900’s. There were no computer engines or game databases. Chess books were probably much harder to get. Fewer masters were available for study or training matches. How did they go from club players to strong masters or world champions?

i think once the Righteous Brothers invented the plane, the best chess players were finally able to rub shoulders, drink beer together, smoke cigars, go hang gliding, play snakes and ladders and most importantly play together and make tournaments and world championships.

What do you think anyone did before computers?

Another ridiculous statement is: "I don't know what i did before cell phones."

Mostly they were idiot nobility... who didn't have anything better to do. And they weren't that good anyhow.

Well they were just good at the game. Of course not as good as today's players but such is evolution

tbh rn your win streak is 1

Although there were many fewer books at that time, there were well-known instructional books, opening analyses, and game collections. Many, many newspapers also carried chess columns with annotated games and problems. Other than that, is was playing against the best opponents you could find and analysis on your own.

They accomplished a great deal with a relatively small amount of resources!

existence of internet computers databases doesnt necessarily mean they are doing any good to us.

its more important how we use them.

look at young generation, they all carry space tech in their pocket and all they do is to enter instagram and writing 2-3 letter of words and trolling eachother.. doing stupid things.

maybe before these ages people had lesser interference on their minds. they were reading books, and they were sparing time for "thinking...".

sparing special time for thinking for something is a very far consept for this generation.. if they ever do think at all

I'm old school.  I prefer real books to e-books.  I prefer real chess sets to online chess.  I prefer OTB play to online play. 

I prefer going to actual tournament sites, seeing old friends, making new friends, seeing new places, and revisiting old places.

Online is cold, callous, and dark.  People go to such lengths to pretend to be someone they aren't.

I miss meeting people and people acting normal.

Has anyone ever decided convincingly on the rating of say, Philidor or Greco, or Ruy Lopez?

Just my .02

I could care less what their ratings are.  The games are fun to play over, ad excellent for low rated players to learn from.

Anyone can get good at chess because it is so easy and early starters get better faster because they get more time to learn and play

I cannot see how the claim that the players of today are better than those of the past can be justified then, even though anyone who knows anything about Chess can see that the standard of their play was inferior to that of today.

I am sure that passing the old-timer's games through something like PGN-spy would give a measure of that standard.

Such an exercise has been done with players from what is considered the Modern Era, which is widely held to be of from Steinitz until now.

A player who comes out of that looking really great is Capablanca.

Hmm... a little warm air in that study, braw. Prime Capablanca v Prime Kaspy or Prime Carlsen? Honestly can't see Capa winning. But give Prime Capa a few months with a super CPU...

then again, Carlson’s engine-like play might be no match for Capa’s human game.

Apparently Capablanca could be a little lazy... So given modern CPU equipment... Fischer might be best. Maybe.

I started chess before chess engines and before data bases and before internet and very few chess books. Early on I figured out that to lose you must make a mistake, I learned on  my own how to identify my mistakes and mistakes of others. Then I tried not to continue making the same mistakes. There was a book on  Pawn Structure which helped also  Somewhat later I bought a book on  endgames--a very famous book...

I mentioned Capa rather than Fischer, because Capa is probably considered an old timer by most youngsters today, whereas for many Fischer's memory still is around for anyone over 60.

Believe it or not, I was around in Capa's time, so I am fairly ancient. 

Capa was a good time boy, with a sinecure from the Cuban Govt, and really not someone I admire in that regard, but he was pound for pound probably the best of all time. He was beaten by Alekhin, because Alekhin prepared very well  Alekhin never gave him a chance to get the title back, a very wise decision, but rather unsporting, but he played for keeps,

BTW, I was rather young when Capa died, and being one year of age, I had to read about all this.

Carlsen has a similar style to Capa, but he works harder, and is super confident.

Pardon the history lesson, 

But, if anyone wished to ridecule all this, be my guest, as I have stuck my neck out a bit.

I love Chess, even if I have a few more norms and a 1300 deficit to get to GM, but I am still working on it.