Most fascinating periods in chess?

What would you say is the most fascinating chess era?  Some may say the 19th century, but there were so many unsound combinations, which were an ends unto themselves, and dubious and even unsound openings were allowed to flourish due to abysmal defensive technique. 

Personally, I think the 1920's or 1940's-50's era in chess would be the most fascinating.  The 20's because that was a time when such greats such as Tartakower, Reti, Nimzowitsch, Alekhine, Capablanca, Reshevsky, Lasker, Tarrasch, Blackburne, and others were active and hypermodernism was gaining great traction.  Botvinnik placed 5th in the USSR championship so he was an up and comer back then.  The 50's was also an interesting era marked by such greats as Botvinnik, Bronstein, Smyslov, Reshevsky, and others and was when Zurich 1953 was played. 

Vastly improved defensive technique (so combinations are extinguished and the mere threat of them are used to improve positions) and computerized opening prep make the current era markedly less interesting and engaging than the early 20th century. 

The standard of play was high in the 50s, but nowhere near today.  Even some children today could defeat the likes of La Bourdonnais, Anderssen and Steinitz given that there are 10 year olds who become FIDE masters. 

I think is now… Is “today period” because there are lots of people playing… You can see 18000 people live in chess.com… The communications ( internet) bring the game to everybody and the PC (chess engines) help to increase the level of chess… Now there are  excellent Super GM… and they tend to be better and younger… what’s the limit of human strength, is the real question?

It's an intersting question to me, especially because right now I am at the point where I want to start going over annotated games of some of the greats. I was wondering, after Logical Chess Move by Move by Cherev (an excellent beginner book), where I should go and in what order?

Alekhine, then Fischer, then Mammoth Book...not sure...

I have heard that some of Alekhine's analysis was anti-West due to the Cold War (he was a Soviet). Interesting how chess did not transcend the Cold War. That is an interesting era...

Every generation believes that it is superior to those who came before them Negyesy once boasted that the Masters in his time were far better than Geza Maroczy's he played a match against him and guess what? Negysey lost and found out otherwise.

It's a mistake to underestimate the powers of these great masters and not show them some respect.

Blackburne was dead (and quite old) by the mid 1920s. He was also a Romanticist.  Tarrasch, a bit of a Romanticst himself who peaked before 1920, might be called a Classicist and was anything BUT a Hypermodernist. 

Tarrasch and Nimzo were best buds, I don't know what you're talking about.

You're joking?

Is text that bad for sarcasm? 

Yes, it can be.

There was a game played between Alekhine and Blackburne from 1914 (I was surprized too and count the old 10's as part of the start of hypermodernism) that was analyzed in Soviet Middlegame Technique. 

I'm fond of 20th century history in general, it's no different for chess. Capablanca's domination, Zurich 1953, Tal's domination, Bobby Fischer vs USSR, K vs K... all interesting times for chess. Of course, the computer era completely changed everything. It made chess worse in some ways, and perhaps more interesting in some ways. But definitely more accessible.

I like the Romantic Era of Chess

My personal favorite time is when Kasparov was playing 1.d4(mid to late 80's).

The best player of all time, at his strongest point.  

Scala wrote:

I think is now… Is “today period” because there are lots of people playing… You can see 18000 people live in chess.com… The communications ( internet) bring the game to everybody and the PC (chess engines) help to increase the level of chess… Now there are  excellent Super GM… and they tend to be better and younger… what’s the limit of human strength, is the real question?

The problem with this is that fewer mistakes are made across the board and top level events aren't typically worth watching seriously, and yesterday's master is today's class A or even B far enough back.  The fewer mistakes and less left to discover the higher the draw rate will become.  What makes Carlsen interesting is he towers above the number 2... by 33 points, but still had an amazing win rate for top chess.  The play itself of course is typically dry, but that's to be expected with top chess anyway.  Sure, there are still interesting games being played at top level but it's a rare treat. 

"Blackburne was dead (and quite old) by the mid 1920s. He was also a Romanticist.  Tarrasch, a bit of a Romanticst himself who peaked before 1920, might be called a Classicist and was anything BUT a Hypermodernist.  "

Yes Tarrasch was a classicist, no one is claiming otherwise but he was a strong player during that period and being a classicist gave him a striking contrast with the hypermoderns, which contributes to the general period being interesting. 

"It's a mistake to underestimate the powers of these great masters and not show them some respect."

No one is underestimating them, I still study games from these periods (especially the 50s given that Botvinnik, Najdorf, Kotov, Averbakh, Bronstein, Reshevsky, and Smyslov were active during this decade!) but the fact remains that today's top players are standing on their shoulders and can therefore see farther.  Like Kasparov states in his Great Predecessor series the standard of play rises by the era, and old masters tend to be weak compared to new ones.  Carissa Yip, who is a very young expert defeated a 2600's GM.  For comparison Smyslov had this rating range in the 70s, so we can deduce that Yip would have a chance at defeating Smyslov if he were to be fresh out of a time machine from the 70s.  Is this a disrespect?  No, it isn't meant to be at least but merely a testament to chess progress. 

The 80s were a great chess decade given the Karpov-Kasparov struggle. 

Alekhine wasn't a Soviet, but he was an amazing chess player with an amazing backstory (which you touch upon, I have the Russell Enterprises version of his best games and it's great) so he counts. 

As for the old masters everytime an old game is annotated the annotator always has a negative view of the play generally and uses it as an example of how far we've come since then.  They'd make comments such as, "No modern intermediate would make such a move!" or, "Greco by today's standards would have a very backwoods style of play" or something to that effect. 

the 19th century had the most spectacular chess combinations.... Some of them were unsound, but they were still very pleasent to look at. I think that the early 20th century was a very fascinating stage in chess, where hypemodern play was introduced.

Let Dvoretsky and Yusupov get ahold of the kids and Steinitz would feel embarrassed for losing to children so easily.  They'd have too many advantages at their disposal such as modern training methods, making school like exams (such as, In Duras-Teichmann 1906 was 20.f4 sound?  Why or why not?  What was the idea behind it?  What idea if any was more appropriate in this situation?" or, "What are the strengths and weaknesses of a bishop?  A knight?  When is one better than another?  Which piece is better overall?"  Or, "What is the proper method of composing a plan in critical positions" "Is the Ruy Lopez better than the King's Gambit?  Why or why not?"  etc., to foster critical thinking and understanding of the game. Steinitz, as great as his chess contributions were, would have trouble against a 10 year old 2300 rated FIDE master given the modern advancements. 

Alekhine wasn't really a hypermodernist, but assimilated and adopted some of the ideas.  Blackburne, as he aged, probably also adapted, especially as the Romantic style became ever more ineffective and defensive resources were better understood.  I think to consider him a hypermodernist is really stretching a point.  Steinitz started as a Romanticist, then became Classicist of his own mold, but never a Hypermodernist. So, compared to Steinitz or Tarrasch perhaps, Blackburne had more hypermodern tendancies.

15 February 1985

Florencio Campomanes:

Anatoly Karpov will retain his title.  Period.