The Founding Fathers of Chess are Unappreciated Today

[Edited Title]

In almost all intellectual communities, the earliest students are renowned and praised. Philosophers revere Socrates, Confucius, and Voltaire; musicians admire Bach, Mozart, Chopin. Countrymen respect their nation's founders. But why does it seem that the chess community has such little respect for its game's earliest players? 

Pedro Damiano (1480 - 1544), who first wrote in 1512 that 1. e4 and 1. d4 were the best opening moves, and that 1. e4 was better. Ruy Lopez (1530 - 1580), who gave us one of our most popular and successful openings, defeated all the greatest players of his day, and found fame in his country for his skills. Giovanni Leonardo (1542 - 1597), who won the first known international master tournament in the history of chess in 1575. And Gioachino Greco (1600 - 1634), who analyzed the greatest contemporary openings and wrote manuscripts of the earliest and most vital tactics to modern chess.

Magnus Carlsen, Hikaru Nakamura, and the dozens of other modern chess players that are idolized today, would be nothing without the teachings of the 16th and 17th century masters: piece development, occupation of the four center squares, basic chess openings, etc.. I should assume that it is infinitely more difficult to analyze a board game that has absolutely no theory behind it, and still get it right. And yet these men still managed to play at a level far above the majority of members on this site, who have access to hundreds of years of chess theory and analysis (yes, this includes me).

Arguably, a good chess player's knowledge can be split into two groups: that which is memorization (this is what others have learned before you, which you have learned from them), and that which is your own independent understanding. Think about all the memorized opening theory in a chess player's brain; the principles they were taught in lessons, certain endgames they studied from other peoples' games, etc.. Now take that all away, and leave only the player's ability to learn from the game itself. This is what a 16th century chess player had to work with, and still those four chess players I mentioned in my second paragraph were capable of playing at what I believe would now be described as a 1400-1500 rating level.

Modern players have no personality in their play; it's all computer-like memorization and no spirit. Early players played with character and aggression. I think this is the reason chess is perceived by outsiders as boring and unattractive. Yes, now that engines exist, it's what must be done to make it to the top. But we can't forget about the men who formed the modern player's basic understanding with nothing to work off of.

Magnus Carlsen did not bring new ideas to chess, he used what is available to anyone else. I fail to see how that is in any way as impressive as what Damiano or Lopez brought to this game.

Sure, it doesn't change the fact that he is capable of defeating most other players. But it does show that he is undeserving of the respect and idolization that he is given by most members of this website. The same goes for most masters today.

And I really don't think it is comparable to football's modern greatest players. Messi and Ronaldo's physical and technical skills are not a new idea, but they go above that of their peers. The modern idea of superiority in chess is largely based on memorization, something anyone is capable of. But superiority in a physical sport is based on constant training and a unique technique that nobody else has.

OP demonstrates extreme case of romanticization of the past, the opposite of recency biases that are more commonly seen today in chess. 

Not true that Carlsen didn't contribute to the theory of the game either. Virtually all world champions brought something new. For Carlsen it's the London, the Bb5 Moscow variation of Sicilian against d6, and more recently the Catalan.

He's been rated #1 consecutively since what, 2010? Against the toughest competition in the world, ALL of whom built upon all prior knowledge of the game. There's an argument to be made that he isn't yet the GOAT as he hasn't been dominant as long as Kasparov yet. This argument, however, is ludicrous and the type of argument you'd expect from a 1000 rated player who thinks they've had some great epiphany about the game.

I understand that I am low-rated and inexperienced myself. I know that I am not a dependable source. You must remember that my argument is not that Magnus Carlsen would lose to a 16th-century chess player. It is that the players who formed our basic understanding of this game, who are virtually unknown among the general population of chess players, do not receive the attention that they deserve. They contributed more to this game than any amount of studying of concepts already discovered could ever contribute.

Surely there is some amount of unique knowledge and understanding in Carlsen’s repertoire that sets him apart from other players, but this is nothing in comparison to the men who founded new concepts and ideas from scratch hundreds of years before there were analysts and engines to confirm the truth of their claims.

he wasn't around to make the openings either

Arguably the best ? I detest. Carlsen only really ever gets compared to Kasparov. And there is a man who defeated Kasparov in a match .. a title match.. so no he hasn't proven to me he is better than Vlad Kram. 

And who says Vlad Kram is the best there ever was? 

Your title says greatest if all time, not most innovative. He is the best ever because he gets to study all of the prior innovators. 

You can’t compare skill levels from different eras in any competitive endeavor. The fact is those past greats are not in this time with all the advantages this time conveys. Any conjecture regarding how good they would be now is no better than conjecture.

You can't always re-invent the wheel.

The wheel was already invented by the time Magnus was born.

Magnus uses the wheel better than anyone else.

It's great that ruy lopez was around to be so innovative, but it doesn't mean he was the best all time.

You simply can't create any chess openings these days, as the absolute best you can do is create a line using already known openings.

Magnus's performance in chess is arguably the best all time. With each day he stays champion, the more likely he is best all time. 

That clickbait title doesn't match the narrative. 

There is a big difference in being called the greatest chess player of all time and being called the greatest contributor to chess as a whole throughout history.

When people refer to Magnus as potentially the greatest, they are probably referring to him in the greatest player of all time sense. 

There are different facets to the game of chess. History, Passion, Accuracy, etc...

Each facet has followers, and that plays a role in who they believe to be the "greatest". 

"This person contributed so much to chess! They are the greatest!"

"No other person has played the game of chess with such passion! They are the greatest! "

But the truth of the matter is this.... pick whichever person you want.... they won't beat Magnus.  

"Greatest" is a very broad term and is nothing more than a debate starter.

Hypotheticals vs Opinions vs Results

Also, in my humble opinion, computers have only dulled the spectator side of chess. As a whole, it has given normal people access to the beauty of chess by showing them things they would never of been able to find from their own games ,most likely, without the help of a Titled Player..

I fail to see how that argument is ludicrous, Kasparov faced incredible competition too, and WAS dominant for longer than Magnus. That argument basically means that Magnus isn't the GOAT yet, but he likely will become it if he continues his dominance for al little longer. However, labeling those who support this argument 1000s is either recency bias or a hasty conclusion.

No, Martin is.

Magnus Carlsen is the greatest of all time.

Modern chess is not "5% actual understanding and decision-making skills". Once you go out of theory understanding and decision making skills is everything.

Sure players have memorized the general principles, but they need to be applied to unique positions which no one has ever seen before. That requires actual understanding and decision making skills.