Past vs. Present
Sort:
I was curious how the great ones of the past (like Morphy, Steinitz, et al. not only from the 19th century but also from earlier centuries) would fare against modern greats like Carlsen, Kramnik, Kasparov, etc.; was wondering also what ratings the "blasts from the past" would have if they played in the present. I saw that one of the chess.com 'bots' was supposed to reflect Morphy, and it gave him a 2500 rating, but t is this accurate, I wonder?
Not sure, but they probably look at some famous games by the players and the computer analysis finds the player's overall rating by identifying the accuracy of the moves or something.
This is the way I look at it - in the past there was no one rated 2700. Simply game of chess hasn't evolved to that level. People at the top were still beasts and can't be compared to todays standards. Same goes for our generation. Maybe in 200 years there will be much more players rated 2800+. There is nothing we can do about that. But to say someone else wasn't that good because we compared him with something new that didn't even exist when he was playins is wrong in my eyes.
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.