Quit your jibba jabba mr serious.
Late 1800s is just below 1900.
Check out the math.
What would be the rating of a top chess player in the late 1800s today
Sort:
Not as cute as your pet cat.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/132380754/Chess-Player-Analysis-by-Rybka-3-14ply
Looking at average expected error by thinking time, their modern rating would be around 2500.
Mar 1, 2015
0
#266
I am very scientific when I think of math or physics. When I think about chess I tend to be wrong.
HueyWilliams wrote:
I've just been reading about quantum physics. And now I don't know what to think.
He he
Have you ever played quantum chess? I had found an online site where i had played some, you moved your Knight (for example) and it could become a Rook on the new square, it was very unpredictable :D
Mar 2, 2015
0
#268
lesperance wrote:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/132380754/Chess-Player-Analysis-by-Rybka-3-14ply
Looking at average expected error by thinking time, their modern rating would be around 2500.
Thanks for that interesting link! The author clearly spent many hours compiling his data and crunching numbers. Your conclusions don't match the conclusions of the author though. He shows that generally, chess skill has improved pretty steadily and dramatically from 1880 to 1999, marking a nearly 300 point rating gain in skill.
You did see what the author had to say about how he calculated thinking time, didn't you? It was mostly educated guesswork.
One interesting bit in that paper (which wasn't an academic paper, but a detailed post in a Rybka forum), is that the author concluded that players actually had more time per move before 1920 than they do today!
Another point is that except for Capa, players from before WWII performed markedly worse than players today, and made considerably more blunders. Tal was a notable modern exception going the other way. His blunder rate was very high despite being far more accurate than players in the 19th Century in other ways.
The paper argues that the six best players from 1880-1900 including Zukertort, Lasker, Steinitz, Chigorin, Tarrasch and Pillsbury averaged about 2438 elo while the top five players from 1980-1999 (Korchnoi, Karpov, Kasparov, Anand and Kramnik) averaged 2730 elo performance levels (p.13). He doesn't explain why he analysed the top six as opposed to the top five.
There are other issues with his procedures, especially how he estimates time spent per move, but his findings are generally in line with those of professional statisticians.
@Smyslov, with my deepest respect to you as a chess player, is regan/paper not accurate.
Here's my source:
I play against experts and masters and they are very good players but they don't have the deepness as a Staunton, Anderssen or Morphy. To put Staunton as a 1900 player is ridiculous because a 1900 player push wood and Staunton play chess and he calculate well and make deep plan in the middlegame. I will put Staunton at least in the 2400 level. Even more ridiculous is Anderssen put him in the 2000 to 2112, there is no modern masters that can play in his caliber, even with their opening advantage. Have you see some of his positional masterpiece and how deep he can calculate, there is no expert that can play at such high caliber. If there were to be a match between a modern expert against the genius of Anderssen it would be a crush in ten game match, it be 10 wins to Anderssen. Now come to Morphy, the study said it would rated Morphy at low 2124 to 2344. A modern master playing against the genius of Morphy in ten game match, Morphy will crush master with ten wins straight. Now we come to Steinitz, without his scientific research chess will be in the darkages. To put Steinitz in the 1937 to 2486 is beyond ridiculous. Steinitz in the 1900 level, that is a wood pusher and Steinitz is no duffer. Look at his games before 1870 they were at least in the 2400 level not 1900 level.
Here Morphy playing high level chess against a master not an expert level. To say Morphy played weak opponents is not true, he played very strong masters. Morphy had to earn his wins against Loewenthal, you judge for yourself if a expert or low master can play in Morphy caliber.
To put Steinitz in the 1937 is worst, he was great chess genius not a wood-pusher.
Steinitz and Zukertort found their moves otb not from a team of grandmasters and computer program. Steinitz would beat any modern IM easily in a match. Steinitz rating is more in the 2500 level.
Mar 2, 2015
0
#270
Optimissed wrote:
What has thinking time got to do with it, if they were allowed more time or played without clocks? So that is probably a mistake in the method.
The more time there is the more accurate your moves on. They had clocks back then of course and they were timed.
To put Zukertort in 2199 level is a joke!!! He was great chess genius and modern day master would have lose to Zurkertort in a match.
Keep thinking that these a great chess genius can not play chess in they are in the expert level. They found their incredible move otb and won brilliant!!!
During Morphy's time, someone my rating would be a piece dropper
Mar 2, 2015
0
#273
yureesystem wrote:
@Smyslov, with my deepest respect to you as a chess player, is regan/paper not accurate.
Here's my source:
I play against experts and masters and they are very good players but they don't have the deepness as a Staunton, Anderssen or Morphy. To put Staunton as a 1900 player is ridiculous because a 1900 player push wood and Staunton play chess and he calculate well and make deep plan in the middlegame. I will put Staunton at least in the 2400 level.
Answer: Have you actually played through a collection of Staunton's games? Not his best games, but all his games. They are sometimes quite painful! I don't know what level he was independent of Regan's numbers, but I do believe that you or I would have a good shot against him.
Even more ridiculous is Anderssen put him in the 2000 to 2112, there is no modern masters that can play in his caliber, even with their opening advantage. Have you see some of his positional masterpiece and how deep he can calculate, there is no expert that can play at such high caliber. If there were to be a match between a modern expert against the genius of Anderssen it would be a crush in ten game match, it be 10 wins to Anderssen.
Answer: I have played through the games of Anderssen. He had some truly beautiful combinations. He also had some really bad duffer games. In a ten game match against a modern expert (+2100 FIDE), I'm pretty sure that the modern expert could steer many games into positions that would be terribly uncomfortable for Anderssen. I'd expect the score to be extremely close. Yes, today's experts are standing on the shoulders of giants. But that's the point. We have all learned from the greats of the past. That doesn't diminish their greatness, but it does show how much we have improved.
Now come to Morphy, the study said it would rated Morphy at low 2124 to 2344. A modern master playing against the genius of Morphy in ten game match, Morphy will crush master with ten wins straight.
Answer: Regan states that Morphy's play averaged ~2344 over his 59 most important games. Again, look at the games themselves. Morphy had real weaknesses that even Anderssen managed to exploit. Imagine a modern master rated ~2400 facing Morphy. He would know not to go into an open game against Morphy, and would slowly strangle Morphy the way Anderssen did in a few games. Morphy's brilliance couldn't be stymied for 10 straight games, but I'd slightly favor the 2400 rated modern master in such a contest.
Now we come to Steinitz, without his scientific research chess will be in the darkages. To put Steinitz in the 1937 to 2486 is beyond ridiculous. Steinitz in the 1900 level, that is a wood pusher and Steinitz is no duffer. Look at his games before 1870 they were at least in the 2400 level not 1900 level.
...
To put Steinitz in the 1937 is worst, he was great chess genius not a wood-pusher.
Answer: You misread Regan's ratings. He states that Steinitz up to 1870 was 1937 strength. from 1871-1882, he performed at a 2320 rating. That is about even with Morphy. Steinitz at his best was close to 2500 strength according to Regan, but he was not able to maintain that level. Steinitz was possibly the first person in history who could have made grandmaster using the modern norm system. He was the best player on the planet until Lasker came along. Chess has developed tremendously since then.
By the way, have you actually played through a collection of Steinitz' games? Not just his best games, but all his games. The way he defeated Chigorin is well worth celebrating. But he committed some real howlers that even you or I could have punished quite easily.
Steinitz and Zukertort found their moves otb not from a team of grandmasters and computer program. Steinitz would beat any modern IM easily in a match. Steinitz rating is more in the 2500 level.
Answer: Yes. Steinitz and Zukertort and the rest invented much that we take for granted today. But again, we take their contributions as a starting point! Today's IMs have far better technique, far better opening preparations, far better competition, usually far better training habits, and even better diets! Steinitz would be a handful for most International Masters. But he was only about equal to a 2500 level GM on his best days.
John Nunn analysed some of the games from the early 20th Century and was shocked to find so many blunders that were missed by both sides. Today's GMs are voracious and would indeed destroy the amateurs of the late 1800s.
You haven't disproven Regan at all. To do that, you would have to show how his calculations and formulas are wrong.
Mar 2, 2015
0
#274
If you take a look at the long draws Staunton had with his contemporaries, you will see what level of chess they played.
Here's just one such game, without any commentary so that you can test yourself and see if you can find errors in their play.
2500-2600
SmyslovFan wrote:
lesperance wrote:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/132380754/Chess-Player-Analysis-by-Rybka-3-14ply
Looking at average expected error by thinking time, their modern rating would be around 2500.
Thanks for that interesting link! The author clearly spent many hours compiling his data and crunching numbers. Your conclusions don't match the conclusions of the author though. He shows that generally, chess skill has improved pretty steadily and dramatically from 1880 to 1999, marking a nearly 300 point rating gain in skill.
You did see what the author had to say about how he calculated thinking time, didn't you? It was mostly educated guesswork.
One interesting bit in that paper (which wasn't an academic paper, but a detailed post in a Rybka forum), is that the author concluded that players actually had more time per move before 1920 than they do today!
Another point is that except for Capa, players from before WWII performed markedly worse than players today, and made considerably more blunders. Tal was a notable modern exception going the other way. His blunder rate was very high despite being far more accurate than players in the 19th Century in other ways.
The paper argues that the six best players from 1880-1900 including Zukertort, Lasker, Steinitz, Chigorin, Tarrasch and Pillsbury averaged about 2438 elo while the top five players from 1980-1999 (Korchnoi, Karpov, Kasparov, Anand and Kramnik) averaged 2730 elo performance levels (p.13). He doesn't explain why he analysed the top six as opposed to the top five.
There are other issues with his procedures, especially how he estimates time spent per move, but his findings are generally in line with those of professional statisticians.
Yeah, you are right.
yureesystem wrote:
To put Zukertort in 2199 level is a joke!!! He was great chess genius and modern day master would have lose to Zurkertort in a match.
Keep thinking that these a great chess genius can not play chess in they are in the expert level. They found their incredible move otb and won brilliant!!!
I remember reading that game in Soviet Middlegame Technique and Dvoretsky's School of Future Champions 1. It was a great game but if a runner's top speed in a race is 13 MPH, spends half a minute at 5 MPH, and does the rest at 8 MPH then did he finish with 13 MPH? Of course not. Overall Judgments should be judged on averages not peaks.
@Smyslovfan:
I already see 2.f4?! and Staunton not playing 2...d5! as mistakes already, I have to go through the rest. 3.c4? just weakens the d4 square too much and isn't a necessary pawn move. Also blocks in the lightsquared bishop.
Mar 3, 2015
0
#278
Andy, yeah, I didn't really consider those to be big mistakes. But play through the game. You may be amazed at some of the whoppers. What's really amazing is this isn't cherry picked. I played through three long drawn games played against top players of the day and they all contained blunders.
HueyWilliams wrote:
"I already see 2.f4?! and Staunton not playing 2...d5! as mistakes already, I have to go through the rest. 3.c4? just weakens the d4 square too much and isn't a necessary pawn move. Also blocks in the lightsquared bishop."
LOL
See, it's crap like that that keeps me laughing around here...
It would have been a nice post if it were satire.
They weren't big mistakes (3.c4? was a bit much maybe ?! does for it) that I mentioned but from a modern perspective anything other than 2...d5! seems weak by comparison. 2...e6 wasn't a mistake per se but it's simply inferior to the best move.
I'll go through the rest but it's amazing how they created weaknesses very willingly. The principle of economy in defense should be common sense and self-evident.
7.e5? is quite glaring, black just rolls up the pawn and uses it as an object of attack but in the meantime it obstructs black as a piece can't be placed on what could have been a weak square and 8.Nxe5? doesn't work due to tactics: 8...Qh4+! 9.Kf1,Qxf4+ 10.Nf3.
6...f5 looks iffy at first glance, and while maybe objectively sound it's structurally too committal. 6...Nc6 and 6...Bg7 are perfectly fine developing moves. 7...dxe5 rolls up the pawn to be an object of attack with fast and easy access to just developed pieces (...Nc6 and ...Bg7 attack it with one move each)
8...Bxd6 defeats the purpose of ...g6, where black has nice centralized darksquare pressure and watches some dark square weaknesses. 8...Qxd6 seems more reasonable in this light.
10.g3 defends the pawn better while 10.Qd2?! gets in the darksquared bishop's way. True it's better to defend with a piece than a pawn usually, but in this case white's queen rook can't enter the game as fast. also the f4 pawn rather obstructs white!
19.Qc1! would have avoided the strong 19...Be3 where black has a nice grip over d2 and c1 while threatening the pawn.
20...Bxf4! the darksquared bishop no longer being on c1 makes this capture safe.
24.Nxb5?? is simply hope Chess. Horwitz calculated a mate in 8 but didn't consider potential killer moves. 24...Nxb5?? 25.Bc4! and black is sunk.
25...Bg5! white has no time for Bc4 26.Qc3 the knight is no longer taboo due to the lack of pressure on f7.
27...Rxb5 black is clearly winning being up a piece, but due to the outside connected passed queenside pawns white felt he had compensation. Still, if black can advantageously trade down and preferably win the pawns (as opposed to exchanging a knight for them) he should win.
34…Ne5?! Is iffy but black is still winning. 34…Qh4! With an irresistible threat against the a-pawn seems like the best policy to me.
38…Ng4?! The queenside pawns aren’t that way!
40…Re2 white got himself into deeper trouble and this generates enough kingside pressure to force a simplification.
41…Nxg2! 42.Qxg2,Re2 was missed. 43.Qf3+.Kh6 44.Ra3,Qd4+ 45.Kf1, Qd2 46.Kg1,Re1+ 47.Rxe1,Rxe1+ 48.Qf1,Rxf1+ 49.Kxf1,Qc1+ 50.Ke2,Qxa3 with an easy win.
47…Qxg2?? Is the blunder of the game. Instead of simplification he should have understood that his kingside pressure was very tangible and without it would simply result in a drawn rook and pawn ending as the opponent’s pawn is far enough advanced to compensate for the material deficit. 47…R8e3! Wins on the spot. 48.Qf1,f4 49.Rf8,Rxg2+ 50.Qxg2,Rg3 51.Rb2,Qc5+ 52.Kh2,Rxg2+ 53.Kxg2,Qxf8 54.Rf2,Qa8+ 55.Rf3,Qd5 56.Kf2,Qa2+ 57.Kg1,Qb1+ 58.Kf2,Kg5 59.b6,Qxg6+ 60.Kg2,Qb7 61.Kf2,Qxf3+ 62.Kxf3,Kf5 63.h4,h5 64.Kf2,Kg4 with a trivial win.
62.A draw agreed since all the pawns simply liquidate.
A top chess player in the late 1800s would be really close to 1900.
See what I mean?