He lived in Victorian England so they thought even exposed ankles counted as "porn" lol!
True! I've seen some bad losses from even Morphy (against 1...f6 and 1...b6 too!) and Steinitz. On Chesszen games tend to radically fluctuate though concentrate towards the middle for most games.
http://my.chesszen.com/status/gmgames.php?name=carlsen&button=Submit
Is Carlsen. He's radically underrated on it so he needs more game submissions. Aronian has a game there where he has an 1800's strength!
This is Staunton better day and his wife was kinder to him and he eat well and his drinking didn't effect his game in a negative way. 
White: Berhard Horwitz versus Howard Staunton
TheGreatOogieBoogie wrote:
He lived in Victorian England so they thought even exposed ankles counted as "porn" lol
That is too funny. Maybe Staunton'wife exposed her pretty ankle and Staunton lost his mind and was no longer thinking about chess. I pull that trick once or twice, brought my beautiful girlfriend and during the game I was doing poorly but my opponent keep looking at my girlfriend and not concentrating on the game and I drew from a bad position. :)
For those that missed the joke, he's a chess player and he said he had a beautiful girlfriend.
Over and out!
Morphy would have been rated 2512 and Steinitz would have been rated 2531.
Super stupid. Morphy was stronger than Steinitz. There is quite objective analysis to substantiate this. For some reason chess players don't want to admit it, but it's true.
at least someone took her post seriously :-)
Yeah, maybe it's better to be super stupid than super serious...
I resemble that.
It would be higher. People were smarter in general then.
It would be higher. People were smarter in general then.
+quintillion
What I object to in threads like this is the same thing Reb brought up: the high-handed know-it-all tone of people who aren't masters but who have access to programs that spit out the answers for them and thus take the opportunity to lord it over everyone else. Which come to think of it is a frequent shortcoming of the chess world in general...
Precisely. I'm not within in spitting distance of masterland, and it even annoys me.
Yeah! Plus they had less to worry about!
Yes Huey, we have a lot to worry about. For instance, how many friends we have on facebook or how many followers on twitter. Yes, living in our times is unbearably onerous, O how do you ever do it?
You and your tinges of irony...
Yes (if you were indeed talking to me), I hope it resounds loud enough that all may hear. Ahhhh, I remember when these forums were riveting and stimulating.
By the way see post #200
This whole argument is not only conjecture, but a conundrum. Let me eludicate, the affinity that Morphy, Fischer and the many other innovators of the chess world had for chess is incomparable to the contemporaries of the computer age of chess (Carlsen and Anand). For chess was not only their passion, but their being for many of them, thus the inundation of learning tools will allow many of the chess illumaries to not only exponential increase their knowledge at a prolific rate, but as well as efficiently. Their rating will increase once they become acclimate to the techonology. But, if they teleport to our day then the work that was seminal will be lost and the chess information would be immensely truncated; since their games will not be in our database(Knowledge is always the preeminient factor not technology). Therefore, the information that is present in our time will be less, so everybody including the time travellers ratings will be curtailed. However, amelioration is an eventuality for any of these players.
This is the answer. I thought somebody will elaborate further about the psychological and physiological ramificatons, or even incite a conversation about the time-space continuum. We also could have had a debate about the existentialism of man, such as the intertwining our lives and the consequences of not only how our choices affect our lives, rather directly or obliquely, but how these reprecussions can drastically affect the life of others negatively or positively; furthermore, how they reverberate into the future.
For example, if any of the chess luminaries came into the present time, Carlsen will not exist. Why, you may ask, well for the same reason that Carlsen's dad was an avid fan of chess and these luminaries were the causation of that interest. Thus, those games did not exist in the database of chess then one can surmise that Carlsen's dad would not have the interest that engendered him to put his kids in chess.
Oh, you were that windbag!
Yes, the one and only brah
Morphy would have been rated 2512 and Steinitz would have been rated 2531.
Super stupid. Morphy was stronger than Steinitz. There is quite objective analysis to substantiate this. For some reason chess players don't want to admit it, but it's true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony
One of the things that really struck me about many of the games of the 19th Century was how even the basics were understood differently back then. There were entire openings designed to trade off the Bs for their opponents' Knights as early as possible. It was clear that many players valued two Knights over two Bishops, even in open positions. And they had little concept of what rook endings were won or drawn.
Take a look at some of the games between LaBourdonnais and Mcdonnell. They invented some great stuff, including some key lines of the QGA with 3.e3. But quite a few of their inventions rightly remain on the trash heap of history. There were several games where one side or another rushed to trade material off for no good reason.
One of the reasons Morphy dominated so many of his contemporaries was that he understood the power of the Bishop pair better than most. This was a revolutionary new discovery at the time. One of his sparring partners, Daniel Harrwitz, was one of the first to demonstrate this power.
And of course, endgame technique was very hit and miss. There was no Basic Chess Endings for the players of the 19th Century to study. Even with all its flaws, generations of masters learned their endgames by studying (and usually correcting the errors in) Fine's work.
Even if you go back to Fred Flinstones time, you see that they were more concerned with carving the pieces so you could actually tell them apart.
Excellent annotation by GreatOogieBoogie !!
Staunton was drunk and was seeing double and pink elephants. Did not get a good night sleep, its acceptable excuse. :) His pretty wife did not give him some (s#x), so he was thinking about his pretty wife :) during the game, cannot be good for chess. Eat something bad and did not set well in his stomach. Even geniuses have a bad day. (: