What would be the rating of a top chess player in the late 1800s today

Most good chess players are good attackers.  But when you're just learning how to play, the concept of attack is foreign to you.  As you get more experienced and fight against tougher opponents, you begin to realize that your opponent will not let you attack as you wish, so positional maneuvering and long term planning become the next step.

How do you know what will or wont help someone reach master ? You are only a B class player who hasnt ever beaten anyone over 1900 in rated OTB play . Unlike you I have reached master ( 1984 ) and I did it doing the things you say won't help anyone reach master !  I never used computers for chess until the mid 90s , so how did I get to master ?  How did anyone before computers ?!  I don't know if you are just a troll or if you are just stupid but I do know that you do NOT know what the hell you are talking about . You are a weak player , with no chess credentials and should NOT be giving chess advice to anyone . 

What is your obsession with credentials?! Stop that, it's silly. 

Its certainly not silly , dont you think someone who has actually reached master would know more about what helps get there than someone who hasnt come close ? 

Chess.com accentuates pure noob-power!

No. Of course not. What a ludicrous suggestion. A coach who's never been a GM might know more about how to train someone to GM standard than one of his students who has achieved the GM title. Obviously you've not thought this through. No, credentials are irrelevant, accept that and stop criticising people for who they are instead of what they say. 

I've never even came close to master-level chess and haven't a clue how to get there.  It sounds like too much work for me anyway. 

I really don't think studying 19th century players will do the trick, but it's certainly a lovely way to spend your time. . .that I do know.

@Chyss,NM Reb has attain the coveted title (master level) all chess players wish and couldn't attain. NM Reb played oversea against Europeans, so has met tough opponents. We both have a good title (expert level) but it is not master level.

I'd prefer Magikstone training me than Nepo.

Should be way cheaper.

Is it true you get what you pay for?

chyss is just another useless troll , he attacks me and disagrees with me every time he gets the chance , while defending people who obviously dont have a clue what they are talking about when it comes to chess . 

Batgirl wrote: 

I've never even came close to master-level chess and haven't a clue how to get there.  It sounds like too much work for me anyway. 

I really don't think studying 19th century players will do the trick, but it's certainly a lovely way to spend your time. . .that I do know.   

  It took me three years to reach expert level studying Paul Morphy's games and other past masters, it definitely develop a player ability to recognize oppotunities in the board. When I was seventeen my rating was 1162 uscf and going to 2019 uscf in three years is not bad; also studying past master games do help a player to become a better player.

Not true. I'm not useless. I make an excellent cup of tea. So there! 

Anyway, I'm not defending people who haven't a clue, I'm citicising you for judging them not by their words but by their nature. You are prejudiced and snobbish and that is a bad thing. So stop it. 

chyss, you're really peeing against the wind here.

Now go make some tea for yourself.

I don't know what that means and I don't drink tea. My point about credentials being irrelevant is important. If someone suggests the answer is "2300" it doesn't matter who they are, they could still be right. 

Studying 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th century players is what I do, and have done for the past 17 years.  I think I derive a certain appreciation from that study.  I'm not so sure it's helped my overall game... but then again, I study those player and their games for aestetic reasons, not as tools for improvement.

Reb is more correct, naturally, chyss. your guys are just freaks of nature :)

No, Reb is wrong. And which guys are my ones? I didn't know I had any guys. Everyone else in the house is female. 

Kramnik didn't improve his play by studying Kasparov.  He did it by studying Capablanca and Karpov.  Those guys played more like Kramnik's style.  But even then, as Kramnik evolved as a player, guess what?  Kramnik has his own style.  There is no one in the universe that plays like Kramnik.  Every chess player is as unique as fingerprints.  

But the point I want to make is that there is a way foor a class d player to improve his game.  I am just recently a class B playing and rising.  Check out my uscf if you don't believe me.  I have been a class d and c player for a very long time, until I came up with a method.

Finding this method has improved my game, I may never be a world champion material, but in time, I will reach master level.  My method is simple.  Find openings you like, the less the better.  Out of these openings, find out the kind of middlegame plans you like to employ.  Last but not least, not only become familiar with the kind of positions you reach with the openings you use, use a computer program to see if any move you made was a flat out blunder, or if you had a tactical possibility you missed.

Now I understand that there are many masters who have reached that level using different strategies.  Maybe those masters had the talent to begin with, meaning, with minimal effort and just plain skills and common sense, they would have become a master.  But my method should allow those who are less gifted and talented, such as myself to close the gap between themselves and those who are naturally good at chess.