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

bands that never heard of the sex pistols just get booed off the stage.

I should have seen it! Mention bogus science and the trolls come running out of holes to defend it :-)

wrong thread pal, go join the hairy apes on another thread :-)

Did NASA fake the moon landing?

Isn't it about music...?

Oh, and raising the dead

So i think it might be good to start posting "Dead Can Dance" music :D

Like I said, you're arsing up the thread! You wouldn't be plonking on like this if the knowledge wasnt incomplete. basically you're best off hanging out with the 300+ IQ guys who laugh their heads off at people who don't have to read books.

Afaik, there's a reason why it's called "Theory of evolution" and not "Scientific fact of evolution" [not that something becomes a fact just by calling it a fact, but you get the gist]

Back on topic!

My method is for those who do not have a good memory (me) and for those who are too lazy, or just plain cannot calculate deeply (me) 

The beautiful thing about chess, and I am proof of this, is, you do not need to memorize a lot of positions and games, hec, in my method, you don't ever have to memorize anything for the rest of your life.  You don't even need to calculate anything.  Why do you think so many chess players can play a decent game of chess with only 3 minutes on the clock?  Because chess is more about intuition then it is about brute force calculation.  A Grandmaster with superb calculation skills will not be able to beat a lesser play, who with mere intuition, has been playing solid good moves.  Ask any grandmaster, if any strong player wants to play solidly, he can easily draw against a super calculator like Anand.

All you need to do to improve at chess is become familiar with the openings you use.  A lot of times, depending on how your opponent moves, will require tactics your brain won't be able to pick up on.  That's why you must have a computer program to teach you how you could have proceeded.  I'm not saying you will be able to memorize the exact move orders, but in your subconcious, there will be a vague concept, an idea that you've just discovered.  And since chess is unpredictable, you might never reach the same position twice, but the beautiful thing is, subconciously, by learning from your own games, you will learn to make wiser decisions, even though confronted with a set of new problems over the board.  Just watch me climb.

OK!

The one point we agree upon.

This is ignorant. There are two issues here. Did modern life evolve from earlier life forms. The answer is yes as is evidenced by DNA studies, the fossil record, the geographic distribution of different kinds of flora and fauna, etc. That is the FACT of evolution. The THEORY of evolution seeks to find principles that evplain how evolution proceeds. The main theory of evolution is natural selection. It is very much like solar radiation. Nobody is dumb enough to say, "aha, scientists speak about theories of solar radiation. Hence there is doubt that the sun shines.". Not at all. There is a FACT of solar radiation. I.e. the sun shines. And there are THEORIES of solar radiation that seek to account for the observed facts by trying to understand complex physical processes going on in the sun. This is the FACT/THEORY distinction. In colloquial English people use the word "theory" to mean guess or hypothesis, but this is not how scientists use the word.

Eseles wrote:

Afaik, there's a reason why it's called "Theory of evolution" and not "Scientific fact of evolution" [not that something becomes a fact just by calling it a fact, but you get the gist]

DNA is fake, just like the moon landing.

Agreed.  Mention creation "science" as an example of invalid science and trolls will come out of the woodwork to defend it. 

Nope.  Too much data was brought back.  The irony is that many people who deny the moon landing think the government has a secret base on Mars or aliens are real!  the odds of amino acids forming the way they do is quite high, and the speed of light is very slow for interstellar travel.  You'd also need as much energy as the planet Jupiter to get a ship to floor it to 99% c. 

If aliens can allegedly get here then why can't people go to the moon?  The problems for going were astronomical, but overcame. 

Any serious chess player should know about chess history, not to improve your rating, but... just to know.  Honestly though, do you play like Euwe?  Do you play like Karpov?  You have your own style.  Every chess player has their own style, even 1100's.  What you have to do, when you reach your limit, like I did when I reached 1600 uscf, is use my method, to go beyond your limit.  If you were to use my method, your rating will continue to rise.  Find an opening you love, find middle game plans you like to use, buy a computer program, and your chess will be like a tree that can continue to grow.  I know that you're probably a better chess player then me, but I'm sure of one thing, no amount of games you study, from Morphy, or Kasparov, or Carlsen, will get your rating higher.   Because what you need is not more useless knowledge, but widsom that can only be gained by experience.  

Magikstone .... a truly amazing poster :-)

never knows when he's whooped!

Magikstone wrote:

Any serious chess player should know about chess history, not to improve your rating, but... just to know.  Honestly though, do you play like Euwe?  Do you play like Karpov?  You have your own style.  Every chess player has their own style, even 1100's.  What you have to do, when you reach your limit, like I did when I reached 1600 uscf, is use my method, to go beyond your limit.  If you were to use my method, your rating will continue to rise.  Find an opening you love, find middle game plans you like to use, buy a computer program, and your chess will be like a tree that can continue to grow.  I know that you're probably a better chess player then me, but I'm sure of one thing, no amount of games you study, from Morphy, or Kasparov, or Carlsen, will get your rating higher.   Because what you need is not more useless knowledge, but widsom that can only be gained by experience.  

Magikstone, studying the games of grandmasters is very useful and can help your chess skills. You can learn some of the ideas that the grandmasters use in your chess games. For example you could use positional questions about the game to improve. This is how grandmasters coach. They use other people's games. Since these are grandmasters games, they are especially important.

Viewing master games is just as good a method, if not better, for "expanding your ideas" than using a computer engine. Engines can show you "better" moves, but masters can show you how whole games or segments of games can be played.

America for one is not producing much grandmasters.  Our kids are giving up chess as soon as they hit their peak.  Most of these kids won't even get a rating above 2000 by the time they peak.  Something is seriously wrong with how we are teaching kids chess.  We need to revolutionize how we are teaching chess to kids.  It's great that Kamsky became a grandmaster, but I doubt children will be able to become as good following the same path he did.

I repeat, you cannot get better by simply seeing how other strong players play.  As much as you would like to play like Kasparov, no one will ever be able to imitate him, his ideas cannot be copied, it is useless to study the art of another.  Maybe that's why our children are not progressing at chess.  I've seen some get lucky and get to 2300, but most stagnate at a much lower rating.  

You guys need my method.  You think playing 20 games of blitz a day is going to make you stronger?  Yes, practice makes perfect, but not when it comes to chess.  You can play 3000 games, your rating will still remain the same.  Many years could pass, and you'll still find yourself playing the same opponents at your local club, having the same chess.com rating you did ten years ago.

The solution is simple.  It's not about quantity, it's about quality.  Do not study end games, study the beauty of your own art, you are a creator, you are an artist, learn to paint using your own tools.  Study your own games and only your own games.  With the assistance of a computer, see for yourself how the game could have been like if you would have tried a different move, a different plan, a different idea.  Learn from your games, make your games count.  I learn a lot just from one game of mine, then players do playing 300 games.  Because they are not learning anything from their games.  They just keep playing hoping to improve.

But if you are serious about improving, you must discover the kind of chess player you are.  For many years I've been playing both e4 and d4, black would then play a variety of things, and I would lose my games.  As black, I would get crushed.  But I found out my favorite opening.  The King's Indian Attack.  I feel more confident as chess player.  And with black I play either the dutch or the sicilian, and now I can at least hold my own.  In all of my openings, I know what I am looking for, I know how I would like to steer the game.  If all I did was play and play and play with no computer aid, I would not be able to see what I could have done, and hence, I would not really learn anything.  By not learning you're just setting yourself to be the same rating year after year.  But if you can learn something from every game you play, your intuition will be sharpened, your subconcious will have memorized tons of patterns, and basically that is what it means to improve.