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.
So, What Would Be the Ratings of Top Contemporary Players if They Were Born in the 1800s?