The chess champions of yesterday would be the chess champions of today or they'd be somebody else
What would be the rating of a top chess player in the late 1800s today
Sort:
Very relevant chap.
Magikstone wrote:
You can say you improved by studying grandmaster games, the truth is, I bet out of all the games you have played, you have not once employed a strategy you saw a grandmaster do against another grandmaster.
It was not studying other people's games that helped you improved, it was your own rational mind that makes its own decisions.
There is absoutely nothing you can learn from any strong player other then a knowledge of their style.
Not even studying tactics have helped you improve your game.
The only thing responsible for me reaching 1600 and you 2100 was your natural chess intelligence.
pmsl
i can't believe you actually believe those things
well played 
Yes, I believe that my method is much superior to what you guys are doing, which is wasting your time studying other people's games. But then again I suppose you guys just like doing that, it was never about improving. I'm going to start my own chess academy, and the only ones who can be a part of it are those that aspire to be future champions and beyond.
Tell us how you discover your own style ?
Guess what? I'm starting to believe this boy is serious about he's saying. Best wishes.
Mar 7, 2015
0
#448
chyss wrote:
batgirl wrote:
So, What Would Be the Ratings of Top Contemporary Players if They Were Born in the 1800s?
That's difficult because there weren't any ratings back then. However, assuming that Morphy et al were about 2200 then it would be tough to get over about 2500ish I guess. Once you're about 300-400 points over someone it's hard to gain many points by playing them.
It was a factious question, of course, but the idea behind it was that instead of wondering what Morphy et alia would be like today if they were booked-up or whatever, consider how would contemporaries fare if they never have the benefits of intense training, 100 million game databases, advanced opening and endgame theory, known tactical positions, 1000s of hours developing chunk memories, potential for financial windfalls, computers or super-strong opponents againt which to temper their steel (in fact finding any decent opponent outside their immediate area considering travel time and difficulties) and faced these weak 19th century masters?
do you think he might be a student of A_L_I_V_E 's methods ?
A new school of thought!
Pulpofeira wrote:
Guess what? I'm starting to believe this boy is serious about he's saying. Best wishes.
I dunno. I sway from believing he's serious and believing he's a troll. If he's a troll, he's pretty good. I can usually tell...
Me and Alive are one.
Are you one with the great Zod?
batgirl wrote:
chyss wrote:
batgirl wrote:
So, What Would Be the Ratings of Top Contemporary Players if They Were Born in the 1800s?
That's difficult because there weren't any ratings back then. However, assuming that Morphy et al were about 2200 then it would be tough to get over about 2500ish I guess. Once you're about 300-400 points over someone it's hard to gain many points by playing them.
It was a factious question, of course, but the idea behind it was that instead of wondering what Morphy et alia would be like today if they were booked-up or whatever, consider how would contemporaries fare if they never have the benefits of intense training, 100 million game databases, advanced opening and endgame theory, known tactical positions, 1000s of hours developing chunk memories, potential for financial windfalls, computers or super-strong opponents againt which to temper their steel (in fact finding any decent opponent outside their immediate area considering travel time and difficulties) and faced these weak 19th century masters?
You must have meant to type "facetious", right?
Yeah, reversing a given question, idea, situation, or whatnot is often a very good method for examining the original one.... from the flip side.
I believe someone can easily expose fallacies this way. Unfortunately, it's very difficult to many people to have a clear, unbiased point of view from both ends of the spectrum.
Mar 7, 2015
0
#457
In terms of raw genius Philidor, Morphy, Capa, and Carlsen have all been described as being separate from their contemporaries.
But there's more than just talent, there's also the incredible work ethic of great champions such as Fischer, Karpov, and Kasparov. Such players may not have thrived in the amateur culture of the 19th Century. But that sort of work ethic is what made Gretzky, Bird, Magic, Jordan, Tiger and others the greats of their sports. For me, the combination of tremendous talent and hard work is more noteworthy than raw talent alone.
Hey how about this What did they call an orange back then???
Mar 7, 2015
0
#459
batgirl wrote:
chyss wrote:
batgirl wrote:
So, What Would Be the Ratings of Top Contemporary Players if They Were Born in the 1800s?
That's difficult because there weren't any ratings back then. However, assuming that Morphy et al were about 2200 then it would be tough to get over about 2500ish I guess. Once you're about 300-400 points over someone it's hard to gain many points by playing them.
It was a factious question, of course, but the idea behind it was that instead of wondering what Morphy et alia would be like today if they were booked-up or whatever, consider how would contemporaries fare if they never have the benefits of intense training, 100 million game databases, advanced opening and endgame theory, known tactical positions, 1000s of hours developing chunk memories, potential for financial windfalls, computers or super-strong opponents againt which to temper their steel (in fact finding any decent opponent outside their immediate area considering travel time and difficulties) and faced these weak 19th century masters?
I think there are insurmountable questions of personal identity inherent in your question. If you add some new knowledge to someone then it's quite feasible to claim it's the same person, because we see that around us - going on a course or reading a book or whatever. However, taking knowledge away from someone might mean they're no longer the same person. Thus, sending Carlsen back to the 1800 hundreds with no knowledge of anything that happened after that date would mean he wouldn't be Carlsen any more.
Ask him.