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

A flash in the pan doesnt win every event they enter ( except 2 , he finished 2nd in both of those ) for 10 years . 

I think this idea that guys like Morphy and Capablanca didn't really study and were just natural talents is false.   Morphy clearly studied as he was up on all the opening lines of the day.  He had some of the best opening preparation for his time and it's clear he followed the games of all the major European players, even after he was no longer an active player.   I think he was studying as much as everyone else, he was just a lot better than them too. :)

Well, everybody who knew Lasker and Capa said they didn't study much. Probably they studied some, but they were not workaholics like Alekhine and Fischer.

And after 20 years of silence plays a perfect game.

If I had to guess, the average strength back then was about 2400-2450; including Lasker, Capa, etc.

I think you badly underestimate Lasker and Capa. Sure, they might play unpromising opening lines, but their middle and endgame would be strong GM quality.

theturk1234 wrote:

If I had to guess, the average strength back then was about 2400-2450; including Lasker, Capa, etc.

What it comes down to is this.  The current top 20 players in the world as of right now using FIDE ratings, these grandmasters would beat Morphy, Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Botvitnik, Petrosian, Spassky, Fischer, Karpov, and the great Kasparov.  Anyone who denies that chess players are stronger thanks to computers is failing to understand the progress chess continues to make on a yearly basis.  

I agree that players now are simply better than the greats of the past. To clarify my view, I think that Lasker or Capa would, today have medium GM strength. They would lose to Carlsen or Vishy or Caruana or Nakamura or any top level modern GM.

Magikstone wrote:

What it comes down to is this.  The current top 20 players in the world as of right now using FIDE ratings, these grandmasters would beat Morphy, Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Botvitnik, Petrosian, Spassky, Fischer, Karpov, and the great Kasparov.  Anyone who denies that chess players are stronger thanks to computers is failing to understand the progress chess continues to make on a yearly basis.  

I say Morphy would be in the 2550-2650 range today, but Steinitz and Anderssen would probably only be in the 2200-2300 range.  

Kasparov has played most of the players in the current top 20.  There doesn't need to be a "what if" done there.

I think Anderssen would be 2100ish.  Morphy 2400-2500 with Steinitz being about the same, but a tad better.

Lasker - 2600

Capa - 2600 or better.  He was a machine in his prime.  He actually had a 2900 IPR during that time.

Sounds about right, SilentKnight. Though I would put Andersen closer to 2300. I can't imagine that a 2100 could cope with Andersen's superior tactical alertness. He would not overlook any simple tactics and he would be alert to hidden tactics in complex positions.

SilentKnighte5 wrote:

USALakePlacid1980 wrote:

I say Morphy would be in the 2550-2650 range today, but Steinitz and Anderssen would probably only be in the 2200-2300 range.  

I think Anderssen would be 2100ish.  Morphy 2400-2500 with Steinitz being about the same, but a tad better.

Lasker - 2600

Capa - 2600 or better.  He was a machine in his prime.  He actually had a 2900 IPR during that time.

Morphy higher than Lasker? I doubt it.

SilentKnighte5 wrote:

USALakePlacid1980 wrote:

I say Morphy would be in the 2550-2650 range today, but Steinitz and Anderssen would probably only be in the 2200-2300 range.  

I think Anderssen would be 2100ish.  Morphy 2400-2500 with Steinitz being about the same, but a tad better.

Lasker - 2600

Capa - 2600 or better.  He was a machine in his prime.  He actually had a 2900 IPR during that time.

I disagree, Capa was extremely dangerous against the young pups. Here is a game Capa punch drunk a talented master who is GM caliber; Mikenas took a beating from Capa, that left the young master delirious and not sure what happen. 

 Even at advance age (51) Capa dominate players that should of beating Capa because they came better prepare in the opening and were a lot younger. Chess was his language and he would dominte in any era. 

Here is a few kind words from players who thought highly of this game.  

capafischer1: Capa won 12 games with zero losses on the white side of nimzoindian. amazing.
Dec-28-08		visayanbraindoctor: <Karpova: an extraordinary beautiful game!> Wow, I agree! Capablanca was acting like the chess machine he used to be in his younger days, before his troubles with HPN. He accurately, efficiently, and beautifully demolished Mikenas' inaccurate play. Mikenas was a strong GM-strength Baltic player (later awarded the FIDE GM title post WW2), who has beaten several World Champions and near-World Champions, and was much respected in the Soviet school of chess. Yet Capablanca in this demolition makes him look almost like a newbie.

Maybe that is why Carlsen dominate his peers, he learned well from Capablanca. Chess is more than opening, the mastery of the positional play and endgame trumps all styles.

Lets get back to the topic. I am surprise no one mention this great master of attack Chigorin, Chigorin was more than an attacker, his defenses were very modern, Chigorin and The Old Indian defense. Here is a game Chigorin plays in the style of Nimzovitch before the hyper-modern revolution, brought new positional ideas to board and outplay a great master. 

So modern was Chigorin play it confuse even a great master Teichman; because of Chigorin Hyper-modern ideas it was a positional weapon ready to be discover years later. :) Guess who? Reti,Nimzovitch and others. 

I also doubt Steinitz could be put ahead of Morphy. Steinitz was not that great (at least according to GM Ben Finegold), and Morphy was.

Steinitz not being that great, Lasker might disagree with you and every masters that benefit from his teaching. Steinitz set principles to guide a players to make a chess plan and correct chess and not to attack the king as a main weapon. Steinitz is essential for any chess players growth.

Jakavenko would certainly beat Karpov and Fischer.  His understanding of chess is much superior.  As to Kasparov, it get's trickier.  But you have to understand,  Kasparov retired precisely because he knew he would stand less of a chance against men who are assisted by computers.  It's hard to how Kasparov would have fared against his contemporaries if he would have continued, just as it is hard to know who would have won, Karpov or Fischer.  But believe me, the strength of Kasparov right before he retired against Jakavenko... believe me, Jakavenko would prove too much for him.  That's not stupidity, that's just the reality of how computers have helped out the grandmasters.  Every modern grandmaster is a cyborg.

You sure know a lot about grandmaster play for someone who is rated 1678 USCF. Ok, I'll just believe you.

Actually my rating is 1788 USCF.  You don't have to believe me, ask any grandmaster, chess has evolved, grandmasters are more informed then ever.  Kasparov, Fischer, and Karpov, these guys stand no chance in the computer age.  These guys are cowards.  Fischer ducked Karpov, Karpov was no match for Kasparov, and Kasparov retired because he knew his time was coming to an end.  Just as Capablanca would have proven to be out of his league against Kasparov, our top modern day grandmasters would prove to be too much against anyone else.  The only grandmaster that deserves a lot of credit, is Magnus Carlsen.