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

I am pretty sure alot of the grandmasters should have some credit you know, as they made the fundemental ideas of chess which will always apply

"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"

So Karpov is a coward because he lost to Kasparov, who is a coward because he retired after 20+ years as #1?

Magikstone wrote:  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. 

 How do you know Capablanca could not compete against the modern GMs and where is your prove? I reading some your ridiculous past posting, one them you don't have to calculate. You dead wrong, that what make strong player the ability to calculate accurate and assess a position correctly. When you say it has been proven bring some real evidence and not your opinions.

You claim there is rating inflation, but there's no proof of it whatsoever. 

How's this: What has been the annual rate of inflation in chess ratings, and what has caused it?

Meanwhile, Jakovenko's highest rating was 2760, which is lower than Fischer, Karpov or Kasparov at their best. So yeah, I'd pick all three world champions over Jakovenko. 

You claim that Karpov was "no match" for Kasparov. Actually, he was a fantastic match for Kasparov! The two players learned a great deal from each other and improved dramatically thanks to their matches. As great as Kasparov was (second best ever), he improved because he had to hone his skills against a great technician in Karpov. 

To sum up:

• you talk about rating inflation even though statisticians have shown there is no such thing. Players are just getting better over time. 
• You talk about Jakovenko as if he was better than Karpov or Fischer yet there is no evidence to show this to be true (unless you believe there is substantial rating deflation)
• You show ignorance of the history of Kasparov and Karpov and how they improved each other in perhaps the greatest rivalry chess has ever seen

Btw, I've heard different numbers for the number of Rook endings Capablanca supposedly studied. Whatever the number was, Fischer's comment is still on point: If he really studied all those endgames, he studied the wrong ones!

Capa's legendary endgame technique was most evident in simplified middle games and complex endgames where he could reduce positions to won games before his opponents were even thinking about the endgame! His technical skill was great, but he probably wasn't even the best endgame technician of his time (Rubinstein was probably better in purely technical endgames).

SmylovFan wrote:  Actually, he was a fantastic match for Kasparov! The two players learned a great deal from each other and improved dramatically thanks to their matches. As great as Kasparov was (second best ever), he improved because he had to hone his skills against a great technician in Karpov.  

   It is true, Karpov played well in the matches agaainst Kasparov, so well that Kasparov had only one point advantage over 150 match games; that is a testimony to Karpov greatness. My favorite match was their 1990, a real fighting match!!  

@SmylovFan, Capablanca endgame was amazing, wiinning position that most strong master would took a draw gladlt. Here one position he wins a difficult endgame, for me it made great impression and became a Capa fan.

White: Capablanca Black: Yates  Hasting 1930/31 

 I was so impress that Capablanca won and decided I must study the endgame so I can score more points or know how to draw theoretical positions.

Kasparov was on the cutting edge of computer use in his time.

A real man would've gone for 50 years of #1.

there is one solution to the problems of chess players and that is to stop thinking.