Think about it guys. Who was Kasparov's competition back then? Peter Leko? That guys rating is going down. Kasparov would barely make it in the top twenty with today's competition. Both Kasparov and Karpov are the product of their times, the pre computer era.
Who were they? Vishy was one of them. Vishy still is top 2-10.
Think about it guys. Who was Kasparov's competition back then? Peter Leko? [Leko wasn't really one of Kasparov's main competitors ~SF] That guys rating is going down. Kasparov would barely make it in the top twenty with today's competition. [Kasparov would be ranked 2nd in the world if he came back today. He would probably drop some, but he wouldn't fall below Gelfand, aged 46. Gelfand is 2747 and is 16th in the world~SF] Both Kasparov and Karpov are the product of their times, the pre computer era.
Kasparov is the man who pioneered the use of computers in chess
Comments in red are facts. Comments in blue are my responses ~SF
There are only two facts that Magikstone got right in that quote, and you chose to address one of them.
Leko's rating is indeed slowly dropping from a high of 2763. It's currently 2713. Yeah, he's still one of the best in the world (36th overall, including inactive players)!
The other fact that Magikstone got right was that Kasparov was a product of the pre-computer era. He became an international sensation with his break-out tournament in 1979. He would have started playing earlier, but the Soviets held him back.
The beginning of the computer era in chess is about 1996, when Deep Blue became the first engine to defeat a sitting world champion in a single game, or 1997, when Deep Blue defeated Kasparov in a match.
kasparov also defeated mvl in blitz a couple of years ago. guy is just a beast
Actually Alekhine, Lasker, and Reshevsky were contemporaries who had much stronger calculation than Capablanca. I think you have it backwards: taking material if you think defending it ultimately leads to an objective superiority is what modern defense is all about. Taking material knowing it's quite risky, why do you think the Najdorf poisoned pawn variation is popular at the highest levels? It illustrates this principle perfectly.
Whose better Wesely So or Hikaru Nakamura?
magikstone wrote:
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.
Sigh!! When I read the above ccomments, I can help but feel sorry for a player who believe in this Mickey Mouse system. Don't need to memorize games, openings, theoretical endgame positions and middlegame concepts, or I forgot, you don't need to calculate. Yes, if only chess was that simple, just put my game through a engine, yeah baby analyzing for me because I too stupid or too lazing to do it myself and my chess program is my genie and will do all my work for me and make me the greatest player. I don't need to study to become a master or look at past master games like Carlsen, just let my chess program play for me and I will be world champion soon. Well, I have some sad news for you, the higher you are rated, the tougher is your opponent. That means you better have chess knowledge and, yes, sigh!; that means you have to study and memorize some chess knowledge and that also means hard work. (: Oh, I forgot, you better calculate well against experts and masters, if you plan to achieve such coveted title. A player who can't calculate can't expect to go far, he will stay low rated and that is a fact!! Prove me wrong!!! I never met a player who is an expert and could not calculate at least five moves deep and that is low for a expert, most experts can calculate at least ten move deep.
I view your Mickey Mouse opening, it is really bad and your tactics is horrible, I wish I can say your tactics is bad but I can't.
I noticed you don't do tactical trainer, yes, I understand it can be quite embarrassing having it below 1200. Players who boast how strong they are but don't do tactical trainer, tell me they don't have faith and confidence in their tactical abilities.
Gm. Danial Narodisky wrote: The study of theoretical endgames is a necessary evil. For most players, it is a rather torturous experience simply because there is no room for innovation or creativity.
Darrrnnnn!!! I have to memorizing theoretical endgame, that is work!! 
Can't use my chess program to help me to become a grandmaster, you know the lazy system, don't have to calculate, memorize opening and any chess games. 
No, sorry GM Daniel Narodisky, you have to study. magikstone said, that sucks, I hate hard work, I just let chess program do all the work for me. 
No, that won't work, you will never be a GM, it requires hard work.
Whenever you quote Naroditsky, you should check to see if Dvoretsky, Yusupov, or Karpov said it first.
Having said that, I agree completely with Naroditsky.
No need to study that crap. If you were a genius like Magikstoned your opponents would never reach the endgame. You only have to learn all the moves that Stockfish knows. His method works. It has been approved by A_L_I_V_E.
Luv luv, hugs hugs.
Dude, you have been studying chess games of the old master and how high is your is your rating? Exactly, your method is not working. Are you improving? Am I improving? yes I am. will I reach 2000 USCF soon? Yes I will and then you will be forced to consider my method, and burn all your capablanca books and end game books.
And if I were to check out your games, which I won't, i'm sure i could find flaws and holes in your way of playing.
Dude, you have been studying chess games of the old master and how high is your is your rating? Exactly, your method is not working. Are you improving? Am I improving? yes I am. will I reach 2000 USCF soon? Yes I will and then you will be forced to consider my method, and burn all your capablanca books and end game books.
I have had my chess rating as high as 4 feet off the ground...
If I checked out Anands games, which I won't, I could easily find flaws with his play :-)
From an interview with Peter Svidler:
- If Capablanca played a match against a modern player with a rating of 2500 (Capablanca with the baggage of knowledge of his time) who do you think would win? And if 2600?
I think Capablanca would rip a 2500 player to pieces. I’m not so sure about a 2600 player, but I still think that Capa would be the favourite, particularly over a relatively long distance."
Granted, not a 19th century player, but I thought it relates somewhat to the discussion. Coming from a player the calibre of Svidler no less.
R.I.P.
From an interview with Peter Svidler:
- If Capablanca played a match against a modern player with a rating of 2500 (Capablanca with the baggage of knowledge of his time) who do you think would win? And if 2600?
I think Capablanca would rip a 2500 player to pieces. I’m not so sure about a 2600 player, but I still think that Capa would be the favourite, particularly over a relatively long distance."
Granted, not a 19th century player, but I thought it relates somewhat to the discussion. Coming from a player the calibre of Svidler no less.
I think Svidler has it about right. Capa was close to 2600 strength. Put another way, a match between Tal (average rating around 2630-2680) and Capa would be very interesting, but I'd favor Tal slightly.
Theory is certainly better these days (C.O.), therefore, less brainwork and more memory is required to get a certain level of competence in chess now than it was then. That's why kids below 18 are as good as Ivanchuk-aged players.
Another thing: due to "theory somewhat annihilates sharp tactics" principle, top grandmaster games are now boring for 'Tal fans'. Well, the majority of games. There are, however, for example, Jobava and Sutovsky, thanks to them CHESS LIVES!
Maybe (just maybe!) nowadays champions are just as creative (or more) and smart as those of the past, BUT we will never know whether or not it's true because, apart from some exceptions, the majority of games just following boring theory punishing opponents for minor positional mistakes and then pushing for a win in 20-30 moves :D
I just really want FIDE to organize chess etudes tournament: all compositors, top grandmasters (those who are most creative and won't participate) and chess engines produce a set of ve-e-e-ry hard etudes (some with ambiguous result), and then either top grandmasters participating just solve it on time (with the rule: no piece movement, just calculating whole bunch of long etude moves with branching in your head, and then "raising your hand" when you have COMPLETE ANSWER, like all possible variations), or they just play from certain positions.
Another variant - just calcel original tournaments and play only 960 chess.
Another variant - just generate equal, but sharp positions with the help of engines and let top grandmasters play against each other.
Chess has evolved, but great players do adapt, and picks up the new stuff fast. I guess Morphy, if he stood up from the grave with the brainpower he had on top, would lost a lot in a few tournaments, but picked up ideas for every loss and after some months been up fighting close with Magnus, Vishy and the top 50.