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

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.

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 :-)

"burn all your capablanca books"

And cause a raging inferno?

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.

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. 

^

The second last variant is not applicable.

The last one is too strenuous. (Maybe not!)

Because you're a cyborg?

I was a USCF B class player a few years ago, and I thought that I was pretty good. I used computers a lot, too. Still do.

I've been A Class since 2009 and with an ambition to bust through 2000, I'm finding that less computer analysis is necessary. I perform my own analysis of classic games (see an example at http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2014/09/la-bourdonnaiss-infantry.html), then compare my analysis to the work of masters, then sometimes check with a computer.

Kasparov said, "we are all children of Informant." Check out the references to Chess Informant on my blog if you want to become an A Class player.

Without an engine, I would not have been able to make a proper analysis of my games, and the same goes for you.  sure there are times an engine prefers "odd" moves, that's why I mysef decide whether the egine's preffered move is good or bad.  Nevertheless, with the guidance of my computer engine, I can make very objective analysis of my games.  you're own analysis is just not good enough.

engines are for wimps.

Chess is not about just playing.  Analysis of one's own game is very important.  You cannot make a proper analysis of your games without the aid of an engine.  If you could careless about improvement, or if you just don't care at all, then of course it won't matter to you.  And besides, analyzing my games with an engine is even more fun then actually playing.  For me chess is not fun actually.  I take my chess seriously.  As low as my rating is, I take chess very very seriously.  I for one want to learn from my mistakes.  It's that important to me.  I don't if you are a better chess player then me, it's my chess life, and that's how I like it.

"The muffin man is seated in the laboratory of the utility muffin research kitchen. Reaching for an oversized chrome spoon, he gathers an intimate quantity of dried muffin remnants. And brushing his scapular aside, begins to dump these inside of his shirt. He turns to us and speaks: "Some people like cupcakes better. I for one care less for them!". Elegantly (pron. arrogantly) twisting the sterile canvas snoot of a fully charged icing anointment utensil, he poots forth a quarter ounce green rosette near the summit of a dense but radient muffin, of his own design. Later he says: "Some people, hah! Some people like cupcakes exclusively, while myself, I say there is naught, nor ought there be, anything as exhalted on the face of God's green earth as that prince of foods, the muffin"."

Frank Zappa - The Muffin Man.

Oh boy oh boy, that's really bad

Greetings everyone. Forget about the illusion that you don`t have enough talent to become a chess master. If you want to become a master follow me on https://twitter.com/BlcScorpion and if you are like me who shares his chess thoughts and chess progress I will follow you. 

People here have such lite faith in older masters. Go over their games with stockfish and you'll see many like Capablanca and Lasker are more accurate than guys like Caruana or Aronian.

"Kids below 1800 are as good as Ivanchuk aged players." BS!!!!!!! I don't believe it for a second.