Incredible. You know how blessed us chess players are to have computers be so strong and powerful at chess? Those guys from the past who had to work on their own, they would have loved to have the opportunity to have an engine assist them. Incredible. for the majority of my life that I have been a chess player, there were no computer engines around, or rather I did not even know about their existence. It is the computer that has helped get better, increased my knowledge. every chess player should be happy to live in the computer era, yet here we have a lot of chess players saying forget computers.
What would be the rating of a top chess player in the late 1800s today
Sort:
lay off the booze Magik!
Mar 14, 2015
0
#624
millionairesdaughter wrote:
lay off the booze Magik!
I'm gonna booze up and reread his rants. Mebbe they'll make more sense then.
I already tried that. My laughter simply went from a chuckle to hysterics.
Conflagration_Planet wrote:
c0tya_Wheah wrote:
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.
"Kids below 1800 are as good as Ivanchuk aged players." BS!!!!!!! I don't believe it for a second.
He said kids below 18.
http://ratings.fide.com/top.phtml?list=juniors
Wei, Yi is a good kid.
has anyone ever fallen into a laughing bog ?
you know, one of dem things like quicksand.
you fall in and it kinda bubbles but the bubbles are all laughing at you.
DjonniDerevnja wrote:
Conflagration_Planet wrote:
c0tya_Wheah wrote:
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.
"Kids below 1800 are as good as Ivanchuk aged players." BS!!!!!!! I don't believe it for a second.
He said kids below 18.
http://ratings.fide.com/top.phtml?list=juniors
Wei, Yi is a good kid.
Makes more sense.
I think that the computer as a learning and analyzing tool is some overestimated, but I believe that internetchess has been very helpful, because it has given millions of people the opportunity to get good competing, not only in the chess clubs.
Videoes is helpful too.
Still I think the best training is competing and analyzing with GM´s, but this isnt much available for everybody.
Anand was fantastic before the computerage.
The Russians were fantastic before the computerage, and they had at the time most access to GM-training and competing.
Maybe the strongest talent in my club, Andreas Garberg Tryggestad, 12 years old, now leading the masterclass in our clubchampionship with 6 victories in six games, had a lot of Gm-lessons, and also help from his very strong father. Magnus Carlsen also has a strong father, the same goes for William Sandberg Olsen.
So a strong father, a good club and some IM and GM help + active competing in many otb-tournaments is efficient. Tore Garberg is raising more kids, and two of them has collected Kid- Norwegian championships.
I won my section again for the sixth or seventh time in a row. My new rating is 1828. My method clearly works, but I am finding out that most chess players don't care about improvement, they just want to play chess for fun.
Yes, I remember Bronstein stating over and over the study of ancient games is a total waste of time...
Magikstone wrote:
I won my section again for the sixth or seventh time in a row. My new rating is 1828. My method clearly works, but I am finding out that most chess players don't care about improvement, they just want to play chess for fun.
Well done :D I hope some day you'll reach GM using your method. Prove all of us wrong.
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.
Maye Morphy would be 2500 in a comebacktournament if he rose from the grave, possesing all his power, but let him play six more tournaments, and he will adapt and climb up to the top ten level.Those superstars are eating strenght from every opponent they meet.
patzermike wrote:
Agreed. Lasker and Capa relied on talent and didn't study much. AAA was able to beat Capa by combining his unique crazy brilliance with hard work and a deep study of Capa's games.
SilentKnighte5 wrote:
All world champs from Lasker on would be GMs today if they stepped into a time vortex and found themselves at a FIDE event.
Alekhine (the non drunk version) is probably the first of the early champs that could be super GM material. The ones before him didn't take preparation as seriously as he did.
If Morphy should meet Carlsen in a WC-match, he could hire Naiditch, MVL, Caruana and Anand to help him with the preparations. The super-GM´s of today are stronger than themselves, because they are teams who hires in great GM´s to help with preparations.
hayabusahayate16 wrote:
Magikstone wrote:
I won my section again for the sixth or seventh time in a row. My new rating is 1828. My method clearly works, but I am finding out that most chess players don't care about improvement, they just want to play chess for fun.
Unless you are talking about some other rating this is a lie. Your USCF rating is 1678 as of March 15, 2015.
This was covered already.
Chesszen.com's engine, if I recall correctly, put Morphy at just under 2500, but with numerous performances higher than Steinitz and Lasker's (2500+). Many other players around Morphy's time are estimated by the site to be 2200ish. I have no clue how any of that could be accurate, but they seem to have a good mode for assessing elo on the basis of a single game and over a collection of games.
Mar 16, 2015
0
#637
Magikstone wrote:
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.
The very likely thing is that computer preparation has made top GM level actually decrease.
Mar 16, 2015
0
#638
More than just opening knowledge has changed since the 19th century.
Players today now train as professionals, which was never done, not even by Alekhine, before WWII. Players study endgame after endgame, have trainers who have studied the art and science of the sport, and perhaps most importantly of all, play regularly against other top players. They have modern tools, such as chess engines and databases to help them prepare for their opponents. A novelty played by a strong GM this morning will be published with detailed analysis this afternoon.
Of course today's players are miles ahead of the great players of the past. That doesn't make Morphy, Chigorin, and the rest less great. But it does mean that the gap is large and measurable. From the time of Morphy to the present, the best player in the world has improved about 500 elo rating points. This gap has been documented and measured by statisticians.
Chess in the 19th Century was something of an amateur's avocation. Now, it's a professional sport.
@smyslovfan didnt you play in an otb tourney recently after a long layoff ?
Mar 16, 2015
0
#640
Yes, Reb. I lost a complicated, flawed game to a master (we both had our chances), but won the other three all in under 30 moves. Not much to report. I played too aggressively in my first three games, but calmed down and won a nice endgame in my last one. Actually, that last one was a bit like Capa: my opponent traded down to a virtually lost endgame without even realising it.
Magikstone wrote:
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 already reach expert level to your 1700 elo, so studying past master games has help me, especially Morphy, Capablanca, Alekhnie, Fischer and Karpov, aaah!! I view a lot the modern GMs games, especially Carlsen and Anand. No you won't reach expert level, you don't have chess knowledge, your mickey mouse system won't guide you when you get to unfamilar position; it takes real chess knowledge to assess correctly unfamilar territory and make the best plan according to your chess knowledge. Like I say the higher you go up the more tougher is your opponents and if you think you don't need to calculate well,and will find out the hard way. Real chess knowledge will help you in any unfamilar situation and guide you; if you have not study and put in the time don't expect to go any higher than B-class.