What year did they oficially do away with adjournments ?
What would be the rating of a top chess player in the late 1800s today
Sort:
"That's more because of stamina than technical ability"
I think you underestimate Carlsen's technical ability, see for example a (rapid) game like this one, the position after move 43 looks like a dead draw:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1578575
SmyslovFan wrote:
Well, there's a strong connection between stamina and technical ability. Capablanca's technique abandoned him in his match with Alekhine. Kasparov argued that it was because he was not used to amount of pressure that Alekhine put Capa under. And Capa had adjournments! So, I won't disagree that stamina is important. But that's part of what makes great technique, being able to play well when tired.
Adjournments will never happen again in tournament chess, for excellent reasons. So that's a moot point.
Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth - Mike Tyson
Mar 18, 2015
0
#685
I don't think he was ever a boring player. Giri on the other hand...
Shhh, we have a Master facepalming here...
Justs99171 wrote:
SmyslovFan wrote:
Well, there's a strong connection between stamina and technical ability. Capablanca's technique abandoned him in his match with Alekhine. Kasparov argued that it was because he was not used to amount of pressure that Alekhine put Capa under. And Capa had adjournments! So, I won't disagree that stamina is important. But that's part of what makes great technique, being able to play well when tired.
Adjournments will never happen again in tournament chess, for excellent reasons. So that's a moot point.
Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth - Mike Tyson
Or until you run across someone like Holyfield that didnt buy into the intimidation thing.
Mar 18, 2015
0
#688
Reb wrote:
What year did they oficially do away with adjournments ?
Not sure. There are still provisions in the FIDE rules in case there needs to be an adjournment (such as a power outage), but FIDE no longer rates games that have adjournment time controls.
The last World Championship that had adjournments was back in 1995.
@SmyslovFan, I think is much easier for amateur to understand Morphy,Anderssen, Steinitz, Capablanca, Lasker, Nimzovitch and Alekhine games than a Carlsen, because Carlsen and his peers played in such a high level, I doubt any player below expert could comprehend a player games who rated 2700 to 2800. Steinitz's games I would say," yes", because Steinitz will teach you how to exploit weaknesses and how to win a isolate pawn or exploit the weakness of a double pawns. The games you give above I doubt any player below expert will understand these advance concepts, they are too complicate to comprehend. How can a player understand Carlsen when their basic chess knowledge is low and they will never fully comprehend Carlsen ideas. I would like to add in one the game you give it was from Rubinstein, his fine queen sacrifice.
Mar 18, 2015
0
#690
yureesystem wrote:
@SmyslovFan, I think is much easier for amateur to understand Morphy,Anderssen, Steinitz, Capablanca, Lasker, Nimzovitch and Alekhine games than a Carlsen, because Carlsen and his peers played in such a high level, I doubt any player below expert could comprehend a player games who rated 2700 to 2800. Steinitz's games I would say," yes", because Steinitz will teach you how to exploit weaknesses and how to win a isolate pawn or exploit the weakness of a double pawns. The games you give above I doubt any player below expert will understand these advance concepts, they are too complicate to comprehend. How can a player understand Carlsen when their basic chess knowledge is low and they will never fully comprehend Carlsen ideas. I would like to add in one the game you give it was from Rubinstein, his fine queen sacrifice.
I think that in general, classic games are more accessible for two reasons:
1) the ideas are often simpler (fewer of them present in any particular game)
2) Many masters have published commentary.
There are exceptions. There are also modern classics, such as Aronian -- Anand, Wijk aan Zee 2013.
I spend a lot of time going over Morphy's games with my students. Some are quite complicated, but most of them are more accessible than some Anand -- Carlsen battles.
Some of the combinations of Nezhmetdinov are too complicated for Houdini.
1700. They were pretty much retarded. Valued knights over bishops and played coffeehouse chess.
Mar 18, 2015
0
#692
falafa82 wrote:
1700. They were pretty much retarded. Valued knights over bishops and played coffeehouse chess.
Yes, they weren't any better than 1650 blitz players on this site.
1650 blitz is really strong here. My 1870 USCF friend struggles to maintain 1600. I think these old school players would get absolutely slaughtered if they logged on chess.com and played 1600s.
2000 or worse. Do you realize their opponents blundered pieces?
Mar 18, 2015
0
#695
falafa82 wrote:
1650 blitz is really strong here. My 1870 USCF friend struggles to maintain 1600. I think these old school players would get absolutely slaughtered if they logged on chess.com and played 1600s.
I'm about 1870 USCF, down 100+ from my peak two years ago. I'm only in the 1600s here after a losing streak (frequent), but lose plenty to 1400s.
I fell as far as ~1670 yesterday after having been in the mid-1800s last week.
My USCF blitz rating is 1939. http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2014/09/top-100.html
Mar 18, 2015
0
#696
This site is not conducive to blitz/bullet chess for non-paying members. Lately I've lost time not just due to ads but even to notifications from the site.
Mar 18, 2015
0
#697
SmyslovFan wrote:
This site is not conducive to blitz/bullet chess for non-paying members. Lately I've lost time not just due to ads but even to notifications from the site.
I recall getting notifications during blitz games and changing some setting. This memory is faint. I've been a paying member since late 2008 or early 2009.
Chess.com donated money to a youth chess event that I ran in 2009: the Washington State Elementary Chess Championship. I've been commited to this site ever since, even when I've sometimes grown weary of a few irritants.
I just saw a spectacular video here, where Aleksey Dreev showed strenght, he has not suffered from ratinginflation and have dropped back 60 points in 12 years.
yureesystem wrote:
Paul Morphy when playing blindfold didn't blunder a piece even when he was playing against five masters simultaneous: a 2700 player did a one move blunder in rated game blindfold. You better believe there is a rating inflation,(New In Chess) Carlsen's losing in a simple rook and pawn endgame, the Russian GM said , any Russian school boy would of drawn that game, to be fair this was before Carlsen became world champion. Without the computer programs and trainers, most rating would be at 2600 Elo and some 2700 Elo.
Morphy played 5 masters? Ok, but there was no such thing as an FM for 100+ years after Morphy's death. These "masters" were just the guys who could beat the crap out of the club players of that day. Yes, Morphy is VERY impressive, but when two strong GMs play blindfold their position is under a lot more pressure.
Any Russian schoolboy would play a perfect ending? Sure, especially when that Russian schoolboy had an adjourned game and a dozen top players and trainers working on the endgame all night for him. Today's players have to deal with time pressure and the fatigue of playing for >5 hours.
Magnus Carlsen shows great mastery of the classics:
http://www.uschess.org/content/view/12985/806
Weird that guy was able to become a GM wasting his time with such nonsense.