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.
What would be the rating of a top chess player in the late 1800s today
Sort:
2000 or worse. Do you realize their opponents blundered pieces?
Mar 18, 2015
0
#684
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
#685
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
#686
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.
Morphy would have been ~2450. Not more than that. Zukertort maybe 2300. Anderssen about 2300 too. Steinitz should be around 2500. Chigorin could be about 2400.
Okay. Both of them 2450-2500.
Mar 19, 2015
0
#692
Paul Morphy was the best ever player until about 1880. At his best, Morphy's play was flashy and beautiful. He played at ~2350 strength at a time when his nearest rivals were 2000-2150 strength.*
Morphy is known as the Pride and Sorrow of Chess. The pride is obvious. Part of the sorrow is that he gave up the game, at least publicly, before the Civil War. We will never know just how great Morphy could have become if he had continued to play and been challenged by Steinitz.
Steinitz learned a great deal about chess in the period of Morphy's retirement. Steinitz had a full career. By the time of Morphy's death (1884), Steinitz was already slightly better than Morphy at his peak. Steinitz' performance at London in 1883 was the best ever up to that point. In 1890, Steinitz played the second best player in the world, Isidor Gunsberg, and played even better, at nearly a 2500 level!
Of course, almost everyone enjoys Morphy's games more than they do Steinitz' games. Morphy's games were far flashier. It took twenty years for someone to finally eclipse Morphy, but Steinitz did eventually do just that.
______________
*The performance levels I mention come from the analysis of Kenneth Regan, found here: http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/papers/pdf/RMH11.pdf
Mar 19, 2015
0
#693
Btw, congratulations to those who recognised Rotlewi-Rubinstein and Aronian-Anand without having to use a database!
The following article discusses Magnus Carlsen's ability to recognise games and positions and how he won a cool annual trivia contest!
http://www.uschess.org/content/view/12985/806
Mar 19, 2015
0
#694
Nah. I strongly believe Morphy, Capablanca, Lasker and Alekhine would all be strong GMs today.
SmylovFan wrote:
Morphy is known as the Pride and Sorrow of Chess. The pride is obvious. Part of the sorrow is that he gave up the game, at least publicly, before the Civil War. We will never know just how great Morphy could have become if he had continued to play and been challenged by Steinitz.
Steinitz learned a great deal about chess in the period of Morphy's retirement. Steinitz had a full career. By the time of Morphy's death (1884), Steinitz was already slightly better than Morphy at his peak. Steinitz' performance at London in 1883 was the best ever up to that point. In 1890, Steinitz played the second best player in the world, Isidor Gunsberg, and played even better, at nearly a 2500 level!
Of course, almost everyone enjoys Morphy's games more than they do Steinitz' games. Morphy's games were far flashier. It took twenty years for someone to finally eclipse Morphy, but Steinitz did eventually do just that.
I completely agree with what you wrote.
SmylovFan wrote: Btw, congratulations to those who recognised Rotlewi-Rubinstein and Aronian-Anand without having to use a database!
I immediately recognize Rotlewti-Rubinstein but "sigh" not Aronian-Anand. :(
Ziryab wrote:
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.
I am sure your students benefit from your teaching; any strong player who use Morphy's games to instruct their students will benefit greatly. My senior master (2400 uscf and higher) use Morphy's games when teaching his students and his advance student will be Capablanca, Rubinstein, Karpov, Fischer, Nimzovitch, Botvinnik and current GMs.
fabelhaft wrote: 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:
It is a dead draw that is what make this remarkable win, Carlsen understanding of this "rook and pawn endgame" is better than GM Ponomariov who is 2700 player.
For me Carlsen is really something else, such brilliance and accurate played endgame technique leave me beathless; this is world champion caliber. Absolutely beautiful, I am totally at awe, for me this is more pleasing than any Tal sacrifice.
Justs99171 wrote:
Don't be a superficial smart ass and miss the point. Tyson never won a bout by intimidation. Most of his fights ended in knock outs. Anyway, Holyfield faught the fight of his life the first time. He kept Tyson tied up, and particularly his left arm to evade that hook. Prior to breaking, he would push Tyson back to destroy his leverage. Now how many other fighters could have done that to Tyson? None of them.
Sizing someone up and actually competing against them are two totally different things; in boxing, chess, or any competition.
I love what you wrote, nice analogy to chess too. Chess is a fight, Lasker is wrong when he said it is a struggle. With strong players it is more like a fist fight, strong player go for the jugular and not some lame draw.
Justs99171 wrote:
I_Am_Second wrote:
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.
Don't be a superficial smart ass and miss the point. Tyson never won a bout by intimidation. Most of his fights ended in knock outs. Anyway, Holyfield faught the fight of his life the first time. He kept Tyson tied up, and particularly his left arm to evade that hook. Prior to breaking, he would push Tyson back to destroy his leverage. Now how many other fighters could have done that to Tyson? None of them.
Sizing someone up and actually competing against them are two totally different things; in boxing, chess, or any competition.
Dont overthink it. Tysons strategy was based on intimidation. Holyfield wasnt buying into it.
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.