Okay. Both of them 2450-2500.
What would be the rating of a top chess player in the late 1800s today
Sort:
Mar 19, 2015
0
#703
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
#704
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
#705
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.
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.
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.
I_Am_Second wrote:
Tysons strategy was based on intimidation.
I don't know much about boxing, but it sounds like you don't either...
leiph18 wrote:
I_Am_Second wrote:
Tysons strategy was based on intimidation.
I don't know much about boxing, but it sounds like you don't either...
What is there to know? Its boxing, not rocket science. You hit each other, and whomever hits more wins.
I_Am_Second wrote:
doubt you've ever boxed. accurate?
leiph18 wrote:
I_Am_Second wrote:
Tysons strategy was based on intimidation.
I don't know much about boxing, but it sounds like you don't either...
What is there to know? Its boxing, not rocket science. You hit each other, and whomever hits more wins.
I think GM Gata Kamsky will be good at commenting about chess and boxing.
Arawn_of_Annuvin wrote:
I_Am_Second wrote:
leiph18 wrote:
I_Am_Second wrote:
Tysons strategy was based on intimidation.
I don't know much about boxing, but it sounds like you don't either...
What is there to know? Its boxing, not rocket science. You hit each other, and whomever hits more wins.
doubt you've ever boxed. accurate?
That would be correct. I studied kyokushin karate. But i do know the easiest people to compete against are sytreet fighters, and boxers. Not takng anything away form boxing, as it does require skill, dedication, and conditioning. I dont bring it up to brag, boast, etc. I bring it up so you know i am at least somewhat qualified in my opinion. Doesnt mean im right, its just my opinion :-)
I_Am_Second wrote:
leiph18 wrote:
I_Am_Second wrote:
Tysons strategy was based on intimidation.
I don't know much about boxing, but it sounds like you don't either...
What is there to know? Its boxing, not rocket science. You hit each other, and whomever hits more wins.
Wow, not only have I never boxed, I've never watched an entire boxing match.
But if your posts are anything to go off of, I definitely know more about boxing than you.
And even if I didn't know anything about it, any human endeavor, no matter how trivial on the surface, takes immense talent and work to be the best human at it. I would expect an adult to know this. Your comments come off as intentionally petty.
I_Am_Second wrote: That would be correct. I studied kyokushin karate.
Kyokushin is the best karate style, Mas Oyama was call Godhand, one the hardest hitter and probably the best fighter of all time, not Bruce Lee.
Steinitz higher than Morphy? That would be the day.