I belong to the class of 1600's on chess.com blitz. You know what that means? It means there is no one alive, not even fischer, could beat me down a whole freakin knight. Once you reach my level, the only way to beat me is to use all of your pieces. You guys are over estimating the grandmasters and clearly underestimating the strength of amatuers.
What would be the rating of a top chess player in the late 1800s today
Sort:
And you guys need to stop putting Morphy on a pedestal. And no, Lasker is no 2700. Not even Spassky was a 2700, and he most certainly would beat Morphy.
And Lasker.
Feb 25, 2015
0
#65
Magikstone wrote:
I belong to the class of 1600's on chess.com blitz. You know what that means? It means there is no one alive, not even fischer, could beat me down a whole freakin knight.
I think you really underestimate grandmasters. They're on that level where they can give knight-odds to a 1600 and win a lot.
Feb 25, 2015
0
#66
Uhohspaghettio1 wrote:
Try playing houdini a knight up see how far you get. You get 3 hours, houdini get a few seconds. Maybe after many takebacks and able to view all variations you might scrape a draw, a human would be more dynamic though with how he handled the imbalance.
That's an excellent test for Magikstone.
batgirl wrote:
Morphy was the pinnacle of Romanticism, and at the same time, it's death knell. Great Romanticists such as Tschigorin, Tarrarch and Spielmann came later than Morphy (and benefited from him), but the more scientific approach had already shown itself to be superior. By Romanticist, I don't mean the misconstrued idea of willy-nilly attackers and clueless defenders, but players who saw chess first of all as an artform the highest expression of which was the combination. Reading Morphy's own words, one can see that what he considered the drudgery and endless shifting of pieces that closed games entailed deeply offended his aesthetic sense. Morphy, and most Romanticists up to his time were dabblers in chess and felt that allowing chess to occupy and dominate one's time was somehow morally wrong and socially reprehensible. Morphy only played what we might call serious chess for a bit over a year, when he has still quite young and with little practical experience against world-class players.
While Steinitz would postulate that combinations are only effective when one has gained certain advantages based on certain principals, Morphy, on the other hand, had no such developed principals and relied on intuition and creativity. In fact, part of Steinitz' ideas were only possible because Morphy's intuition demonstrated the possibilities. To compare even these two men (who were contemporaries) seems odd. To compare them against the same objective standard seems odder. It seems that the measure doesn't so much indicate that Morphy himself was inferior to Steinitz, but that Romantic Chess is inferior to Scientific Chess. This is even more true when trying to compare players of old with players today.
I basically agree with the Romanticists about chess. I don't think that mindset is the best way to ultimately "win" chess, but I think the mindset of winning at all costs is misguided in a more humanistic, artistic sense. I've always had a piece of loathing for chess because it's more science than art.
It would be roughly the same as a top player today, since people aren't getting any more intelligent and he would have access to the same data. Any other answer is just ?!, ? or ??.
I think we're talking about Staunton and Morphy.
Now compare that to this Gelfand-Anand world championship game:
Reading some of this thread, people seem to be making the mistake of assuming they would be restricted to their possibly defective 19th C. chess knowledge.
Paulsen was a good player too. All of the Paulsens were. 
I can't see Anderssen being stronger than 2300 to be honest.
I think Andersssen was in grandmaster level, some of his ideas were truly profound. Look at how crush Steinitz, Steintiz never get a chance to save himself.
This truly brilliant and Anderssen conducted his attack accurated and never giving Steinitz a chance to recover. That is no 2300 master but a grandmaster level player.
Feb 25, 2015
0
#73
IM Khalifman used to play odds games with his students. He was in the 2400s. He said that for knight odds the breakeven point was about 1800. I don't think you would have much chance against an IM let alone GM. By the way, if you played blitz against a GM at knight odds you would get slaughtered. In slow chess you could hope for a few draws and even an occasional win.
Magikstone wrote:
I belong to the class of 1600's on chess.com blitz. You know what that means? It means there is no one alive, not even fischer, could beat me down a whole freakin knight. Once you reach my level, the only way to beat me is to use all of your pieces. You guys are over estimating the grandmasters and clearly underestimating the strength of amatuers.
Feb 25, 2015
0
#74
You should consider that just MAYBE Kramnik's assessment of Lasker is a worthier and better opinion than your own.
Magikstone wrote:
And Lasker.
Record vs Opponent's Rating (Pre-event)
| Lifetime (since 1991) Record | Last 12 Months | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rating | Games | Wins | Draws | Losses | % score | Rating | Games | Wins | Draws | Losses | % score | ||||
| UNR | 1 | 1 | 100.0 | UNR | 1 | 1 | 100.0 | ||||||||
| 400 | 1 | 1 | 100.0 | 400 | 1 | 1 | 100.0 | ||||||||
| 500 | 1 | 1 | 100.0 | 500 | 1 | 1 | 100.0 | ||||||||
| 600 | 1 | 1 | 100.0 | 600 | |||||||||||
| 700 | 1 | 1 | 100.0 | 700 | |||||||||||
| 800 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 75.0 | 800 | 1 | 1 | 100.0 | |||||||
| 900 | 1 | 1 | 100.0 | 900 | |||||||||||
| 1000 | 7 | 6 | 1 | 92.9 | 1000 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 83.3 | ||||||
| 1100 | 8 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 81.3 | 1100 | |||||||||
| 1200 | 17 | 8 | 3 | 6 | 55.9 | 1200 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 75.0 | |||||
| 1300 | 13 | 7 | 2 | 4 | 61.5 | 1300 | 2 | 2 | 0.0 | ||||||
| 1400 | 19 | 10 | 4 | 5 | 63.2 | 1400 | 6 | 6 | 100.0 | ||||||
| 1500 | 29 | 13 | 13 | 3 | 67.2 | 1500 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 83.3 | |||||
| 1600 | 44 | 14 | 10 | 20 | 43.2 | 1600 | 16 | 5 | 4 | 7 | 43.8 | ||||
| 1700 | 44 | 14 | 11 | 19 | 44.3 | 1700 | 11 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 54.5 | ||||
| 1800 | 7 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 35.7 | 1800 | 1 | 1 | 50.0 | ||||||
| 1900 | 9 | 2 | 7 | 11.1 | 1900 | ||||||||||
| 2000 | 10 | 2 | 8 | 10.0 | 2000 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 16.7 | ||||||
| 2100 | 3 | 3 | 0.0 | 2100 | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | ||||||||
| 2200 | 3 | 3 | 0.0 | 2200 | |||||||||||
| 2300 | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 2300 | |||||||||||
| 222 | 86 | 53 | 83 | 50.7 | 58 | 25 | 17 | 16 | 57.8 | ||||||
| Search for Players | |||||||||||||||
| MSA Home Page | |||||||||||||||
|
Note: Color information, when shown, is only present if provided by the TD for events rated since January 1, 2012.
Morphy would beat you at knight odds and playing blindfolded . You struggle against 1300 players . |
|||||||||||||||
Feb 25, 2015
0
#76
Morphy would beat you at knight odds and playing blindfolded . You struggle against 1300 players .
Come on Reb, no fair bringing facts into it. Besides, Morphy might win blindfolded and even drunk, but can he win dead? No! That's why I said Nakamura. Nakamura would win at these odds for sure.
I give up. If you guys want to believe Morphy could play like an international master, go ahead. If you guys want to believe Lasker would give Kramnik competition, go ahead. And if you guys want to believe grandmasters can beat 1600's a knight down, go ahead. I see what's going on, you guys are putting these guys on a pedestal. I can guarantee you that if Levon Aronian were to come to our American Swisses he would find himself struggling fiercely against a 2300.
Sheeesh ! I have beaten B class players a piece down before , I have no doubt that an IM or GM wouldnt be able to beat them with a piece down if they wanted . Have you ever faced an IM or GM across the board ? I think you have absolutely no idea of their strength . I have been in plenty of tournies where 2300s got their shots at GM and they lose many more games than they draw or win and sometimes they get completely smashed ! Why should anyone listen to you ? Do you not realize that you have no " chess credentials " ? I hope you are just a bothersome troll and not really as ignorant as you come across here ....
Feb 25, 2015
0
#79
Magikstone wrote:
I can guarantee you that if Levon Aronian were to come to our American Swisses he would find himself struggling fiercely against a 2300.
I see. That explains why he's always been afraid to show up there.
t?