What would be the rating of a top chess player in the late 1800s today

Sort:
Magikstone

I'm not saying I'm the only one who uses this method, but people have said studying the games of capablanca and studying tactics is more important.  What I am saying is that my method, which you say happens to be the method of grandmasters, is much superior to studying games of past grandmasters and solving silly tactics puzzles.

millionairesdaughter

So have grandmasters adopted your methods or is your methods adopted from grandmasters, Sibalinga ?

Magikstone

Obviously you are not a hot blonde, so why put that on as your profile pic?

5iegbert_7arrasch
Magikstone wrote:

Obviously you are not a hot blonde, so why put that on as your profile pic?

But you are a troll, right?

http://legacy-cdn.smosh.com/smosh-pit/112010/main-troll.jpg

adumbrate

Lets be honest here. We can't time travel. Neither did they have access to what we have today, or it would be seriously unfair to them because they were not born with high technology as we are. Giving them a rating to them today would be highly unfair. Even if we did, their tactics would not be so good, so I doubt they would be anything more than 2200..

5iegbert_7arrasch

We can't time travel. This whole discussion is futile.

TheGreatOogieBoogie

No but the theoreticals are interesting.  We can then learn just how far we've come.  Besides wouldn't a match between Kortchnoi and Capablanca be fun to imagine?

5iegbert_7arrasch

Sure.

dark_837

Most of my high school friends who haveb een playing for 5+ years would own these shitty coffeehouse players

5iegbert_7arrasch

ты моя вещь.

yureesystem

What would be the rating of a top chess player in the late 1800s today; this is what OP wrote.      

 

skotheimz wrote:Giving them a rating to them today would be highly unfair. Even if we did, their tactics would not be so good, so I doubt they would be anything more than 2200..     

 

 

 

 

 

  Maybe you have not play over some past masters games, they were incredible strong, I doubt they were 2200 elo. More in the 2500 elo strength. Here is a game Blackbunre attacks Lasker and play in Nimzovitch style and King's Indian attack concepts. See if you can identify his modern ideas. 

 

 

 

   

I doubt any modern master 2200- 2400 fide will have a chance against these powerhouse past masters, they will destroy any modern masters.

5iegbert_7arrasch

Morphy would definitely be a super GM in 2015. He had good work ethics and was naturally talented.

dark_837

no they wouldnt my 1800 friend said he can beat most masters

SmyslovFan

No, sorry. Even tactically, the players of the 19th century were nowhere near as good as today's best players. 

Think of it this way: Alekhine invented tactics that had never before been seen, where he would sacrifice a pawn for long-term compensation that was not even understood in the 19th century. 

Today's players use engines to hone their tactical skills and are constantly improving their tactics. 

It's no insult to say that the players of the 19th Century were amateurs. Some were quite talented. But they were still amateurs, especially compared to today's players.

adumbrate

I rest my case.

5iegbert_7arrasch
SmyslovFan wrote:

No, sorry. Even tactically, the players of the 19th century were nowhere near as good as today's best players. 

Think of it this way: Alekhine invented tactics that had never before been seen, where he would sacrifice a pawn for long-term compensation that was not even understood in the 19th century. 

Today's players use engines to hone their tactical skills and are constantly improving their tactics. 

It's no insult to say that the players of the 19th Century were amateurs. Some were quite talented. But they were still amateurs, especially compared to today's players.

They would soon learn and be among the best we have today. If Morphy would be teleported to the USA anno 2015, obviously he would get the customary training (I mean, c'mon, he's Morphy!) to get him up to speed. And he'd do it in no-time. He'd understand the ideas and apply them. But he'd suffer a kind of culture-shock, wouldn't he? So be kind and supportive. I'm sure he'd be a super GM.

SmyslovFan

I think you don't really understand the difference between the mindset of an amateur and that of a professional. 

Morphy would have to invest a huge amount of time and energy to improve in chess. That sort of training didn't exist in the 19th Century.

Morphy was an incredibly talented amateur. That doesn't mean he could become a great professional player.

leiph18
SmyslovFan wrote:

I think you don't really understand the difference between the mindset of an amateur and that of a professional. 

Morphy would have to invest a huge amount of time and energy to improve in chess. That sort of training didn't exist in the 19th Century.

Morphy was an incredibly talented amateur. That doesn't mean he could become a great professional player.

Yeah, the "Morphy would be 3000" group seems silly.

Every top player today has enormous talent. Players may not realize it though because people like Karjakin and So don't go around playing blindfold against players rated 1300.

yureesystem

         

skotheim2 wrote:

I rest my case.  

 

 

 

 

Any player can make mindless comments, these past master made long term pawn sacrifice, made positional exchange sacrifice, some our modern positional concept in how to exploit double pawn came before Nimzovitch and a lot hypermodern concept came before Nimzovitch, like centralize your pieces. We indebt to Chigorin, Steinitz, Morphy, Anderssen, Paulsen, Tarrasch, LaBourdonnnais, Janowsky and Pillsbury; they were the great chess genius, they were inventor and were not copycats.

JamieDelarosa

In the 1970's, Prof. Arpad Elo, who developed the Elo rating system, retro-rated the great masters of the past.

In his book, "The Rating of Chessplayers: Past and Present" (1978), Elo provides a "best 5-year average" for players who largely pre-dated his rating system. Below are those estimates from his book for players deceased prior to 1950 (2600 and above):

2725  J. R. Capablanca

2720  Emanuel Lasker

2690  A. Alekhine

2650  W. Steinitz

2630  H. Pillsbury

2615  A. Nimzowitch

2610  s. Tarrasch

2600  A. Anderssen

2600  J. Zuckertort

2600  M. Chigorin

2600  C. Schlechter