Forums

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

Sort:
TheGreatOogieBoogie
TheGreatOogieBoogie
Apr 1, 2015
0
#821

Schlechter did amazing against Lasker (though he didn't beat Lasker how close the match was tells me that Schlechter would steamroll Adolf Anderssen.)

Lasker was incredible when he won New York 1924 ahead of Capablanca and even Alekhine. 

Uhohspaghettio1
Uhohspaghettio1
Apr 1, 2015
0
#822

Smyslov fan really is stretching the limits of credulity with a number of things he's saying without technically being "wrong". I can believe inventing an opening system, or a "technique", but it's hard to image some brand new "never seen before" tactical sequence. 

In the old books of Tarrasch and Nimzowitsch, they used the word "amateur" as an insult to chess ability all the time. That's practically what the word meant, rather than anything about making money from chess. 

When you get totally absorbed in a game to the exclusion of nearly all else, that's pretty much the same as being professional. Most of these old players didn't have a difficult life, they had some inheritance or some other way to live an easy life.  

dark_837
dark_837
Apr 1, 2015
0
#823

Chigorin was 1900 at best

patzermike
patzermike
Show your flair!
Apr 2, 2015
0
#824

Disagree profoundly. I suspect Chigorin would be around 2300. It would be a strange experience to play him or one of his contemporaries. His positional play would be primitive and he would ignore aspects of pawn structure in a way no modern 1500 parser would. But his tactical alertness and attacking prowess would be that of a strong GM.

dark_837 wrote:

Chigorin was 1900 at best

SmyslovFan
SmyslovFan
Show your flair!
Apr 2, 2015
0
#825

In many ways, Chigorin was one of the most modern players of his generation. His playing style inspired Botvinnik, Boleslavsky, Smyslov, and others to create the dynamic style of chess that epitomized the Soviet School. If Botvinnik was the Patriarch, Chigorin was the intellectual grandfather of the Soviet School.

It's no coincidence at all that Smyslov often played lines that were first championed by Chigorin.

TheOldReb
NM TheOldReb
Show your flair!
Apr 2, 2015
0
#826
dark_837 wrote:

Chigorin was 1900 at best

patzermike
patzermike
Show your flair!
Apr 2, 2015
0
#827

Why is it that weak players feel so qualified to make dumb flippant judgements about great players, past and present? Among the pearls of wisdom I have found on these discussions are: Lasker was mediocre. Euwe was a weakling who could only beat a drunk opponent. Fischer could have given Karpov knight odds. Kasparov was a million times more talented than Fischer. No, no, Kasparov was a moron compared to Fischer. Nakamura could beat So or Caruana blindfolded, etc., etc. And now, I am greatly edified to learn that Chigorin would be a mediocre club player by today's standards it is strange that all this expertese at evaluating great players doesn't translate to ability to play chess well.

KM101
KM101
Apr 2, 2015
0
#828
dark_837 wrote:

Chigorin was 1900 at best

That's nonsense.

eciruam
eciruam
Apr 2, 2015
0
#829
dark_837 wrote:

Chigorin was 1900 at best

I'm sorry, which Chigorin are we talking about ?

Chigorin the chess Master, or Chigorin the bus driver ?

Welcome to the Troll Club, dark 837.

eciruam
eciruam
Apr 2, 2015
0
#830
dark_837 wrote:

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

You have friends ?

JamieDelarosa
JamieDelarosa
Show your flair!
Apr 2, 2015
0
#831
dark_837 wrote:

Chigorin was 1900 at best

Agent provocateur

yureesystem
yureesystem
Apr 2, 2015
0
#832

           

hayabusahayate16

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.

Saccing a pawn for long term compensation is not a tactical idea.

And what do you call the Kings Gambit if not a pawn sac for long term compensation? Just because a player uses an old idea in a new position doesn't make it a new tactic that nobody has ever seen before, especially when it is not even a tactic.

Opening novelties are constantly being found and will continue to be found for a very long time, so when someone finds a new position to sacrifice a pawn in 100 years we can say the 21st century players were not on the same level tactically.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree wth SmyslovFan the modern GMs are attacking better and introducing new attacking concepts, exploring weaknesses like Isolated pawns, it can be a strength or weakness and some past masters avoid the endgame with  isolated pawn but now it can be a strength.

Pulpofeira
Pulpofeira
Apr 2, 2015
0
#833
dark_837 escribió:

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

yureesystem
yureesystem
Apr 2, 2015
0
#834

dark_837 wrote:

Chigorin was 1900 at best.  

 

 

  Your judgement as a 983 rated player is not valid; play over Chigorins' games and you will see this player is  no 1900 level player but at least a 2500 level.

TheGreatOogieBoogie
TheGreatOogieBoogie
Apr 2, 2015
0
#835
yureesystem wrote:

           

hayabusahayate16

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.

Saccing a pawn for long term compensation is not a tactical idea.

And what do you call the Kings Gambit if not a pawn sac for long term compensation? Just because a player uses an old idea in a new position doesn't make it a new tactic that nobody has ever seen before, especially when it is not even a tactic.

Opening novelties are constantly being found and will continue to be found for a very long time, so when someone finds a new position to sacrifice a pawn in 100 years we can say the 21st century players were not on the same level tactically.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree wth SmyslovFan the modern GMs are attacking better and introducing new attacking concepts, exploring weaknesses like Isolated pawns, it can be a strength or weakness and some past masters avoid the endgame with  isolated pawn but now it can be a strength.

 

Attack keeps evolving.  Why do you think Soltis wrote New Art of Defence in Chess?  He mentions that solid but passive defence fails against today's aggressive attacking players.  Kasparov in particular has some intimidating games.  I'm too afraid to study his Kasparov on Garry Kasparov book series since he's Alekhine on steroids, and I have Alekhine's Best Games so that's saying something. 

 

Topalov seems like a good player to study but he said himself that he doesn't like to annotate games.  His book on the 2006 match with Kramnik is a great one, and San Luis 2005 while not annotated by Topalov still has some great annotations of his games.  Topalov has a clean attacking style with a good technical bent.  So he's somewhere between Kasparov and Kramnik stylistically but a little closer to Kasparov. 

royalbishop
royalbishop
Apr 2, 2015
0
#836
Magikstone wrote:

My rating is now 1880 on uscf.  My method is working.  I beat 2 1800's to get there and drew against one.

Yeah the first time i tried a couple of defense that i understood a little it worked then reality set in. Out came the book and i had to study them. Funny after that i never used them since even thou i understand them better. Beginners luck. And at chess.com it does not last that long. Every system is beatable. No perfect chess playing system else we have a couple of Super GM's eras ago.

royalbishop
royalbishop
Apr 2, 2015
0
#837

I see all this talk about Chigorin being a 1900 player. Well if he was a 1900 player then have of chess.com better apply to be GM! After that we all get in line and have at Anand as a warm up to Carlsen.

Hey we can all write a book on "The day i discovered i was GM material" or "From 1900 to GM in a moment".Laughing

Uhohspaghettio1
Uhohspaghettio1
Apr 2, 2015
0
#838
TheGreatOogieBoogie wrote:
yureesystem wrote:

           

hayabusahayate16

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.

Saccing a pawn for long term compensation is not a tactical idea.

And what do you call the Kings Gambit if not a pawn sac for long term compensation? Just because a player uses an old idea in a new position doesn't make it a new tactic that nobody has ever seen before, especially when it is not even a tactic.

Opening novelties are constantly being found and will continue to be found for a very long time, so when someone finds a new position to sacrifice a pawn in 100 years we can say the 21st century players were not on the same level tactically.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree wth SmyslovFan the modern GMs are attacking better and introducing new attacking concepts, exploring weaknesses like Isolated pawns, it can be a strength or weakness and some past masters avoid the endgame with  isolated pawn but now it can be a strength.

 

Attack keeps evolving.  Why do you think Soltis wrote New Art of Defence in Chess?  He mentions that solid but passive defence fails against today's aggressive attacking players.  Kasparov in particular has some intimidating games.  I'm too afraid to study his Kasparov on Garry Kasparov book series since he's Alekhine on steroids, and I have Alekhine's Best Games so that's saying something. 

 

Topalov seems like a good player to study but he said himself that he doesn't like to annotate games.  His book on the 2006 match with Kramnik is a great one, and San Luis 2005 while not annotated by Topalov still has some great annotations of his games.  Topalov has a clean attacking style with a good technical bent.  So he's somewhere between Kasparov and Kramnik stylistically but a little closer to Kasparov. 

Why did Soltis write New Art of Defence? You must be joking. The Art of Defence is nearly half a century old. New Art of Defence is just an updated edition with some claims that modern play is different. It's more a gimmick than anything else. 

There is no way you can say attacking play is constantly evolving. Only the openings are constantly evolving. 

Conflagration_Planet
Conflagration_Planet
Apr 2, 2015
0
#839

Shitty coffee players! Laughing

Eseles
Eseles
Apr 2, 2015
0
#840

GM Hikaru Nakamura became no.2 in world rankings just a little earlier, and when asked he said: "Who cares about those stupid ratings"... Wink