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

Nakamura with 30 minutes can beat every chess player except Carlsen with 2 hours. Nakamura just passed Caruana I THINK Nakamura is way better than Caruana and would beat Caruana with pawn odds.

Nakamura's great, but I'm not even sure he's the best player in the US this week. Naka's currently 2802, but So is right behind him at 2794!

It should be a good US Championship!

Nobody made a big deal when Anand was champion.  Suddenly some white guy in Norway is "champion" supposively the best chess player ever, and he appears on all these shows, even modeling.  I really feel chess is living out the soviet times, where players are told to lose to Carlsen to make everyone believe in the superiority of Magnus.

Read http://www.chess.com/blog/Spektrowski/vladimir-kramnik-from-steinitz-to-kasparov

Chigorin beat Steinitz in a correspondence match.

Congratulations for getting past the eighth grade!

Wesley so is garbage did you see him play like a patzer today? Missed like 10+ wins agains shankland? Nakamura salughtered him on chess.com lol. Nakamura at his best can beat Wesley so knight odds.

Seriously, dude. I cannot get the weed you're smoking even though it is legal where I live.

Troll self-confirmed.

Nah I think Nakamurs would beat Wesley so knight odds in bullet/blitz.

It's gotta be some other substance, which is still illegal where you live.

http://en.chessbase.com/post/computers-choose-who-was-the-strongest-player-

There was a study done which analyzed the games of the world champions using computers, with statisitcal tests run on the games for a variety of different things. One of them was "expected error", basically how much worse, on average, the player's move was compared to the computer move. Granted, computers aren't perfect, but this gives us a pretty good idea of how the champions compare to each other. The player with the lowest average error, was actually Capablanca, slightly lower than Kramnik! Therefore, Capablanca would likely be a "super-GM" today.  Steinitz however, had a very large expected error compared to any other world champion, with a value that could be expected of a player rated about 2400 today. Based on that figure, I would guess that Lasker was around 2550, while the other masters of the 1800s, such as Staunton, Anderssen, etc, were likely 2200-2300,with Morphy being the possible exception.

Fryedk - your link seems to be broken

Another nonsensical post from Dark_837.

Are you delusional?

Magikstone wrote:

I am appending to this list to add the names of  few players who were born in the 1800s and active during the early 1900s, who lived past 1950, or played in title matches (best 5-year average):

2650 M. Euwe

2640 A. Rubenstein

2620 G. Maroczy

2610 E. Bogoljubov

2590 O. Bernstein

2570 D. Janovsky

2570 F. Marshall

2560 I. Gunsberg

1.) Carlsen = Nakamura (overall)

2.)anand

3.) no one gives a shit

These are the best player alive right now. Nakamurs has a bad score against carlsen but that is just 1 particular matchup. Nakamura is also underated.

In many tournments, Carslen has won like 6 times in a row.  Isn't that suspicious?  How is that even possible against other super grandmasters.  Is no one suspicous?  

Nope. He's the World Champion! And he's Scandinavian :P

Unbelievable amount of mental masturbation going on on this thread. 

(How often do you see the word "on" used consecutively like that?)

Same as the word "that" used twice in a row in a sentence. 

It just don't look right.