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

Professor Elo estimated Morphy's strength at 2690.

Sonas pegged Morphy's highest rating at 2743 (1859)

SmyslovFan wrote:

yuree is a complete nutcase. Do not take him seriously, he has no idea what he's talking about.  

Sonas started from the premise that all world champions were at least 2700 strength. Take a look at who else was +2600 according to Sonas. His estimations are a joke.

Elo's estimations are more serious but he admitted he made numerous assumptions about the quality of play that may not be true.

Kenneth Regan actually compared the quality of play and not just the results to demonstrate a reliable method for measuring players in different eras.

Morphy did have tremendous calculating abilities, even by today's standards. He also had the fastest grasp of chess of any player in history. Hypothetically, if you just imported him into the 21st century with a time machine, there is nothing in chess he wouldn't understand immediately. If you've been over his games, you would see this.

You can see his games against Harrwitz. He lost in some closed positions and then suddenly he was playing closed positions better than Harrwitz. It's possible that if he had played a short match with Nimzo, he would have become as strong as Petrosian in as few as 20 games.

The only guys that really compare to him in this way are Capablanca and Kasparov - maybe Lasker. But Morphy certainly had a more rapid comprehention of new ideas.

I doubt an 1858 version of Morphy would be 2700 today, but he would certainly reach 2900 in a few years.

This is the logical ratings of some 19th Century players if you accept that Morphy was +2700 strength:

3-year peak, according to Jeff Sonas:

Paul Morphy: 2716 (1859-1861)

Gustav Neumann: 2724 (1868-1870)

Joseph Blackburne: 2737 (1886-1888)

Emanuel Lasker: 2855 (1894-1896)

Wilhelm Steinitz:  2794 (1886-1888)

Siegbert Tarrasch: 2796 (1894-1896)

Mkhail Chigorin: 2763 (1895-1897)

Isidor Gunsberg: 2719 (1888-1890)

Amos Burn: 2717 (1899-1901)

Miksa Weiss 2705 (1889-1891)

And for one year, 

Ignatz Kolisch was 2755 according to Sonas. 

Take a look at the games these people played. 

Sonas' rating system is a joke that hasn't been used by any serious statistician apart from Sonas.

Ratings don't measure strength. Ratings measure results. You can't rate these players and compare Steinitz to Carlsen in objective playing. Sonas knows this.

If you're comparing players ratings from the same rating list, you can safely conclude that Carlsen is the strongest player today. Kasparov was the strongest player in 1999. Fischer was the strongest player in 1972. But you can't clude that Carlsen is stronger than Kasparov and Kasparov is stronger than Fischer because the ratings are from three different eras.

Chessmestrics is a good web site so long as you're comparing players to players from the exact same rating list.

The truth is often boring.

Morphy has an almost mythological status among some players, but the truth is any top player today had just as much mind blowing talent. You think these 12 year old FMs, IMs, and GMs couldn't play multiple games blindfolded and beat the crap out of average club players? Of course they could. Could you solve the best tactics they found in blitz games if you had 30 minutes to think? Of course not.

And with present day access to information and coaches modern players have pushed their talent even farther. More than nearly anyone in history.

Morphy doesn't compare to today's GMs. If he were brought here in a time machine, he couldn't keep up even after many years. (How many years do you think today's talented players have worked?)

Had Morphy been born as a baby in the year 1990, sure, he'd be GM if he wanted, but who knows about top 10. Every one of our top 100 players have huge talent.

Justs, Sonas set up his rating system precisely in order to measure players across different generations! 

http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/PeakList.asp?Params=186903SSSSS1S108065000000111000000000000010100

It doesn't work. 

Kenneth Regan's system, where he analyses the quality of the moves played, does. 

total non sense

Morphy wasn't the strongest player ever, but he was certainly the most talented. You exposed your ignorance by saying "if you had 30 minutes to think ..." If you knew much about Morphy, you would know that he moved almost instantly, It was rare that he took much time to think. This is well documented.

You should read more about Morphy.

It's a shame chess clocks were not used prior to 1883.

It's because I knew Morphy moved quickly that I compared his best tactics to the best blitz tactics of 12 year old titled players.

I'm comparing them when I say the average player can't solve either even if they had a long time to think.

IMO it's stupid, but understandably so, to say Morphy had the most talent ever. Morphy is much more visible because he was the best of his time. Today's super talents get lost in the crowd.

Well said. 

There are quite a few super-talented players who have popped up in recent years who will never compete for the world championship. For many of these supremely talented players, the cut-throat nature of today's professional chess is just too much for them.

An amateur from Morphy's day would never survive today's professional chess atmosphere long enough to become competitive. Morphy in particular would have simply walked away.

+1 right back at you heh.

I think psychology is an important aspect. Saying "well lets assume he was super motivated" to me is like saying "lets assume his memory was much better." It's just not reasonable.

Nice to see a sane post on this topic.

It's amazing to see that people think that he's actually of modern elite strength with the resources and effort todays professionals put into the game. They have talent, a broader knowledge base on the subject, computing, databases and a phenomenal amount of hours spent studying. He was a part timer.

Morphy memorized most of Louisiana law code verbatim. Do you understand how extraordinary this is? It is hardlry stupid to say that Morphy was the most talented ever. It is a myth that Fischer remembered every game that he ever played, including blitz. However, the reality of Morphy's memory even dwarfs the myth of Fischer. No body in chess history even compares to Morphy. If you want to find a comparable genius, you would have to look to music.

You are just spewing idiotic crap.

If Morphy were alive today, he probably wouldn't even play chess.

I've never heard of them, much less analyzed their games. They may have been stronger than Steinitz in 1868.

Isn't it interesting that genetically you and I are so similar, but we have this feeling about each other?

If humans have a purpose or function, more and more I doubt intelligence as a candidate.

In the grand spectrum of intelligence, are we much smarter than, say, a dog? Again, more and more I wonder

Your level of trolling is very advanced.

He's right tho. You are indeed very dumb compared to say, a mouse.