What would be the rating of a top chess player in the late 1800s today - Chess Forums - Page 47

patzermike

Apr 5, 2015

0

#921

Well, I have no doubt that with modern knowledge and similar talent Carlsen could brutalize Lasker or Capa. Was he more brilliant? Very not clear.

JamieDelarosa

Apr 5, 2015

0

#922

patzermike wrote:

Yes, well, I could offer the observation that moderns have the advantage of having learned from ancients, but they had no opportunities of learning from us. It is literally true that I understand issues of mathematics that confused Gaussian and aspects of relativity better than Einstein. But it would be absurd for me to think that my intellect was remotely like theirs. Such is progress.

dark_837 wrote:

People don't know what globalization is? If Magnus Carlsen was born in 1800 his record after 20 years old would be +1000-2=10

There was less competition.

"If I have seen further it is by standing on ye sholders of Giants."

- Isaac Newton to Robert Hooke, letter, 15 February 1676

Justs99171

Apr 5, 2015

0

#923

SilentKnighte5 wrote:

Justs99171 wrote:

leiph18 wrote:

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.

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.

Pillsbury was no slouch. Look up some of his accomplishments.

I have a good book on Pillsbury

Justs99171

Apr 5, 2015

0

#924

5iegbert_7arrasch wrote:

Siegbert Tarrasch is better than Bronstein!

Bronstein tied a world chess championship match (supposedly he was coerced to lose) and Tarrasch lost one. Although I believe Tarrasch should have been world chess champion between Steinitz and Lasker, he also tied that match with Chigorin and made an excuse for it. He wasn't any better than Chigorin. Both of those guys were probably superior analyst and just lacking the competitive temperament to get the job done. Bronstein was better, though.

All three made far greater contributions to chess strategy than Steinitz - the most overrated theoretician ever.

NM TheOldReb

Apr 5, 2015

0

#925

Justs99171 wrote:

5iegbert_7arrasch wrote:

Siegbert Tarrasch is better than Bronstein!

Bronstein tied a world chess championship match (supposedly he was coerced to lose) and Tarrasch lost one. Although I believe Tarrasch should have been world chess champion between Steinitz and Lasker, he also tied that match with Chigorin and made an excuse for it. He wasn't any better than Chigorin. Both of those guys were probably superior analyst and just lacking the competitive temperament to get the job done. Bronstein was better, though.

All three made far greater contributions to chess strategy than Steinitz - the most overrated theoretician ever.

Kasparov certainly doesnt agree with you concerning the contribution's of Steinitz .

Ziryab

Apr 5, 2015

0

#926

I have a book on Pillsbury, although I'm not certain that it's a good book.

Justs99171

Apr 5, 2015

0

#927

Reb wrote:

Justs99171 wrote:

5iegbert_7arrasch wrote:

Siegbert Tarrasch is better than Bronstein!

Bronstein tied a world chess championship match (supposedly he was coerced to lose) and Tarrasch lost one. Although I believe Tarrasch should have been world chess champion between Steinitz and Lasker, he also tied that match with Chigorin and made an excuse for it. He wasn't any better than Chigorin. Both of those guys were probably superior analyst and just lacking the competitive temperament to get the job done. Bronstein was better, though.

All three made far greater contributions to chess strategy than Steinitz - the most overrated theoretician ever.

Kasparov certainly doesnt agree with you concerning the contribution's of Steinitz .

I don't agree with Kasparov. Tarrasch's books were better. Can Kasparov even relate to anyone at a lower level, anyway? Also, Steinitz was wrong in a lot of cases (and Tarrasch, too) where Chigorin was right. You can say the same for all those debates between Tarrasch and Nimzo.

But where did Kasparov say Steinitz's contributions were greater than whatever player?

NM TheOldReb

Apr 5, 2015

0

#928

Kasparov covers Steinitz in volume I of his great predecessors series . The entire set is worth buying imo .

SilentKnighte5

Apr 5, 2015

0

#929

I've been looking for a good book on Pillsbury (and Chigorin) but it seems like there isn't much.

batgirl

Apr 5, 2015

0

#930

Nick Pope wrote "Harry Nelson Pillsbury American Chess Champion."

Philip Sergeant wrote, "Harry Nelson Pillsbury's Chess Career," but good luck in finding it.

NM TheOldReb

Apr 5, 2015

0

#931

Steinitz was a far more successful player than both Chigorin and Tarrasch . Both Steinitz and Tarrasch had + records against Chigorin and Steinitz beat Chigorin twice in world championship matches . Steinitz completely changed the way chess was played with his new theory(ies) of the game : accumulation of small advantages , instead of playing for mate out of the gate which was so popular before ....

batgirl

Apr 5, 2015

0

#932

Oh, and Vasily Panov wrote, "The Poor Knight" ("Рыцарь бедный") about Tschigorin in 1968, but I don't know if it's available in English.

SilentKnighte5

Apr 5, 2015

0

#933

This is the one I want.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/5903229034/

batgirl

Apr 5, 2015

0

#934

Read about what Kramnik has to say about Steinitz and others on Spektrowski's great blog.

batgirl

Apr 5, 2015

0

#935

SilentKnighte5 wrote:

This is the one I want.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/5903229034/

I don't know anything about that book.

leiph18

Apr 5, 2015

0

#936

batgirl wrote:

Read about what Kramnik has to say about Steinitz and others on Spektrowski's great blog.

I'm glad this has been somewhat preserved. Last time I looked for it it was a little difficult. Some old sites had broken links for example.

Ziryab

Apr 5, 2015

0

#937

This is the one that I have. As mentioned, I'm not certain that it's very good.

http://www.amazon.com/Pillsbury-extraordinary-Andy-Soltis/dp/0875681875

SilentKnighte5

Apr 5, 2015

0

#938

I have that one but haven't spent much time with it. Looks like a lazy effort. Why can't McDonald just write 100 books a year? I'd be set for life.

Justs99171

Apr 5, 2015

0

#939

Reb wrote:

Steinitz was a far more successful player than both Chigorin and Tarrasch . Both Steinitz and Tarrasch had + records against Chigorin and Steinitz beat Chigorin twice in world championship matches . Steinitz completely changed the way chess was played with his new theory(ies) of the game : accumulation of small advantages , instead of playing for mate out of the gate which was so popular before ....

I know about all of them but winning doesn't prove that your ideas are better or "correct." It only proves that you don't blunder as much. Steinitz and Tarrasch didn't dominate Chigorin due to a better understanding of chess.

batgirl

Apr 6, 2015

0

#940

Justs99171 wrote:

I know about all of them

I'm not so sure you do.

The facts don't seem to bear out any notion that Steinitz was that superior, if superior at all, to Tarrach or Tschigorin.

Although Steinitz beat Tschigorin in the first match convincingly and less so in the second match, their overall results were pretty equal. Chessgames.com gives 59 games played between Tschigorin and Steinitz. Of those Tschigorin won 25; Steinitz won 26 and 8 were drawn. Almost a deat heat.

Steinitz and Tarrasch never played a match. Chessgames.com show only 4 games between Tarrasch and Steinitz of which one game was drawn and Steinitz won 0 of the remaining three. Steinitz, it would seem from even these paltry results, was clearly not Tarrasch's superior.

Reuben Fine wrote in "The World's Great Chess Game" and he seems correct :
"After the initial plunge, Tarrasch's career falls into three parts. In the first, 1885 - 1894. after some hesitation he wn almost everything in sight. After his victory at Manchester in 1890, he jusly complained because th Germans merely referred to him as the champion of Germany; the English, on the other hand, placed him second to Steinitz. It is a pity - a tragedy for Tarrasch - that he declined the invitation of the Havana Chess Club to meet Steinitz there in the winter of 1890-91. Had he accepted he might well have won the title which he coveted afterward so vainly and so bitterly. The great opportunity knocked once for Tarasch and he missed it. Very soon asker appeared, and Lasker was always Tarrach's superior."

Tschigorin and Tarrasch played a match in 1893. Each won 11 games and 4 were drawn.
Chessgames.com gives 13 more games from various tournament and of those, Tschigorin won 4; Tarrasch won 5 and 4 were drawn. Another case of neither being superior.