I guess no matter how hard you try, you can't become a grandmaster, unless you are born with chess talent.
What would be the rating of a top chess player in the late 1800s today
Sort:
so what are you going to do now man ? you're snookered!
dark_837 wrote:
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.
Glad you used the words i think. After 1000 opponents it starts to become just another opponent. But make it famaliar opponent and an issue to beat that person and watch the sparks fly. Start a rumor the Nakamura said that he can beat Caruana blind folded and see how much Cauana gets his game up.
If Nakamura went back in Time, he'd easily crush all the players of the 19th Century. And he's still the number 3 in the world. No way the 19th century players would make it to the top now (If they stepped thru a time portal).
I reckon modern formula1 cars would be unbeatable in the 1950 races too, but that's just a hunch I have.
frankiegoestovegas wrote:
I reckon modern formula1 cars would be unbeatable in the 1950 races too, but that's just a hunch I have.
Very doubtful those cars would make it through training, qualifying and race with 1950s mechanics - could they even manage to change the tires on them ?
JamieDelarosa wrote:
Some are short bus material.
It is also call the yellow bus. "Short Bus" hmmm, there are some player who ride short bus, I am thinking of Magikstone.
Magikstone wrote:
If I could go back in time, with my current skills, I would no doubt beat Morphy. I would have changed history, Me, not Morphy would have been considered a "chess great."
According to SmyslovFan Staunton is 1900 elo, even Staunton you could not beat let alone the great genius Paul Morphy. You underestimate your chances against Morphy.
lolurspammed wrote:
Morphy would give Naka a very hard time.
No he wouldn't. Nakamura is far better rounded and more skilled on every front.
Apr 14, 2015
0
#1033
In a blitz chess match, statistically, Naka would score ~93-7 in a 100 game match.
http://www.pradu.us/old/Nov27_2008/Buzz/elotable.html
yureesystem wrote:
Magikstone wrote:
If I could go back in time, with my current skills, I would no doubt beat Morphy. I would have changed history, Me, not Morphy would have been considered a "chess great."
According to SmyslovFan Staunton is 1900 elo, even Staunton you could not beat let alone the great genius Paul Morphy. You underestimate your chances against Morphy.
That would be "over estimate," not under. Staunton really wasn't that strong. I agree that Morphy probably wasn't GM level, but that doesn't mean he isn't an all time great. If you imported Morphy with a time machine, the question isn't whether or not he could beat modern GMs. The question is how long it would take and it wouldn't take very long at all. Most of these people here are just running their mouth, haven't been over the games, or they are just accepting someone else's opinion as gosphel.
I was arguing about Morphy's mental capabilities easily surpassing anyone in chess history; not his actual playing strength.
Supposedly, with computer analysis, Morphy's strength is estimated to have been about 2300-2400. This isn't my computer analysis. I don't analze games with a computer. I've just seen this number tossed around so much that whatever. The discrepancy in playing strength between Morphy and modern GMs is surely due to knowledge and not calculation. If you've been over the games, what you see is exact calculation against very weak opposition. Komodo and Stockfish might out calculate Morphy, but not modern GMs. I'm not sure where this crock of shit originated - that modern GMs calculate better than Morphy.
The same thing can be said for a number of players - Modern GMs wouldn't out calculate a list of guys: Moprhy, Lasker, Capablanca, Tal, etc..
Who ever else. Knowledge just allows a player to weed out a lot of unnecessary calculating. Ultimate chess truth: a stronger player doesn't see more moves but better moves. There is a very short list of historical players that actually saw more moves - visualized deeper and juggled more variations AND did it quicker. Morphy is probably some where in the top 3 to 5.
One thing is for sure. Even 1500 rated players could teach Morphy a thing or two about chess.
Every time a topic like this comes up nothing but a massive trollethon occurs with people making ridiculous claims like Morphy not even being IM strength, not knowing anything about endgames, middle game positional strategy, or openings... Paul Morphy had a natural talent for chess that transcends time. If alive today he would be at the very top of the chess ladder. People who say otherwise are just doing so for trolling purposes period...
chessweb101 wrote:
What would be the rating of someone like Paul Morphy or Steinitz, or even Adolf Anderssen? Looking at some of their games, they don't seem to be very good, but they were the best in the world at that time.
To compare current players is not realistic but the past masters weren't weak as claim by the some players who responded in this forum. To give Morphy a low 2300 elo is not correct, Morphy is at least 2600 elo, worst is Anderssen is at 2000 to 2100 elo, Anderssen combination alone is at 2500 and towards the end Anderssen was playing quite strong. I read that Staunton analyze the Kings Gambit and a lot his lines still hold even in modern times, no 1900 player can be so accurate in his analysis such a complicate opening, Staunton probably is in high 2400 elo. Steinitz is at least 2600 elo because his positional concepts were ahead of his times. What make a master is the ability to calculate accurate and assess a position with clarity; below master don't have such abilities.
MorphysRevenge2 wrote:
Every time a topic like this comes up nothing but a massive trollethon occurs with people making ridiculous claims like Morphy not even being IM strength, not knowing anything about endgames, middle game positional strategy, or openings... Paul Morphy had a natural talent for chess that transcends time. If alive today he would be at the very top of the chess ladder. People who say otherwise are just doing so for trolling purposes period...
The difference between today's GMs and Morphy is opening theory, positional concepts and endgame technique. These could be learned pretty rapidly by a prodigy like Morphy. However, I don't how the reanimation of dead GMs affects their playing strength.
MorphysRevenge2 wrote:
Every time a topic like this comes up nothing but a massive trollethon occurs with people making ridiculous claims like Morphy not even being IM strength, not knowing anything about endgames, middle game positional strategy, or openings... Paul Morphy had a natural talent for chess that transcends time. If alive today he would be at the very top of the chess ladder. People who say otherwise are just doing so for trolling purposes period...
According to Botvinnik, all modern chess strategy in open games derived from Morphy and he had complete mastery of it - It wasn't possible to play open games any better than Morphy.
electricpawn wrote:
MorphysRevenge2 wrote:
Every time a topic like this comes up nothing but a massive trollethon occurs with people making ridiculous claims like Morphy not even being IM strength, not knowing anything about endgames, middle game positional strategy, or openings... Paul Morphy had a natural talent for chess that transcends time. If alive today he would be at the very top of the chess ladder. People who say otherwise are just doing so for trolling purposes period...
The difference between today's GMs and Morphy is opening theory, positional concepts and endgame technique. These could be learned pretty rapidly by a prodigy like Morphy. However, I don't how the reanimation of dead GMs affects their playing strength.
You should specify positional concepts in closed positions only. Most modern GMs don't play open games as well as Morphy did. Endgame techninque has obviously made leaps and bounds even in the new millenium. People need to stop taking shots at 19th century players. If you want to say one difference between them and modern players is endgame technique, why don't you include Rubinstein, Capablanca, and Smyslov? Modern GMs are better at endgames than these all time greats. Those guys didn't have tablebases. Any higher quality in their endgame can easily be chalked up as the advantage of adjournments rather than having to finish games in 1 session and play endgames under time pressure.
Some are short bus material.