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

" The very best players in the world before Capa were amateurs. " 

Steinitz was an amateur ?  What definition for amateur are you using ?  

Sure, outliers are bad. Both highs and lows.

So reasonable people compare the bulk and average of Morphy to the bulk and average of GMs.

Justs, you aren't the only person making comments in this thread. You may want to see what others have written and see whether others claimed he was as good as today's GMs.

Reb, a professional is someone who plays chess as a full time occupation. Steinitz was close to being a professional, Lasker was not.

What did Steinitz do , besides chess , to earn money ?  Wasnt the bulk of his money made from chess ?  

or Blackburne?

I actually have a book of Blackburne's collected games . He played some amazing games !  

Well, read THIS. Blackburne blows me away.

They've never used a computer before so... not very good.

Most chessplayers of the 1800s would denounce the computer as witchcraft.

aW HELL bLACKBURNE WOULD BE LIKE A 1600 PLAYER OR SOMETHING according to the chest genius's on this site

Why? They accepted the various automatons as machines with no problem.

Apparently people don't know how to read at this thread. A few times someone has put words in my mouth or attibuted something someone else said to me.

I've had enough of this. This is just ignorant know it all people making incorrect and idiotic assertions

Who's that?

SmyslovFan little joke but he did prove his point, Morphy could blunder like any strong masters. Karpov did some horrible blunders but we still consider him to be a strong grandmaster. Morphy blunder does not prove he was not at least grandmaster level, Petrosian made a horrible one move blunder against Bronstein, a queen is too much to give to Bronstein but do we consider Petrosian a lesser player because of his queen blunder, no, Petrosian is one the great master in the sixties.  To say Staunton is 1900 elo is incorrect, many grandmasters pay tribute to Staunton; Morphy, Fischer, Keene and Kasparov and many others.  

  Around the time of Staunton's death Morphy is said to have commented that Staunton may have been the strongest player of his time, had great analytical ability and judgement of positions but lacked the imagination required to deliberately create opportunities for combinations.^[83]

Twentieth-century opinions of Staunton's play varied enormously. Fred Reinfeld, Al Horowitz and Reuben Fine all condemned it.^[84] On the other hand, Savielly Tartakower wrote, "A remarkable feature of Staunton's play is the number of ultra-modern ideas with which he was familiar, e.g. the restricted centre, the fianchetto development, bilateral work, the theory of the local engagement, etc., and, last but not least, the English Opening (sometimes called the Staunton Opening)."^[85]Garry Kasparov considered Staunton "by the early 1840s ... superior to all his rivals".^[86]Bobby Fischer opined that "Staunton was the most profound opening analyst of all time. He was more theorist than player, but nonetheless he was the strongest player of his day... In addition, he understood all of the positional concepts which modern players hold dear, and thus—with Steinitz—must be considered the first modern player."^[87]    

 Staunton had many modern concept he introduce in the opening and middlegame, I can't think of any 1900 elo player that made such a profound impact in chess. So Staunton is at least very strong master 2400 elo.

I think all the big superguys from the past were super, and that is GM,

to say that a superguy like Staunton was 1900 is bullshit. 1900 is the rating of a decent clubplayer, and the 1900-guys in my club gets beaten every one of them by a 12 year old kid (Andreas Garberg Tryggestad). I do think the big guys from the past could do well  if timetravelling into our clubchampionship.

I know an 8 year old at the club, I asked him as a test what was wrong in a certain game, and he immediately said, " White incorrectly thought he had dynamic compensation for the weakened pawns but the fact was black was simply better."  This is a 1400 USCF kid who knows the Lucena, Philidor, Shortside Defense, queen vs. pawn on the seventh, and various queen vs. rook positions cold.  He can also play Ruy Lopez and Sicilians out to over 20 moves.  His coach makes him go over some old games and the kid mentioned that he could beat Henry Bird (played weak in some games against Morphy, Anderssen, and Steinitz), and I believe him given the advancements in chess.  

If the kid is good enough to beat Henry Bird he wouldnt be 1400  . 

Child prodigies are probably reincarnations of past masters.

I would bet my house that Capablanca was Paul Morphy, and Bobby Fischer was Capablanca ( think about it...all the places and things (attributes) that link them together.

rating is everything to me

and if he spoke like <"White incorrectly thought he had dynamic compensation for the weakened pawns but the fact was black was simply better.">, he wouldn't be 8 years old.