If the kid is good enough to beat Henry Bird he wouldnt be 1400 .
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.
Yeah, come to think about it, doesn't sound like an eight year-old...more like an adult...but then again he might be one of those precocious kids that act/speak like adults.
Most chessplayers of the 1800s would denounce the computer as witchcraft.
Why? They accepted the various automatons as machines with no problem.
The Turk
Most chessplayers of the 1800s would denounce the computer as witchcraft.
Why? They accepted the various automatons as machines with no problem.
Ajeeb the Wonderful
If the kid is good enough to beat Henry Bird he wouldnt be 1400 .
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.
Yeah, come to think about it, doesn't sound like an eight year-old...more like an adult...but then again he might be one of those precocious kids that act/speak like adults.
Sounds like he speaks the language of his teacher. That is believable. A 1400 8 year old is of course closer to 1700 than 1400 in real strenght, because the rating tells how he performed at the age of roughly 7 1/2.
Most chessplayers of the 1800s would denounce the computer as witchcraft.
Why? They accepted the various automatons as machines with no problem.
Mephisto
Most chessplayers of the 1800s would denounce the computer as witchcraft.
Why? They accepted the various automatons as machines with no problem.
Ajeeb the Wonderful
Or all anyone want to know about all the Automatons (including the links within).
Thank you for posting that link. I have read a couple of your automaton posts offsite.
In fact, that Mephisto image is from one of them.
I enjoy mine too :-)
Depends on when. Anderssen was top dog before Steinitz formulated and codified the positional imbalances and even before Morphy, who in turn displaced Anderssen. Steinitz was around before Nimzowitsch further refined strategic understanding. Then Botvinnik and the other great Soviets further developed chess and injected some dynamism into the game.
Personally I think Staunton would be 2000, Anderssen 2100, Morphy 2300, and Steinitz 2350. Maybe even that is optimistic. This is assuming no further training. Keep in mind their competition nowadays would have read My System, Alekhine's best Games, Karpov's Best Games, Kasparov n Garry Kasparov, My Great Predecessors, Dvoretsky books, and various endgame books thoroughly, resources that weren't around during the 19th century. How could they defeat someone who thoroughly studied the positional sacrifice when they themselves don't know the compensation.
If you don't value the long term potential of exploiting weak squares then of course rook takes bishop on the color opposite the pawn chain (especially a stonewall formation) then how would you defend against such sacs? If you don't value prophylaxis then your opponent will follow his dangerous plan.
I looked at some of those guys' games and while there are some gems overall they didn't seem that great, carelessly created weak color complexes in their play, not minding the opponent having a queenside pawn majority, capturing towards the center despite an endgame taking place, inappropriate counterattacks when the position calls for consolidating and minimizing one's concessions, etc.
Yes, we've come a long way in 150 years. For Morphy to be around FM strength is simply incredible for those days. No CT-ART, no Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual, no Shereshevsky's Endgame Stategy, no My System, and no other standard work to make it to that strength. Many people put in a lot of work since childhood and still have trouble breaking into FM strength.
Depends on when. Anderssen was top dog before Steinitz formulated and codified the positional imbalances and even before Morphy, who in turn displaced Anderssen. Steinitz was around before Nimzowitsch further refined strategic understanding. Then Botvinnik and the other great Soviets further developed chess and injected some dynamism into the game.
Personally I think Staunton would be 2000, Anderssen 2100, Morphy 2300, and Steinitz 2350. Maybe even that is optimistic. This is assuming no further training. Keep in mind their competition nowadays would have read My System, Alekhine's best Games, Karpov's Best Games, Kasparov n Garry Kasparov, My Great Predecessors, Dvoretsky books, and various endgame books thoroughly, resources that weren't around during the 19th century. How could they defeat someone who thoroughly studied the positional sacrifice when they themselves don't know the compensation.
If you don't value the long term potential of exploiting weak squares then of course rook takes bishop on the color opposite the pawn chain (especially a stonewall formation) then how would you defend against such sacs? If you don't value prophylaxis then your opponent will follow his dangerous plan.
I looked at some of those guys' games and while there are some gems overall they didn't seem that great, carelessly created weak color complexes in their play, not minding the opponent having a queenside pawn majority, capturing towards the center despite an endgame taking place, inappropriate counterattacks when the position calls for consolidating and minimizing one's concessions, etc.
TheGreatOogieBoogie wrote: Depends on when. Anderssen was top dog before Steinitz formulated and codified the positional imbalances and even before Morphy, who in turn displaced Anderssen. Steinitz was around before Nimzowitsch further refined strategic understanding. Then Botvinnik and the other great Soviets further developed chess and injected some dynamism into the game. Personally I think Staunton would be 2000, Anderssen 2100, Morphy 2300, and Steinitz 2350. Maybe even that is optimistic. This is assuming no further training. Keep in mind their competition nowadays would have read My System, Alekhine's best Games, Karpov's Best Games, Kasparov n Garry Kasparov, My Great Predecessors, Dvoretsky books, and various endgame books thoroughly, resources that weren't around during the 19th century. How could they defeat someone who thoroughly studied the positional sacrifice when they themselves don't know the compensation. If you don't value the long term potential of exploiting weak squares then of course rook takes bishop on the color opposite the pawn chain (especially a stonewall formation) then how would you defend against such sacs? If you don't value prophylaxis then your opponent will follow his dangerous plan. I looked at some of those guys' games and while there are some gems overall they didn't seem that great, carelessly created weak color complexes in their play, not minding the opponent having a queenside pawn majority, capturing towards the center despite an endgame taking place, inappropriate counterattacks when the position calls for consolidating and minimizing one's concessions, etc.
You rate the old topguys quite low, and assume no further training.
I think different. I think if they was reborn at their old strenght and trown into tournaments like Fagernes chess international, they would quickly understand what was going on, and after playing two games in the masterclass, and reading ten topgames from the tournament, they would learn the modern way, and be very strong towards the end of the tournament.
Those old masters have too think more and calculate more than the current players, because they hav less data in their memory, but their calculation will be so good that they will play good anyway.
Most chessplayers of the 1800s would denounce the computer as witchcraft.
Most people who have been on the phone with Microsoft will affirm their belief.
If the kid is good enough to beat Henry Bird he wouldnt be 1400 .
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.
I've taught chess to hundreds of kids. I can name two who did speak this way at the age of eight. They are both ten now.
If the kid is good enough to beat Henry Bird he wouldnt be 1400 .
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.
I've taught chess to hundreds of kids. I can name two who did speak this way at the age of eight. They are both ten now.
Sounds bizarre to me.
If the kid is good enough to beat Henry Bird he wouldnt be 1400 .
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.
I've taught chess to hundreds of kids. I can name two who did speak this way at the age of eight. They are both ten now.
Sounds bizarre to me.
Needs better sentence construction. And in truth, one of my students talked like that at six. By the age of eight, he had a better command of the language.
In his calculations he used all available data from 1840 to 2005.
Actually, he didn't. His data from, say, pre-Steinitz, is very selective and unreprestative of that time... viewing those players from a 20th century POV.
Appropo to this thread.