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

Agreed. However, now with the internet we can watch analysis of games by Carlsen that do explain the ideas behind his moves. Modern ideas. But you're right, imho, that studying Morphy, as an intermediate player, is much more beneficial to understanding the game than by copying what the contemporary masters play. In fact, you'll understand the masters of today even better when you get to a higher level. Heck, it's even possible that you won't even get to a higher level as fast by studying today's masters then by studying the old masters such as Morphy. I don't know this. Its conjecture on my part, but I think you're right.

SheridanJupp wrote:   

I agree! But of course, agreeing with this comment means I disagree pretty strongly with some of your recent comments. 

Good luck in breaking 2200 USCF. Please, share your progress with us.

A sober fit and clear thinking Tal would be eight years old.

No Finegold said that Morphy was the best player of all time by far.

Finegold is funny, and he paints all his talking with jokes, thats true. But I did not understand his Morphylecture as Irony. He was truly impressed, and also said he had Morphygames ran trough the computer, and they were close to flawless. I was really impressed by that video too, but unfortunately isnt good enough in chess to put it in perspective.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbRkqqawcTo

I think he at least considers Morphy better than himself, and that at least puts him clearly above 2500.

He admires Morphy. And I agree that Finegold is funny is a funny lecturer. He's a vegetarian, did you know that?

So I found this game played by an old master recently. Look through and see if you can pick out all the obvious mistakes!  

To me Morphy looks fantastic. superefficient development, can see and punish the slightest inaccuracie. Perfect combination maths. The only thing we holds against him is that he didnt meet modern   gm´s, which of course is very helpful too do.

White had the only mistake on move #24, according to an engine, perhaps losing the win.  Who were the participants?

White totally dominated Black in that game, then suddenly played like a patzer and allowed a draw. That game made no sense to me.

First black gave away a pawn, and later white gave away the extra pawn he had. Just those two mistakes in that game.

Uhoh's little joke is that was a game that I recently played on this site. White played incredibly quickly then, around move 26 started playing more slowly. That's when he started blundering. Strangely, White's account was closed shortly after that game.

I think for someone like Morphy, it would take 12 years. By age 35, he would be 2800+

For many others, it would be impossible. Paul Morphy had Mozart like memory and intelligence. Fischer didn't. Kasparov didn't.

For someone to memorize something encylopedic, verbatim, in the span of 4 to 5 years, far surpasses being a 2800 rated chess player.

Learning a new chess opening, memorizing a few variations, and remembering a few whole games from that opening isn't like trying to recite 5 to 10 pages of something verbatim. Language is more difficult and complex than chess. Supposedly a grandmaster needs to know about 10,000 positions and the average person uses about 2,000 words daily, but that's not law code. Those are just 2,000 simple words.

I know Morphy was only a master level player by today's standards, but he was still a greater player. To me, "stronger" doesn't equate "greater." From a problem solving perspective, Morphy is easily the greatest as he wasn't drawing on thousands of memorized positions; just his calculating abilities.

The reason why Carlsen plays better than Kasparov did x number of years ago is simply because what he has memorized has been more streamlined. Kasparov still knows far more chess information than anyone living or dead, but you have to account for the fact that a lot of that information is inferior and obsolete.

If a kid can learn to play chess at age 4 and be a grandmaster by the time he is a teenager, I don't see why some genius from the past couldn't go from master level to super grandmaster in 12 years; especially if they would be able to weed out all that is obsolete and focus on the most critical chunks of chess theory.

Now some body like Steinitz or Anderssen wouldn't be able to close the gap. They peaked so much later in age. Lasker and Capablanca would easily close the gap. You have to consider how young these players became top players.

It's a myth that children learn faster than adults. That's a critical fact in this debate. Adults actually do learn much faster and especially in their early 20s.

"For many others, it would be impossible. Paul Morphy had Mozart like memory and intelligence. Fischer didn't. Kasparov didn't."

I beg to differ.  Kasparov and Fischer are perhaps even more talented than Morphy.  Fischer beat Taimanov and Larsen 6-0, both of whom were of a much higher playing standard than Adolf Anderssen, Morphy's greatest opponent.  

"It's a myth that children learn faster than adults. That's a critical fact in this debate. Adults actually do learn much faster and especially in their early 20s."

It's debatable.  Are you accounting for the differences in learning environment?  Kids' minds are more plastic than adults, but adults in their 20s aren't attending school (apart from college) so they can learn much better and more efficiently for its own sake rather than trying to optimize test and quiz results.  

Thanks for the notes, GOB. 

In hindsight, 10...a6! was better. I disagree that 12.Bb5-Bd3 gave me a tempo. He managed to play Be2-d3 with a gain of a tempo. I didn't think I had anything better than 12...Be6, after which he just repeated the position and then took on d7. 12...Bc6!? left me open to attacks on the e-file, but the engine suggests that was probably better than what I played. I felt like he was just toying with me because he would respond to every move in less than 5 seconds, but weirdly, it was also Stockfish's first choice move order.

One idea that I missed was to play c5-c4 at the right moment. That idea has been played before in similar positions.

I was sure I was lost when I played 21...Rfb8. It felt like my only move. I was worried that 21...a5 22.Bc5! Rfe8 23.b3 would make my Q useless. I had to find a way to stop b3. I spent more than 5 minutes on that one alone, which was a huge time investment in a 20 +5second time control.

24.Bd4?! simplified my task. Yeah, the major piece ending was bad for me, but I wasn't sure it was losing.

I never understood 27.Qg4, but after the game I found out it (and just about every other move before 29.Qb4??) was Stockfish's first choice. 

28...Rac8 may have been misguided, but one of my ideas was to play Rc2, hitting the b-pawn. Playing it to b8 didn't make much sense to me. But, I was already low on time by that point. 

It's a hard one to judge if it's definitively losing or won for white.  It was a two result position so black was basically forced to play for a draw.  Looks like there was a forced draw since white was forced to defend his material advantage.  

The queen is typically a poor blockader so waiting to replace her with a rook on b3 looked like a somewhat viable plan.  

Yeah time trouble's the worst especially if we're caught in a position where we can't recall techniques or methods easily.  

You played really well considering the time limit but it's a good thing that time trouble usually comes after the complications when recall of methods takes over.  

I wrote down the times for each move. I'll have to dig them up to be sure, but at the end of the game I was under 5 minutes and he had about 19 minutes left on the clock!