As an aside, Nigel Short's peak Elo rating in the early 1990s was 2712, which wouldn't put him even among the top 10 today, while he was a WCH challenger at the time. Even comparing Short at his peak with the top players 15 or so years later seems a bit difficult then.
As for the above debate, I could beat Morphy today as well: he is dead.
A high school state champion can run the mile as well as anyone before Jim Ryun in 1966.
High school kids can break the 100 Meter (track) records of Jesse Owens and anyone before 1960!
The national record boys under 14 in the 100 Meter Freestyle (swimming) is faster than anyone before Mark Spitz.
Yeah. Chess has progressed too. I have studied Morphy's games. He was great at open positions, but was mediocre at best when it came to closed positions and even worse in the endgame.
I believe that a modern IM really would beat up on Morphy. Short's game is so far advanced from the days of Capablanca that I'm not sure he'd recognise what was going on! I would pick Short over Capablanca in any long match. (Dont' forget, Short beat Karpov on the way to his match with Kasparov.)
I also know that almost any titled player is strong enough to recognise the difference between a 2400 and 2800 rated player.
Is comparing chess players to athletes the same as comparing apples to oranges? What about composers? Are modern composers superior to Beethoven, Bach, and Mozart?
This whole discussion about dead people once GM playing against today alive GM it's just stupid nonsense to me. You cant go on speculating your whole life if you like but those guys are dead
.........they are not going to play (at least here on this planet) anylonger.........and if they for some fiction reason cold be back and play, why for the hell you think they would play the same way the used to?
This don't just make any sense.......go out and get a beer sometimes guys or get a girl :-)
This whole discussion about dead people once GM playing against today alive GM it's just stupid nonsense to me. You cant go on speculating your whole life if you like but those guys are dead
.........they are not going to play (at least here on this planet) anylonger.........and if they for some fiction reason cold be back and play, why for the hell you think they would play the same way the used to?
This don't just make any sense.......go out and get a beer sometimes guys or get a girl :-)
It's fun to speculate and debate. "Stupid discussions" is the essence of the internet. The "go out and get a beer...or girl" argument can be leveled against a lot of activities - like playing chess.
This whole discussion about dead people once GM playing against today alive GM it's just stupid nonsense to me. You cant go on speculating your whole life if you like but those guys are dead
.........they are not going to play (at least here on this planet) anylonger.........and if they for some fiction reason cold be back and play, why for the hell you think they would play the same way the used to?
This don't just make any sense.......go out and get a beer sometimes guys or get a girl :-)
It's fun to speculate and debate. "Stupid discussions" is the essence of the internet. The "go out and get a beer...or girl" argument can be leveled against a lot of activities - like playing chess.
Playing chess it's really a serious matter, because you win/lose
this discussion can be fun for someone but not for me. There must always be a limit to speculation, science don't debate about what was before the big bang because there is no way we can know about that. This is the field of religion.
Chess are also meant to teach people to think logically and scientifically maybe....isnt 'it?
I'm sure the new players are paying at a different level, that happens in every game. But when you take the old players and bring them back to life, they'll be back in shape in no time, in my opinion : ).
Old rods, old reels, world record fish
karpov's there alright
how about morphy, lasker, capablanca, alekhine, etc.
They are legend but don't have rating
they are the legends of old, and theory has progressed very far.
however, if the masters like sokolsky played their own opening (which don't have much theory) against the modern masters they actually have a decent chance.
Capablanca intuited some of the greatest chess abilities the world has ever seen from a few months of watching patzers play.
Time travel him forward to now and let him peruse modern GM databases for a month, and he'd perform at 3000+ from his first tournament on.
It takes a certain level of expertise to compare champions of the past and modern GMs. Club players are often dazzled by the greatness of champs and can't objectively tell the difference between, for example, a 2400 and a 2700. It is quite clear that both an IM and a super GM would win nearly 100% of the games vs let's say 1600. Likewise, it's very hard for a strong player to distinguish a 1500 from a 1700. For him they are both exceptionally weak, so it's hard to determine who is who.
Modern chess is a few levels higher than it was at Capa's time. Lasker, Capablanka or Alekhine would have no chances whatsoever against any strong GM, not to mention ex-World Championship challenger Nigel Short.
and you really think your rating as an IM!(lol) is high enough/reflects this level of expertise ..to be able to determine so?
joke of the day.
short wouldn't be able to milk out the advantages he'd get out of the opening,simply by means of being a much worse player and blundering it away.
Dude, you are just a troll who is hiding under disguise and has obviously never analyzed games of masters whom we are discussing. In the beginning of the XXth century people didn't have much knowledge of chess, neither did they have computers to find out what their mistakes were. They would often blunder on move 5 and lack knowledge of the very basic engames. Tournaments were scarce, sometimes players would compete once in a few years. There were no databases to find out other players' ideas. No training software to help improve middlegame/tactics/endgame. Even guys like Alekhine or Chigorin (widely considered to be great attacking players) would regularly fail to calculate correctly 2-3 move variations and fail to notice it during home analysis.
Yes, being an IM, I can say that Short is playing on a different level than me. Meanwhile, I would have definitely crushed Morphy in a match and had very decent chances against maestros like Lasker. What about your level of chess understanding, if mine seems to be incredibly low for you?
You would have crushed Morphy and had decent chances against Lasker? I admire your self confidence.