How bad were the old "GM's" really

Here we have Steinitz-Lasker, Game #14, 1894

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/nph-chesspgn?text=1&gid=1132679

Steinitz: 3 inaccuracies, 0 mistakes, 0 blunders, 17 average centipawn loss

Lasker: 1 inaccuracies, 1 mistakes, 1 blunders, 36 average centipawn loss

Modern Grandmasters would have had considerable difficulty with Steinitz in match play, even at the age of 58!

The comment, "Steinitz and co. playing at their normal time controls might not be far off current GM 5-minute blitz," is pure non-sense.

Have you analysed any games to back up your statement, as I've done Jamie ?

Or are you only able to attack others posts in a trollish manner ?

You could of course use a piece of silicon, as you did earlier if you have any difficulties with your study.

Modern grandmasters are simply stronger.  The standard of play increases with each passing generation as new knowledge, training, and dietary techniques are discovered.  

They increase by less each generation. Kasparov in his prime could beat anyone.

Dietary is untrue, diet has nothing to do with it. 

Interesting critcism for a sock puppet. ;^)

I have dozens of books in my library with games from past masters.

I recently picked up Carlsbad 1929, annotated by Nimzovich; The Hague-Moscow 1948, by Euwe; and A.V.R.O. 1938, by Arthur Antler

I cant say that I have played through every game in every volume, but I would wager I have looked at most of them..  I have had fun recently, comparing select games to a engine scoring.

See, there you go with your "troll", "sockpuppet" stuff again.

If you conquer the troll within, you might learn to address other people with some kind of manners or respect. Whether you will succeed in that or ever be interested in it, I don't know.

I have Antler's book too. I bought my copy because it was the only commentary available at the time. However, there's a better tournament book out now on AVRO:

AVRO 1938 International Chess Tournament; Robert Sherwood & Dale Brandreth; 167 pages; Caissa Editions 2010

http://www.theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/john-watson-book-review-105-biographies-and-game-collections-2

Now you tell me!

Your English has greatly improved in the past few days. ;^)

I was looking at the companion volume by Sherwood and Brandreth, about the 1932 Pasadena (CA) tournament won by Alekhine.  Over 30 years ago, I went through microfische at the Pasadena library, looking for game scores.

Even with the book, there are a number of lost games, though the results were know.

When the US Championship was being held at Ambassador College, I talked with Kashdan about his recollections.  Somewhere, in the recesses of my garaage, I have my notes.

I recall Kashdan saying, in those days, he was called "the little Capablanca."  And about his fantastic Olympiad results.  In the 1930s, it is safe to say he was, with Marshall, Reschevsky, Fine, and Denker, the cream of the crop of American chess.

Spring 1938

Here is a game, Dake-Alekhine, Pasadena 1932, in which Arthur Dake rips the World Champion a new one:

Dake: 2 inaccuracies, 0 mistakes, 0 blunders, 9 average centipawn loss

Alekhine: 2 inaccuracies, 3 mistakes, 0 blunders, 26 average centipawn loss

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/nph-chesspgn?text=1&gid=1012895

Arthur Dake was born in Poland in 1910, but came to the US as a child.  He learned chess at the age of 17 from a Russian in Oregon.  He became a chess hustler (at 25-cents per game) at Coney Island, NY, in the late 1920s.

Dake was a "natural talent" and grew in strength quickly.  He was one of the top Americans during the 1930s, and played on several of the Olympiad teams.

During the Depression, he got a steady job with the Oregon State DMV.  Thus, his chess career went into a hiatus.

He was award the title of International Master in 1954.

Ah that's great! almost midway into the 20th century and the play is getting near top class.

1933

1932=middle of 20th century?

Anyways I don't think that centipawn average loss is such a great indicator of how good a chessplayer is; good is a term that's very hard to make objective.

Edit: looking through the Dake game gives a more legit reason that top players today are better than they were: Be6 deprives Black of the e5 break against the c5 push and so is bad on Black's part. I couldn't imagine a world-class player playing this, but Anand played it in a rapid in 2009 against Nepo, and Navara won with it in 2014. iirc theory still frowns on it now.

First third of the 20th century!

"Average centipawn loss" is essentially a measurement of the human players moves against what the engines scores as best.  Engine scoring is unaffected by nationality, age, favorites, fads, trends, or fanboyism.

So here is another one: Steinitz v von Bardeleben, Hastings 1895

Steinitz: 0 inaccuracies, 0 mistakes, 0 blunders, 7 average centipawn loss

von Bardeleben: 2 inaccuracies, 3 mistakes, 0 blunders, 31 average centipawn loss

"As Steinitz demonstrated immediately afterward, there is a mate in ten moves which can only be averted by ruinous loss of material; analysis follows: ...Kh8 25. Rxh7+ Kg8 26. Rg7+ Kh8 27. Qh4+ Kxg7 28. Qh7+ Kf8 29. Qh8+ Ke7 30. Qg7+ Ke8 31. Qg8+ Ke7 32. Qf7+ Kd8 33. Qf8+ Qe8 34. Nf7+ Kd7 35. Qd6#"

I think any of the superclass Grandmasters today would be happy to play as game as brilliant as this one by the 59-year old ex-World Champion.

Jamie, the best games from the past don't make your argument. Dr. Nunn analysed all of the games from a tournament and compared it directly to Biel, 1993. You know the result.

This one comes from the last round at Hastings, 1895.  Pillsbury needed a win to secure first place ahead of Chigorin, who was 1/2 point behind.

Pillbury - Gunsberg http://www.chessgames.com/perl/nph-chesspgn?text=1&gid=1054736

Pillsbury: 0 inaccuracies, 0 mistakes, 0 blunders, 16 average centipawn loss

Gunsberg: 2 inaccuracies, 2 mistakes, 0 blunders, 39 average centipawn loss

Gunsberg's game fell apart beginning around move 27.  Pillsbury's endgame technique after that cannot be improved upon.

Take a look at ths endgame analysis video by Greg Shahade: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5jKvDKt4JE