chessweb101 wrote:
Adolf Anderssen seems bad,especially his immortal game. He was losing the whole game until the very end and played lower than a Class A strength today.
If that was a 1800 FIDE or USCF, Anderssen would of won that immortal game. Anderssen was at least grandmaster level, true some the moves were poor quality but a 1800 Elo move will be far worst.
While I don't see how you could bring a top chess player here and not give them access to the same materials, I suppose they would be about 2680. Opening preparation is not as vital at GM level for such caliber of players, but they would still need to spend more time on the opening than their opponents.
While I don't see how you could bring a top chess player here and not give them access to the same materials, I suppose they would be about 2680. Opening preparation is not as vital at GM level for such caliber of players, but they would still need to spend more time on the opening than their opponents.
There are two different questions being asked...one is, "if you brought these players to the 21st century in a time-machine what would their strength be?", in this case I expect you're right I think someone like Morphy would certainly be competitive against today's super-GMs with access to the same materials. The second question is less hypothetical and that is "what is the average move strength of 19th century players compared to today's players", in this case I think it's clear that they are nowhere near today's top players although I think people here are still drastically underestimating them, perhaps due to arrogance. A class A player of today will recognise some of the positional deficiencies of these players and for that reason believe himself superior; however at class A 99% of games are still decided by tactics and someone like Anderssen is lightyears ahead of the average class A player in tactics.
Its hilarious to see weak players talking trash about the greats of the past ... as if they know something about chess ! 
Its hilarious to see weak players talking trash about the greats of the past ... as if they know something about chess !
The fruits of boredom are obvious.
Its hilarious to see weak players talking trash about the greats of the past ... as if they know something about chess !
That Messi guy is rubbish too. Did you see that penalty tonight?
Yes, well, it is always very weak players with dumb blithe opinions. On these threads I see many dumb opinions. E.g. Lasker was mediocre, Euwe was a weakling, Fischer could have given Karpov knight odds, Kasparov was a million times more talented than Fischer, no, no, Kasparov was a moron compared to Fischer, etc. etc. Stronger players take chess more seriously and don't cultivate stupid opinions like that.
Reb wrote:
Its hilarious to see weak players talking trash about the greats of the past ... as if they know something about chess !
Clearly there has been some improvement in chess over the past 150 years, although I don't think it is as drastic as is commonly supposed. Already with Lasker we have a player who would be very strong by modern standards - and the idea that players like Anderssen and Morphy were only playing at class A level is frankly ridiculous.
I'd love to see some NMs or IMs weigh in on this subject. The rest of us, alas, just don't have the chops to have valid opinions on the subject.
Agreed. For what it's worth I would guess that Philidor or LeBordonnais or McDonell or Staunton or Paulsen would push 2300 or better. Andersen or Morphy or Zuckertort wod give a modern IM a serious battle.
mosey69 wrote:
Clearly there has been some improvement in chess over the past 150 years, although I don't think it is as drastic as is commonly supposed. Already with Lasker we have a player who would be very strong by modern standards - and the idea that players like Anderssen and Morphy were only playing at class A level is frankly ridiculous.
Its hilarious to see weak players talking trash about the greats of the past ... as if they know something about chess !
I couldn't agree more, Reb. Strong players discussing past masters, do so respectfully. Chess theory has advanced a lot, but talent not so much.
If I could go back in time, with my current skills, I would no doubt beat Morphy. I would have changed history, Me, not Morphy would have been considered a "chess great."
If I could go back in time, with my current skills, I would no doubt beat Morphy. I would have changed history, Me, not Morphy would have been considered a "chess great."
Keep telling yourself that. 
http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/papers/pdf/ReHa11c.pdf
He proves that modern players are stronger. There's no shame if Morphy plays like a modern 2300, especially given that the modern 2300s have resources and understanding of advancements that weren't around in his day. Morphy truly mastered open games, but there are fixed centers, closed centers, and dynamic centers too.
It would be a bit much asking Morphy to defeat a guy (let's say a 16 year old FM) who was raised with top class chess coaching and has read Shereshevsky's Endgame Strategy, Dvoretsky books, My System, continuous tactics training with software, print out a customized opening monograph that was computer checked for accuracy and play the moves out on a board to reinforce the information, and other training methods. A 2300 playing strength in the 19th century is simply fantastic.
If I could go back in time, with my current skills, I would no doubt beat Morphy. I would have changed history, Me, not Morphy would have been considered a "chess great."
Really bone up on the Caro-Kahn in the slim chance that time travel becomes available within our lifetimes. He'd seriously underestimate it as "unorthodox" and be at a serious psychological and book disadvantage. He even lost to 1...b6?! and even 1...f6? before! Though he'll still have his amazing calculation and combination vision and understanding of the center, development, attacks and ranks and files.
I think you would lose horribly to Morphy. A 2300 player might have a chance to beat Morphy with superior strategic understanding. You would not.
Magikstone wrote:
If I could go back in time, with my current skills, I would no doubt beat Morphy. I would have changed history, Me, not Morphy would have been considered a "chess great."
Its hilarious to see weak players talking trash about the greats of the past ... as if they know something about chess !
I couldn't agree more, Reb. Strong players discussing past masters, do so respectfully. Chess theory has advanced a lot, but talent not so much.
Good sentence.
Just ten minutes ago, I posted analysis of one of Morphy's games. During my analysis of this game, I found much of value in Valeri Beim, Paul Morphy: A Modern Perspective (2005). There are a few representative quotes from Beim mixed in with my analysis.
http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2015/02/initiative.html
If I could go back in time, with my current skills, I would no doubt beat Morphy.
Only if he played blindfold giving you Knight odds and the move... and then probably questionable.
Chesscoaching wrote:
2850.
They would have access to the same materials.
I am talking about if they were put on this time how would they play, not if they had the same understanding of chess today how would they play. Obviously they would play much better.