What would an 1800 player in our time be rated in say the year 1800? How much more knowledgeable are players in say theory, etc... I have been trying to get someone to speak more on this subject, so please chime in. Serious responses please. I am rather fascinated when considering the subject. Our chess seems so much more well hashed out today than in 1800. For instance, many of the accepted lines of theory Fischer Fear blew apart on occasion. You know?
So, the question is: what would an 1800 USCF today be rated in say Philidor's time or Morphy's time - say Morphy. That's better.
Originally posted by powershakerhe wouldn't be rated, there was no such things. he'd be a good club player.
What would an 1800 player in our time be rated in say the year 1800? How much more knowledgeable are players in say theory, etc... I have been trying to get someone to speak more on this subject, so please chime in. Serious responses please. I am rather fascinated when considering the subject. Our chess seems so much more well hashed out today than ...[text shortened]... 800 USCF today be rated in say Philidor's time or Morphy's time - say Morphy. That's better.
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
This might be intresting for you, its Fischer giving a recent interview in which he comments that even average modern players understanding (memorizing?) theory in the opening would mean they would get better positions against great masters of the past.
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3468
I say an 1800 player would give those old masters a challenge. You look at some of those old games and the moves the opponent made and you think to yourself, What was that guy thinking!
So if you want to say those old masters are say 2400, then I would guess 2100 for 1800 players. 300 points below whatever those old masters were.
Of course they didn't have ratings back then.
Now, quit wondering about stuff like this and get back to work 🙂 I want to see you get to 1600. Soldier, MARCH!! or is it Navy? You get the point.
An 1800 rated player of our time would be able to squeeze out some good positions from the openings. Maybe even superior positions, but it doesn't mean anything against a Master. The Masters of that time made their title from knowledge of the entire game, not their knowledge of openings.
What I'm trying to tell you is that it doesn't matter if you get a superior position against a strong player if you are an 1800 player. You'll lose the game anyways because you won't be able to compete against a player with better mastery of how to continue the game.
Originally posted by arrakisI once played a Russian WGM OTB in a tournament who got careless (expecting an easy win) and blundered a pawn in the opening with no compensation and a strategically awful position then proceeded to destroy me totally.
An 1800 rated player of our time would be able to squeeze out some good positions from the openings. Maybe even superior positions, but it doesn't mean anything against a Master. The Masters of that time made their title from knowledge of the entire game, not their knowledge of openings.
What I'm trying to tell you is that it doesn't matter if you get a ...[text shortened]... won't be able to compete against a player with better mastery of how to continue the game.
After the game she kindly showed me how I had an "easy" win. Easy for her of course but not me as the win depended on subtle strategic considerations behond my capabilities to comprehend.
There was a study on the Chessbase website recently where the moves of various GMs throughout the years were input into a program (not sure which one and can't be bothered to check) to chekc their (I have to use the word but...) accuracy. Capablanca came out of it looking the best. I guess from that we can take that what was good then would still be good now.
I think, although certain concepts might be more widely appreciated in practice now than they were back then anyone who was/is really good understands these concepts implicitly anyway, whether or not they know they know.
- Joined
- 09 Aug 01
- Moves
- 54191
Originally posted by arrakisi agree. as we all know, there is a middlegame and endgame for a old time master to demonstrate his skill, and for a 1800 to demonstrate his lack of skill.
An 1800 rated player of our time would be able to squeeze out some good positions from the openings. Maybe even superior positions, but it doesn't mean anything against a Master. The Masters of that time made their title from knowledge of the entire game, not their knowledge of openings.
What I'm trying to tell you is that it doesn't matter if you get a ...[text shortened]... won't be able to compete against a player with better mastery of how to continue the game.
Originally posted by powershakerI don't think there were ratings back then. Also, back then, chess was all about attack. That started to change when Steinitz and the others introduced positional play.
What would an 1800 player in our time be rated in say the year 1800? How much more knowledgeable are players in say theory, etc... I have been trying to get someone to speak more on this subject, so please chime in. Serious responses please. I am rather fascinated when considering the subject. Our chess seems so much more well hashed out today than ...[text shortened]... 800 USCF today be rated in say Philidor's time or Morphy's time - say Morphy. That's better.
