This is a good question. I think if you went back to the time of Morphy - specifically, let's look at the late 1850s - as an 1800 USCF player today, you'd likely be a player worthy of some note who really dedicated people today might remember at the bottom of some tournament result somewhere. On the other hand, even looking just at the US, I'm not sure if you'd be invited to the 1857 US Championship Morphy won; and if you were, you surely would have been eliminated in the first round (it was a 16-player knockout event).
I think it's reasonable that you might make that list of 16, although it would be close. Some of those players weren't exactly great. But more to the point - let's try to make a reasonable estimate of where Morphy would be rated today, if he was unable to actually learn any new theory, positional ideas, or anything else. As great as he was, it seems like saying that Paul Morphy (and not one who had even a month or two to study today) might come in as a relatively weak GM, 2500-2600. Just a guess though - maybe he was just that damn good, but it's important for my point to make some sort of estimate. 🙂
So, we set Morphy at 2500 to be generous to us, leaving our 1800 player 700 points below him (and still scoring less than 1% against the unofficial world champ). Some of the things we know might actually tighten that gap slightly for the first few months after we plop ourselves in the past (we'd study some crazy opening lines the better players back then were known to play but have since been refuted rather badly), but for the most part, 700 points seems fair.
Looking at the chessmetrics site, the historical June 1859 ratings list tells us that Morphy was 340 points better than the 19th best player in the world, at the time. Clearly, there were very few 'masters' back then, and even against serious players we'd be competitive - though a severe underdog to some - against all but the best players in the world.
Going back to 1857, Chessmetrics actually has ratings for only 9 players, due to the lack of serious games played back then. But even if we assume Morphy is still 700 points better than us, we might be as good as some of these guys in the US Championship.
Morphy beat Paulsen +5-1=2 in the final - he was clearly superior to the second best player there. Paulsen, in turn, hadn't lost a single game in the first 3 rounds, only conceding one draw to "Dr. B.I.Raphael," and beating an H.P. Montgomery 2-0. Montgomery, in turn, beat W.S. Allison 3-1.
Long story short? I can't imagine that Mr. Allison was much better than our 1800 player of today. 🙂
Anyway, all of this is just speculation. But it's fun speculation!
Edit: Of course after typing that up, I googled this site, which had ratings for basically anyone who played any recorded games back then: http://members.shaw.ca/edo1/years/y1857.html
Allison is indeed rated a little more than 700 points below Morphy. So our modern 1800 player likely could have put up a fight against some of the best US players (but not the "true" masters, Morphy and Paulsen, of course).
Originally posted by BedlamI am quite sure I heard Kasparov saying something similiar.
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
Originally posted by Diet CokeI can already see your grand future, us idiots will all have to weep in envy when your unfounded claims propel you to master level with ease. you're just a natural. we'll be sorry then, I swear.
Once again the jackasses show their ignorance.
The player in question, plays in the 4ncl for Bristol 2 and is a member of downend chess club.
Idiots.
Originally posted by powershakerI think that at sub-master level, most games are decided by tactical lapses. I don't think that players today are better at tactics than players in the 1800's. The only real advantage the modern amateur of today has over amateurs from the 1800's is that the modern player has much more opening knowledge. So, I think that a 1800-player today would be rated about 1875 in the early-nineteenth century.
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.
Originally posted by RahimKYeahhhh. Hehe... WHaevers. hehe
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 ...[text shortened]... ck to work 🙂 I want to see you get to 1600. Soldier, MARCH!! or is it Navy? You get the point.
On a serious note, I just haven't had time to get my rating back to 1600 after all those timeouts. When I get settled in this new job in San Diego, and move into my new place, I'll start going to local chess club here in San Diego. I left, Hawaii, Rahim. There just wasn't a good enough chess club for me. I want one I can just walk into like here in San Diego. They also have chess tournaments every Saturday. Bottom line: I'd rather start getting my USCF rating up higher and higher than get my redhotpawn rating higher. I can make money ($100 a tournament) right off, because my actual strength is a lot higher than my published rating. So, it should be fun starting out, you know?
However, how long do you think before my rating will go up above 1400 from 1152 if I keep winning the Super Gambito tournaments in the under 1200 section. After about two or three tournaments?
Originally posted by powershakerMoney hey, hehe.
Yeahhhh. Hehe... WHaevers. hehe
On a serious note, I just haven't had time to get my rating back to 1600 after all those timeouts. When I get settled in this new job in San Diego, and move into my new place, I'll start going to local chess club here in San Diego. I left, Hawaii, Rahim. There just wasn't a good enough chess club for me. I want o ...[text shortened]... Super Gambito tournaments in the under 1200 section. After about two or three tournaments?
I broke even in 2 years. +/- 30 dollars.
It's hard to win tournement prizes, I won about 50% of them.
If you get a huge tournament win, you rating can jump 150 points if you are non provisional.
Good luck in San Diego, but I wouldnt' move just because of a chess club. Go were the job takes you, and let them pay for it 🙂 haha, I know i'm dreaming.
The post that was quoted here has been removedI don't think that the players of yesteryear would be better than today's stars, but I think they'd be just as good because, in my humble "A-player" opinion, chess is mostly about pouncing on tactical opoportunites and not allowing the opponent the same opportunities. Fischer himself marveled at how "modern" Staunton's games were!
Morphy had a thorough understanding of positional play, even though he didn't have a treatise like Nimzovich's "My System" to learn from.