The use of computer databases of problems has brought this question into the limelight for me--just how superior, if at all, do you believe modern chess instruction is compared to a couple of centuries ago?
Previously, methods were simpler. An 18th century English-speaking person would have only a few learning tools--probably an edition of Philidor, a collection of Greco's games, Bertin's brief introductory work, and Stamma's 100 critical positions. Fairly complete introduction between them for the novice, and from there constant play (using odds, a concept not often practiced today) against other people would be used.
Getting into the early 19th century, you have Lewis, Walker, and Cochrane's books, plus Sarratt's treatise and the first collections of elite-level games (Walker's 1000 games plus the 80+ Bourdonnais--MacDonnell games). These contained a good balance of problems, opening theory, analyzed games, general principles, and endgames. Many games were still decided at odds.
Going even further, you have an explosion of problems during the mid to late 19th century (many of which are more applicable to chess than today's artistic compositions), with a host of books devoted to all aspects of the game. Openings seem to get much more complete and dedicated treatment at this stage, and thousands of master- and grandmaster-level games are available to the general public. Staunton's books are among the best of this period, and training still revolved around actual play--as, for instance, Staunton's hundreds of games against Cochrane show.
So....
How well could you do in a modern environment with only a few 18th century books as your guide, and limiting yourself to 18th century training methods (only playing other people at odds, refusing to use a computer, etc.)? Would your chances improve with the early 19th century methods? Late 19th century? How quickly could you improve as a player...if at all?
Originally posted by Gioachino GrecoI believe a moderm master would give great GM's from centuries ago some problems and hold his own.
The use of computer databases of problems has brought this question into the limelight for me--just how superior, if at all, do you believe modern chess instruction is compared to a couple of centuries ago?
Previously, methods were simpler. An 18th century English-speaking person would have only a few learning tools--probably an edition of Philido ...[text shortened]... tury methods? Late 19th century? How quickly could you improve as a player...if at all?
You look at some of the older games and you wonder how someone could be that good and still play some of these crazy moves. Opening theory was pretty weak back then and you see a lot of crazy moves in the openings.
Apparently, from current GM analysis of top 18th century players, top players now could (obviously) beat top players in the 1700's and 1800's. In the 1800's (perhaps unsound) tactics and sacrifices ruled the game... to the extent that if you didn't accept a sacrifice you were a "chess coward"(at least that's what I read). In the early 1900's (with no new training equipment) strategical thinking came along, especially with Steinitz, Nimzovitch and all of their ideas. If you see world champions during that time, (Alekhine, Capablanca, Lasker, etc.) they were generally not as tactically inclined as previous players. Reckless tactical devices pretty much died out then (I wouldn't say completely though), probably because they couldn't make progress against the stretigal masters... they built up positions not suited to tacticians. So I would say 18th century players had little advantage over 17th century players, 19th century players had an advantage over 18th century, and early 20th century players had a significant advantage over previous centuries.
Now, with computers, the advantages players have now are openings and analyzing games.
Originally posted by Gioachino GrecoSpeaking for myself I wouldn't have improved as a player in the 19th century using 19th century methods, let alone in the 21st using 19th century methods.
... How well could you do in a modern environment with only a few 18th century books as your guide, and limiting yourself to 18th century training methods (only playing other people at odds, refusing to use a computer, etc.)? Would your chances improve with the early 19th century methods? Late 19th century? How quickly could you improve as a player...if at all?
I just don't have the required patience or, indeed, talent to learn in such a methodical way.
I think the theoretical evaluations those early pioneers achieved is remarkable given the sheer number of succeeding individual positions that have to be evaluated from any given position before choosing the best move.
Originally posted by chesskid001Sometimes one still gets reckless tacticians--Blackburne did quite well during the early era of modern chess, and Tal performed exceptionally since then with his offbeat sacrifices. Spielman as well, if I recall correctly.
Apparently, from current GM analysis of top 18th century players, top players now could (obviously) beat top players in the 1700's and 1800's. In the 1800's (perhaps unsound) tactics and sacrifices ruled the game... to the extent that if you didn't accept a sacrifice you were a "chess coward"(at least that's what I read). In the early 1900's (with no new ...[text shortened]... Now, with computers, the advantages players have now are openings and analyzing games.
Interestingly, much of chess coaching still seems to revolve around tactics--the same tactics that were used and known for centuries. While considerations become more positional as one advances, the tactical element is definitely still there.
De La Maza's popular (and controversial!) "400 points in 400 days" approach treats positional knowledge as if it's nonexistent. While it seems to make a "bleeding eyes from too many drills" situation likely, the basic premise (hard work plus tactical drilling) is agreed by most to be effective.
One wonders if you could gain 400 points in 400 days during the 19th, 18th, or even 17th centuries.
Originally posted by Gioachino GrecoI actually recently started a thread on it, probably on the 2nd page, titled "does the de la maza method for chess improvement work?"
Sometimes one still gets reckless tacticians--Blackburne did quite well during the early era of modern chess, and Tal performed exceptionally since then with his offbeat sacrifices. Spielman as well, if I recall correctly.
Interestingly, much of chess coaching still seems to revolve around tactics--the same tactics that were used and known for cen ...[text shortened]... rs if you could gain 400 points in 400 days during the 19th, 18th, or even 17th centuries.
Chess theory is constantly evolving. Or rather understanding is evolving. A backward P is still a backward P and a combination is still based on some weakness in the position, but today’s players will accept positions with what were once considered losing positional defects as long as their practical chances are sufficient. Faster time controls may have something to do with it though. As pointed out, even Alekhine opined as how 1…g6 was a bad move. The hyper-moderns were not understood in their early days. It was considered a sin to play …e5 in the Sicilian until Boleslavsky worked out his system and showed it was playable. I remember an early edition of MCO calling the Pelikan (now Sveshnikov) questionable. On the other hand, how many of today’s players could have written Basic Chess Endings (without help of a database, no less) in the 6 months Fine was said to have taken?
We are talking about chess at the highest levels here. But, how would a class player (say 1800-2000) of today have stood against the old timers? How about an Expert or low rated Master?
Originally posted by masscatToday's players certainly have the advantage of computers. Comparing a player of today's era with lots of money to spend (probably some combination of Fritz, Chessbase, and a bunch of training CD's) to one of past eras is interesting.
Chess theory is constantly evolving. Or rather understanding is evolving. A backward P is still a backward P and a combination is still based on some weakness in the position, but today’s players will accept positions with what were once considered losing positional defects as long as their practical chances are sufficient. Faster time controls may have s ...[text shortened]... 1800-2000) of today have stood against the old timers? How about an Expert or low rated Master?
17th Century:
A few opening manuals and collections of chess problems--most likely Greco's games, Polerio/Carrerra/Gianutio/Lopez for openings analysis, and problems from Lucena and Damiano.
18th century:
For English speakers, the 1750 edition of Greco's games, Bertin's manual, Philidor's manual, and Stamma's "100 Critical Positions".
Training options available:
* Reading theoretical works
* Reading on openings and basic endgames (a few are included in Philidor and a few endgame "studies" from Greco)
* Working through the small number of chess problems available during this era REPEATEDLY
* Playing through games, probably assisting you in getting a few of the patterns down
* Playing better players at odds and giving odds to weaker players
* Perhaps a knight's tour or two (if you enjoy those "chess vision" drills)
Speaking for myself I would say there is no question about improvment here. Todays software , chessbase openings etc., combined with the internet gives one such an advantage from the old books and training styles. When I started playing many years ago I dreaded having to hold the book and make moves from it. IT was tedious. Using a PC and chessbase is SO much easier that I will use it much more than the book. Also the internet lets you practise against people of all strengths. You are no longer limited by where you live and how good the people are around you. You can play the best and the worst players all in one place.
What really matters the most is the dedication of the student. If one really really wants to learn/improve he will find a way. That student will make the most of all the methods available to him, and will succeed.
In my opinion chess theories have always been changing. Over the history of chess, you find that sometimes a particular opening is 'abandoned' and then became popular again because some GMs have found new ideas in the opening and so on and so forth. And new ideas can also be found with well-established openings. Interestingly, in the current Kramnik/Topalov games, some new ideas, even 'invention' as Topalov calls it, have been introduced. And we see that each time something 'new' is introduced, Kramnik takes a long time to figure out the position.
But I think the most significant change to the game of chess over the last 100 yrs must have been the invention of the chess clock. I wonder whether time was a factor in chess games of those good old days, and if so, how did they handle time-keeping.
Originally posted by OnePawnIt is true that it's difficult to play above the level of your opponents--online chess (and really good chess computers) are a great modern tool to help with this.
Speaking for myself I would say there is no question about improvment here. Todays software , chessbase openings etc., combined with the internet gives one such an advantage from the old books and training styles. When I started playing many years ago I dreaded having to hold the book and make moves from it. IT was tedious. Using a PC and chessbase is SO mu ...[text shortened]... nd a way. That student will make the most of all the methods available to him, and will succeed.
However, odds games were heavily employed in the "good old days", so one wasn't entirely limited by his lack of great opponents. If he's somewhat inferior, give him pawn and move odds, if he's a patzer offer him queen odds, and so on.
How well would you be able to do if limited to an edition of Philidor, Stamma's 100 problems, sixty of Greco's games, and odds play with a willing partner? This is an intriguing question for me...perhaps prompted by whimsical minimalism as much as anything else. I suspect you'd do a bit better than one might expect.