Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. Subscriber sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    06 Oct '16 09:52
    For instance, I read somewhere Napoleon was a master player. Could a present day expert, USCF 2000-2199 beat that level if they met?

    I am guessing today's expert would flood the 18th century master with openings never encountered before and soon be at a disadvantage.
  2. Subscriber venda
    Dave
    07 Oct '16 19:41
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    For instance, I read somewhere Napoleon was a master player. Could a present day expert, USCF 2000-2199 beat that level if they met?

    I am guessing today's expert would flood the 18th century master with openings never encountered before and soon be at a disadvantage.
    Today's players have access to computer analysis and vast databases plus lots of expert backroom staff when they play in tournaments.
    The old masters wouldn't stand a chance.
    Regarding Napoleon , he probably wasn't a master player.
    The talents of iconic leaders are often exaggerated.
    Example Kim Jong il the late leader of North Korea reportedly scored 11 holes in 1 the first time he played golf -Really???
  3. Subscriber moonbus
    Uber-Nerd
    07 Oct '16 20:28
    Originally posted by venda
    Today's players have access to computer analysis and vast databases plus lots of expert backroom staff when they play in tournaments.
    The old masters wouldn't stand a chance.
    Regarding Napoleon , he probably wasn't a master player.
    The talents of iconic leaders are often exaggerated.
    Example Kim Jong il the late leader of North Korea reportedly scored 11 holes in 1 the first time he played golf -Really???
    Those holes were as big as nuclear bomb test craters.
  4. 09 Oct '16 02:57
    Originally posted by venda
    Today's players have access to computer analysis and vast databases plus lots of expert backroom staff when they play in tournaments.
    The old masters wouldn't stand a chance.
    Regarding Napoleon , he probably wasn't a master player.
    The talents of iconic leaders are often exaggerated.
    Example Kim Jong il the late leader of North Korea reportedly scored 11 holes in 1 the first time he played golf -Really???
    You are fool. This story is true. Our Great Leader, when he was 12, beat Bobby Fischer, Gary Kasparov and Magnus Carlsen simultaneously while the Great Leader was blindfolded. His great humility is why you have not heard this before.
  5. Subscriber moonbus
    Uber-Nerd
    09 Oct '16 12:17
    His great humility is exceeded only by his great haircut.
  6. 09 Oct '16 12:30
    I'll assume by 18th Century we are talking about 1800 to say 1880,

    1700 - 1800 there are very few games and names for us to judge.

    Again if we are talking about settled 2000-2199 players, those not on the up and just
    passing through that grade on their way to higher things (IM's and GM's), but players who
    have stayed there by their own choosing then the Old Masters would be a match for these guys.

    (I had no trouble with these guys...I am/was one of these guys!)

    Yes todays 2000-2199 players have access to computers, but missuse them to the point
    they are usueless to them and dependence upon them stifles their creativity.
    Also not many (i.e. none) standard 2000-2199 players have a backroom staff.

    Regarding opening knowledge then standard 2000-2199 players will not to know
    any deeply enough to really be of any value. They tend to have systems and they are
    not going to get anyone following them down 20 moves of Lopez theory or any other
    opening. They will see classical development which has stood the test of time.

    The won't see many Lopez's as Black, 1...e5 and they will be on the Black side
    of the Giuoco Piano or the Four Knights and the Evans Gambit.

    If they tried a French it would go into an Exchange Variation,
    a KID/Benko/Benoni...No chance. They might ever not see 1.d4.

    If they did then 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3. (the old lads would never put a pawn on c4,
    that square is for the f1 Bishop) so go into a Pirc. (but what if our 2000-2199 master
    has never played a Pirc as Black before, who has tricked who? ) so the 'book' rec of
    2....d5 3 Bf4. and when was the last time our fabled 2000-2199 player took time out
    to iron out all the wrinkles in that one.

    They would have to be very good at nursing a plus through a middle game into
    the endgame. And I mean very good. And if they are, why are are they still 2000-2199?

    In short do not over estimate the 2000-2199 player and do not underestimate the Old Masters.

    ----

    The Napoleon games found in books and on databases are fake.
  7. Subscriber moonbus
    Uber-Nerd
    09 Oct '16 12:55
    The 18th century lasted from January 1, 1701 to December 31, 1800. Realistically, we are talking about Philidor, who was active in the 1790s. I can't think of anyone else who merits mention. Philidor's opponents can hardly be described as equals, so it is difficult to judge how deep Philidor's understanding of the game was. I should think a modern 2100+ player would have a more systematic understanding of strategic principles than Philidor and would have given Philidor a good run for the money.
  8. 10 Oct '16 02:34
    Hi Monnbus,

    I was coming in from the 1800-1860 angle because the lad mentioned
    Napoleon and the Napoleon Wars were early 19th century.

    Very little is known about the 1700's compared to the 1800's as so few games were recorded.

    This is a game with notes from a book knocked together by Bernard, Carlier, Leger and Verdoni.

    'Traité Théorique et Pratique du jeu des Echecs, par une Société des Amateurs.'

    Publish in 1786 it is a game from amongst themselves or one of them v another opponent.






    played (or maybe made up) in the 18th century.
  9. Subscriber sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    10 Oct '16 13:27
    Originally posted by greenpawn34
    Hi Monnbus,

    I was coming in from the 1800-1860 angle because the lad mentioned
    Napoleon and the Napoleon Wars were early 19th century.

    Very little is known about the 1700's compared to the 1800's as so few games were recorded.

    This is a game with notes from a book knocked together by Bernard, Carlier, Leger and Verdoni.

    'Traité Théorique e ...[text shortened]... 8.Nf6+ and it is White that wins.} [/pgn]



    played (or maybe made up) in the 18th century.
    So if you assigned a fantasy rating to Philador, what do you think it would be? 2400? 26?
  10. 10 Oct '16 15:21
    Hi Sonhouse,

    "So if you assigned a fantasy rating to Philador, what do you think it would be? 2400? 26?"

    I have given this carful consideration.....under 2000, round about 1794.
  11. Subscriber moonbus
    Uber-Nerd
    11 Oct '16 08:33
    Originally posted by greenpawn34
    Hi Monnbus,

    I was coming in from the 1800-1860 angle because the lad mentioned
    Napoleon and the Napoleon Wars were early 19th century.

    Very little is known about the 1700's compared to the 1800's as so few games were recorded.
    Maybe there was a bit of confusion in the OP about dates.

    I have looked at a few of Philidor's games. He was clever, but not deep, and of course his opponents were less than stellar. Morphy would have thrashed him. I agree that Philidor's rating would probably not have been above 2000 by modern standards.
  12. 11 Oct '16 11:20
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    For instance, I read somewhere Napoleon was a master player. Could a present day expert, USCF 2000-2199 beat that level if they met?

    I am guessing today's expert would flood the 18th century master with openings never encountered before and soon be at a disadvantage.
    I very much doubt Napoleon was a master player, however your theory about an expert level player today beating an 18th century master, may be true.
  13. 11 Oct '16 12:16
    Always remembering that the mistakes and the method of exploiting them
    which modern players take for granted were discovered by these old masters
    very often over the board.

    They had very little literature to study, in a lot of the games it was the 'suck and see' method.

    Their greatest gift to modern players (all of us) is the fact they kept the game going.

    Philidor's blindfold displays were deemed an incredible feat of human brain power.
    The publicity would have attracted more players to the game. The few books they
    published even more so.

    Chess was in general a pastime for the very privileged few, these lads helped push it out
    to the common people. That is the their legacy to us. For that we must be eternally grateful.
  14. Subscriber sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    11 Oct '16 13:04 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by greenpawn34
    Always remembering that the mistakes and the method of exploiting them
    which modern players take for granted were discovered by these old masters
    very often over the board.

    They had very little literature to study, in a lot of the games it was the 'suck and see' method.

    Their greatest gift to modern players (all of us) is the fact they kept the ...[text shortened]... t
    to the common people. That is the their legacy to us. For that we must be eternally grateful.
    Well said! I wonder if the limits on blindfold will continue to be broken, that is to say, the max number of well played games blindfolded, I think most world champs were really good at that, but has the number of games played simul gone up much in the last 50 years?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindfold_chess

    This is an amazing article!
  15. 11 Oct '16 13:10
    Old masters would have to change them first, I mean, they would have needed to buy new cloths. Clever as they are, they would probably learn quickly to use comps as data bases. Even more probably some geek chicks would crash on them and help them even more in matters of fashion, sex, computer bases...