Originally posted by MoneyMaker7
If we're talking about who was the best chess player ever considering their time, because it's harder to be better at chess in 1850 than now, since many of the things beginners know now haven't even been tried by the masters back then, and they didn't have as much opening theory or middlegame theory.
Excellent post MoneyMaker, well argued. I found your reasoning above interesting, though, because I would say the opposite is true.
You say that it was more difficult to be good at chess in 1850 because there were fewer avanues to improve your game. Computers, better books, and the Internet are all valuable study tools for today's chess player that they didn't have.
What I would point out, however, is that in 1850, you didn't have to know as much as you do now. There is much more theory now, than before. The availability of those study tools has not only increased the availability of chess knowledge, but also the quantity and required learning.
In addition, I would think that competition now is greater than it was then. There are simply more people with access to quality tutelage. I would think that the average master, not GM, would posses equal chess knowledge as the maters of the 1800's. Although, of course, they may not have equal skill.
Therefore, I think it is a much more difficult task to become the WC today than before.
Some may argue that with their skill, the historic WC's would have become better chess players had they access to today's tools and that they had unequaled natural talent. That argument get too hypothetical for my taste and can never result in more than opinions. I would also point out that a couple hundred years ago, chess was more about tactics than stategies, and that many tactical playes have crumbled under steady stratigic play. Today's WC contenders must master both elements to a degree that yesterday's WC contenders did not.
There are many books and movies about modern-day time travelers going back a few hundred years and pitting their modern weapons and knowledge against their less advanced foes. I would think this would be the case were one of our GMs, not even a WC contender, to be whisked back to 1800.
Fun to think about. Maybe I'll write the movie script...
"Wow, that backwards pawn would cost you at least a third of a point in a Fritz eval."
"A what?"
"You'll see..."