Could expert level today beat 18th century masters?

Originally posted by vandervelde
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...

Wouldn't it be funny to have a time machine, Judit Polgar go back and play say Morphy at his peak. Wouldn't THAT be a show! He for sure wouldn't be pulling any quick combos on her, they would backfire.

Philidor's simultaneous blindfold exhibitions must have created quite a sensation at the time. It was grand publicity for the game.

A buddy of mine and I once played John Watson blindfold (he was blindfold, we weren't) simultaneously. He was rated around 2000-2100 at that time (this was many years ago, you understand, he's higher than that these days). So such a thing is possible at or near master-level. I wouldn't try playing even one game blindfold myself, so that gives us a rough estimate where Philidor's rating might have been.

Originally posted by moonbus
Philidor's simultaneous blindfold exhibitions must have created quite a sensation at the time. It was grand publicity for the game.

A buddy of mine and I once played John Watson blindfold (he was blindfold, we weren't) simultaneously. He was rated around 2000-2100 at that time (this was many years ago, you understand, he's higher than that these days). So ...[text shortened]... ame blindfold myself, so that gives us a rough estimate where Philidor's rating might have been.

I think he peaked out at around 2400 but now 2257 FIDE. He is 65 now. I met him at an open in Philly once many years ago also. I noticed there is a William Watson from England, a GM with about 2500 rating. And another Watson from New Zealand about 2275.

Originally posted by SkippyJoe
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.

That was because they couldn't concentrate properly as one of the many opera's he has composed was being played in the emporium

By all accounts, Napoleon was a very poor player, if the few extant games attributed to him are any indication. I think a 21st century A or expert player would be more than a match for most 19th century players-we understand the positional concepts laid down by Steinitz, we know the endgame, and we play openings that they had never seen.

The old "masters" are only named such as there was no IM or GM title at the time. The first GM's were given their title only when they competed in a World championship candidates cycle. Bobby Fischer was only awarded the title at 15 years of age as he was given a wild card to compete in the Candidates. If we are to use World championships to decide on GM status, then the first World champions and their opponents should retrospectively be awarded this Title.

Personally I think that players such as Morphy, Steinitz, Zukertorte, Capablanca, Alekine, et cetera should all be considered full Grand Masters. Yes their opening knowledge was narrower than today, but so what? Most Grand masters of today have pretty narrow repertoires as well. It is only the elite 26/2700+ guys who really know reams of theory..

Would Capablanca be able to gain a 2500 rating today? Absolutely! How many 2500's from today will be studied in 100 years time? Not many i would say. Will Capablanca's games be worthy of study in 100 years? Unquestionably! The old masters played much longer time controls, their games are arguably of higher quality than a lot of modern games.

Originally posted by Marinkatomb
The old "masters" are only named such as there was no IM or GM title at the time. The first GM's were given their title only when they competed in a World championship candidates cycle. Bobby Fischer was only awarded the title at 15 years of age as he was given a wild card to compete in the Candidates. If we are to use World championships to decide on GM ...[text shortened]... uch longer time controls, their games are arguably of higher quality than a lot of modern games.

Today's expert agains Morphy or Capa would be a rout for sure. I was talking about the second tier or third tier level masters of century 19 or18. My guess is Philador would still trounce a modern expert, a USCF 2150 level player.

Yeh i think 2000-2200 is really not that strong at all. To get a master title in the 19th Century was HARD! Only the very best players of that era achieved it. The whole titles thing was very loose back then as well. If you were to be considered at all, you had to be winning serious tournaments against very strong opposition. Anyone can become an expert these days if they are prepared to put in the time.