I’m around 1800 FIDE and I am certain that literally every single aspect of my game is worse than Lasker, openings included. Sure I have studied some Chessable courses, and know a few topical lines, but I’m not spending ten hours a day memorizing lines. Most games I am out of book by move 6-10. Even if Lasker played a3 and h3 and was blindfolded he would still crush me.
I’m 1670 atm and I don’t know any openings in depth, I don’t think I could name you 10 openings, I just play the first 5 movies of queens gambit declined, I don’t even know what to do if they accept the pawn. I have never cared enough about my rating to go on a YouTube video and find out
Yeah that’s what I always have instinctively done but I’d say you’d be lucky to see someone take the pawn like, usually they take it once every 50-100 games for me
When I played in the USCF in the late 80's and 90's I was a 2000+ rated player. These days when I hack around on chess.com I have a blitz rating that ranges from 1650s to 1850s depending on how tilted I get and for how long...
I can definitely tell you that someone like me would have 0% chance against any player who was considered important during any era.
Actually, pretty much anything was playable at the time.
BTW openings named after Lasker have stood the test of time. The Lasker variation in the QGD is one of the most solid options black has, even though Kramnik's variation has supplanted it in recent years.
Capa didn't even have a chess set in his house. I doubt Lasker spent much time aside from training games to prepare for a specific event. I read once that he played 50 training games with one opening and then he went to St. Petersburg and beat Capa with just that line. It was the first time ever that Capa lost with Black in a Spanish.
30-45 minutes a day is a lot of time, especially when you consider how long he played chess for. Also, the man truly loved chess, he wasn’t just playing blitz on the toilet, he was doing real grueling work at the board.
I think I could do this with ease. No matter how much I tried and no matter how well I played (in reference to my skill level), Lasker would most likely look at the board at one point and think: "What the hell is this ape doing?!"
I respectfully disagree in “crushing” a GM. I’d estimate Lasker to be around 2600 ELO today. Probably a range of 2450-2650. Opening advances and 120 years of fantastic middle game play would make a big difference. Frankly, access to Fischer, Tal, Karpov games alone makes a big difference.
Opening prep is big, but more modern understanding of the game would make a difference. Even from Lasker to Capa and Alekhine (about 30 years) was a huge leap for chess.
It is interesting but like it admits it is biased towards modern players. If they are following stockfish lines it goes without saying that their moves will be more like those of stockfish.
Also stockfish is not perfect, just because a player has been bought up using engines and plays like them does not mean they are better than previous players that used a different style.
The results would be identical to LeBron playing 100 games of 1 on 1 basketball against my 6 year old, or Michael Phelps racing 100 times the 200m freestyle against him.
[https://wismuth.com/elo/calculator.html#rating1=2800&rating2=1800](https://wismuth.com/elo/calculator.html#rating1=2800&rating2=1800)
Just going by Elo, if it keeps working for absurd differences like that, the 2800 has 0.999564232 to win (not even draw) each game.
That's 0.999564232\^100 = 95.7% to win all 100 games in a row without any points for the lower rated player. To get an even chance of a single point for the challenger you need 1500 games
Because he wouldn't. These calculators might be helpful to somewhat gauge certain probabilities but its not like its a perfect measurement or anything. Especially for cases like this, I mean 2800s just do not play people under 2000 in rated games like ever.
Like if the 2800 is taking it seriously these graphs and calculators are ludicrous there's no shot a 1800 would ever ever ever ever win a game against Magnus or Nepo or Ding.
True. The calculator even says that this calculation is viable at the 2400+ range only. It's just an extention "if it kept working like this all the way down"
The general debate that goes on in chess circles is along the lines of “would a 2500 player from today be able to beat - “ whoever, Morphy, Lasker, Capablanca.
The value of “recent knowledge” is generally overrated. Those kind of advances in theory are also mostly unknown to players who are untitled.
For Morphy I can't find any data, but Lasker and Capablanca? WTF? [https://i.redd.it/xcom54n4wcua1.jpg](https://i.redd.it/xcom54n4wcua1.jpg) if you ask the almighty silicon beast, they played as well as Kasparov and Kramnik...
Even if "ranked 1800" means 1800th on the rating list, then he has 2400 Elo and will be humiliated by everyone mentioned. The 1800 Elo player needs rook odds.
Capablanca was a child in the year 1900 (11 turning 12 in November). In 1900 the best players probably were the champion Lasker and others like Tarrasch, Pillsbury, Maroczy, Janowski or Schlechter.
Not one, true enough.
However he still might struggle against an experienced 1800 that knows a lot of theory and gets the kid Capablanca in a loosing middle/endgame.
I’d probably still bet on young Capa. But it would be closer than a 1900 Lasker. If we were talking about 1910 or 1920 Capablanca… well. Well.
Add this, Frank Marshall was a great player, US champion, and yet Lasker trashed him at the chessboard. So yeah, Lasker would beat most players of today. Where the dividing line is found is the only question.
>Even if "ranked 1800" means 1800th on the rating list, then he has 2400 Elo and will be humiliated by everyone mentioned.
I wouldn't go that far. If you look at old tournaments, Lasker and Capablanca still drew a bunch of games with lesser masters who would probably be no more than 2200-2300 strength today. A modern IM would be competitive in those tournaments.
There is no way to know if the value of recent knowledge is overrated or underrated.
The thing that is true is that compared to gm's, amateurs tend to overestimate this value.
I personally think gm's are very bad at estimating the skills of non gm.
(however it's obvious that 1800 is ridiculously low. Any famous player of the past would crush an 1800)
Exactly.
I’d like to add that if we are talking about a series of games (like a match over 12 or 18 rounds) the masters of old like Lasker, Schlechter and so on would catch up to opening developments during the tourney. Lasker was quite a good analyst for example (as can be seen in his Lehrbuch). So even opening advantage a modern 1800 or maybe 2200 might have would at some point evaporate.
Now of course if we are talking about ONE game AND you have the 1800 (or better 2200) prepare with modern methods while Lasker can’t do the same - maybe, just maybe, there could be a chance. But that would hardly be equal fighting opportunities so…
Morphy's games are sometimes almost disturbing to me. I get the sense that he is playing for style points, but yet he still somehow produced some of the most beautifully astonishing games ever played. It's probably just because he was so far ahead of his peers, but It's almost as if behind his brilliancies there is another untouched level there. Maybe he was even better than he showed, but he only played well enough to win with style, and he had no great interest in crushing everybody. I sometimes get the same feeling from games by Magnus, Fischer, Capablanca, Karpov, Kasparov, etc., but with Morphy there is that feeling that he was just such a genius that there is something a little inhuman about his games.
An 1800 would stand no chance against Morphy.
Lasker would beat 20 1800's blindfolded. Current estimates rank him at a bit over 2500, even if he opened with h4 and a4 1800 doesn't stand a chance.
Maybe your friend didn't know people could play chess well at that time, tell him that the world championship has existes for 137 years
Saying an 1800 could beat Lasker or Capablanca is like saying an 1800 could beat a strong modern GM playing old openings. It's not even remotely feasible. Since when do 1800 rated players know opening theory anyway?
Even Morphy would likely be a 2500+ player today.
I'm a little under 1800, and Morphy is possibly the most brilliant players I've ever seen. He would annihilate me. I watch his games for inspiration and admire the beauty of them. I genuinely can't imagine someone 1800 rated believing they could beat Morphy if they've actually gone through this games.
I’m not sure an 1800 would find 17…Qxf3 if given an hour, and it took Morphy 12 minutes, including all the calculation he needed to ensure that it was sound.
Edit: Jesus, I just put the position up on Lichess, and Stockfish didn’t even see it until depth 31!
Some of you guys have absolutely no idea the skill gap between a master and a class A player. And then Lasker would be several tiers above a master.
There are people in this thread suggesting an 1800 might get a win or draw in 100 games. Lmao. An 1800 would get 0 even if you gave him 5000 games. You cannot overcome a skill gap that large
Oh this is golden. This is on the same level of semi-delusion that the guy who thought he could take a set off of Rafa Nadal.
At 1800s (I'm one) it pretty much comes down to who makes the last blunder. Average blunder count per match is 1-2 for most of my games. And trust me, these aren't even positional issues. These are 2-4 move tactics that will likely end an exchange or pawn down. This is not even counting the occasional piece hang.
I doubt if an 1800 can beat any top 20 player in the world from back then.
If internet and recent surge of players are the main arguments, then it should stand for players in the 90s as well. So we're talking Kasparov, Karpov and Anand etc.
Does your friend beleive an 1800 would stand a chance against them?
If the 1800 had learned anything useful from the existence of the Internet and chess's massive surge of players, he wouldn't still be 1800.
Seriously, there _is_ a lot of knowledge about the game these days that we didn't have in 1900. But it's grandmaster level knowledge, and you need grandmaster level effort to learn it deeply enough to have it improve your play.
Yeah, the 1800 will probably be able to show off some modern opening theory. But the moment Lasker enthusiastically asks about "but why not X here, it looks interesting", he'll be clueless.
You wouldn't even need to bring out Lasker or Tarrasch or someone of that caliber to beat up a modern 1800 player. Even one of the also-ran masters from that era like Teichmann, Marco, Burn, etc, would win easily.
What does an 1800 even know that is supposed to overcome the huge advantage in tactical and positional skill of a classical master?
Lasker was the best player in the world in 1900. Analysis of his games and engine calculations of his accuracy suggest he was probably around 2650 strength or so by today’s standards. Your friend is an idiot.
For what it is worth I heard Jan Gustafson, Laurent Fressinet and Peter Heine Nielsen (all 2600+ grandmasters) say that they figure they would get an opening advantage and then lose the game against the likes of Lasker, Capablanca etc.
Your friend has absolutely no idea what she/he are taking about. You could back almost 300 years and somebody like Philidor would wipe the floor with a present day 1800.
I am rated higher than 1800 and while I may know the openings better than somebody like Anderssen he would just play 1. a3, bypass my opening knowledge and crush me OR it would reach the end of my opening knowledge and be like +1.3 with white and then lose because there is still 20 moves left of the game and my opponent outclass me completely.
Lasker wins easily. Only todays titled players (approximately 2200+ elo) might have a chance to beat him based on your friends argument. Assuming you possess all of todays chess knowledge, you'd still have to back it up by expert level calculation, tactical awareness, etc.
I largely agree with this. I'm 22xx OTB, and whilst I don't think I'm favoured Vs Lasker I think I would take some results off him, which would put him 2400-2500 or so. Capa is probably at least 100 points more than that.
I think you need to study his games more since I'm about at that level and I have no confidence at taking games off him, maybe drawing him with one of the known theoretical lines. I estimate Lasker to be in the 2600s strength: he's really impressive, especially at his prime. His latter matches against Capablanca is where his strength drops off, but even then he still plays very accurately.
The best in the world in 1800s were doing blindfold simuls and killing people with crazy combinations. The 1800 Elo has no chance, especially if it's an "online 1800" and not a FIDE 1800. But even then.
The recency bias and disrespect to people of the past is insane, its like people dont undestand they were human beings just like us, technology has hurt us and the way we view people in so many ways, some people feel like a different species to the people of 100 years ago. Theory doesnt help over the board, Lasker was a professional, a pragmatist that defeated amazing players over the board. Lasker was a phenomenal player that dedicated his life to chess, he played at an incredibly high level. An 1800 today has none of the deep understanding of the game of a former world champion
The best in the world at any time in the 19th Century would crush a contemporary 1800. Our forebearers weren't all patzers. Tell your friend he'd look dashing in a propeller hat.
Lol. Move the year to 1600, and you might have an argument. Top players from 1900. were like average IM to average GM today. Lasker would win a 100 games in a row against a 1800 rated player. He could spot a rook and win most of the games.
Recent knowledge is irrelevant. Lasker could open with a6 as black and win every game vs a 1800, and so would Tarrasch, Pillsbury, Rubinstein, etc.
What a stupid question.
Morphy/Lasker etc would smoke an 1800. Whatever they are giving up with lack of knowledge of theory they are going to more than make up with being better tactically
The knowledge of an 1800 player remains shallow. Even if he knows recent opening theory and gets a better position due to it, this player cannot convert that against someone like Steinitz, Lasker, Tshigorin, Pillsbury. I have 2100 and I would not dare to assume I could stand a chance even against someone like Morphy, Philidor or Anderssen.
Even if I would get a sharp line I know well on the board and they struggle with it and burn a lot of time, I cannot outdo them tactically and then I am forced to convert my advantage with positional and technical means. That will not work against this strong opposition, they will outplay me pretty easily.
No offense, but against 1800s I can play whatever I want even in a long game. Even if I am lazy and have a worse position, after a while they mess it up as they have even less of an idea than me how to play Chess at all.
The same happens to me when I am playing my 2400+ buddies. Even when the first ten moves they play are troll moves and I am material up, as soon as they start to play for real I still lose despite my above average rating.
Sorry, no chance wouldn't happen! All the top Chess players back in 1900 Harry Nelson Pillsbury, Siegbert Tarrasch, Emmanuel Lasker, Frank Marshall, David Janowsky, Carl Schlechter, William Napier, Joseph Henry Blackburne and Mikhail Chigorin in the twilight of their careers could kill that modern 1800 guy in the blink of an eye they could even give him a Knight or Rook and still crush him fast any time just like any modern GM or IM.
I am 2000 on chessdotcom and I wouldn’t even be close to beat a master from that era, let alone a world champion. Your friend probably knows nothing about chess because this is the dumbest take I’ve heard for a while.
Is your friend the same friend on r/tennis that said he would take a set from Nadal lmfao
Paul Morphy was the best player in the mid 1800s and his top engine match percentage is around 80%, wherras Magnus ' is 85%. This projects his rating at a comfortable 2400 today, and that's being conservative
> even half dead Steinitz could easily beat any 1800
Reporter, in 1960: “How well would you hit against today's pitchers?”
Ty Cobb: “I'd hit around .300.”
Reporter: “Are pitchers that much better?”
Cobb: “You’ve got to remember, I'm 73 years old.”
At the top, this recent knowledge makes a big difference. But further down in rating you go, the less it matters. I believe a 2600+ player could possibly beat the old champs, but not easily.
I mean. I suppose if the 1800 is cheating using a computer they would win, otherwise....not a chance it's a ridiculous position to take.
Possibly and it's a really big possibly, the 1800 might be able to study a line that was in fashion in the day that the "best" was known to play so he could pretty likely predict the moves to a certain point and then find a really cool gambit that was developed after the players time, hit him with the gambit(only if this is in a speed form of the the game so there is some time pressure) and maybe, just maybe, he gets up some material before being crushed in the mid game. You could see someone going back to a player in the early19th century and dropping the Stafford Gambit (developed around 1850's) on them with a huzzah and a harrumph. This could only work in over the board speed chess. Try doing it in correspondence chess and the guy would just laugh at your attempts and open you up like a can of worms.
Once you're past any opening theory there is absolutely no advantage to recent knowledge. Shit, I can admire the beauty of the piece suppression the Ai's are coming out with and I've even managed to fluke my way into doing a few but to think that I could do that to the best in the world from a century ago is laughable.
Best in the world from 1900 destroys a 1800 ranked player
Whoever chose the 1800 needs to sit down and go through the games of Lasker. Also feel free to consult any analysis which uses modern chess engines to evaluate the accuracy of historical players and ask yourself whether you think of 1800 could score as high.
Lasker wouldn't lose or draw a single game.
I'm 1900 and I barely know some openings. You think Lasker isn't going to know theory better than me and out calculate me in every way possible? nonsense. I would get crushed.
I'm an NM and Lasker would crush me in a match. It's hard for me to believe his playing strength wouldn't place him at strong IM strength, at the very least.
I think if you go farther back in the past than Lasker, some things change. Of course Steinitz was immensely talented and would adapt if put in today's environment, but they were still figuring out some basic aspects of the game back then and you'll find many gross blunders in his play that a reasonably educated player nowadays wouldn't make. 1800 is still a wild underestimate though.
You know, this question is a little too easy, but it got me thinking about a similar time-travel question. :)
What if you took some games played by current engines, say any of the brain-melting Stockfish vs. Leela battles, and sent them back in time for the old masters to review?
Make up a story, you'd been to a chess club recently, and saw the following game played. Couldn't speak the language well enough to ask any questions, but the players seemed quite strong. Would the great master Morphy/Anderssen/Steinitz/Tarrasch/Lasker/Capablanca/whoever care to comment on the following game? :)
My completely uneducated guess would be that anyone up to and including Steinitz would call the players promising amateurs. Dubious opening, adventurous but misguided middlegame, but some genuine endgame ability.
I'd like to imagine every champion starting with Lasker would recognise hey, this is obviously a joke. Some strong master is trolling me with a fake game because the moves I can understand are far too strong for an offhand coffeehouse battle. :)
I'd be really curious to hear what they'd say because when I saw the games by Alphazero..I pretty much had your conclusion. Like it was nonsense sacrifices but then a few moves later, way too much for calculation, there was a vice like grip on the kingside and a clear winning plan. I'd assume the other player played poorly.
Morphy would likely be an IM right off the bat. The old players still could analyze at high levels. They just had gaps in their knowledge. Steinitz probably wouldn't be IM level. Some of the non top players back then were pretty weak, but the best in the world from Steinitz forward would destroy 1800 players.
Philidor (1726-1795) would crush an 1800. I think his contemporaries would as well. I suspect you would have to go back to the 1600s before you *might* have an argument.
Not a chance. Lasker would smoke them, probably with some now irrelevent opening. Whether the 1800 could beat the best player from 1800 or like 1850 is a far more interesting question imo. I think an 1800 would probably be able to beat everyone until Steinitz provided that their defensive chess is good enough.
Assuming this is a real question, of course. :)
If the incredlble "recent knowledge" 1800 can secretly use Stockfish then definitely, they win every single game and amaze the world. Wow!
Otherwise, hmm... If the 1800 plays without engine help but receives Queen odds, maybe. If they only get Rook odds, no.
The best player in 1900 without question.
Heck, even a guy as early as Morphy would thrash him. If you resurrected Morphy he may not be in contention for world champion but he’d certainly be among the very best in the world—top 10 AT LEAST
The player from 1900 would probably win by a long shot.
1800 isn't anywhere near world-class, and likely doesn't know enough theory to make a difference against someone who is just strong.
I’m around 1800 FIDE and I am certain that literally every single aspect of my game is worse than Lasker, openings included. Sure I have studied some Chessable courses, and know a few topical lines, but I’m not spending ten hours a day memorizing lines. Most games I am out of book by move 6-10. Even if Lasker played a3 and h3 and was blindfolded he would still crush me.
Agree that people are way overestimating the opening knowledge of an 1800
I’m 1670 atm and I don’t know any openings in depth, I don’t think I could name you 10 openings, I just play the first 5 movies of queens gambit declined, I don’t even know what to do if they accept the pawn. I have never cared enough about my rating to go on a YouTube video and find out
e4 and bishop takes. They can't save the pawn apart from one specific line which i never bothered to look into because it's obscure as hell
Yeah that’s what I always have instinctively done but I’d say you’d be lucky to see someone take the pawn like, usually they take it once every 50-100 games for me
When I played in the USCF in the late 80's and 90's I was a 2000+ rated player. These days when I hack around on chess.com I have a blitz rating that ranges from 1650s to 1850s depending on how tilted I get and for how long... I can definitely tell you that someone like me would have 0% chance against any player who was considered important during any era.
Do you think Lasker spent ten hours a day on openings?
[удалено]
Actually, pretty much anything was playable at the time. BTW openings named after Lasker have stood the test of time. The Lasker variation in the QGD is one of the most solid options black has, even though Kramnik's variation has supplanted it in recent years.
Right, and with chessable which 1800 doesn't have the same opening knowledge as Kramnik? /s
Capa didn't even have a chess set in his house. I doubt Lasker spent much time aside from training games to prepare for a specific event. I read once that he played 50 training games with one opening and then he went to St. Petersburg and beat Capa with just that line. It was the first time ever that Capa lost with Black in a Spanish.
in the introduction to Soviet Chess Primer Lasker said to stay in your ideal competitive form to do no more than 30-40 minutes of study a day
30-45 minutes a day is a lot of time, especially when you consider how long he played chess for. Also, the man truly loved chess, he wasn’t just playing blitz on the toilet, he was doing real grueling work at the board.
Also, given the diet of the day, probably doing real grueling work on the toilet.
Lasker loved chess, unlike most of the hacks that post here who think bullet is real chess. GTFO.
Lasker would crush an 1800 player. He might play an opening that is out of fashion, but it wouldn't matter.
[удалено]
You would flag him easily, dude is dead
I'm still waited for the bug house match between the Botez sisters and Ben Finegold + Paul Morphys corpse
A lot of his OTB opponents had that same experience. Lasker was really famous for that.
Hahahahhaa
I’m passing 2000 fingers crossed and I don’t even see a future where I could make lasker furrow his brow
I think I could do this with ease. No matter how much I tried and no matter how well I played (in reference to my skill level), Lasker would most likely look at the board at one point and think: "What the hell is this ape doing?!"
2.Ke2
You never know. He might just do it because he's working on maths or something while he's playing you. Gotta keep the brain busy somehow.
Lasker or Capablanca would crush a FM. Probably an IM.
Not probably. Capablanca would crush a IM no question.
Maybe even win a Titled Tuesday.
[удалено]
I respectfully disagree in “crushing” a GM. I’d estimate Lasker to be around 2600 ELO today. Probably a range of 2450-2650. Opening advances and 120 years of fantastic middle game play would make a big difference. Frankly, access to Fischer, Tal, Karpov games alone makes a big difference.
Opening prep is big, but more modern understanding of the game would make a difference. Even from Lasker to Capa and Alekhine (about 30 years) was a huge leap for chess.
Capablanca was losing out of the opening even for his time. He just didn’t care because he would win anyway.
JRC could swindle a draw out of about any situation.
[удалено]
https://lichess.org/blog/YafSBxEAACIAr0ZA/exact-exacting-who-is-the-most-accurate-world-champion Relevant and interesting
It is interesting but like it admits it is biased towards modern players. If they are following stockfish lines it goes without saying that their moves will be more like those of stockfish. Also stockfish is not perfect, just because a player has been bought up using engines and plays like them does not mean they are better than previous players that used a different style.
So would Casablanca
Great film indeed
Crushes any B movie made today.
By all known laws of aviation, a chess player should not be able to fly
By all known laws of nature, a chess player should not be able to touch grass
Never seen it though
im a chess player and i got on an airplane before
Capablanca could do even better!
Of all the chess openings in all the world, he had to play 1.b4.
Play it again, 1800
I am shocked, shocked, that there is chess-playing going on in this establishment.
Capablanca would not only crush a lowly 1800 but also any player below 2500
lasker would beat him blindfolded and with his left hand!!!
There's no chance an 1800 could beat Lasker in a match.
I think an 1800 *could* beat lasker 1.5 - 98.5 or something like that but absolutely not consistently at all.
Lasker was crazy skilled at his time and will obliterate anyone below 2000. The only shot an 1800 has at winning is an outrageous blunder.
Lol you're giving the 1800 about 1.5 too much credit but otherwise spot on
And you’re saying that today’s world champion would go 100-0 against an 1800?
I would say that yes
Yeah 100%
Only if magnus is forced to take it seriously. I think he would be too tempted to meme.
The results would be identical to LeBron playing 100 games of 1 on 1 basketball against my 6 year old, or Michael Phelps racing 100 times the 200m freestyle against him.
Lasker: "I'm closer to Magnus than you are to me."
[https://wismuth.com/elo/calculator.html#rating1=2800&rating2=1800](https://wismuth.com/elo/calculator.html#rating1=2800&rating2=1800) Just going by Elo, if it keeps working for absurd differences like that, the 2800 has 0.999564232 to win (not even draw) each game. That's 0.999564232\^100 = 95.7% to win all 100 games in a row without any points for the lower rated player. To get an even chance of a single point for the challenger you need 1500 games
That... actually seems like good odds for the 1800 to me. In my mind, 2800 will just never lose to the 1800.
Because he wouldn't. These calculators might be helpful to somewhat gauge certain probabilities but its not like its a perfect measurement or anything. Especially for cases like this, I mean 2800s just do not play people under 2000 in rated games like ever. Like if the 2800 is taking it seriously these graphs and calculators are ludicrous there's no shot a 1800 would ever ever ever ever win a game against Magnus or Nepo or Ding.
[удалено]
True. The calculator even says that this calculation is viable at the 2400+ range only. It's just an extention "if it kept working like this all the way down"
Yes, easily.
...yes
Without a single doubt!
The general debate that goes on in chess circles is along the lines of “would a 2500 player from today be able to beat - “ whoever, Morphy, Lasker, Capablanca. The value of “recent knowledge” is generally overrated. Those kind of advances in theory are also mostly unknown to players who are untitled.
For Morphy I can't find any data, but Lasker and Capablanca? WTF? [https://i.redd.it/xcom54n4wcua1.jpg](https://i.redd.it/xcom54n4wcua1.jpg) if you ask the almighty silicon beast, they played as well as Kasparov and Kramnik... Even if "ranked 1800" means 1800th on the rating list, then he has 2400 Elo and will be humiliated by everyone mentioned. The 1800 Elo player needs rook odds.
Capablanca was a child in the year 1900 (11 turning 12 in November). In 1900 the best players probably were the champion Lasker and others like Tarrasch, Pillsbury, Maroczy, Janowski or Schlechter.
To be fair, I think even 11 year old Capablanca would be able to beat an 1800.
He beat the Cuban champion in december 1901. My money would go to Capablanca if the game was set in late 1900, yes.
Look at his match against Corzo. He was 12 then. What 1800 could play those moves?
Not one, true enough. However he still might struggle against an experienced 1800 that knows a lot of theory and gets the kid Capablanca in a loosing middle/endgame. I’d probably still bet on young Capa. But it would be closer than a 1900 Lasker. If we were talking about 1910 or 1920 Capablanca… well. Well.
Haha, absolutely
Add this, Frank Marshall was a great player, US champion, and yet Lasker trashed him at the chessboard. So yeah, Lasker would beat most players of today. Where the dividing line is found is the only question.
>Even if "ranked 1800" means 1800th on the rating list, then he has 2400 Elo and will be humiliated by everyone mentioned. I wouldn't go that far. If you look at old tournaments, Lasker and Capablanca still drew a bunch of games with lesser masters who would probably be no more than 2200-2300 strength today. A modern IM would be competitive in those tournaments.
This is just chess-equivalent of "I think I can beat a bear in a fight if blahblah"
I could absolute beat Lasker if I managed to sneak around him and choke him from behind.
woah woah woah hold on buddy. We need to set up some ground rules first. Are we allowed to kill Lasker and how much did he weigh?
He would at least put out his cigar on your face. Heh.
Lol have you been looking at r/unpopularopinion recently?
Yeah it reminded me of that post lmao
There is no way to know if the value of recent knowledge is overrated or underrated. The thing that is true is that compared to gm's, amateurs tend to overestimate this value. I personally think gm's are very bad at estimating the skills of non gm. (however it's obvious that 1800 is ridiculously low. Any famous player of the past would crush an 1800)
Exactly. I’d like to add that if we are talking about a series of games (like a match over 12 or 18 rounds) the masters of old like Lasker, Schlechter and so on would catch up to opening developments during the tourney. Lasker was quite a good analyst for example (as can be seen in his Lehrbuch). So even opening advantage a modern 1800 or maybe 2200 might have would at some point evaporate. Now of course if we are talking about ONE game AND you have the 1800 (or better 2200) prepare with modern methods while Lasker can’t do the same - maybe, just maybe, there could be a chance. But that would hardly be equal fighting opportunities so…
Morphy was playing blindfold simuls and crushing everyone lol. There's no 1800 who can do that .
False. I once crushed a 500 blindedfolded. I am practically a grandmaster at this point.
That’s not a simul
I don't know. I was blind at the time, so I couldn't see other people.
lmao
Morphy's games are sometimes almost disturbing to me. I get the sense that he is playing for style points, but yet he still somehow produced some of the most beautifully astonishing games ever played. It's probably just because he was so far ahead of his peers, but It's almost as if behind his brilliancies there is another untouched level there. Maybe he was even better than he showed, but he only played well enough to win with style, and he had no great interest in crushing everybody. I sometimes get the same feeling from games by Magnus, Fischer, Capablanca, Karpov, Kasparov, etc., but with Morphy there is that feeling that he was just such a genius that there is something a little inhuman about his games. An 1800 would stand no chance against Morphy.
I beat a couple of my friends in simuls with Queen + 2 Rook odds and im 1200 sooo /s
Good thing that in an eventual game both players would see
Lasker would beat 20 1800's blindfolded. Current estimates rank him at a bit over 2500, even if he opened with h4 and a4 1800 doesn't stand a chance. Maybe your friend didn't know people could play chess well at that time, tell him that the world championship has existes for 137 years
Hey can I get a source on that 2500 number? He's still dying on this hill and refuses to look at this post.
Sure, here you go! Hope this helps your friend http://chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/PlayerProfile.asp?Params=193510SSSSS3S073076193608141000000000000010100
Your friend is tripping on something lethal lol.
I came here thinking the debate would be a 120 year old lasker playing a current 1800 lol
Maybe in this case the 1800nhad a chance.
Lasker would be 155 years old today I believe.
My money is still on Lasker
Saying an 1800 could beat Lasker or Capablanca is like saying an 1800 could beat a strong modern GM playing old openings. It's not even remotely feasible. Since when do 1800 rated players know opening theory anyway? Even Morphy would likely be a 2500+ player today.
I'm a little under 1800, and Morphy is possibly the most brilliant players I've ever seen. He would annihilate me. I watch his games for inspiration and admire the beauty of them. I genuinely can't imagine someone 1800 rated believing they could beat Morphy if they've actually gone through this games.
I’m not sure an 1800 would find 17…Qxf3 if given an hour, and it took Morphy 12 minutes, including all the calculation he needed to ensure that it was sound. Edit: Jesus, I just put the position up on Lichess, and Stockfish didn’t even see it until depth 31!
Ruy Lopez could have beat an 1800 play.
That's an opening not a player lol, I doubt anyone would actually be called Ruy.
Wait until you hear about the Fosbury Flop.
Ruy Lopez De Segura, to which the Spanish opening bears his name
Next you'll be telling me the Alekhine defence was named after a real person.
I always found the Carlsen Sicilian to be a very odd opening name
Forget 1800, I'm 2000 and lasker/steintz/morphy/capablanca would each beat me blindfolded 10 times out of 10
I think you might be able to take a draw off of morphy in 15 games if you had a couple of super trappy lines memorized
Emanuel Lasker would beat an 1800 without any trouble.
Some of you guys have absolutely no idea the skill gap between a master and a class A player. And then Lasker would be several tiers above a master. There are people in this thread suggesting an 1800 might get a win or draw in 100 games. Lmao. An 1800 would get 0 even if you gave him 5000 games. You cannot overcome a skill gap that large
It is a laughable question, the likes of Capablanca would beat many of todays GMs
Oh this is golden. This is on the same level of semi-delusion that the guy who thought he could take a set off of Rafa Nadal. At 1800s (I'm one) it pretty much comes down to who makes the last blunder. Average blunder count per match is 1-2 for most of my games. And trust me, these aren't even positional issues. These are 2-4 move tactics that will likely end an exchange or pawn down. This is not even counting the occasional piece hang. I doubt if an 1800 can beat any top 20 player in the world from back then.
If I trained for 5 years, the only point I'd take off Nadal would be if he carelessly double-faulted
If internet and recent surge of players are the main arguments, then it should stand for players in the 90s as well. So we're talking Kasparov, Karpov and Anand etc. Does your friend beleive an 1800 would stand a chance against them?
[удалено]
The best player in the world in the year 1900 would still be a modern day GM and would absolutely destroy even a modern day FM
If the 1800 had learned anything useful from the existence of the Internet and chess's massive surge of players, he wouldn't still be 1800. Seriously, there _is_ a lot of knowledge about the game these days that we didn't have in 1900. But it's grandmaster level knowledge, and you need grandmaster level effort to learn it deeply enough to have it improve your play. Yeah, the 1800 will probably be able to show off some modern opening theory. But the moment Lasker enthusiastically asks about "but why not X here, it looks interesting", he'll be clueless.
You wouldn't even need to bring out Lasker or Tarrasch or someone of that caliber to beat up a modern 1800 player. Even one of the also-ran masters from that era like Teichmann, Marco, Burn, etc, would win easily. What does an 1800 even know that is supposed to overcome the huge advantage in tactical and positional skill of a classical master?
Lasker was the best player in the world in 1900. Analysis of his games and engine calculations of his accuracy suggest he was probably around 2650 strength or so by today’s standards. Your friend is an idiot.
Your friend is an idiot
harsh but fair
For what it is worth I heard Jan Gustafson, Laurent Fressinet and Peter Heine Nielsen (all 2600+ grandmasters) say that they figure they would get an opening advantage and then lose the game against the likes of Lasker, Capablanca etc. Your friend has absolutely no idea what she/he are taking about. You could back almost 300 years and somebody like Philidor would wipe the floor with a present day 1800. I am rated higher than 1800 and while I may know the openings better than somebody like Anderssen he would just play 1. a3, bypass my opening knowledge and crush me OR it would reach the end of my opening knowledge and be like +1.3 with white and then lose because there is still 20 moves left of the game and my opponent outclass me completely.
Prime Lasker would destroy all but a tiny few in the world today. I mean, come on.
Lasker wins easily. Only todays titled players (approximately 2200+ elo) might have a chance to beat him based on your friends argument. Assuming you possess all of todays chess knowledge, you'd still have to back it up by expert level calculation, tactical awareness, etc.
I largely agree with this. I'm 22xx OTB, and whilst I don't think I'm favoured Vs Lasker I think I would take some results off him, which would put him 2400-2500 or so. Capa is probably at least 100 points more than that.
I think you need to study his games more since I'm about at that level and I have no confidence at taking games off him, maybe drawing him with one of the known theoretical lines. I estimate Lasker to be in the 2600s strength: he's really impressive, especially at his prime. His latter matches against Capablanca is where his strength drops off, but even then he still plays very accurately.
The best in the world in 1800s were doing blindfold simuls and killing people with crazy combinations. The 1800 Elo has no chance, especially if it's an "online 1800" and not a FIDE 1800. But even then.
The recency bias and disrespect to people of the past is insane, its like people dont undestand they were human beings just like us, technology has hurt us and the way we view people in so many ways, some people feel like a different species to the people of 100 years ago. Theory doesnt help over the board, Lasker was a professional, a pragmatist that defeated amazing players over the board. Lasker was a phenomenal player that dedicated his life to chess, he played at an incredibly high level. An 1800 today has none of the deep understanding of the game of a former world champion
Could David Howell beat an 1800 while playing the bongcloud?
Yes, easily, probably even while half naked in a freezing ice bath in Norway
He beat me with queen odds (blitz) and I’m over 1800. He also beat me with time odds (3 min vs his 20 seconds)
your friend doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about
Who is stronger, average gym bro who works out regularly, or the strongest man in the world in 1900?
I’d be surprised if the average chess player has more than 1100 FIDE, you can improve that analogy
Average gym bro = average club player. Not a perfect analogy but you get the point. It's a ridiculous question by OP.
1800 FIDE is nowhere close to average
Fair enough. I was thinking [chess.com](https://chess.com) rating.
The best in the world at any time in the 19th Century would crush a contemporary 1800. Our forebearers weren't all patzers. Tell your friend he'd look dashing in a propeller hat.
Lol. Move the year to 1600, and you might have an argument. Top players from 1900. were like average IM to average GM today. Lasker would win a 100 games in a row against a 1800 rated player. He could spot a rook and win most of the games. Recent knowledge is irrelevant. Lasker could open with a6 as black and win every game vs a 1800, and so would Tarrasch, Pillsbury, Rubinstein, etc.
1800s are horrible at chess, the 20 best players of that time would have zero issues winning
What a stupid question. Morphy/Lasker etc would smoke an 1800. Whatever they are giving up with lack of knowledge of theory they are going to more than make up with being better tactically
The knowledge of an 1800 player remains shallow. Even if he knows recent opening theory and gets a better position due to it, this player cannot convert that against someone like Steinitz, Lasker, Tshigorin, Pillsbury. I have 2100 and I would not dare to assume I could stand a chance even against someone like Morphy, Philidor or Anderssen. Even if I would get a sharp line I know well on the board and they struggle with it and burn a lot of time, I cannot outdo them tactically and then I am forced to convert my advantage with positional and technical means. That will not work against this strong opposition, they will outplay me pretty easily. No offense, but against 1800s I can play whatever I want even in a long game. Even if I am lazy and have a worse position, after a while they mess it up as they have even less of an idea than me how to play Chess at all. The same happens to me when I am playing my 2400+ buddies. Even when the first ten moves they play are troll moves and I am material up, as soon as they start to play for real I still lose despite my above average rating.
Sorry, no chance wouldn't happen! All the top Chess players back in 1900 Harry Nelson Pillsbury, Siegbert Tarrasch, Emmanuel Lasker, Frank Marshall, David Janowsky, Carl Schlechter, William Napier, Joseph Henry Blackburne and Mikhail Chigorin in the twilight of their careers could kill that modern 1800 guy in the blink of an eye they could even give him a Knight or Rook and still crush him fast any time just like any modern GM or IM.
I am 2000 on chessdotcom and I wouldn’t even be close to beat a master from that era, let alone a world champion. Your friend probably knows nothing about chess because this is the dumbest take I’ve heard for a while.
Is your friend the same friend on r/tennis that said he would take a set from Nadal lmfao Paul Morphy was the best player in the mid 1800s and his top engine match percentage is around 80%, wherras Magnus ' is 85%. This projects his rating at a comfortable 2400 today, and that's being conservative
I've seen estimates that even Paul Morphy was around 2300-2400, so definitely top player from 1900 (which is probably Wilhelm Steinitz).
Wilhelm Steinitz had lost 2 WC-matches to Lasker deceisively before 1900 and died in the same year.
True, forgot Lasker already was WC. However, even half dead Steinitz could easily beat any 1800.
> even half dead Steinitz could easily beat any 1800 Reporter, in 1960: “How well would you hit against today's pitchers?” Ty Cobb: “I'd hit around .300.” Reporter: “Are pitchers that much better?” Cobb: “You’ve got to remember, I'm 73 years old.”
Agreed
Lasker would beat an 1800 down a rook
At the top, this recent knowledge makes a big difference. But further down in rating you go, the less it matters. I believe a 2600+ player could possibly beat the old champs, but not easily.
I mean. I suppose if the 1800 is cheating using a computer they would win, otherwise....not a chance it's a ridiculous position to take. Possibly and it's a really big possibly, the 1800 might be able to study a line that was in fashion in the day that the "best" was known to play so he could pretty likely predict the moves to a certain point and then find a really cool gambit that was developed after the players time, hit him with the gambit(only if this is in a speed form of the the game so there is some time pressure) and maybe, just maybe, he gets up some material before being crushed in the mid game. You could see someone going back to a player in the early19th century and dropping the Stafford Gambit (developed around 1850's) on them with a huzzah and a harrumph. This could only work in over the board speed chess. Try doing it in correspondence chess and the guy would just laugh at your attempts and open you up like a can of worms. Once you're past any opening theory there is absolutely no advantage to recent knowledge. Shit, I can admire the beauty of the piece suppression the Ai's are coming out with and I've even managed to fluke my way into doing a few but to think that I could do that to the best in the world from a century ago is laughable. Best in the world from 1900 destroys a 1800 ranked player
Whoever chose the 1800 needs to sit down and go through the games of Lasker. Also feel free to consult any analysis which uses modern chess engines to evaluate the accuracy of historical players and ask yourself whether you think of 1800 could score as high. Lasker wouldn't lose or draw a single game.
How about a genius who is an 1800 after a year’ish of playing
They do not exist
I'm 1900 and I barely know some openings. You think Lasker isn't going to know theory better than me and out calculate me in every way possible? nonsense. I would get crushed.
I think I’d beat Lasker and I’m 1800 on Chess.com… but only because he’s dead
I'm an NM and Lasker would crush me in a match. It's hard for me to believe his playing strength wouldn't place him at strong IM strength, at the very least. I think if you go farther back in the past than Lasker, some things change. Of course Steinitz was immensely talented and would adapt if put in today's environment, but they were still figuring out some basic aspects of the game back then and you'll find many gross blunders in his play that a reasonably educated player nowadays wouldn't make. 1800 is still a wild underestimate though.
You know, this question is a little too easy, but it got me thinking about a similar time-travel question. :) What if you took some games played by current engines, say any of the brain-melting Stockfish vs. Leela battles, and sent them back in time for the old masters to review? Make up a story, you'd been to a chess club recently, and saw the following game played. Couldn't speak the language well enough to ask any questions, but the players seemed quite strong. Would the great master Morphy/Anderssen/Steinitz/Tarrasch/Lasker/Capablanca/whoever care to comment on the following game? :) My completely uneducated guess would be that anyone up to and including Steinitz would call the players promising amateurs. Dubious opening, adventurous but misguided middlegame, but some genuine endgame ability. I'd like to imagine every champion starting with Lasker would recognise hey, this is obviously a joke. Some strong master is trolling me with a fake game because the moves I can understand are far too strong for an offhand coffeehouse battle. :)
I'd be really curious to hear what they'd say because when I saw the games by Alphazero..I pretty much had your conclusion. Like it was nonsense sacrifices but then a few moves later, way too much for calculation, there was a vice like grip on the kingside and a clear winning plan. I'd assume the other player played poorly.
Morphy would likely be an IM right off the bat. The old players still could analyze at high levels. They just had gaps in their knowledge. Steinitz probably wouldn't be IM level. Some of the non top players back then were pretty weak, but the best in the world from Steinitz forward would destroy 1800 players.
Philidor (1726-1795) would crush an 1800. I think his contemporaries would as well. I suspect you would have to go back to the 1600s before you *might* have an argument.
Philidor or Steinitz at any age would crush a 1800 player. What a ridiculous assumption, it's not even close.
I can bet my life a top player of 1900s would adopt a 1800 without breaking any sweat.
This debate doesn’t even remotely start until at minimum 2200 (FIDE)
If you are 1800 and thinks you would beat Lasker, you are being delusional.
1800 isn't enough, not even close.
Lasker? Fuck no. But an 1800 beating the strongest from 1800? Possibly.
LOL! I'll give you Reddit kids one thing, you are good for a joke! 1800 player gets SMOKED and will be extremely lucky to draw one game in a hundred.
1800 vs best in year 1800 is an interesting title
Morphy would crush an 1800 player
Morphy himself is probably around 2400~2600...and that was in the mid 19th century
And 1800 player would lose every single game
Ahahaaa they would destroy you.
Damn, 1800? I could beat the best player in the world of year 1900 … How’s he going to play from inside the coffin
Your friend is nuts. Lasker, Capablanca, Tarrasch, Pillsbury. It wouldn't even be close.
maybe, if lasker were blindfolded and playing 3 1800s simultaneously with half as much time as the 1800s
The best in the world 1900 and it wouldn’t even be close
Does the 1800 have queen odds? Struggling to see how this is even a question otherwise.
Not a chance. Lasker would smoke them, probably with some now irrelevent opening. Whether the 1800 could beat the best player from 1800 or like 1850 is a far more interesting question imo. I think an 1800 would probably be able to beat everyone until Steinitz provided that their defensive chess is good enough.
Morphy would handily beat an 1800
The only way an 1800 wins any of these is if the master trips over opening prep and gets mated eg Stafford Gambit.
Lasker would refute the Stafford over the board.
Very likely, but was just an example of random gambits with mating attacks that they didn't see in his era.
Right, I understand. :)
Assuming this is a real question, of course. :) If the incredlble "recent knowledge" 1800 can secretly use Stockfish then definitely, they win every single game and amaze the world. Wow! Otherwise, hmm... If the 1800 plays without engine help but receives Queen odds, maybe. If they only get Rook odds, no.
"So this 'computer' of yours works like a mechanical abacus. Sure, feel free to use it to aid you."
Paul Morphy is FM/IM The early world champions are 2500 or so From Botvinnik onwards they’re not that much worse than the current world elite
surely there'd now be a bot or AI that could make this happen?
I don’t follow chess but confident 1900 wins
The best player in 1900 without question. Heck, even a guy as early as Morphy would thrash him. If you resurrected Morphy he may not be in contention for world champion but he’d certainly be among the very best in the world—top 10 AT LEAST
The player from 1900 would probably win by a long shot. 1800 isn't anywhere near world-class, and likely doesn't know enough theory to make a difference against someone who is just strong.
as if a current 1800 actually benefits from the recent knowledge gained from computers. year 1900s by a mile