Are today’s chess champions better than those of 100 years ago?
This question is asked by the Guardian.
Are chess players getting better? Would the world champions of recent times defeat those of, say, a century ago?
What is your opinion?
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
Yes, no way
Nakamura can beat all of them back then with his eyes shut.
Of course they are. Not because their skills are better, but because they have greater knowlege. The opening theory is improved so are the strategies and plans of the game. Also the modern tecnology helps. Huge database and stuff. I clearly believe that Carlsen, Anand, Caruana, Kramnik, Aronian and other top GMs could beat Laskaer, Capablanca, Alehine, Reti or Nimzo.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
More advanced in Opening Theory resulting in most favorable positions and decisive results? Yes, today’s players are better.
But are they better players in terms of expertise and technique? For instance are rook and pawn endgames better understood now than fifty years ago? Is the technique handling two bishops better understood? Probably not.
Also, players of the past didn’t have the advantages in terms of better physical training, diet, and travel today’s players had which factor into performance.
The real question is if you set Capablanca and Carlsen down at 100 theoretically even positions neither got to choose and had them play 100 times who win more? That takes out the advantage in opening theory that modern players have.
I think today’s players are better because in almost all endeavors civilization tends to improve. But whether the elite is demonstrably better is debatable.
It would be no contest. I don’t think the champions of 50-100 years ago could beat any player in today’s top 500. Today’s players have a huge advantage in opening knowledge that yesteryear’s champions would need years of study to overcome.
Raw talentwise, I don’t doubt Capablanca, Lasker, or Alekhine compare favorably to anyone, but chess at the highest levels aren’t won with just raw talent.
Capablanca chess understanding can maybe be reached by Carlsen nowadays. Current top players still make a lot of mistakes in endings compared with Capa, and if you take account of computer lackness 100 years ago, not few of us would agree that Capablanca was a kind of chess god! Habemus Capam?
Nakamura will beat them all simultaneously. It is going to be 200 – 0.
Link below to the article in the Gaurdian mentioned in the opener for this subject.
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/sep/10/chess-champions-better-100-year-ago
The best attempt to answer questions of this type is chess engine analysis of the games of the great players. What is the average deviation from what the chess engine thinks is the best move? The last I saw was Houdini thinks the best chess player of all time is Magnus Carlsen.
MagCar is undoubtly the most consistent, brilliant and accurate player of all times. The chess powers he possesses today will beat any player in any multiple (4, 6 or…) match. Of course you can draw him, of course he’ll lose a game sometimes, but overall, he will win. He is so strong!
For those who will replay the games of Aljechin or Capa by Houdini or Fritz will see it’s full of inaccurancies! Loads! Inaccurate by them, but even more full of blunders by their opponents. They were way ahead their contestors.
Morphy was way ahead his contemporaries. He was in his era brilliant and accurate, compared to contemporaries. Like the very young prodegy Reshevsky was at his time, at the age of 4! But MagCar or FabFab (among lots of other SGM of today) would make them cry like a baby.
This evolution continued. Steinitz, Lasker, Capa, Aljechin, Botwinnik, Smyslov, Petro, Spassky, Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov, Kramnik, Anand… It’s logical. By studying past games, you learn where the improvements are.
But, the knowledge of the game, gets greater by every game that’s played. The one who understands (analyzes) and memorizes these games the best, creates all kinds of little advantages, tiny details that matter at the end. Note: at a certain age, the brain loses his strength in memorizing and understanding, becomes less flexible! But that’s a different aspect.
So, yes, of course players are better today, but not all. MagCar and maybe we can add FabFab as clear second, is way ahead the field in understanding, analyzing and memorizing chess. He is so accurate, it’s just hard to beat him.
MagCar (and FabFab will most certainly experience this from now on) is so high ranked, that eventhough he doesn’t lose a game, his rating drops cause he draws. Cause based on statistics, he is expected to win! But it’s really hard to win a game when facing SGM’s whom play in 99% top 5 moves. That makes it very difficult. A draw is more likely, dropping points.
So what happens when MagCar plays 7 draws, loses 1 game and wins 2 games? It’s still a big achievement! ELO expected better! Suddenly, according to those who think they know chess but yet only watching from great distance, MagCar “has lost” it.
People just don’t understand what it takes to get near to ELO 2800, and then RETAIN it (let alone near ELO 2900). It’s about consistently making a high percentage of ‘best moves’, which is based on accuracy. Do be able to do so you need to possess high quality skills. And the fact is that nowadays we have MORE SGM’s whom are able to make MORE percentage of ‘best moves’.
Most players are defenately better then those 50 yrs ago. But most of those who played 50 yrs ago, were defenately better then those who played 100 yrs ago.
All though, has to be seen in perspective. Every champion was a great champion in his era. But which champion is the champion of all champions? Is there something that can be said about it? Yes, in my opinion. Magnus Carlsen is without any doubt the best ever! Just because of the fact that he knows/understands what all predecessors know, and way more! He’s ahead the whole field. To me, he’s proven it over and over.
And this knowledge does not apply to everyone. To put some comparisons in perspective: I doubt if Nakamura would beat Fischer in a 12 games match.
I doubt if Ivanchuk would do so to Smyslov. I doubt if Korchnoi would do so to Aljechin. I doubt if Karpov would do to Botwinnik. I doubt if Anand would do to Spassky. I doubt if Topolov would do to Keres.
The only one i do not doubt is MagCar. Not in the form he’s in now. And he will grow in strength. And he will be the first to break the ELO 2900 within 3 yrs. Mark my words!
DMG
Alekhine once listed some ‘great artists of the game of chess’ (in Sosonko ‘The World Champions I knew’, p.42): Morphy, Steinitz, Pillsbury, and … guess who? Minckwitz. Who?! So, he lost a lot of games (though on occasions beat Anderssen, Steinitz, Zukertort, Paulsen, Lange, Blackburne, Mieses, De Vere, Chigorin, Tarrasch), didn’t win any tournaments, but Alekhine liked the way he played. Chess should be played for imagination and creativity and ‘art’, not results, or a lucrative career, or education, or mere ‘accuracy’.
Wikipedia has an article on this subject and some people have put erroneous statements above. Computer analysis shows these as best most accurate players: Fischer, Capablanca, Kasparov, Kramnik, Karpov. It seems to me the best showing is Fischer’s 125 rating advantage over the second best player. Kasparov only was 85 points above and Magnus has only been 66 points above. I think this shows who was more dominant but let us not forget Morphy! Opening knowledge aside, I think Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Botvinnik, Smylov, Tal, Spassky, Fischer, Karpov and Kasparov played chess better than today’s players. I am talking about the middle and endgames. It could be due to the time controls used then compared to today that accounts for the innacurate play of the modern players. But to say that any of the top ten of today play better chess than the giants of the past is foolish. I play over all of the games with Houdini and I must say, the players in the past, such as Fischer 1970-1972, or Capablanca, Alekhine 1930-1932, played a lot more accurate chess than any of today’s players do. To make conclusions without empirical data to back up your data is foolish and unscientific. Fabiano had one great tournament and we will have to see if he can keep up playing at the level. As we have seen, this year Magnus has not kept up his playing level as he did in the last couple of years. Perhaps the other players have figured out his style and weaknesses and are playing better against him. To stay untop and dominate your peers is the evidence that you are the best and in my opinion no one has done this better than Fischer, Kasparov, Capablanca, Alekhine, Lasker and Morhpy.
One last comment, at least for me, on the subject of the hagiography of Magnus Carlsen. For a young man he has undoubtedly accomplished a great deal. But he is a young man and has yet to establish any dominance over the totality of his competition that Fischer, Kasparov, or even Karpov demonstrated in their long careers.
Again he is young, and time may very well be on his side in this regard. But instead of imagining a career like Kasparov, what about one like Tal or Smyslov. Both who defeated a champion perceived as old, predictable, and past his prime? Both who lost rematches for the WCC? Both who are considered great, but who never scaled the heights they were expected once the titled had been achieved?
I’m not predicting he losses to Anand. I am saying this. He is young and his career is in front of him. There is no guarantee that it wil continue with the same trajectory or dominance we see now. Too assume it will is assuming too much. As this last tournament and the Olympiad showed he is human and can be beaten.
Without any doubt players from this time have evolved. That brings the “time machine question”. What would happen if Capablanca, Lasker etc had all the chess engines we have in modern times? Would they be better than the current top players?
The question is not whether today’s players are “better” than those of the past. To say this would be as if we opined that Picasso was a “better” painter than Rubens, or Philip Roth a “better” novelist than Charles Dickens. Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca et al. were the giants of their time; Fischer, Spassky et al. the giants of theirs. And so it goes on.
I dont think that todays players are better. Sure they are better prepared and spend more time memorysing variations, but thats about it, I still dont see anyone today who play better than Capablanca, Alekhine or Lasker, for example. No way. those masters understood what was going on on the board, today they learn it to understand. Sure there are great great players today also, but not better than those of the past!!!