Fischer or Lasker

"is it true?"

The Chess historian Edward Winter investigated this:
https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/grandmasters.html
If the Czar conferred the title or not, it remains there were 5 in 1914 and 1296 now.

"is it true?" * The Chess historian Edward Winter investigated this: https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/grandmasters.html If the Czar conferred the title or not, it remains there were 5 in 1914 and 1296 now.

kindaspongey edited

@KMcGeoch said in #25:

Actually I'd take chessmetrics calculations with a grain of salt. I'll give few reasons to show why

... 2. In a closed pool ratings don't reflect playing strength but instead reflect results between them. ...

@tpr said in @26:

... Top players are no closed pool: they interact with each other globally. It may well be that a 1500 player in India is stronger than a 1500 player in Germany, but at the top there is enough interaction. ...

I do not think that there has been much interaction between 1911 players and 2026 players.

@ILikeBlitz said in #27:

... The story about 5 grandmasters named by the tzar is well-known, but is it true? I heard that it was first mentioned in Marshall's book decades later, and that it wasn't very reliable. (If it were so, it would've been mentioned much more often in chess press of 1910's and 1920's, wouldn't it?) ...

@tpr said in #31:

... If the Czar conferred the title or not, it remains there were 5 in 1914 and ...

It has been a long time since I read about this, but, if I remember correctly, the Marshall book mentioned a postcard from Marshall that told somebody about Czar-recognition of GMs.

It strikes me as likely that SOMETHING happened, but nothing that was regarded as of any great significance at the time. Nobody found any accounts, at the time, mentioning that the Czar was even there.

My guess is that, at the time, somebody made a statement, supposedly on behalf of the Czar, expressing congratulations to the grandmasters of chess.

Earlier uses of the GM term have been found.

@KMcGeoch said in #25: > Actually I'd take chessmetrics calculations with a grain of salt. I'll give few reasons to show why > > ... 2. In a closed pool ratings don't reflect playing strength but instead reflect results between them. ... @tpr said in @26: > ... Top players are no closed pool: they interact with each other globally. It may well be that a 1500 player in India is stronger than a 1500 player in Germany, but at the top there is enough interaction. ... I do not think that there has been much interaction between 1911 players and 2026 players. @ILikeBlitz said in #27: > ... The story about 5 grandmasters named by the tzar is well-known, but is it true? I heard that it was first mentioned in Marshall's book decades later, and that it wasn't very reliable. (If it were so, it would've been mentioned much more often in chess press of 1910's and 1920's, wouldn't it?) ... @tpr said in #31: > ... If the Czar conferred the title or not, it remains there were 5 in 1914 and ... It has been a long time since I read about this, but, if I remember correctly, the Marshall book mentioned a postcard from Marshall that told somebody about Czar-recognition of GMs. It strikes me as likely that SOMETHING happened, but nothing that was regarded as of any great significance at the time. Nobody found any accounts, at the time, mentioning that the Czar was even there. My guess is that, at the time, somebody made a statement, supposedly on behalf of the Czar, expressing congratulations to the grandmasters of chess. Earlier uses of the GM term have been found.

tpr

"I do not think that there has been much interaction between 1911 players and 2026 players."

The Morphy number of most top 2026 players is 5 or 4.
That means they interacted through 4 (Anand) or 5 (Carlsen, Gukesh, Sindarov) steps i.e. games back to Morphy prior to 1859.

"I do not think that there has been much interaction between 1911 players and 2026 players." * The Morphy number of most top 2026 players is 5 or 4. That means they interacted through 4 (Anand) or 5 (Carlsen, Gukesh, Sindarov) steps i.e. games back to Morphy prior to 1859.

lizani

So the title was already applied in the 19th century without a precise definition. I have a copy of Marshall's 'My fifty years of chess' where he mentions St Petersburg 1914 'It was at this tournament that the Tsar of Russia conferred on each of the five finalists the title "Grandmaster of Chess".' Since the term was already used in earlier events eg Ostend 1907 we should not attach any significance to the Tsar's award or his authority to bestow one. FIDE created the grandmaster title we recognise in 1950.

From that fount of knowledge, Wikipedia 'The first known use of the term grandmaster in connection with chess was in the 18 February 1838 issue of Bell's Life, in which a correspondent referred to William Lewis as "our past grandmaster". Subsequently, George Walker and others referred to Philidor as a grandmaster, and the term was also applied to a few other players.' So the title was already applied in the 19th century without a precise definition. I have a copy of Marshall's 'My fifty years of chess' where he mentions St Petersburg 1914 'It was at this tournament that the Tsar of Russia conferred on each of the five finalists the title "Grandmaster of Chess".' Since the term was already used in earlier events eg Ostend 1907 we should not attach any significance to the Tsar's award or his authority to bestow one. FIDE created the grandmaster title we recognise in 1950.

kindaspongey edited

@tpr said in #33:

... The Morphy number of most top 2026 players is 5 or 4.
That means they interacted through 4 (Anand) or 5 (Carlsen, Gukesh, Sindarov) steps i.e. games back to Morphy prior to 1859.

Does tpr have anything to say about the amount of change that there has been in the chess world from 1858 to 2026?

@lizani said in #34:

... I have a copy of Marshall's 'My fifty years of chess' where he mentions St Petersburg 1914 'It was at this tournament that the Tsar of Russia conferred on each of the five finalists the title "Grandmaster of Chess".' ...

At https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/grandmasters.html , Edward Winter provided this quote:
"... The five original Grandmasters of Chess--Lasker, Alekhine, Capablanca, Marshall and Tarrasch--appear in this reproduction of a historical postcard sent by Marshall to his wife and son from the Grand International Masters Tournament at St. Petersburg, 1914. ..."
Also: "... the Tsar himself subscribing 1000 roubles towards the prize fund. ..."

@tpr said in #33: > ... The Morphy number of most top 2026 players is 5 or 4. > That means they interacted through 4 (Anand) or 5 (Carlsen, Gukesh, Sindarov) steps i.e. games back to Morphy prior to 1859. Does tpr have anything to say about the amount of change that there has been in the chess world from 1858 to 2026? @lizani said in #34: > ... I have a copy of Marshall's 'My fifty years of chess' where he mentions St Petersburg 1914 'It was at this tournament that the Tsar of Russia conferred on each of the five finalists the title "Grandmaster of Chess".' ... At https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/grandmasters.html , Edward Winter provided this quote: "... The five original Grandmasters of Chess--Lasker, Alekhine, Capablanca, Marshall and Tarrasch--appear in this reproduction of a historical postcard sent by Marshall to his wife and son from the Grand International Masters Tournament at St. Petersburg, 1914. ..." Also: "... the Tsar himself subscribing 1000 roubles towards the prize fund. ..."

tpr

"change that there has been in the chess world from 1858 to 2026?"

My point is that there is more interaction: less than 5 games between a 2026 top player and the 1858 Morphy than anno 2026 between a 1500 player in India and a 1500 player in Germany. This is about the closed pool argument.

About change in chess:
'In chess the tactics may change but the strategic fundamental principles are always the same, so that Chess Fundamentals is as good now as it was thirteen years ago. It will be as good a hundred years from now; as long in fact as the laws and rules of the game remain what they are at present. The reader may therefore go over the contents of the book with the assurance that there is in it everything he needs, and that there is nothing to be added and nothing to be changed. Chess Fundamentals was the one standard work of its kind thirteen years ago and the author firmly believes that it is the one standard work of its kind now.' - Capablanca, 1934

"change that there has been in the chess world from 1858 to 2026?" * My point is that there is more interaction: less than 5 games between a 2026 top player and the 1858 Morphy than anno 2026 between a 1500 player in India and a 1500 player in Germany. This is about the closed pool argument. About change in chess: 'In chess the tactics may change but the strategic fundamental principles are always the same, so that Chess Fundamentals is as good now as it was thirteen years ago. It will be as good a hundred years from now; as long in fact as the laws and rules of the game remain what they are at present. The reader may therefore go over the contents of the book with the assurance that there is in it everything he needs, and that there is nothing to be added and nothing to be changed. Chess Fundamentals was the one standard work of its kind thirteen years ago and the author firmly believes that it is the one standard work of its kind now.' - Capablanca, 1934

kindaspongey edited

@tpr said in #36:

... there is more interaction: less than 5 games between a 2026 top player and the 1858 Morphy than anno 2026 between a 1500 player in India and a 1500 player in Germany. This is about the closed pool argument.

The 1500 Indian and German players might be perhaps connected by a chain of 21st century chess players. Does it seem very likely that there is a 21st century chain connecting 1858-Morphy with a 2026 player?

@tpr said in #36:

About change in chess:
'In chess the tactics may change but the strategic fundamental principles are always the same, so that Chess Fundamentals is as good now as it was thirteen years ago. It will be as good a hundred years from now; as long in fact as the laws and rules of the game remain what they are at present. The reader may therefore go over the contents of the book with the assurance that there is in it everything he needs, and that there is nothing to be added and nothing to be changed. Chess Fundamentals was the one standard work of its kind thirteen years ago and the author firmly believes that it is the one standard work of its kind now.' - Capablanca, 1934

July 1934__José Capablanca-2660
http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/MonthlyLists.asp?Params=193205SSSSS3S000000000000111000000000000010100
Is there any reason to believe that Capablanca's attitude about "Fundamentals" was intended to apply to all of chess thinking at any level? In any event, wasn't Capablanca rather quiet on the matter post-1942?

@tpr said in #36: > ... there is more interaction: less than 5 games between a 2026 top player and the 1858 Morphy than anno 2026 between a 1500 player in India and a 1500 player in Germany. This is about the closed pool argument. The 1500 Indian and German players might be perhaps connected by a chain of 21st century chess players. Does it seem very likely that there is a 21st century chain connecting 1858-Morphy with a 2026 player? @tpr said in #36: > About change in chess: > 'In chess the tactics may change but the strategic fundamental principles are always the same, so that Chess Fundamentals is as good now as it was thirteen years ago. It will be as good a hundred years from now; as long in fact as the laws and rules of the game remain what they are at present. The reader may therefore go over the contents of the book with the assurance that there is in it everything he needs, and that there is nothing to be added and nothing to be changed. Chess Fundamentals was the one standard work of its kind thirteen years ago and the author firmly believes that it is the one standard work of its kind now.' - Capablanca, 1934 July 1934__José Capablanca-2660 http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/MonthlyLists.asp?Params=193205SSSSS3S000000000000111000000000000010100 Is there any reason to believe that Capablanca's attitude about "Fundamentals" was intended to apply to all of chess thinking at any level? In any event, wasn't Capablanca rather quiet on the matter post-1942?

lizani edited

So in 4 steps you reach Anand who's still active and has played every champion up to Gukesh. Probably you can connect any Indian, even 1500, in a few more steps to Anand.

Try calculating your Fischer number, only individual wins in classical count. For example
I beat an American FM
He beat GM Shamkovich
Shamkovich beat Spassky
Spassky beat Fischer

A chain connecting Morphy to the present day is contrived because his career was short. Better to start with Steinitz, the first world champion. Steinitz played Lasker Lasker played Botvinnik Botvinnik played Spassky Spassky played Anand So in 4 steps you reach Anand who's still active and has played every champion up to Gukesh. Probably you can connect any Indian, even 1500, in a few more steps to Anand. Try calculating your Fischer number, only individual wins in classical count. For example I beat an American FM He beat GM Shamkovich Shamkovich beat Spassky Spassky beat Fischer

kindaspongey edited

@lizani said in #38:

A chain connecting Morphy to the present day is contrived because his career was short. Better to start with Steinitz, the first world champion.
Steinitz played Lasker
Lasker played Botvinnik
Botvinnik played Spassky
Spassky played Anand ...

Does such a chain establish that August-1867-Steinitz would step out of the DeLorean and perform like a 2720 player in 2026?
http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/MonthlyLists.asp?Params=186405SSSSS3S000000000000111000000000000010100
How many of those links are pre-21st century?

@lizani said in #38: > A chain connecting Morphy to the present day is contrived because his career was short. Better to start with Steinitz, the first world champion. > Steinitz played Lasker > Lasker played Botvinnik > Botvinnik played Spassky > Spassky played Anand ... Does such a chain establish that August-1867-Steinitz would step out of the DeLorean and perform like a 2720 player in 2026? http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/MonthlyLists.asp?Params=186405SSSSS3S000000000000111000000000000010100 How many of those links are pre-21st century?

RuyLopez1000

The big fallacy with @tpr 's chain argument is that it assumes that 'chess skill' is being measured.

Actually it's just chess performance which is a big difference.

Performance takes place within the openings of the times.

Morphy was playing in the gambit era. His performance is tied to those types of positions and openings.

Carlsen is playing in the engine era. His performance is tied to those types of positions and openings.

They are playing 'subgames' within the game of chess. Different ways of playing, tied to the knowledge of their times.

The big fallacy with @tpr 's chain argument is that it assumes that 'chess skill' is being measured. Actually it's just chess performance which is a big difference. Performance takes place within the openings of the times. Morphy was playing in the gambit era. His performance is tied to those types of positions and openings. Carlsen is playing in the engine era. His performance is tied to those types of positions and openings. They are playing 'subgames' within the game of chess. Different ways of playing, tied to the knowledge of their times.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.