Would a GM from the pre-engine era compete successfully against today's GMs? • page 2/2 • General Chess Discussion • lichess.org

If you took Lasker or Fischer at their peak and gave them a few years to adapt to modern chess, do you think they could reach today's 2600–2700 level?

In that case I'm pretty sure answer would be yes as you're asking to compare talent.

Nowadays both the quality and accessibility of training materials has vastly improved. Just to give an example of how Endgame Material evolved you get the following:

Ruy López de Segura1561 - Early analysis of endgames, including stalemate rules.
Pietro Carrera1617 - Knowledge of various endgames, such as queen vs. two bishops.
Gioachino Greco1624 - Systematic studies of endgame positions.
Bernhard Horwitz & Josef Kling 1851 - Published "Chess Studies," containing 427 endgame positions.
Averbakh 1958-64 - First comprehensive manual, pubished in Russian
Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual 2003 - With later revisions done posthumously by Muller

So from the above you can see when Lasker was WC from 1894 to 1921 it was even before Averbakh's work. As far as Fischer is concerned he had to learn Russian to be able to access best chess works.

@Elnur_Uktamov said [^](/forum/redirect/post/aI3IaHe4) > If you took Lasker or Fischer at their peak and gave them a few years to adapt to modern chess, do you think they could reach today's 2600–2700 level? In that case I'm pretty sure answer would be yes as you're asking to compare talent. Nowadays both the quality and accessibility of training materials has vastly improved. Just to give an example of how Endgame Material evolved you get the following: Ruy López de Segura1561 - Early analysis of endgames, including stalemate rules. Pietro Carrera1617 - Knowledge of various endgames, such as queen vs. two bishops. Gioachino Greco1624 - Systematic studies of endgame positions. Bernhard Horwitz & Josef Kling 1851 - Published "Chess Studies," containing 427 endgame positions. Averbakh 1958-64 - First comprehensive manual, pubished in Russian Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual 2003 - With later revisions done posthumously by Muller So from the above you can see when Lasker was WC from 1894 to 1921 it was even before Averbakh's work. As far as Fischer is concerned he had to learn Russian to be able to access best chess works.

tpr

"Endgame Material "

Basic Chess Endings - Fine 1941
Lehr- und Handbuch der Endspiele - Chéron 1952-1958

"Endgame Material " * Basic Chess Endings - Fine 1941 Lehr- und Handbuch der Endspiele - Chéron 1952-1958

Elnur_Uktamov

I agree that modern players have a huge advantage when it comes to training materials and access to information. However, I think that makes the talent comparison even more interesting. A player like Lasker had far fewer resources, yet still reached an extraordinary level and remained World Champion for 27 years. So I don't think we should judge historical players only by the amount of chess knowledge available to them. Their ability to understand, calculate and create ideas with limited resources is also part of their talent.@KMcGeoch said ^

If you took Lasker or Fischer at their peak and gave them a few years to adapt to modern chess, do you think they could reach today's 2600–2700 level?

In that case I'm pretty sure answer would be yes as you're asking to compare talent.

Nowadays both the quality and accessibility of training materials has vastly improved. Just to give an ex...

I agree that modern players have a huge advantage when it comes to training materials and access to information. However, I think that makes the talent comparison even more interesting. A player like Lasker had far fewer resources, yet still reached an extraordinary level and remained World Champion for 27 years. So I don't think we should judge historical players only by the amount of chess knowledge available to them. Their ability to understand, calculate and create ideas with limited resources is also part of their talent.

I agree that modern players have a huge advantage when it comes to training materials and access to information. However, I think that makes the talent comparison even more interesting. A player like Lasker had far fewer resources, yet still reached an extraordinary level and remained World Champion for 27 years. So I don't think we should judge historical players only by the amount of chess knowledge available to them. Their ability to understand, calculate and create ideas with limited resources is also part of their talent.@KMcGeoch said [^](/forum/redirect/post/xvn80dAa) > > If you took Lasker or Fischer at their peak and gave them a few years to adapt to modern chess, do you think they could reach today's 2600–2700 level? > > In that case I'm pretty sure answer would be yes as you're asking to compare talent. > > Nowadays both the quality and accessibility of training materials has vastly improved. Just to give an ex... I agree that modern players have a huge advantage when it comes to training materials and access to information. However, I think that makes the talent comparison even more interesting. A player like Lasker had far fewer resources, yet still reached an extraordinary level and remained World Champion for 27 years. So I don't think we should judge historical players only by the amount of chess knowledge available to them. Their ability to understand, calculate and create ideas with limited resources is also part of their talent.

DoomedBishop

I believe GMs of old MIGHT have to do some practicing and studying. However, I see no reason why they could not compete if given the chance to study new ideas and access the modern databases. Once they're up to speed, who knows? They might have no problem competing with today's GMs.