Just to clear things up, Eric Schiller would never ever say that. Your making up lies. 1000 are you kidding? Hahaha.

Here Capablanca would beat some of the 2600's today even if his theory on openings were horrible!

This is like saying any modern day shortstop could hit 60 homeruns in bigger ball parks (as Ruth did) back in the 20's. Ruth had to hit them about 50 ft. longer because modern day parks are smaller these days for the purpose of homeruns. This makes his feat even more remarkable considering there were no steriods, he was drunk when he came to most games, he could have retired in '18 and became a hall a fame pitcher, and it goes on and on.

The point is just because you know more the players of the past, doesn't mean you could easily slaughter them.

If a 2600 GM got an advantage in the opening on Capablanca or Alekhine, that would make things more complicated and they wouldn't just roll over and lose. They would use their ingenuity to steer it to more familiar areas to them and win!

<You want proof? Compare a past game with a game of any modern master on this site.>

I am not sure how often you frequent various game pages here at chessgames.com, but squaredance, Sneaky, aw1988, Minor Piece Activity are respected and respectful contributers to the site. They, along with others, have had to deal with people who claim to be unbeatable, make irrelevant comparisons, have deplorable arguing skills, and others that possess cantankerous personalities.

If any of the great masters from early on (Philidor on up) were miraculously resurrected and placed in a tournament now when they were at the peak of their abilities, they would do just fine. They would no doubt suffer some cheap losses from the opening play, but middle and endgame principles and technique have not changed since Philidor. In a months time, they would know enough to avoid certain positions, read up on what positions they wish to attain, and do even better.

You might want to try 1.Nf3 as an opening move.

And you speak of the hypermodern strategy as if its a diseases blanket to be given to a new population. They will figure it out real quick, and smash you.

Oh, BTW, if you continue saying ridiculous stuff, many may simply block you, meaning, you will be able to post, but it won't show up to others because they have grown tired of your naive hubris and general ignorance. You'll be shouting out into the void.

Andersson vs Modern/Robatsch
Adolf Anderssen vs Mongredien, 1862

"It took Morphy 10 minutes!" ~ Yasser Seirawan.

<No longer can someone rely on there artistic abilities, but should rather use cold, hard calculation and objectivity if they are going to bring home some trophies and really neat looking silver chess sets, oh, and not to mention $1,276.00.>

I can still give an artistic game to Fritz without an opening book (see Kasparov page), and Chessmaster with an opening book. And I'm not anywhere near the best players. So we're not there yet!

PS Most players look at the Paulsen/Morphy queen sac when they're first starting out. And you told us you found it in 15 minutes as a beginner I'm just assuming. I also think you posted you were around master level? Yet if you just found that position its awfully odd you've never seen it before. I highly doubt (if you solved it at all) calculated it to the end like Morphy did.

<it is 1.Nf3, the invention of the most talented player of all time, Richard Reti.>

Blackburne vs A Schwarz, 1882

<I personally believe that hypermodern play outright refutes classical dogma of putting a pawn in the center>

"refutes" is a mighty strong word, don't you think?

<No longer can someone rely on there artistic abilities, but should rather use cold, hard calculation and objectivity>