A lot of what the computer knows was programmed into it by modern masters..and a lot of what they know was gained from players of the past, including Morphy.

So all that proves is that today's 2150 players are able to study games of more modern GMs, and ape their moves...I know modern 1700 players who play indistinguishably from a grandmaster for the first 20 moves or more.

Also, I think the comparison would be much more informative if you linked the % and/or scope of errors to the position's current complexity/difficulty. In the form of a graph, preferably. :)

This is because the quality of an opponent's moves directly affect the difficulty of the positions that follow, thus affecting the raw amount and scope of imperfections I'll be making.

Consequently, according to this "rule", it seems to follow that if you send me back in time to 1860, my play will have less imperfections than it does today, even though I'm the same.

You forgot to scroll down.>

Chessmetrics and nimh's analysis have nothing to do with directly estimating creative independence, understanding or greatness. It's the people that hold such delusions.

Until he stumbles upon a new move by an opponent. It is pretty clear he'd quickly go down in flames.

<But who's the one that actually plays better chess?>

The one who is better at tactics.

<From where do you get the complexity values in your analysis?>

To get complexity value, I use following algorithm:

complexity := 0
FOR (depth 2 to 12)
IF (depth > 2) {
IF (previous_best_move NOT EQUAL current_best_move) complexity |best_move_evaluation
- second_best_move_evaluation|
} } previous_best_move := current_best_move

<This is because the quality of an opponent's moves directly affect the difficulty of the positions that follow, thus affecting the raw amount and scope of imperfections I'll be making.>

Surely previous moves must affect the difficulty of the positions-to-be. After all, that's what aggressive (=winning) positional play is all about; steering the game towards positions that are problematic to the opponent.

For example: You're playing white, and the plan of transferring your Knight to e6 is valid or best. If you're strong enough to realize it, you'll bring the N to e6, which will, now or later, <most likely give your opponent some tough problems to solve.> Then again, if you aren't strong enough to see the plan, you most likely won't play it. You may even trade the good knight for a bad bishop, <thus easing your opponent's game.>

Also, the existence of this "rule of increasing difficulty" is backed by empirical data. I have played many perfect games. All or most against beginners. But, make me play against Kasparov and you'll wait a long time before you see me playing a perfect game.

And lastly, speaking about Kasparov: I remember a quote by him about Fischer. Something about setting <problems> for his opponents, starting from the very first move. I also remember a quote by some IM or GM about Kasparov, saying how he creates some 3-4 big <problems> for his opponents per game, and if they solve them, they'll eventually just blunder out of exhaustion...

<I have played many perfect games. All or most against beginners.>

Born: 1837-Jun

Died: 1884-Jul

Best World Rank: #1 (39 different months between the September 1858 rating list and the November 1861 rating list )

Highest Rating: 2743 on the June 1859 rating list, #1 in world, age 22y0m

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Paul_M...

Hope you have all been in good spirits!

(: ♗ Bishop Berkeley ♗ :)

Viswanathan Anand quoted here: http://www.rediff.com/millenni/anan... (at which site he lists his "ten greatest chess players")

If we consider games in which the difference of opponents' rating was no higher than 200 points (only games with Harrwitz and Anderssen remain): +12 =3 -4; percentage 71,05%

And 150 points (Harrwitz drops out):
+7 =2 -2; percentage 72,73%

Over the years I've invested many thousands of hours reading, researching and writing about Paul Morphy, the Chess King. I've paid my dues, been in the trenches, so to speak, gritty dirt under my fingernails, following each and every clue, examining, evaluating and concluding.

I've shared a good bit of my findings (500 pages worth), retaining only the unpublishable-for-whatever-reason, hopefully adding to the general knowledge concerning this remarkable man. As a result of all this my antennae tend to quiver slightly at the mere mention of his name.

As famous as Morphy was in his day and as well documented as were his activites during his chess period, much of what is known about his private life is second-hand. Some of these sources are reliable, some less so, some nonsense. Determining which are which can often be tricky. Unfortunately, most folks today don't learn about Morphy through even these second-hand sources, but through third and even distant fourth hand sources. Very, very few of these are 100% accurate in aligning what is known to what they present and the great majority have only passing respect for facts.