Dear Tomasz;

(...)

Something else - a friend of mine is preparing many interesting historical

gamefiles that I will eventually put on my Website. A comprehensive Morphy-file will be first, London 1851 and NY 1857 will follow, etc. Would you agree if we put a Kieseritzky file from your book there? I showed him the book - he was very interested. Of course I would give you all credit due. (...)

Tim

Hi Tim,

Please find below a draft of translated biographical note of L. K. (page 290 in the book). Add bars over French letters and, in your usual sparkling style, improve my (very poor) English.

KIESERITZKY Lionel Bagration Adalbert Felix - remarkable chessplayer from first half of XIX century. Born January 1st 1806 in Dorpat (later called Yuriev, now Tartu in Estland) in Russian Empire, as a member of Baltic - German family.

He studied philology and law in Dorpatian university (1825-1829). Soon he had a reputation of the strongest chessplayer in so-called "Ost-See Provinzen" and one of the strongest in Russia.

After he left Uni (with no degree), he was active as a licensed private tutor and teacher of mathematics. Known in Dorpat as an animator of cultural life, organizer of amateur theathre performances and music concerts. He renewed activity of academical chess club.

In 1839 due to private reasons he left Dorpat and chose Paris as his new homeland. After de Labourdonnais' death he and Saint Amant were two strongest chessplayers in France. Kieseritzky worked in famous "Cafe de la Regence" as a "professor of chess". Published some articles in "Berliner Schachzeitung" and "Le Palamede" of Saint Amant. In 1846 he issued a book "Cinquante parties...", from 1849 till 1851 he was the editor of "La Regence" monthly journal; in both he used new type of chess notation, invented by himself. He promoted non-orthodox kinds of chess: "Partie des Pions" and cubic chess.

K. published his own chess compositions in German, English and French journals. He was a player of attacking style, very strong in rapid games, in odds games and blind games - in 1851 he improved Philidor's achievement as he played 4 games "l'aveugle" simultaneously. Opening expert - one of King's Gambit Accepted variations is commonly known as Kieseritzky Gambit. He played matches with Walker, Horwitz and Buckle. In 1851 he participated in London tournament, but in round one he was knocked - out 0,5;2,5 by ultimate winner Anderssen. One of the off-hand games between those two, won by Anderssen, was called "Immortal".

After prolonged sickness (hemiplegie, ramollissement du cerveau) he died May 19th 1853 in Hopital de la Charite in Paris. Buried probably in a common - grave.

J. Gaige defines historical Kieseritzky's rating as 2480.

Hope, it will be usefull for you.

Regards

Tomasz

Hi Tomasz,

And in 1859, at his height, Morphy is supposed to have been 2400. Are you very angry with me if I say that that seems more realistic to me?

Hopefully not, with regards,Tim

Hi, TimAbout Gaige, Kieseritzky and his rating...Perhaps it's better to erase Gaige's rating from K. biographical note at all. However, the value 2470 or something seems to be to quite reasonable. Kieseritzky lost 2,5:3,5 versus Buckle and won versus Horwitz with some (+). He scored 1:1 versus St. Amant, in friendly games, not a formal match. Of course, statistical material is not very large, but if an anonymous expert proposes a rating 1920, we have to ask him: show me your calculation, please. How many games did he count? There is a lot of nonsense in Internet.

(...)

Best regards

Hi Tomasz,

Well, those ratings... we could go on arguing about them forever. Still, I must say, Caxton's ratings, however loosely based, strike me as the first historical ratings that make sense, and that do respresent in some way how a player might possibly fare now as he was then. I've seen too often 'Morphy 2650' and things like that, but if we could transplant him, he would possibly be like a 2400. (Of course, in a few months, and with the help of a few books, he would be 2650).

Tim

Hi Tim,Sorry for delayed answer, I've got a difficult week. The question how old masters from the past should be ranked, for me seems to be a speculation. I never involve myself in long, sofisticated disscussions "Who was stronger: Bobby Fischer or Alexander Alekhine?" or "Could Misha Tal beat Emmanuel Lasker, who used to make intentionally weaker moves even in championship matches?".

This is poor speculation. The is no answer for such questions.

Chess play with rating and without, for money and without stake, are very different plays.

Staunton was "number one" during during circa 8 years. Point.

Steinitz was "number one" during 28 years. Point.

If somebody says Staunton's rating was 2530 and Steinitz rating was, say, 2630, it makes no impression on me. It is just doubtfull. Math is not my area, I personally like to collect game scores and biographical data.

I know many people who never kicked a ball in their life, but they perfectly know all statistics from Premier Leaegue in England. Scores and biographies – what makes fun for me, not numbers.

Best regards

Tomasz

Hi Tomasz,I don't think I agree with you, and I also think it's not that uninteresting a discussion. If in all sports the level has gone up so much, then why not in

chess? Let me stress we're talking about absolute strength here, not about talent or potential. There is so much more chess knowledge now, not only about openings. The game has enormously changed in the last 10 or 20 years. Players like Kasparov, Gelfand, Shirov, Short, have shown that things are possible that Capablanca or Euwe could not have dreamed of. Sure, Fischer would have beaten Alekhine and Tal would have beaten Lasker. Even when I asked Bent Larsen, almost 30 years ago, where he would put Alekhine, he said: 'Not in the top ten of today.'

I am convinced that all the pre-war champions would lose 7-3 against any top-ten player from the present.

Morphy and Kieseritzky, the London 1851 and New York 1857 games, and the Caxton list, revived my interest in this subject. If you take ratings as relative figures, yes, then maybe Morphy was 2800 and Anderssen 2500... But if we use these figures to compare their strength to players' strengths now... then this 2400 figure for Morphy struck me as realistic and a great compliment at the same time. Imagine that... to reach 2400 without the profit of chess knowledge that has accumulated over 140 years thereafter!

You can also simply look at the games, e.g. those of London. Even if you forget about the openings, you're shocked by the lack of understanding, the positional atrocities (says the 2250-player Tim Krabbé), and even by the terrible blunders they made when there weren't even time controls! Most of the players in London would easily be beaten by 2200-players today, even if in some way you took away the advantage of their openings knowledge.

By the way, (I guess you go into this in your book) I was struck at how unlucky Kieseritzky was in London. First, he's paired with Anderssen in the first round. They still play for only 2 wins, which increases the chance factor enormously. And then the games. He lets himself be mated in 1 in the first game, plays well but misses the win by a hair in the second, then blunders a piece in the opening in game 3.

All of that does not take away that the London players were the giants of their day, and that they started building chess knowledge from nothing.

Best regardsTim

Dear Tim,

I am glad in our discussions you are not a backer of "political correctness". Some of my friends are perfectly "correct"; they never say: "Tomasz, sorry, our oppinions are different". It protects against quarrels and misunderstandings (what could only be approved) but equally excludes any dispute. So, be "not - correct" in this sense as long as possble.

It's true old masters played "different" chess. But were they "weaker" than contemporary GMs?

What does it mean "weaker"? Old master could not build botvinnical strategy if there was an isolated d5 pawn on the board, that's true. But they could find, I think, in similarly short time, a solution of five- or six-mover composed by Klett, Anderssen, Brede etc.

Old masters knew less. If we agree it is a synonym of "to play weaker" , our position are closer to each other. I know many Kieseritzky's game contain "blunders". He played extremely nervous against Anderssen in London 1851. In the book I included Staunton's statement: "I never before saw such awful mistake, even made by a beginner". But please replay his drawn game against Anderssen (in one moment he could win), or games against Horwitz or Buckle. Well, I do not want to declare Kieseritzky's play as a model for modern players. For me he is mainly "the most famous loser in a history of chess".

But...But not only. Author, editor, composer and player - is it not enough to call him "remarkable"?

You wrote: "I am convinced that all the pre-war champions would lose 7-3 against any top ten of today". I have some remarks to your statement:

1) This is exactly what I call a speculation.

How can I check, on the basis of Aristotelean logic, is it false or true?

2) Your first silent supposition is: in a longer encounter between, let’s say, Lasker and Larsen, the old master should remain "static", e. g. he would be able to modify his style in the battle with a new opponent and would play with identical resources, as against Schlechter, Marshall and Janowski.

But why Lasker, who as a chessplayer was very "flexible", against Larsen should not change himself? Did you analyse this aspect of a case?

3) Your second silent supposition is: openings erudition is equal to the strength of a player.

But, what about one’s level of play in the end-game? I can not remember any work of remomeed GM with final conclusion: "People, now I show you, how weak in the end-game Capablanca, Rubinstein, Lasker were...".

And more, are you sure Zukertort should loose a match against Adams or Leko, if those two could not play the newest variations of Gruenfeld or Ruy Lopez? If those two should start every game in one of the "tabijas" from King's Gambit Accepted, Evens or opening "Pawn f7 and move"?

I have no simple answer to this question.

Now about ratings.

Here I am concinced Elo rating expresses only aritmethical result of a competition. Not quality of play. Not talent. Not level of knowledge. Naked score, that is important. Rating is not identical to the result of a jump. Jessie Owens jumped 8,07 in Berlin. Beamon jumped 8,90 in Mexico.

Ratings are always relative. One for the champion and others for the rest. During 28 years Steinitz never lost a match. Some of them he won with great majority (7:0 against Blackburne !!).

It must be displayed by his, calculated today, rating. In my understanding: if somebody says Steinitz rating was 2630, and we know GM Volkov (who never won a tournament but "championship of a street") has ELO = 2590, such declaration makes false impression, as a minimum among average spectators, not involved in philosophical details.

All for today. Forgive me my language mistakes.

Best regards

Tomasz

Hi Tim

(...)

I studied our old correspondence regarding "Do contemporary chessists play better than older?"

For me - there was no final conclusion, but the problem has some general importance. With your agreement I would like to publish our letters on our (= my and my friend's) web page "Vistula" (which is the chess monthly) in English, as we have "English Corner" there. What's your oppinion?

Regards

Tomasz

Dear Tomasz

Well, I still do, I'm sorry for being silent for such a long time. Serious life was calling, I've started a new novel, and apart from transcribing the Fischer interview, I haven't done much about my site lately.

(...) My opinion on that matter is very simple. Translated to running: Lewis was not a greater runner than Owens, but he certainly was a faster one. Jack Dempsey would be KO'd by any nowadays mediocrity. Morphy would not be among the 1000 best players in the world today, but he sure is among the 10 or 20 greatest of all time.

Our discussion started with this rating list that I saw where Anderssen was something like 2300, and which struck me as far more realistic (in terms of absolute strength) than the far too many historical rating lists that I have seen where the 19^th Century greats are 2500 and so. You could say the giants of former days were far weaker and far greater at the same time than/as average players of today. I'm looking forward to seeing your page, let me know when it's on (our discussion).

Regards,

Tim