Just curious, but would a lot of you agree that since the onslaught of really great chess programs, databases, and educational material. (Not to mention the 24/7 world of online chess), has made it so that the average player at a given rating level actually has more knowledge than say 20+ years ago?
For example, I’d think one would need a lot more chess knowledge to be a 1600 player in today’s world than back in, for example, 1990.
Of course, I mean to be say at least say competitive tournament player and not a beginner. Lets say at least 1300 to 1400 USCF would be a base minimum where you’d more knowledge today than 20 years ago to achieve that rating. -Not set in stone, but rather for argument sake, since this is more of a theoretical discussion.
Yes, I agree that one could easily achieve 1600 today with a limited opening knowledge and mad tactical skills. But that being said, I think the average “John Doe” chess player has a greater breadth of general knowledge than in times gone by.
One still has to read the material, understand it, and know how to apply it. All of what you outlined are tools. If you don’t use the tools or don’t use the tools correctly, it doesn’t matter if they sit on your shelf.
As to whether an average player 25 years ago in 1990 knows as much or is as good as a player of today, I would have to say, based on experience, yes. While the number of computer programs and database use was just beginning, many average players had access to ECO’s, Informants, a large array of opening books, middlegame materials, and endgame books. Players were more book conscious. Today’s players are more tech conscious which has its plus and minus sides. You cannot rely on technology to do your thinking for you. You still have to read and process the material the tech stuff provides. There is no real substitute for using your mind and judgment. There is a chance to speed up the learning process, but you still have to read and learn.
There can be a problem of too much information. The glut of sources must be sifted for their quality. It is easy to be overwhelmed by data and try to find shortcuts. There are no good shortcuts to understanding chess, or pretty much anything else.
It all depends on what pool of players you are facing. It may be a far more difficult task to make 1600 from 1000 (or lower) than just playing 2000 rated players and getting the rating by default like you could in the 90’s. The opportunities for practice and better opponents (due to programs) have made lower-rated players a lot tougher than they used to be but there are limits to what silicon can do for people. I seriously doubt if there are literal human tablebases walking around even at the highest levels of the game. One thing that I think has bolstered the confidence of lower-rated players while simultaneously eroding the confidence of higher-rated ones is that humans are not the best players anymore. The game has to have a different patina now that a person can’t beat their chest and claim to be the best. Points are more difficult to gain if you are inexperienced but if you are an exceptional player…the sky is the limit compared to the old days.
There were, what we used to call, “bookie fish” back 25 years ago as there are today. Players used to memorize sections of the ECO. They could tell you what opening was being discussed just by having the opening code. The structure of the opening books was not dissimilar to the trees in the databases today. It seems odd that 10 year olds can quote games and lines 27 moves deep. It was equally odd 25 years ago when they did that. There are just more kids today in chess than back then.
There are arguments going on in education today about the introduction of technology to the classroom. Educators are still trying to figure what is gained and what is lost by using computers and other tech stuff. The kids love all of the tech and become adept with it very fast. I have seen two and three year olds who were just fine using ipads and smartphones. They waded through any complex functions to find and do what they want. How much are they really learning? Are they merely aping their elders, or is there real thinking going on? Will these tech items turn from toys to tools, and if so will the kids maintain their interest? These are questions that have to be answered. The costs for education are going up, though the training for teachers lags.
In chess, the tech allows you to learn some things faster. Real pattern recognition though takes time. The earlier you are exposed to tech, to learning materials, the better. Just like learning another language is easier for youngsters than older people. But it still takes time to get good at using it. The next step is to take the creative leap to find something new within what you are learning, to transcend the tools and the rules.