> Not only do we not know how an average 2022-super-GM compares to a 1980-super-GM I suspect this is false. Chess is one of the few endeavors where we have de

> Not only do we not know how an average 2022-super-GM compares to a 1980-super-GM I suspect this is false. Chess is one of the few endeavors where we have decent historical records. Combine this with the fact that computers can now analyze lines a very long way, and I suspect that you can do things like compare how often GMs missed a superior line of play. By most measures, the GMs of the past played weaker chess than our current GMs. The current GMs benefit from having started at younger ages with a larger body of chess theory and super-strong computers to work with and against. I suspect that the GMs of the past would be as strong as the GMs of the present given those. However, they didn't have those and, consequently, the chess, itself, was weaker. Side note: I adore Mikhail Tal's "This position looks interesting and complex. Banzai!" games. However, most of them would get him absolutely creamed against the current top players. And to be fair--even the top players of his own time tended to refute them. However, Tal's games are often way more exciting than everybody else's.