What if there was no chess computer to analyse games?

No brilliants or blunders?

And how did they study openings? Did they not now if it was a blunder?

there are things called books

@TheDarkArchangel12

Right...

JamesClrrke Is it NOW a better world or THEN

Before engines, people figured things out the best they could and relied on their own judgement. And the people who were best at figuring things out and had the best judgement were the champions.

There would be a greater sense of mystery and discovery in chess, as players would have to find solutions over the board without the certainty provided by computer analysis.

If you did that in my club (even in offhand games let alone rated ones), you would be given a warning and the second infraction would get you suspended for at least 3 months.

Also you could have fringe/conspiracy theories of how systems like a double fianchetto, the Sokolsky or even the Rice gambit were actually brilliant but undermined by how people were thinking and you could explain away some bad results, especially in the days before databases. Both databases and computer analysis were the real killers. Another theory you could have is that the elites were sniffing shrooms going 30 moves into theory when several moves would have done just as good far sooner - and it turns out in some cases they were.

I partially agree but because of modern technology the "average" player is better than before computers and analysis programs. Mic drop.

Yes. but now there are stockfish cheaters!

Bro, the bongcloud is OP

I wonder who made the first chess computer engine