Do you think that at your skill level today (estimated approximately top 500 in the USCF [1]--the only recent rating percentile list I can find) you would have had the regular opportunity to play the 2600 player of yesteryear to measure yourself? (E.g., Karpov in 1972?) Or do you consider your own 2350 so inflated to the 2350 of the 1970s that you'd be in the same relative percentile and never get that chance?
From this [2] it looks like a 250 point ELO difference gives you roughly a 20% chance of a draw. And the general belief is that the higher you get into the ratings, the more likely that a draw will be an outcome (compared to a 250 difference between a 1750 and a 1500, for instance).
I can't readily find 1970s era chess ratings, but it might be interesting for you to look at the games of 2350 players circa 1975 and see whether you think you could keep up. (To test my memory, I picked some random guy I thought might be around 2600, Tigran Petrosian, and found he was 300 points better than you at his peak in 1972, which would only give you an 11% chance of a draw, by comparison).
From this [2] it looks like a 250 point ELO difference gives you roughly a 20% chance of a draw. And the general belief is that the higher you get into the ratings, the more likely that a draw will be an outcome (compared to a 250 difference between a 1750 and a 1500, for instance).
I can't readily find 1970s era chess ratings, but it might be interesting for you to look at the games of 2350 players circa 1975 and see whether you think you could keep up. (To test my memory, I picked some random guy I thought might be around 2600, Tigran Petrosian, and found he was 300 points better than you at his peak in 1972, which would only give you an 11% chance of a draw, by comparison).
[1] http://archive.uschess.org/ratings/ratedist.php [2] http://www.ncchess.org/wordpress/2012/09/individual-chess-ga...