< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 16 OF 16 ·
|Mar-03-14|| ||Jim Bartle: <How old are you?>
I just checked his page and he was born on Oct. 5, 0000. So he's really old.
|Mar-03-14|| ||LIFE Master AJ: <You keep posting that. I don't know what you're showing them, so there isn't much I can say. But have you checked to make sure that when the modern 2400 and Morphy disagree, the mistake isn't on Morphy's side?> |
I computer check ... EVERYTHING!!!
(Now I am pretty sure you have never even looked at one of my web pages.)
|Mar-04-14|| ||LIFE Master AJ: By the way, those red (hard-back) books ... ones a GM called "a complete waste of time" ... the ones on the old(er) chess tournaments ... I own many of those, a whole bookshelf just about full, in fact. |
After considering that, maybe you want to reconsider some of your earlier statements.
|Mar-04-14|| ||keypusher: <LMAJ> However much or little you may know about old-time chess in general, it is obvious from your posts |
<I have played through some of the games one handle has been posting on this page. Although I did not comment on all of them, in some cases their play looked pretty modern to me.>
<They did not play "book" openings back then,>
that you know very little about this tournament...which raises the question why you are arguing so strenuously about it. But anyway -- I, sadly, am nearly as old as you. Too old to waste more time on this conversation, which appears to be taking a personal turn. Good day.
|Mar-04-14|| ||LIFE Master AJ: Apparently, you did not want to admit that you might be wrong about your original assertion ... |
I am not arguing that the games of the 1851 look modern to me ... only in a few cases, which - admittedly - are rare. (And I already commented on a few of those games, individually.)
The idea of a modern 2300 going back in time and playing at the 1851 tournament is ludicrous anyway, the disruption to the time stream would be enormous. And - since it isn't even possible in the first place - it really isn't worth wasting any more time or energy on it.
|Mar-04-14|| ||LIFE Master AJ: Another flaw with your idea is that you seem to be assuming that all those "old-timers" were terminally stupid and incapable of learning and/or adapting. (That they would continue to play their outmoded openings time and time again. Even in the face of several losses, they would not / could not change) |
Is it not possible that after just a few victories the players of the 1851 tournament were to start copying the 2300 player's openings? What then?
|Mar-04-14|| ||john barleycorn: In "The mammoth book of the world's greatest chess games" there is this game and the "evergreen game" between Anderssen and Dufresne. And a game MacDonnell vs. De Labourdonnais. Not a single game by Paul Morphy, for example or of Kieseritzky, Staunton etc.. Then there is a time gap of 30 years and Zukertort vs Blackburne,1883, is game 4 in the book. The experts Burgess, Emms and Nunn (are you paying attention Goldsby the First??) did not find enough quality of play by both contestants, no instructive value and historical significance in any other game of that era. Since I trust the expertise of 3 distinguished masters /grandmasters more than a selfstyled chess historian and LIFE Master I agree with <keypusher>'s assessment.|
|Mar-04-14|| ||keypusher: <john barleycorn: In "The mammoth book of the world's greatest chess games" there is this game and the "evergreen game" between Anderssen and Dufresne. And a game MacDonnell vs. De Labourdonnais. Not a single game by Paul Morphy, for example or of Kieseritzky, Staunton etc.. Then there is a time gap of 30 years and Zukertort vs Blackburne,1883, is game 4 in the book.>|
I'm kind of sorry they didn't include a Morphy win. I would have taken this over the "Immortal Game"
Morphy vs Harrwitz, 1858
Or for Anderssen, how about this victory over a very strong opponent:
Morphy vs Anderssen, 1858
But Nunn, Graham, and Burgess had a real weakness for sacrificial fireworks, and it's hard to top this game and the Evergreen in that department.
I have to say, that book affected me -- the gap in quality and complexity between the modern brilliancies and the 19th century stuff was obvious, even to me. But there were plenty of instructive games played back then -- how do you think chess got better?
<LMAJ> -- to repeat myself, it's not the openings that would be the biggest problem for the 1851 masters. The biggest problem would be the 2300 would play better. Yes, they would improve, slowly, but not fast enough to make a difference in the tournament. It's like me against the Magnus app -- I've gotten a little better against it in a few days, but unless I live to be 200 it's going to continue to kick my ass.
Anderssen certainly did improve. It's my impression that he was a lot stronger by the 1860s than he was in 1851.
|Mar-04-14|| ||keypusher: I should point out that the queen sacrifice that crowns this game is apparently poetic embellishment. See the article from Kieseritzky's magazine in SBC's link:|
If LK gave up after 20.Ke2, presumably he didn't see the possibility of 20....Ba6.
|Mar-04-14|| ||LIFE Master AJ: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Prw...|
I just did a video on this game.
|Mar-04-14|| ||john barleycorn: The "Immortal video" - after 10:30 it is just a torture. Hopeless case. Boy, give it up. Seek for salvation Goldsby I.|
|Mar-04-14|| ||N0B0DY: will watch it, fo sure. There are only 8,000 other videos on this game.|
|Mar-04-14|| ||john barleycorn: <Nobody> knows that 7999 are better.|
|Mar-04-14|| ||perfidious: <john b> Bet you <Everyone> does, though.....|
|Mar-04-14|| ||john barleycorn: <perfidious> :-)|
|Mar-04-14|| ||Everyone: <perf> Yes, that is one way to look at it.|
|Mar-04-14|| ||john barleycorn: <Everyone: <perf> Yes, that is one way to look at it.> I thought it was everyone's way :-(|
|Mar-06-14|| ||LIFE Master AJ: Hey troll,
Maybe you would like me to post your real identity here? Your rap sheet too?
|Mar-06-14|| ||john barleycorn: <LIFE Master AJ: Hey troll,
Maybe you would like me to post your real identity here? Your rap sheet too?>
Sheer <LIFE> gratefulness. Thanks for validating all my predictions on your behaviour and unability to change.
|Mar-06-14|| ||TheFocus: I have been looking at Steinitz's games from 1866 - 1868, and I have to tell you, I would have beaten him 7 - 3 in a match. Crappy games. Crappy endgames. Crappy openings.|
|Mar-06-14|| ||TheFocus: Oh, and Wilhelm's 3 points? Draws only. I might get lazy or bored with his crappy play.|
In between moves, I might play Candy Crush to keep from nodding off.
|Mar-06-14|| ||OBIT: <TheFocus> Uh, gee... don't ya think technique has improved some since the 1850s? Don't you think this knowledge would benefit modern players in a hypothetical match with someone from that era? Due to this gap in knowledge, do you really think it is fair to compare modern day players in this way?|
Checking the Internet, I see that in 1855 the World Record for the mile run was 4:28. In 2014, any strong college miler can beat that time. The athletes of 1855 must have really sucked.
|Mar-07-14|| ||Petrosianic: <Due to this gap in knowledge, do you really think it is fair to compare modern day players in this way?>|
In Steinitz's case, yes. He thought he could give odds to God, so I doubt he'd have complained about someone using a time machine to come back and play him with knowledge unfairly gained from the future. He'd probably say "Bring it on".
|Mar-07-14|| ||OBIT: <Petrosianic> Well, I doubt Steinitz would say "Bring it on," which would be an awfully anachronistic statement for someone from the 19th century. Maybe he'd slap God with a glove, or something like that.|
I have heard the story that Fischer made a similar claim, i.e. that in a game with God he would win. His logic went something like, "God is a nice guy, so he'd let me play White. I'd open with my king pawn, and we'd play a Ruy Lopez. And, I always win when I play the Ruy Lopez, so I'd beat God." Of course, aside from being arrogant, Fischer's logic was totally off. God would play the Berlin and draw in 30 moves.
|Mar-07-14|| ||Pulo y Gata: It is unfair to speculate on how man would fare against God because of obvious discrepancy in knowledge and strength, to name but two. But what if you strip God of all his knowledge? Then we'll have a discussion similar to the one we had earlier.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 16 OF 16 ·