< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|Apr-27-08|| ||keypusher: <playground player: <PhonyBenoni> What makes you say only Staunton knew how to play against Morphy? It seems obvious to me that had Staunton ever wanted to play a match with Morphy, he only had to say so. It seems equally obvious that he didn't want to play. We can't conclude too much from the two consultation games cited below, but I do think Morphy could have cleaned Staunton's clock.>|
He's joking. The idea is, the only way to play against Morphy is -- not to play him.
|Dec-28-09|| ||playground player: Now that I know Phony Benoni better, and can recognize his brand of humor, I can see he was joking. |
Staunton successfully ducked Morphy. I don't know why. Anderssen didn't duck, and Morphy creamed him--but Anderssen's reputation recovered from whatever harm that did. Certainly I admire Anderssen more for taking his lumps--with grace, no less--than Staunton for laying low and being mean-spirited about the whole business.
|Dec-28-09|| ||Jim Bartle: Looking at games like this, it makes me wonder how long Morphy took to make his moves. Does anybody know?|
|Apr-22-11|| ||knightmare949: Wgy does black resign|
|Apr-22-11|| ||MaxxLange: Black has to move his Queen out of attack. Then, White has some crushing discovered check, by moving the bishop|
If Black plays ...Qd6, then Bf4+ wins the Queen, for example
|Apr-22-11|| ||MaxxLange: <Jim Bartle> in these kinds of positions, Morphy moved quickly, and suffered great agony as his opponents took enormous time to play forced, losing moves. Or so I have read.|
This is a main reason why they introduced the chess clock, the losing person would try to just out-wait their opponent until a draw or an adjournment had to be made.
|Apr-22-11|| ||FSR: <knightmare949> Black's queen is under attack and has no square where it will not be lost. White will win a decisive amount of material and also have a crushing attack against Black's king. After 18...Qd6 (18...c5 19.dxc6 Nxc6? 20.Qc4+ and White wins Black's queen) 19.Bf4+ (discovered check by the rook on g1) Kf7 [19...Kh8 20.Bxd6 cxd6 21.f7+ (discovered check by the queen) Ng7 22.Qg7#] 20.Bxh5+ Bg6 21.Bxg6+ hxg6 22.Bxd6, White is winning easily.|
|Apr-22-11|| ||MaxxLange: the old custom of "announcing mate" makes sense if the old-timers had no clock. you would say, look, I have mate in 5, it is over|
|Apr-22-11|| ||BobCrisp: What happened if you announced mate and were wrong? Either about the mate or the number of moves. <Morphy> would probably have shot himself.|
|Jun-07-11|| ||pringle2003: In response to the question: How long did Morphy take to move on average?|
Morphy played extremely fast by competition standards. Not only did Morphy see the moves ahead of time, I personally believe Morphy knew a majority of the time his opponents plan and saw his opponents move(s) in advance as well. I believe he usually moved immediately. The longest I believe he contemplated on a move was against Paulsen. The immortal queen sac game against Paulsen where he took 12 minutes to calculate all of the variations to a clear win. Morphy was a natural when it came to chess. Some people just understand things inherently. Morphy knew chess. He knew every aspect of the game and is the best to have ever played the game.
|Jun-07-11|| ||nimh: But I have read that Morphy's rate of play was slower than Anderssen's who was an exceptionally fast player. Maybe that book isn't quite trustworthy, but do we really know for sure that Morphy used less thinking time than all his opponents?|
|Jun-10-11|| ||pringle2003: "But I have read that Morphy's rate of play was slower than Anderssen's who was an exceptionally fast player. Maybe that book isn't quite trustworthy, ..."
I did not say that Morphy was the faster player of his time. Nor did I say anything about him being faster than Anderssen. And no one said anything about "thinking time".
Not only was your comment an assumption but it was poorly worded. I think you might want to read your comments before you post them or just stay off the messgage boards all-together. If you do not have anything to contribute then it's best to keep quiet.|
|Jun-10-11|| ||nimh: <I did not say that Morphy was the faster player of his time. Nor did I say anything about him being faster than Anderssen.>|
It's implied in your statements in the previous post.
<Morphy played extremely fast by competition standards.> <I believe he usually moved immediately.> <The longest I believe he contemplated on a move was against Paulsen. The immortal queen sac game against Paulsen where he took 12 minutes to calculate all of the variations to a clear win.>
<And no one said anything about "thinking time">
What do you think thinking time actually means, if not time taken to move? I think it's better to focus on meanings than precise wordings.
<Not only was your comment an assumption>
I didn't assume anything, just delievered what I have read.
<I think you might want to read your comments before you post them>
I already do it usually.
<f you do not have anything to contribute then it's best to keep quiet.>
A good piece of advice. A pity you didn't follow it. What did your post contribute to the site besides spreading myths and hyping Morphy?
|Jun-21-11|| ||pringle2003: Saying he played fast by competition standards is not the same thing as saying he was the fastest player. Like I said you are making assumptions. Instead of commenting on what you THINK I am implying, comment on what is said. Its funny because I see your posts quite often on Morphy's games and you are usually disagreeing with someone or someone is belittling you. I guess you like to run your mouth and disagree a lot. So instead of argueing against someones OPINIONS, just keep your pathetic white trash mouth shut. Nice pic by the way. Im sure thats how most people perceive you. And this time, after reading your posts before you post them, delete them.|
|Jun-21-11|| ||nimh: <Saying he played fast by competition standards is not the same thing as saying he was the fastest player.>|
OK, I was too hasty with conclusions, but the implication is still there.
<Like I said you are making assumptions.>
Like I said, I didn't assume, just read a fact in a book. One may say that the author of the book used assumptions instead of facts backed by evidence in his book, but it must be proven first.
<Instead of commenting on what you THINK I am implying, comment on what is said.>
Implications and hidden meanings between lines are often a natural part of various statements.
Let's review your claims again: <Morphy played extremely fast by competition standards.> <he usually moved immediately> <The longest I believe he contemplated on a move was against Paulsen. The immortal queen sac game against Paulsen where he took 12 minutes to calculate all of the variations to a clear win.>
Especially interesting are the last two claims. Morphy playing most moves at a blitzing speed, and the longest time ever taken was 12 mins?! Wow! 12 mins on a move at most would be remarkable even today when time controls are quite well constrained.
You carefully used the word 'believe'. Which is not a wrong thing to do, but beliefs can sometimes be wrong too. I'd like to know what's the basis of your beliefs.
Don't you really think if one says "this player mostly does it immediately" it's not usually interpreted as "this player does it most quickly"?
Moreover, to decide what one is and is not allowed to comment on is rude.
<Its funny because I see your posts quite often on Morphy's games and you are usually disagreeing with someone or someone is belittling you. >
Usually I don't reply to statements I agree with, or of which I'm unsure.
<I guess you like to run your mouth and disagree a lot.>
Run my mouth...) This makes me chuckle :) You really don't know me.
<So instead of argueing against someones OPINIONS, just keep your pathetic white trash mouth shut.>
Arguing and disagreeing is a big part of discussions. When I see someone presenting false and questionable statements, naturally I object.
If you're so sentsitive to critique, perhaps you should consider stopping posting on forums or, before you post them, deleting all posts you write.
|Jun-22-11|| ||pringle2003: Бе Morphy took twelve minutes over his next move, probably to assure himself that the combination was sound and that he had a forced win in every variation. -- Chernev (Paulsen v. Morphy. Queen sac game.)
Morphy taking twelve minutes to move was obviously so new that a note was made of it. That along with other notes of the time that all imply that Morphy moved quickly by anyone's standards are where I received my information from. I never said anything about a specific book. Nor did I say anything about him being a faster player than Anderssen or the fastest player of his day or any period. So! What the heck are you talking about? You IDIOT!!! Every single post you make on this site is to strictly contradict someone's opinions. They are opinions. They are not questions...You obviously have serious self-confidence issues if you constantly feel the need to contradict or one up anyone who posts their humble opinions.|
|Jun-23-11|| ||nimh: What's wrong? Were those personal attacks really necessary?|
All I did was providing countertopinions, there was no reason to react so painfully.
<Morphy taking twelve minutes to move was obviously so new that a note was made of it.>
What makes it so obvious? I'm curious. Was Chernev really an eyewitness? :) I'd very much like to know the sources he used.
It's more likely that 12 mins refers to the specific game only, not all Morphy's games. In any case I find it very unlikely that in the era of no clocks 12 mins could be the longest time ever spent on thinking. Even if Morphy indeed had taken less time on all his moves in his previous games up to that point, a majority of his games were still unplayed at that time.
<that all imply that Morphy moved quickly by anyone's standards>
By 'anyone' you presumably mean 'most people', otherwise it seems as if you believe Morphy was the quickest player? You've said he usually moved immediately, yet you don't believe he was the quickest. So was blitzing out moves a standard practice then? To me it's a surprise, I thought at that time players usually handled their thinking time quite wastefully.
<I never said anything about a specific book.>
I never implied your knowledge is from a specific book. What I actually said is that MY knowledge on current subject is from a book.
<Nor did I say anything about him being a faster player than Anderssen or the fastest player of his day or any period. So! What the heck are you talking about?>
Anderssen was mentioned the book I talked about. Mentioning him has nothing to do with what you said. It was a complementary information. Usually happens often in discussions.
If you use statements like 'extremely fast' and 'usually immediately', you should not be surprised that it's perceived as a veiled and modest attempt to claim he was the quickest player.
<Every single post you make on this site is to strictly contradict someone's opinions.>
<They are opinions. They are not questions...>
Others have opinions too, they have every right to use them. That's why I replied to you.
|Jun-24-11|| ||pringle2003: You continue to prove my point. The diarrhea that continues to pour out of your mouth is almost comical. Its almost as painful to have a dialouge with you as it is to read your opinions on other posts. I really hope that instead of commenting on other peoples posts, you learn to simply post your own ideas and opinions. I am sure there is almost as much mis-guided information on Morphy as there is true. Just keep in mind your method of disagreeing is rather abrasive. And just because you read something in a book does not mean that it is fact. So, in closing, I would appreciate you keeping your diarrhea away from my opinions. It is tough to have an intellectual conversation with someone who is clearly uneducated. You have already apologized for one of your remarks. which is surprising b/c of how close-minded you seem to be, so I suggest you bow out and contribute to the conversation intellectually instead of, like I said: spilling diarrhea out of your mouth.|
|Jun-24-11|| ||nimh: <to simply post your own ideas and opinions. >|
That's what I did in the beginning.
|Jun-24-11|| ||nimh: <You continue to prove my point.>|
What I was trying to prove was that your claims were unfounded, and facts that Morphy mostly blitzed his moves and the longest time he thought on a move was 12 mins are most likely a myth. By responding to your post I simply offered a counter-point of view.
But in response, instead of defending you beliefs, you took it personally and started insulting and making false claims about me.
There was no reason for this.
<Its almost as painful to have a dialouge with you as it is to read your opinions on other posts.>
Why is it painful? I'd say it refers to you rather.
<And just because you read something in a book does not mean that it is fact. >
I know, it is a fact as much as your opinion is.
<It is tough to have an intellectual conversation >
It's funny you say this, are taking things too literally and personally and making insults really a part of an intellectual conversation?
<is clearly uneducated.>
Really? What indicates I'm uneducated?
<which is surprising b/c of how close-minded you seem to be>
I thought it's pretty normal to apologize for hasty conclusions. I wouldn't mind correcting my opinions if others really prove me wrong. Keep your obseravtions to yourself, what makes you to believe I'm closed-minded? Is, in your opinion, having strong and solid-based opinions and not letting them easily knocked down synonymous with being closed-mindedness?
I'm really disappointed with you and this discussion.
Opinions, while essentially subjective, should nevertheless be grounded on a solid basis, not taken from air. As for my opinion on the subject; I have no idea how long he usually took on moves, whether far below average or as much as any other player on average. Evidence neither supports or busts either version.
|Jun-10-12|| ||e4 resigns: Lol Morphy played super fast- ever heard of Kung Fu Chess?
Morphy invented it.
Lol, just reading the argument.
|Jun-10-12|| ||ughaibu: Yes, that's a pretty laughable "argument". What happened to Pringle2003? Was he a sock?|
|Jun-11-12|| ||Danzowich: nimh: amazing that you had to take so much @#$%*&!# from pringle2003.|
|Jun-11-12|| ||Llawdogg: Great game, silly argument.|
|Jun-11-12|| ||MORPHYEUS: That's the problem here. Some kibitzers like to post controversial or unfounded opinions, but they are not prepared to defend it. Then they accuse you of being a troll.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·