Indeed!

<Quote of the Day

Morphy was an artist; and the best way to enjoy an artist is not to dissect him.

--- Sergeant >

So, how to interpret Sergeant? Let me give it a thought.

I understand what Sergeant says. But, I think, he is more tricky than one can think at the first sight. Though, we have this danger, for example, in classical music, where insensitive musicologists dissect masterpieces of a J.S.Bach, a J.Brahms and a S.Rachmaninov; the interpretations by pianists like S.Richter and G.Gould; without understanding anything of the art and the artists.

Though, if we have this in mind, we should do our best like the great masters W.Steinitz and M.Botvinnik did in detail, analyse the art of Paul Morphy. The attitude must be to learn and not to search for flaws; certainly one can find them even in Morphy's play. In a way we face the same problem, while analysing Mikhail Tal. Probably many of his sacrifices can't be defended under the cold eye of an electronic miroscope. If we analyse Tal in this way, we do ourselves indeed only a disfavor.

Why was Albert Einstein such a giant?

He was, in my opinion, a great artist in his analytical scientific approach.

I regard chess as the epitome of art/science/sport and having this in mind, I do believe that one should analyse Paul Morphy's art. We can learn so much.

<e4Newman> When I read this quoting it gave me the idea that Sergeant is right and ... wrong. Perhaps, one can interpret him in this way: "Go ahead! Analyse the games of Paul Morphy, but do it in the sense of what we can learn from him. Analyse Paul Morphy in detail, but be aware of the great artist!" Personally, I will never understand the genious of the violinist Jasha Heifetz, but one can learn immensely much by analysing his art of playing the violin.

<e4Newman> Well observed!

Ariel

However, I always thought that Sergeant was referring to Morphy the man himself, not his chess games; namely, don't worry that Morphy the man only played seriously for a couple of years, had an idle adulthood and may or may not have collected women's shoes. Instead, concern yourself only with his beautiful chess games.

I take a similar view when I enjoy analyzing games of guys like Alekhine and Fischer.

< Makofan > 7. e5 looks like a good continuation. Black might respond 7. ... Qf5.

This is the right interpretation, I think.

<I take a similar view when I enjoy analyzing games of guys like Alekhine and Fischer.>

I cannot stand the personality of Alekhine, but he was a brilliant chessplayer. One has to study him as well. Exclusively, concentrate on what is happening on the board.

The outer universe is enormously fascinating, but what about our internal one? A human being is so complex and chess appears to me as one of the famous mirrors of our soul.

Ariel

What about this line? 8. ... Nh5 (defending f4)
9.Rg1 ( with the idea of 10.g3 and simultaneously get out of the fork-position) Qf6 10.e5 Qh6 11.g3 g5 and a more complicated game.

or 8. ... Nh5 9.Nd5 Qd6 10.e5 Qh6 11.Rg1 g5 12.Nxb6 axb6 13.Qf5 and interesting, perhaps ...

I haven't worked it out meticulously,
so you are welcome to point out my mistake, or perhaps, tell me, if I've got something.

In the case of 8. ...c6, note that it doesn't actually support 9. ...d5 since after 10.exd5 cxd5 Black loses his Queen to 11. Re1. It is because of this flawed plan that Paul obtains the passed pawn on the d-file.

Have a good weekend.

After 8. ...Nh5 Crafty gives white a larger advantage (depth 15 ply, +1.14) following: 9. e5 h6 10.Nd5 Qf8. Also, 9.Nd5 is considered almost as good as 9.e5 by Crafty. Protecting the f-pawn does not look worth the bother.

Mmm, 59 lost games, looks like he ISN'T good...