< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
|Dec-08-08|| ||A.G. Argent: Well, to paraphrase a pal of mine who was, ironically, also from New Orleans: "Oh yeah, Morphy, he wudn't NUTTIN' nice!" Thanks <JG27Pyth> for the machine analysis in looking at Maurian's futility at holding off the onslaught. Spot-on.|
|Dec-08-08|| ||playground player: Lest anyone think that Charles Maurian was a complete patzer, he does have a win against Steinitz in the CG.com database.|
|Dec-08-08|| ||Calli: I seemed to recall that Steinitz lost two to Maurian and won 5 or so. Maurian also beat Zukertort. I'll see if I can find those games later. Morphy's opponents were not so weak as many think.|
|Dec-08-08|| ||WhiteRook48: Ha ha ha ... Morphy definitely wins. Since Maurian has to save the King, Morphy will be able to save his hanging Queen ... GO MORPHY!|
|Dec-08-08|| ||DoubleCheck: Can someone post and explain what would of happened if Black tried to counter with 16... Qe4 or Qxc2.
|Dec-08-08|| ||amadeus: <what if Black tried to counter with 16... Qe4 or Qxc2>|
17.Qh6+ Kg8 18.Qf8#
|Dec-08-08|| ||whatthefat: <JG27Pyth: Morphy is just <unbelieveable> ... Bxf7 is preposterous/genius!|
I'm sure a twentieth century GM would give Morphy a much harder time but give Maurian some credit -- he isn't playing like an ape -- he's just getting torn to shreds by one of the greatest, if not the greatest, attacking geniuses of all time.>
It's worth noting that the Bxf7 sacrifice was not a new idea in this line.
Cochrane vs Staunton, 1842
Staunton vs NN, 1847
|Dec-08-08|| ||xrt999: 6...d5 is the refutation to this line. After 7.exd5 Qh4 8.Kf1, the game is in black's favor by a small margin, typical of the kings gambit; although white has traded down material, he has a slight spatial advantage and will attempt to build an attack. |
After 8...Qf6, black is fine. White might try 9.Nc3, Black might try to put his knight on e7 and castle kingside, or even develop and castle queenside. White cannot castle.
I like black here, although I will probably never see this type of opening from white in a serious game. On the other hand, I would never play 3...g5 against the Kings gambit!
|Dec-09-08|| ||Whack8888: Hehe, nice game but no way Morphy was 150 years ahead of his time. I think he was about 50 or so years, maybe less actually, depending on what date you are starting from. Morphy was the best up until about early Lasker, mid-later Steinitz etc.|
Morphy's games are certainly some of the best aesthetically, though. I am not sure if any other player, aside from Tal, had quite the beauty of chess done as much as Morphy.
|Dec-09-08|| ||JG27Pyth: <It's worth noting that the Bxf7 sacrifice was not a new idea in this line.|
Cochrane vs Staunton, 1842
Staunton vs NN, 1847>
Wow, thanks for pointing that out...! Hats off to Cochrane. Nice to see Staunton remembered it well enough to whip some poor amateur with it when he got the chance.
|Dec-09-08|| ||Andrijadj: Well,if you are forced to play a move like Nf6 in ninth move,your defence and tactical vision is extremely bad...And one more thing,after 10 Bg5 why didnt he play Qe8...Cause after all attacks he has Bb4 and capture of queen on e8...|
|Dec-11-08|| ||xrt999: < Andrijadj: This is such an idiotic game,blacks play is simply awful...It would be good to see Morphy trying this opening against Petrosian or Korchnoi... >|
I really have never understood this part of CG: when a very strong player dominates a weaker player, everyone is so enamored and gushes over the very strong player and how awesome his play is, picking apart the weaker player and pointing out the tactical mistakes.
simply put, black played the wrong opening move, 6...Nc6, and lost the game! This is neither remarkable nor notable, it is just a very strong player dominating a weaker player.
|Dec-11-08|| ||amadeus: 10...Qe8 11.Bxf6 Kxf6 12.0-0!, and now the game is over: 12...Ke7 13.Qg5 Kd6 14.Rf6 Ke7 15.Rg6 1-0|
|Dec-11-08|| ||Calli: This game should be at knight odds. Morphy never played Maurian even.|
|Dec-16-08|| ||Andrijadj: Nice amadeus thanks for the insight...But still,same type of demolition happenned in the game,so that just proves my point...
Xrt,that is exactly what I wanted to say...Maurian simply puts no resistance and that is why quality of this game is questionable...|
|Apr-27-09|| ||heuristic: <6...d5 is the refutation>
6...d5 7.exd5 Qh4+ 8.Qf2 Qxf2+ 9.Kxf2
mo' better moves :
8...Kg7 9.Qg4+ Kf7 10.Qh5+ Ke6 11.d5+
13...Kf7 14.Bxf6 Rg8 (14...Ke8 15.Nc3 Rg8 16.g3 ;14...Rf8 15.Nc3 d6 16.d5 )15.Nc3 Ke8 16.g3
|Nov-20-09|| ||cornflake: <xrt999: 6...d5 is the refutation to this line. After 7.exd5 Qh4 8.Kf1, the game is in black's favor by a small margin, typical of the kings gambit; although white has traded down material, he has a slight spatial advantage and will attempt to build an attack>|
6... d5 is not a refutation. after 7.Bxd5 (not 7.exd5) white still has a dangerous attack on the f file after he plays 0-0.
6...Nc6 is a vastly inferior line to 6...d6. For a possibly tenable way to play the 6...d6 line see Degraeve vs C Marcelin, 2002.
|Aug-02-12|| ||LoveThatJoker: Guess-the-Move Final Score:
Morphy vs Maurian, 1866.
YOU ARE PLAYING THE ROLE OF MORPHY.
Your score: 30 (par = 20)
|Jan-06-16|| ||BobbyLev: Some of the comments were pretty negative about "Checkpoint Charlie. A few seconds of poking around on this website shows that Maurian was a regular sparring partner of Morphy's over years, usually playing Black. If you look at the record, Maurian was clearly a worthy opponent.
Classical games: Paul Morphy beat Charles Maurian 2 to 0.
Including rapid/exhibition games: Charles Maurian beat Paul Morphy 36 to 31, with 7 draws.
Only rapid/exhibition games: Charles Maurian beat Paul Morphy 36 to 29, with 7 draws.|
|Jan-06-16|| ||RookFile: Maurian beat Steinitz in an offhand game. The guy could play.|
|Sep-17-16|| ||talhal20: Morphy is that genius who would beat any chess engine, simply because chess engines are made by humans at best possessing the brains above average. But that is not sufficient to beat Morphy consistently.|
|Jul-08-17|| ||talhal20: No modern chess grand master has ever said he could beat Morphy. Apart from Fischer's assesment of Morphy,in an interview Fischer was asked a straight question if he could beat Morphy to which he replyed " I don't know " Fischer is considered one of the greatest ever chess players the world has produced.Now doubters draw your on own conclusion on Morphy.|
|Jan-26-19|| ||RookFile: Morphy was great at the openings in his day. His opponents criticized him for booking up. Such a player today would have no problem being up to speed with the openings.|
|Jan-26-19|| ||MissScarlett: <His opponents criticized him for booking up.>|
|Jan-27-19|| ||Sally Simpson: ***
Hi Miss S.
Maybe something here, or is it a back handed compliment.
"For Morphy possessed the most profound book knowledge of any master of his time, and he never in his practice introduced a single novelty, whereas since his day the books have had to study the players." Steinitz.
Full quote here.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·