As you yourself admit below, <both talent as well as playing strength>, talent and playing strength are different notions. What's with accusing me in 'splitting hairs' then?

The reason why I pointed out your resorting to semantical nuances is that I deemed it to be inappropriate, while we actually were discussing about whether Fischer was wrong and how good Morphy was in absolute terms.

<You may very well be a fair judge of playing strength with the use of a computer, but you're not as good a judge as Fischer was when he made his comments about Morphy. >

Where is the difference? What makes Fischer's rather hasty blurt so special?

<Morphy's huge advantage in both talent as well as playing strength compared to his contemporaries make him the greatest chess mind ever.>

No doubt that these facts rank him among one of the greatest players, if not the greatest. And he is my favourite player.

But one should still keep one's head clear and refrain from making too pretentious claims.

<Fischer's point was that someone with chess understanding and sense for positional subtleties like Morphy would very quickly incorporate the new theoretical knowledge learned in play with a modern master into his body of chess knowledge, and would be able to apply it to his game on-the-fly. >

Really? Fischer rather seems to be hinting at that Morphy, having arrived at our time, would be immediately able to surpass them.

<A popularly held theory about Paul Morphy, is that if he returned to the chess world today and played our best contemporary players, he would come out the loser. Nothing is further from the truth. <In a set match, Morphy would beat anybody alive today>>

<His greater talent would pave the way for his greater playing strength.>

<The reason why I pointed out your resorting to semantical nuances is that I deemed it to be inappropriate, while we actually were discussing about whether Fischer was wrong and how good Morphy was in absolute terms.>

You can't have it both ways, ace. You said Fischer's statement was wrong and scandalous. It may be wrong in your opinion, but it was in no way scandalous and it was inappropriate for you to say so considering how you want this debate framed.

You can't seem to admit that, though.

Instead, you accuse me of arguing semantics. Then you turn around and want to debate talent versus playing strength when that was not really the crux of my point anyway.

You are not being very intellectually honest here.

<What makes Fischer's rather hasty blurt so special?>

Fischer was Fischer. Like him or not, he was an authority on all things chess and his opinion should not be so quickly dismissed.

Also, why do you call his comment a hasty blurt? Do you know the circumstances under which he made it?

<Fischer rather seems to be hinting at that Morphy, having arrived at our time, would be immediately able to surpass them.>

He doesn't say that at all. He says that he would win a match with any modern master. That is not at all the same thing as showing up and winning right away.

Back in Fischer's time, when matches were matches, it was customary to play very long matches compared to today. If Morphy showed up today and played Anand a match to ten wins, it would be the first chance he ever really had to learn from someone with higher playing strength. And it would not go to waste.

Losing is a much better teacher than winning. Morphy had no one to learn from. He was his own teacher, and he still revolutionized the game.

Someone with Morphy's talent and insight playing a master of today would go through a very quick learning curve.

Morphy would get a few OTB chess lessons in the early games, then he would begin to narrow the gap with some draws as his knowledge increased, and then pull away at the end as he incorporated his new knowledge into his game, and then he'd finish victorious.

<Morphy's talent being greater than that of modern players is very very improbable, rather an astronomically small figure>

So what? Long odds come off all the time. People win the lottery don't they?

And am I to assume that you worked that astronomical figure out? Sure, right.

<I hate arguing with stats geeks. You guys always miss the point.>

What point is he missing?

<<Morphy's talent being greater than that of modern players is very very improbable, rather an astronomically small figure>

So what? Long odds come off all the time. People win the lottery don't they?>

My argument is don't be surprised when long odds come off.

I am not saying improbable things occur, therefore this improbable thing occurred. Nimh, however, seems to be saying improbable things rarely occur, therefore this improbable thing did not occur. In the grand scheme of things, it's pretty unlikely that a Morphy would exist at all. And yet there he was.

If you go back over what I posted, I am simply agreeing with Fischer's remark about Morphy.

I agree that he would not win immediately, but after a few losses his eyes would be wide open and he'd have great chances to take the match from a modern master. If he were to play today's best, it would be the first time since he was a young boy that he had someone to learn from. And learn he most certainhly would. After a few OTB lessons, his opponent would be facing a whole different Morphy. Someone with Morphy's talent and insight would not need a long drawn-out course of study to get up to speed. He would get much, much stronger with each loss and would very quickly gain an edge. That was what Fischer was saying and I agree. I'll grant that I'm reading into his remark a bit, but how else can you interperet what he said? He didn't say he'd win a tournament, or a game. He specifically said a set match. Becuase in a match of several games, he would have the time to catch up on theory, get a bead on his opponent, and emerge victorious.

Also, <nimh> wants to scold me for debating semantics becuase it's "innapropriate" considering how he wants the argument framed. Yet he makes an inflammatory and incorrect statement about Fischer's remark being "scandalous". I call him on it, and instead of retracting his comment, he attacks me for clinging to semantics.

While I'm at it, I'll go ahead and stoop to minutia. Here's what <nimh> said: <Morphy's talent being greater than that of modern players is very very improbable, rather an astronomically small figure if you take into account fact how many times more people have given his/her soul to chess since and how popular chess is nowadays compared to Morphy's time>

What does any of this have to do with whether or not someone would surpass Morphy in terms of talent? Desire and dedication have nothing to do with raw talent.

<Greater number of people also creates a proportionally greater number of talents, and the probability of emerging a super-talent whose talentedness shadows everyone before him, also increases>

This part I can agree with but how does this make it astronomically small that Morphy's talent would hold up over the years? What kind of numbers is he basing this assertion on?

Well, in my opinion it <was> scandalous and the MW definition you linked doesn't make me think otherwise. I could have used any other adjective as well, so what? Why such nitpicking?

It's easy to see how stupid it was, like many other Fischer's statements on chess or even politics. Why cannot it be scandalous, if this particular word really must be used?

<and it was inappropriate for you to say so considering how you want this debate framed. >

Framed? How so? Pointing out for you what's relevant to the discussion may be anything, but hardly an attempt to 'frame'.

<Instead, you accuse me of arguing semantics. Then you turn around and want to debate talent versus playing strength when that was not really the crux of my point anyway. >

I accused because you actually were bringing semantics into the matter while nitpicking about if 'scandalous' was the right term to use. Personally I don't care, as it is anyone's subjective choice which word to use.

You mentioned the word 'talent' first, whereas beforehand I had talked about playing strength only. It seemed to me that you didn't get at all that they are completely different notions and should not be mixed up.

<Fischer was Fischer. Like him or not, he was an authority on all things chess and his opinion should not be so quickly dismissed. >

Fischer was the best player in his era, but it doesn't make him an authority all chess matters. How quickly one's opinion should be dismissed is a matter of the credibility and reasonableness of a statement. Which in Fischer's case is so obnoxiously idiotic that I earnestly refuse to believe that any sensible human would take this for truth under the pretext of Fischer's presumed 'authority'.

<Also, why do you call his comment a hasty blurt? Do you know the circumstances under which he made it?>

I'm just assuming based on how mindless it appears. He said it in 1992 at a press conference of the return match, which makes it quite strange. Couldn't he have kept his tongue behind his teeth at that moment? I think later he himself felt embarrassed about that remark.

What's more puzzling, he even claimed that he had played over his all games, but he nevertheless didn't notice how waek the quality of play was compared to Fischer's contemporaries?!

This implies two possible solutions:

1) Fischer deliberately produced the scandalous statement for the very same reasons as the other ones.

2) Fischer played over Morphy's games when he was in his early teens or even before and carried the faulty impression in his memory all the way till 1992 without ever questioning its validity.

<He doesn't say that at all. He says that he would win a match with any modern master. That is not at all the same thing as showing up and winning right away.>

Morphy would get a few OTB chess lessons in the early games, then he would begin to narrow the gap with some draws as his knowledge increased, and then pull away at the end as he incorporated his new knowledge into his game, and then he'd finish victorious.>

I don't approve fairy tales amidst serious discussion.

There are 2 further problems with what you presented here.

1) Chess is primarily a tactical game, as empirical evidence shows. Firstly, computers that are essentialy nothing but calculators and surpass humans whose strength lies in positional play; and secondly, mistakes in positions where finding correct moves is done by calculation are usually more disastrous. Simply acquiring modern opening theory and principles positional play would not make up the deficiency of hundreds of ELOs in terms of playing strength. And improving one's tactical skills to play to such a high level isn't easy either.

2) Even if Morphy by a miracle obtained such a high playing skill, he simply would cease to exist the same Morphy as he was. He would be indistinguishable from any other man with similar level of talent and character.

<So what? Long odds come off all the time. People win the lottery don't they?>

Yes, they win, but do you realize how many peaople actually play the lottery and how many of them are lucky? If you want to convince me or anyone that Morphy has won the lottery of talentedness, you have to prove it. Simply assuming so on no basis is rather mindless.

<And am I to assume that you worked that astronomical figure out? Sure, right.>

Makes more sense that saying that improbable tings surely occur.

<In the grand scheme of things, it's pretty unlikely that a Morphy would exist at all. And yet there he was.>

A demamgogical mix up the existence of Moprhy himself and the amount of his chess talent with respect to best modern players.

<What does any of this have to do with whether or not someone would surpass Morphy in terms of talent? >

The point of this remark to remind you that it's more logical and probable to assume that modern masters own more talent than Morphy and it's in a stark contrast with what you hold true.

<Desire and dedication have nothing to do with raw talent.>

Correct, but where did I assert so? desire and dedication are commendable notions, but you can't serious if you really believe that this is what discerns Moprhy from modern players and helps him to ascend to the same level as them.

<This part I can agree with but how does this make it astronomically small that Morphy's talent would hold up over the years? What kind of numbers is he basing this assertion on?>

It's not a concrete number, but logical thinking. It has been 173 years since Morphy was born, every year the population of Earth has grown and likewise the popularity of chess.

I have to give the edge to what I think Nimh's point is. Morphy by virtue of existing in the modern world would cease to be Morphy.

And the combination of 28th move, has a flaw, it was commented by Sergeant.

http://store.payloadz.com/str-asp-i...

Anyway Morphy was in his youth, we can see how was growing and developing his attacking style, which later will be used to pulverize the greatest players of his time."

Okay, Fischer wasn't Chuck Norris, just saying.
He did say the King's Gambit was refuted, but that was most likely based on emotions, rather than actual lines (he lost a game to it right before he published the paper).

I must disagree, based on computer analysis. But for the relief of Morphy-hypers the extent of practical play and time controls are still undetermined factors. If anyone can prove that he only took 10-15 minutes on average to complete games, I think then I'd accept the claim that Morphy played better than an average GM today.

I think I read somewhere that Morphy played quickly, and could pull off tactical beauties in a blink. I'm probably wrong, though.