< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 9 ·
|May-02-14|| ||siegbert: 7 B F8 feels like a terrible move. Black has two pieces developed and manages to undevelop one. After 7 f6 (the only alternative to Bf8) white must be doing ok. he has 5 pieces developed to blacks 2.|
|Jun-22-14|| ||hudapri: I'm just going to take all these pawns and put my pieces on the back rank and see what happens.|
|Jun-22-14|| ||siegbert: I MUST AGREE. I cannot recall seeing this mating pattern at all. it is unusual.|
|Mar-02-15|| ||Whitehat1963: To mate in this way when you're one move away from mate yourself is simply, well, devilish. I'll say it again: Morphy sold his soul to the devil in exchange for this kind of incredible chess vision.|
|Mar-03-15|| ||RookFile: Maybe God gave him natural talent.|
|Mar-03-15|| ||Whitehat1963: It's called a joke, <RookFile>. Live a little.|
|Mar-31-15|| ||mikealando: You sac your rook before the game and move on from there. Chess genius - the checkmate hit me like right hook. I wonder how it felt to Le Carpentier walking right into it.|
|Mar-31-15|| ||FairyPromotion: The visual appeal of this mate is not to be questioned, however black's play leaves a lot to be desired. 7... Bf8 is horrible even for the very beginners, and at the end black walks into a mate in 1 in an equal position. In comparison the Potter game mentioned in earlier pages ends with an identical mate, while the game itself is of much higher quality. W Potter vs Matthews, 1868|
|Aug-01-15|| ||mosmo04: At first I didn't realize that it was mate... then i saw the rook and I understood why he didn't take the black queen.|
|Dec-02-15|| ||Granny O Doul: I feel as if I've said this before, but if so, not within the past four years. It kinda reminds me of that problem where you are given 1. e4 and need to construct a game ending in 5...NxR#.|
|Jan-05-16|| ||dernier loup de T: ...Just a pity that after 12...Kd6, Black was still better; but not to take the pawn e5 immediately at move 10 allowed to White a nice win after 10.Bxf7+ |
|Jan-05-16|| ||dernier loup de T: Thanks a lot for the game of Potter, FairyPromotion!|
|Jan-05-16|| ||dernier loup de T: Morfishine: maybe the greatest game, but not the greatest move: see some losses of Marshall at Monte Carlo 1903...|
|Jan-05-16|| ||dernier loup de T: Specially a move of Tarrasch-baby (Marshall-Tarrasch, MC 1903...)|
|Jan-28-16|| ||juanhernandez: Strong like IRON.
Kind like MOTHER.
|Mar-21-16|| ||talhal20: Perhaps Morphy played better chess as teenager in 1849 than in 1857 when he won American Chess Congres title?|
|Apr-07-16|| ||yurikvelo: Afwul play both sides: http://pastebin.com/ucqAmpxe|
|May-26-16|| ||The Kings Domain: Delightful miniature with a most appropriate pun. It's admirable how Morphy at such a young age had that distinct touch of the master.|
|Dec-18-16|| ||PawnSac: < yurikvelo: Afwul play both sides: http://pastebin.com/ucqAmpxe >|
not really. I looked at your analysis, but it misses the whole point.
This was a game of rook odds. It's not about attrition between equal, or even near equal players. The players were very unequal. It's about chicanery.
Here's a good example of what i mean..
In 1980 or 1981 I was playing with one friend, and a second walked into the room. We ended our game and friend 1 invited friend 2 to play me. He sat down and said.. "Ok I'll play, but you have to give me your queen" (and he snatched my Q off the board). I smiled and played 1.e4. Here's the game:
<remove white's queen> 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 d5 4.exd5 Qxd5 5.Nc3 Qd7 6.dxe5 Bb4 7.Bd2 Nc6 8.O-O-O Qe7 9.Bb5 a6 10.Bg5 Qe6 11.Rd8#
Now.. My opponent was obviously a beginner. That much is clear. It's also clear black was not beaten by raw tactics and analysis. He lost to IDEAS. The main idea was obviously inspired by Morphy...
Morphy vs Duke Karl / Count Isouard, 1858
I have never subjected my game to engine analysis (i mean, whats the point? against beginner moves??), but would not be surprised if it also had many flaws.. at least according to the progs. But the bottom line is i won in 11 moves.
So again, its not about highest level play. The players were very unequal. Nevertheless, the game was won in very short fashion not by a computer crunching bits, but with ideas beyond the understanding of the 2nd player.
|Mar-30-17|| ||bkpov: Completely agree with User: Whitehat1963. Such mastery..|
|Apr-16-17|| ||talhal20: Carpentier was not a beginner. He knew chess and was fairly good player.|
|Jun-06-17|| ||scutigera: <talhal20>: Maybe before, and maybe after, but he appears to have forgotten almost everything he knew about chess for about eleven moves.|
|Jun-07-17|| ||Boomie: <talhal20: Perhaps Morphy played better chess as teenager in 1849>|
Morphy was born June 22, 1837. He was either 11 or 12 years old when this game was played. The following year Morphy played a couple of games with the experienced master, Loewenthal.
Morphy vs Loewenthal, 1850
Check out 23. Bxh7ch in that game. It is a beautiful thing.
click for larger view
|Dec-27-17|| ||Petrosianic: <PawnSac>: <This was a game of rook odds. It's not about attrition between equal, or even near equal players. The players were very unequal. It's about chicanery.>|
You're right, of course. The rules for odds games are different. Or even non-odds games when you're way down. The point isn't to play the best moves. It's to set traps that the other guy MIGHT fall for that will help you even the enormous gap you're facing.
|Aug-05-19|| ||Chesgambit: Odds game|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 9 ·