< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 261 OF 261 ·
|Dec-29-14|| ||TheFocus: Because they can both yodel.|
|Dec-29-14|| ||diceman: <TheFocus:
Any IM or GM today would beat Morphy.>
...looks like they have a difference of opinion:
<<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 ...>
- Bobby Fischer.>
|Dec-29-14|| ||Wyatt Gwyon: I think one could make at least a credible argument that if you gave Morphy the time necessary to absorb modern chess theory he could pose a serious threat to top players, but if you just time warped him into the present day and sat him down against ham-and-egged GMs, I'd wager he'd get his ass kicked.|
|Dec-29-14|| ||Jim Bartle: What if you set up a balanced position from a modern GM game at around move 20 and 25? How would Morphy do against a GM, with modern opening theory out of the way?|
|Dec-29-14|| ||Wyatt Gwyon: That's an interesting question, and I think it would depend greatly on the position. I doubt Morphy would be at a tactical disadvantage, but he might be strategically. My understanding, which comes from John Watson's book "secrets of modern chess strategy," is that the understanding of the middlegame has changed markedly over the last century.|
|Dec-29-14|| ||tamar: I fear Morphy would still be at a disadvantage because theory is not the only thing a modern GM gets from computers. By following the lines, a GM can learn how to play positions and what to aim for.|
For Morphy it would be an immersion in a new environment. For the GM, it would be a routine pattern recognition.
The only level field would be a Fischer Random game. I believe, based on Morphy's ability in odds games, where Morphy excelled even over Paulsen at making game theory decisions in the opening, he would have a seat at the top GM's tables.
|Dec-29-14|| ||Petrosianic: Are you sure even Fischer Random would be "level"? That would eliminate opening theory, but it wouldn't completely compensate for advances in middlegame theory.|
|Dec-29-14|| ||diceman: <Wyatt Gwyon:
My understanding, which comes from John Watson's book "secrets of modern chess strategy," is that the understanding of the middlegame has changed markedly over the last century.>
If John Watson gets it, Morphy should be able to pick it up.
|Dec-29-14|| ||Wyatt Gwyon: <Diceman> Right. Like I said above, it's a different hypo if we give Morphy time to absorb modern theory, as opposed to just plopping him down in front of a GM with the knowledge he had in the 1850s.|
|Dec-29-14|| ||Petrosianic: If we give him time to absorb modern opening theory, we're no longer talking about a player who actually existed. We're then talking about a hypothetical player, and it then boils down to one of those "Would the Enterprise be able to beat the Death Star?" kind of discussions.|
|Dec-29-14|| ||tamar: <Petrosianic> You might be right.|
Fischer alluded to Steinitz knowing more about "the use of squares than Morphy", but a lot of Steinitz work was just analyzing Morphy's games, and trying to find an antidote.
Since chess is a finite game, the people coming after will always have an advantage over the earlier ones.
|Dec-29-14|| ||diceman: <Petrosianic: If we give him time to absorb modern opening theory, we're no longer talking about a player who actually existed.>|
Bobby Fischer of the 70's was a much better player than the "kid" Fischer
who lost to Tal 0-4.
Everyone is a snapshot in time based on the knowledge/experience of the moment.
<If we give him time to absorb modern opening theory>
...my choice would be to send modern players back in time before their machines.
|Jan-11-15|| ||The Rocket: <What if you set up a balanced position from a modern GM game at around move 20 and 25? How would Morphy do against a GM, with modern opening theory out of the way?> |
Morphy would be surprised by the defensive resilience of modern players. Most of his games have a modern flavour overall though, and once he fully grasped the defensive resources of modern chess, he would be a top player.
I wouldn't say it's out of the question that he could beat a 2500 player in some positions, while he would get blown away in others.
|Jan-12-15|| ||Poisonpawns: Depends if the position was open,closed or semi closed. Players like Morphy and Chigorin took the open games to the limit, and this has not been surpassed.What I mean is that a modern GM could not play the open games any better than these players. Now closed and semi-closed would be a different matter.Morphy would have trouble with French,Caro-Kan and Sicilians. They did not have the correct approach at the time to deal with these properly.|
|Jan-12-15|| ||HeMateMe: As someone pointed out above, defense is MUCH better nowadays than in the swashbuckling time of Paul Morphy and Adolph Andersson. Also, the gap in talent between super GMs and weaker GMs is much lower these days than it was in the time of Paul Morphy. It is highly unlikely that Paul Morphy would be able to employ the same style that was used in his time, and unlikely that he would win as many games in this era as he did in his own era.|
|Jan-15-15|| ||gokusano: You are speaking about Morphy of the era he has played with. Talent-wise, I think Morphy would still stand with an equal chance against the no. 1 of today if Morphy was born today. For what part of other's knowledge will Morphy be disadvantage at? I'm speaking about Morphy's talent cultured and educated with today's information.|
|Jan-15-15|| ||HeMateMe: If Morphy were born today, he wouldn't be Paul Morphy. He would be a different person.|
|Jan-15-15|| ||gokusano: Yes of course he will not be born today because he was born before today. Talent is all that matter and it's flexibility. |
<It is highly unlikely that Paul Morphy would be able to employ the same style that was used in his time, and unlikely that he would win as many games in this era as he did in his own era.> You spoke too soon. Why talk about Morphy as if he can transcends from yesteryears into today's time. What a pity!
|Jan-15-15|| ||The Rocket: Morphy wasn't an attacker like Anderssen. He was much more conservative. I would characterize Morphys style as aggressive, at most. Mikhail Tal sacrificed far more pieces in serious play than Morphy ever did.|
|Jan-15-15|| ||Poisonpawns: <The Rocket> "Morphy wasn`t an attacker like Anderssen" This is what set Morphy apart from the "brute force" attackers of the day.Many of those attacks had no positional basis, and as many of those attack were a success, the same amount were refuted. Morhphy attacked when the position said attack. The others would try to launch attacks from any position as they felt they could "out combine" their opponents as they used to say. Anderssen,Blackburne,Bird,Harritz,Falkbeer etc all great but then there is Morphy.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 261 OF 261 ·