< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 261 OF 261 ·
|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.|
|Mar-13-15|| ||TheFocus: <Apparently, Morphy's style exerts an irresistable magnetic power for players of all times, and the return to a style of the highest degree is the dream of every chessplayer, not excluding even the Grandmasters> - Bronstein.|
|Mar-17-15|| ||morfishine: Morphy was first and foremost a positional player. The resulting tactics emanated from his ability to achieve superior positions. Morphy would excel in modern times creating his own modern "theory". Morphy's grasp of any position was not equaled by anyone. He left no square unaccounted for.|
|Mar-26-15|| ||Pawn Ambush: These old time champions were capable of playing either tactical or positional chess. Here is a game by Anderssen in his later years playing a Sicilian Kan defense. I don't think they would have any problems learning and employing new systems. |
Philidor on the other hand would crush them all, past and present.
A Schwarz vs Anderssen, 1873
|Mar-26-15|| ||morfishine: <Pawn Ambush> Excellent game by Anderssen! A great example of how winning tactics result from airtight positional play. Position before tactics|
|Apr-15-15|| ||tamar: Father had a serious injury, and mother did not want him consorting with chessplayers to the detriment of his legitimate avocation, and also to his taking a personal secretary who handled his life affairs, but since this is Morphy's page, enough talk about Wesley So.|
|Apr-24-15|| ||Chessical: Bird's Table-talk on Morphy.— "Probably, with the exception of Steinitz, Blackburne is the finest living player. Steinitz is a slow player, and is always pretty well crowded for time, and I doubt if be could have made as good a showing against Zukertort had the latter been less confident, and arranged the match at a time limit of 20 moves to the hour instead of 15. I trotted Steinitz the closest heat he ever contested. He beat me 8 to 7, with six draws. This was in '67. |
In '58 Morphy beat me 10 to 1, with 1 draw, Steinitz claims that he is a better player than ever Morphy was, but I think my record with each is a fair test of the strength of the two. Steinitz claims that when I played with Morphy I was out of practice, but I cannot explain away my crushing defeat by that great player in any such way. I never played better chess in my life than when he beat me.
Morphy had more science than Steinitz — more imagination. His career was very short, though very brilliant, and whether or not he could have held first honours as long as Steinitz has, is a matter of some doubt; but Morphy never met his match. He was never compelled to play his best game. His resources were never fully tested. We were taken a little by surprise by Morphy He was a young man of 21 or 22 years, with bright eyes and flowing hair and broad forehead. When in England he was cool and calculating, never showing enthusiasm. All that we could provoke from bun at the most wonderful sights London affords, was. "Yes I see; that's very pretty."
When he was in London he was all right, but he went to Paris, and foolishly entered upon the gaieties ofthe gay French capital. His physique was not strong, and he broke down. They say he was never quite right mentally afterward. At one time they hoped he had recovered sufficiently to play chess once more; in fact, the doctors advised him to play chess as the best means of restoring his mental vigour. We hoped to have him play in the Continental tournament of 1878, but were doomed to disappointment" - "Philadelphia Times".
Source: <"Nottinghamshire Guardian", Saturday 10th August 1889, p.7.>
|Apr-24-15|| ||keypusher: <tamar: Father had a serious injury, and mother did not want him consorting with chessplayers to the detriment of his legitimate avocation, and also to his taking a personal secretary who handled his life affairs, but since this is Morphy's page, enough talk about Wesley So.>|
OK, that's pretty damn funny.
|Apr-24-15|| ||Mating Net: Really informative, interesting article <Chessical> thanks for posting. <Morphy never met his match> Very true.|
|Apr-24-15|| ||Jambow: Astute observations by Bird. I agree with his conclusions as it has been my own opinion since I started studying chess games. |
If you combine all their common opponents and respective results, Morphy comes out with a vastly superior record. No offence to Steinitz who was a great and worthy champion, who's analytical approach deserves much praise. Yet my opinion is that Morphy understood more at a glance than even the best did with deep study.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 261 OF 261 ·