|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 230 OF 230 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
| Dec-19-09 |
| SufferingBruin: <TheFocus> Morphy had an odd build--slender, low shoulders. He appears to be a slightly built man with, yes, a large melon. Google images of Morphy do not suggest an intimidating presence. But heaven help the man on the other side of the board. |
 |
| Dec-19-09 |
| GalileoPiccolino: "...it has been said - and probably not true -
that every great man has been a chess player.
But was there ever a chess player
who was also a great man?
Of course not and never will be.
It is impossible to. Great skill at chess is not a mark
of greatness of intellect but of a
great intellect gone wrong."
New York Morning Telegraph editorial, late 1800's
lifted from: Treasure Chess
Bruce Pandolfini |
|
Jan-13-10
 |
| gezafan: Chessmetrics rates Morphy as the 66th best player of all time over a one year period. Capablanca said Morphy had the best brain for chess.
Fischer called him the greatest chess genius of all time He easily beat everyone he played.
Chessmetrics does not seem to be a credible rating system. |
|
| Jan-13-10 |
| FHBradley: <He easily beat everyone he played.> Most of them were patzers; although, it must be added, Morphy demolished them with style and grace that is quite unique. |
|
| Jan-13-10 |
| docjr: I agree that the feats of morphy and pillsbury in terms of memory give them the highest potential of all chess players. Their circumstances, (the lack of competition and development of chess for morphy and the late start and illness for pillsbury) limited their potential greatness where i believe capablanca, kasporov and fischer got the most out of their talent. |
|
| Jan-13-10 |
| Petrosianic: <Capablanca said Morphy had the best brain for chess. Fischer called him the greatest chess genius of all time He easily beat everyone he played.
Chessmetrics does not seem to be a credible rating system.> There are some credible arguments that you could make for that claim. That chessmetrics they don't agree with Capa or Fischer's totally off-the-cuff opinions is not one of them. |
|
Jan-13-10
 |
| whatthefat: Anything prior to about 1900 is not really worth looking at in Chessmetrics - or any other rating system - due to the paucity of available data. |
|
| Jan-13-10 |
| AnalyzeThis: Even still, somebody with half a brain would never have given Amos Burn a higher numerical rating than Morphy. |
|
Jan-13-10
 |
| tpstar: I've got half a mind to agree. |
|
Jan-13-10
|
| whatthefat: Numerical ratings are not "given", they are calculated. It is clear that the chessmetrics system suffers particularly from the lack of data in the 19th century due to the padding effect. In fact, the ratings of 19th century players are clearly lower on average than 20th century players, suggesting that the normalization method breaks down there. One thing it does nonetheless show is that Morphy at his best was head and shoulders above his contemporaries, leading by 123 points in April 1859. |
|
| Jan-13-10 |
| Petrosianic: It may also suffer from the time lag between events, since chessmetrics reduces ratings for inactivity. I don't know if they have any correction factor built in for that. |
|
Jan-13-10
|
| whatthefat: <Petrosianic>
As I understood it, the average ratings of players ranked 3-20 are supposed to be fixed under chessmetrics - supposedly as a means of circumventing inflation. However, this doesn't seem to hold true at all times, especially comparing the 19th century to modern day, so I think there must be something else going on. In any case, I think it's best to not take the 19th century results too seriously. |
|
| Jan-16-10 |
| AnalyzeThis: I don't care what the rationale is. Anything that shows Burn anywhere in the same ballpark as Morphy is a flawed system. |
|
Jan-16-10
 |
| pawn to QB4: Doesn't seem too unreasonable to me. Chessmetrics lists Morphy at #18 among players aged 21-22, right up there among the great names and well ahead of Burn and all the other guys around #80, when they were 21. Seems quite reasonable to suppose that, as a 21-22 year old, he was up there with Anand and Kramnik and Lasker and so on, as opposed to miles ahead of them. You'd have expected him to go on, as they did, and post a career-high chessmetrics position in the top 20 with world champions and household names. But, famously, he packed it in. Burn's best results were those of one of the world's leading players of the day, and I can quite see why he belongs around #80 with the likes of Ratmir Kholmov. That's roughly where many of the eventual top 20 would be if they'd left off at the age Morphy did. |
|
Jan-16-10
 |
| parisattack: <AnalyzeThis: I don't care what the rationale is. Anything that shows Burn anywhere in the same ballpark as Morphy is a flawed system.> I concur! Ceteris Paribus (which is impossible at the moment - perhaps some day in the future when computers can accurately emulate players) I would put Morphy at least in the Top 10 all-time list. |
|
Jan-16-10
|
| pawn to QB4: Nope. Burn - the example chosen - won the tournament at Cologne 1898 ahead of most of the leading masters. Had a 21 year old Morphy substituted for Burn in that tournament and made the same score, we wouldn't be saying, wow, disappointment, his other results were miles better than that. We'd be saying it was a brilliant performance by a 21 year old, every sign that here was an all time great, better than the Europeans at such a young age. And you're very welcome to say that such a chap was going to put in top 10 performances had he played on. But he didn't: far more potential than #80 types of guys, but not actual historical results. |
|
Jan-16-10
 |
| chancho: Amos did not exactly burn the field, but he was a fine player. search "burn v chigorin" search "burn v blackburne" search "burn v pillsbury" |
|
Jan-16-10
|
| pawn to QB4: Yes, when Hull next play Sheffield I hope they don't find anyone as good as that for top board. Briefly ahead of the masters at Cologne, #80 performance. Clearly ahead of the weaker masters of 1860, #80 performance and a lot more to come had he not dropped out. If that's what Sonas' system comes up with it's not obvious evidence that it's flawed. |
|
Jan-30-10
 |
| HeMateMe: Have any of you ever been to this restaurant, <Brennans>, which is the old Morphy family home? I wonder if there are any momentos of its famous previous owner, photographs, or such? From Wiki:
"Unfortunately, Morphy's embryonic law career was disrupted in 1861 by the outbreak of< the American Civil War>. Opposed to secession, Morphy did not serve in the Confederate Army. During the war he lived partly in New Orleans and partly abroad, spending time in Paris and Havana, Cuba. Possibly because of his antiwar stance, Morphy was unable to successfully build a law practice even after the war ended. His attempts to open a law office failed; when he had visitors, they invariably wanted to talk about chess, not their legal affairs. Financially secure thanks to his family fortune, Morphy essentially spent the rest of his life in idleness. Asked by admirers to return to chess competition, he refused. The Morphy mansion, sold by the family in 1891, is today the site of <Brennan's, a famous New Orleans restaurant.>" the article mentions that the Morphy's were wealthy, doesn't mention whether or not they were slave owners. One might reason that a wealty family in New Orleans were large land owners, but they may have been successful in another area, like law, insurance, or retail business. Doesn't say if his whole family was anti slavery, anti secession. Even if they were, New Orleans is/was a sort of cosmopolitan city, not like rural Georgia or Virginia. The residents of New Orleans may not have felt any particular kinship with people in St. Petersberg or Richmond. I get the vibe that not being pro secessionist isn't the reason that Morphy had no law career. Even people like lawyers and accountants have to 'sell' their services, have a certain personality, to draw in customers, along with being competent. Paul Morphy may not have had this ingredient in his makeup. <Maybe he just wasn't a good lawyer. >Perhaps Morphy didn't have enough enthusiasm to build a practice. But, I doubt animosity for his being non-secessionist was the reason he never built a career outside of his chess playing. |
|
Jan-30-10
 |
| talisman: <HeMateMe> my stepson is one of the managers there....try the filet with the "bearaaaaaanaise" sauce. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 230 OF 230 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
