< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 257 OF 257 ·
|Apr-10-14|| ||RookFile: A few points.
1) Paulsen absolutely made major contributions to opening theory, that are still relevant today.
2) The statement: "Steinitz could play like Morphy." needs to be qualified. More precise is: "Steinitz could attack like Morphy." The issue here is that Morphy was a fantastic defender on the black side of open games. Steinitz was decidedly NOT. Chigorin, Gunsberg, Andersseon, and numerous other routinely rolled Steinitz up on the white side of open games.
3) Steinitz must be given his due in closed games, and imagined to have an advantage over Morphy. After all, he played them more than Morphy did.
I've gone through this exercise before, I continue to believe that Morphy would win a hypothetical match, because there is almost the possibility of offering a gambit, in order to steer a game from a closed game to an open one.
|Apr-10-14|| ||SimonWebbsTiger: @<Rookfile>
It musn't be forgotten Steinitz did have some odd ideas in the opening.
A nice book is the selection of articles collected and commented on by Ray Keene in the Pergamon Press book "the Evolution of Chess Opening Theory: From Philidor to Kasparov." Chapters 1 to 5 cover: Philidor's Defence; 19th C views on Gambits; the Close Games of Staunton, etc; the Ruy Lopez - Steinitz and the Tarrasch/Chigorin debate; and Tarrasch's search for the perfect defence v. 1. d4.
Perfect for <Conrad> "here to learn." ;)
|Apr-10-14|| ||zanzibar: I have a question about some of the details raised by the Bird interview. The Wikipedia article gives this:|
<In the years following his victory over Anderssen he beat Henry Bird in 1866 (seven wins, five losses, five draws)>
Whereas the Bird interview quoted above gives:
<Steinitz beat me 8 to 7, with 6 draws. That was in '67>
Now, Bird's interview was made several decades after the match, but still...
The Wiki article seems to reference Silman, but exactly how? The link is confusing and possibly stale (but not in the 404 sense, more in the redirect traffic to site kind of way).
Anybody know the accurate details? <CG> gives ~21 games 1866-67, five labeled "match" or "m" for Event/Locale.
Did the match span '66-'67? Note that Bird's 21 game total matches <CG> total game count.
* * * * *
Also, I haven't studied Steinitz as closely as I should apparently. But how radical was the supposed "shift" in his playing style pre-1873/post-1873?
(Bird's match was during his supposed open-style of play. What year or period is commonly regarded as peak for Steinitz?)
|Apr-10-14|| ||perfidious: <ughaibu: If you like we could play some games of three checks chess at BrainKing, my record is around 95%. This includes +5 -1 against a world top 50 correspondence chess player.>|
Yeah, we all care about your results over a small sample size in some arcane variant.
|Apr-10-14|| ||Jambow: If you calculated their respective performance against all players they played in common Morphy's record against the same opposition was significantly better. I have done it before and it is very one sided. |
Thinking Steinitz was his equal none the less superior seems to be wishful thinking at best. There are plenty enough opponents they share in common to get meaningful data from.
|Apr-10-14|| ||Sally Simpson: In the these phantom matches I will always favour the player from the latter generation because as in this instance Morphy will be playing an improved version of himself.|
To say otherwise you are basically saying chess is going backwards This is not so.
|Apr-10-14|| ||RookFile: Chess isn't like life, though. Tal showed up and started dropping knights on his opponent's position, for sometimes dubious compensation. He won anyway. What Tal knew is that chess is 99 percent tactics. Steinitz could certainly calculate, but I don't see how he or anybody else from the 1800's compares with Morphy's ability to crunch out variations.|
In my view, the "modern" era of defensive chess started with Petrosian.
|Apr-10-14|| ||Assignment Troll: <I will always favour the player from the latter generation because as in this instance Morphy will be playing an improved version of himself.>|
This whole idea of standing on the shoulders of giants is really being abused.
|Apr-10-14|| ||zanzibar: Do people put any credance in EDO's ratings?
At the very least it's an attempt to quantitate - and does give an indication of when a player reaches their peak.
For example - Morphy reaches a ATH rating of 2805 in 1859/60.
As for Steinitz - his EDO rating hits his peak in 1876 at 2782. There isn't really a dramatic break in his rating rise in 1870-1873, but rather a steady ratings increase across the 1860 decade. By 1876 Steinitz's rating drops almost as steadily as it rose, from 1876's high to 1885.
Note that Bird, in his interview, was referring to both players from about 1865, when Morphy was about 2700 and Steinitz was, say, 2650. Also note that Bird claims Morphy wasn't necessarily playing his absolute best, given his superiority over the competition.
There is a lot of discussion on this topic of course, here's just one reference, it talks a little about Steinitz' opinion on Morphy:
(Care of batgirl - who is a big Morphy fan fwiw)
|Apr-11-14|| ||Sally Simpson: Do people put any credence in EDO's ratings?
Not one bit. A complete waste of misleading time.
Every generation furthered the understanding of the game and the overall standard of play was better with each generation.
Opening progress aside, I know of only one game where you can compare previous generations and it is a pretty lame one.
E R Lundin vs Smyslov, 1946
Smyslov missed the late middle game win and took the perpetual.
Chigorin vs Rubinstein, 1906
Chigorin found and played the win.
So that makes Chigorin a better player than Smyslov? No. On that day in 1906 Chigorin played a better game of chess than Rubinstein and nothing more.
My main gripe with placing grades on some of the old masters and comparing them with modern players grades. Some players will look at these cock-eyed lists and dismiss some of the most instructive and quite brilliant games of chess ever played because they were not played by a so called 2700+ player.
Failing to study (and thoroughly enjoy) the games from the old great masters, and that includes players like Chigorin, Janowski, Mieses etc will leave huge gaps in a players development.
(And I too am a big Morphy fan).
|Apr-11-14|| ||Petrosianic: <Some players will look at these cock-eyed lists and dismiss some of the most instructive and quite brilliant games of chess ever played because they were not played by a so called 2700+ player.>|
The problem is that chess is a big game. Complicated. Too much for anyone to fully grasp. So, by tossing out everything except a few games played by the so-called "Greatest Player Who Ever Lived", they lighten the load a lot, and have a perfect excuse to ignore most of the game.
|Apr-11-14|| ||RedShield: Is there any chess player who isn't a Morphy fan?|
|Apr-11-14|| ||Petrosianic: Yeah. Staunton.|
|Apr-11-14|| ||Conrad93: Batgirl is a blogger with as much credibility as anyone else.|
|Apr-11-14|| ||Conrad93: An, by the way, those Elo ratings are approximations.|
|Apr-12-14|| ||zanzibar: I agree with much of this discussion, like the danger of trying to compare modern players to historical players, and the danger of rankings, and that this discussion is admittedly speculative, and mostly "for fun".|
I even agree that Petrosian is a seminal figure in modern defensive play.
But a couple of points.
First, Batgirl (aka Sarah), is indeed a credible writer, and maybe more, since she often digs into original sources. It's hard to deny that her blogs often have beautiful graphics from the day as a result. She's usually worth reading, and can I say, accurate as well?
Next, I readily admit the limitations of EDO's system, but I think it's being dismissed a little too casually.
I'll give you an example. Since EDO is a quantitative system (based on certain assumptions, sure) - it allows a visualization like the following:
This is a comparison of the various contemporaries of Morphy just before his retirement. And it was useful to me, introcing me to Ignatz Von Kolisch.
whose name, I must admit, was not immediately recognizable to me. But as the graphic shows, Steinitz, Morphy and Kolisch were playing at a cut above the rest in ~1867. And indeed, if Morphy hadn't retired it would have been likely that his next European match be against Kolisch.
(Kolisch, interestingly, shortly after Morphy also retired from competitive play, going on to become a wealthy banker - who just happened to finance some very influential tournaments).
So, the EDO ratings were useful for me, even if not gospel truth.
|Apr-13-14|| ||Conrad93: Batgirl's blogs would not be a credible source in any academy.|
Blogs, Wikipedia, and tabloids are strictly prohibited.
|Apr-13-14|| ||Conrad93: Yes, they are good approximations about the relative strength of the players.|
In that regard they work.
Their accuracy, though, is questionable.
|Apr-15-14|| ||perfidious: <SBC> has done some fine work and it is outrageous for <Conrad> to malign her in this way.|
|Apr-15-14|| ||zanzibar: <perfidious> is the B for Batgirl?|
BTW- I just discovered that Sarah appears on the Carolus site under her own name:
It's "Under Construction".
Oh, did I mention that I'm a big fan of Carolus too?
Especially his treatment of the WCC:
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 257 OF 257 ·