|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 112 OF 251 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Nov-12-05 | | ckr: The above link to <SBC>'s doc page got truncated try this one http://batgirl.atspace.com/document...
or
goto PaulMorphy.com and click Morphy's Documents
|
 |
| Nov-13-05 | | Chopin: In my opinion, as of 2005 AD, Paul Morphy is the greatest player that has ever lived. What made Morphy so great was based on his natural talent, he played at Grand Master strength, and defeated the greats of his time. Let's put things in perspective. Morphy lived in the 19th century. During his time, they didn't have the technological advantages that we have today ie Computers, thousands of fully annotated games at our finger tips, libraries of excellent chess books etc. Critics say that if Morphy was alive today and competed against the greats of our time, he'll lose. Obviously, there isn't any way to verify this claim. But say if Morphy was alive today, I'm sure after a few loses, he'll get access to Chessgames.com and some great chess books, and modify his game. We should not forget that Morphy had a photographic memory. I would like to pose the question, how good would Kasparov, Fischer, Spassky, Karpov etc have been if they were born in the 19th century? |
|
| Nov-14-05 | | Jaymthetactician: People would be saying "Morphy who?" "Steinitz who?" Etc. With the exception of Spassky, who as compared to other world champions is relatively weak (Korchnoi, Geller, and possibly Smyslov may have been better). Maybe Spassky would equal Zukertort and a little better then Bird. And Karpov would easily win any generation then as good defense wasnt known then, so Karpov would slaughter the field by means of his far superior defensive technique and positional understanding. Fischer would excell also, but he's like Morphy but with a better understanding of the endgame/opening. And Kasparov would trounce Staunton regardless of how many games they played (Staunton allway's loses). |
|
| Nov-14-05 | | Jaymthetactician: And for the record Morphy IS alive today, visit his myspace link for more details. But it's as if he's young as he was transported at the age of 22. |
|
| Nov-14-05 | | Makofan: Jayme - you spout this stuff all the time. Do you seriously think that if Morphy was born 100 years later he would not up his game a notch? The reason Morphy was (relatively) mediocre at end games is because he didn't get into them too often! Morphy and Fischer are scarily similar - Morphy would have done some Fischer-style opening analysis, improved his end-game technique, and then performed about the same as Fischer. |
|
Nov-14-05
 | | KingG: <Jaymthetactician><With the exception of Spassky, who as compared to other world champions is relatively weak (Korchnoi, Geller, and possibly Smyslov may have been better).> Are you serious? Spassky is one of the greatest world champions, who is underrated by a lot of people because of his loss to Fischer. It is unfortunate that Spassky wasn't able to maintain his motivation after becoming world champion, but he was the best player of the mid-to-late 60's. |
|
| Nov-14-05 | | Jaymthetactician: I never said Spassky was a bad player, just that it's kind of odd that he was world champion especially given his competition (Geller had a plus score on Fischer, he was basically in line with his competition (exept for Fischer) But what I meant was that Alekhine, Capablanca, Mophy, and Philidor were better then Spassky for there respective time periods (though obviousely not better then Spassky in raw objective terms meaning Spassky would defeat them all, but the other world champions were farther removed from there contemporaries skill wise.) for his time. Makofan: I'm glad someone agrees with me that Fischer and Morphy played quite a bit alike. I think that Fischer modeled himself after Morphy and hence the similiar style (I play like a Kramnik with 1000 ELO points shaven off. www.chess21.com/games/a21.asp?inickname/jaymthegenius |
|
| Nov-14-05 | | Jaymthetactician: Heck, go to www.chess21.com and search for jaymthegenius. |
|
| Nov-14-05 | | Paul Morphy: <ckr> keep digging, you will find that P+2 was Mr. Bryant. |
|
| Nov-14-05 | | ckr: <Paul Morphy>
, boiling with rage, and penned the letter to Lord Lyttelton. I took it right away and submitted it to <Mr. Bryant> (Staunton's old Second) who returned to the hotel with me and induced Morphy to sign it. Nor is this all. ?? |
|
| Nov-14-05 | | Paul Morphy: <ckr> elementary my dear Watson! |
|
| Nov-14-05 | | ckr: <Paul Morphy> Was it Bryant that Capt. Evans wrote resigning as second for 2nd Harrwitz match, or was Bryant involved with the third St. Amant match. Harrwitz seemed to be more of a gutter fight as described by P+2? |
|
| Nov-14-05 | | Paul Morphy: <ckr> That should be elementary also, I probably should have heeded Edge's words more, as I was young and and idealistic, while he more seasoned. |
|
| Nov-14-05 | | LIFE Master AJ: IF Morphy were alive today - (of course he is not) - "... then he would beat any master around in a set match." - Bobby Fischer |
|
Nov-14-05
 | | Eric Schiller: <LMAJ> I greatly admire Morphy as one of the greatest chess artists but I disagree with Fischer. Of course, intergenerational matches are hard to imagine. But let's give Morphy a copy of Chess Assistant, a couple of million games, and the training to prepare for opponents in the modern way. Let's assume that he could acquire all necessary skills. Even then, I doubt he'd be able to beat most GMs. Morphy is a Classical player, how would he handle Hypermodern defenses? Could he deal with Petrosian-like opponents.
Fischer towers above Morphy when it comes to winning all sorts of games. It is a sign of great respect to make that comment about Morphy, but I doubt Bobby would have a problem with him over the board.
The genius of Morphy lies more in inspiration and creativity than in pure technique. As such he might be a modern Larsen or Korchnoi more than a modern Fischer. This isn't a knock against Morphy, just a conclusion based on the chess environment of the 19th century. His masterpieces are among the greatest games ever, and I'm working on a project now that has mostly Morphy games. We should recognize his genius, but not leap to conclusions about how he'd fare in modern competitions. |
|
| Nov-15-05 | | ckr: I believe that Fischer also said something along the lines of <If Staunton played Morphy it would have been a great struggle> that is a most perculiar way to refer to an event where the result most likely would have been (+7 zero) |
|
| Nov-15-05 | | ughaibu: Ckr: Fischer was a Staunton fan, he probably thought such a match would be close. |
|
| Nov-15-05 | | Makofan: I disagree with our resident FIDE Master. Morphy was a positional player who would sacrifice a pawn for initiative - a very modern concept. I think he could have adjusted just fine - genius is genius |
|
| Nov-15-05 | | Pawn Ambush:
<he could have adjusted just fine - genius is genius> I agree I think Morphy with that natural talent would have become World champion no matter what era he lived. Morphy and Pillsbury so far as I know have demonstrated that they had strong photographic memories perhaps the strongest ever. Harrwitz vs Morphy, 1858 |
|
| Nov-15-05 | | LIFE Master AJ: <Eric Schiller>
<(On Morphy) "Even then, I doubt he'd be able to beat most GMs."> I would hope you are not serious, but it seems you are, so ... I have made perhaps an entire career studying the games of Morphy. There is no way you could know this, but I used to be famous for my "black books." (Little black notebooks in which I kept chess notes.) I used to have several dedicated to Morphy. One was dedicated to Morphy's games, more specifically ... his combinations. The average player failed miserably to solve any of these, but let's move on to how the masters did. (Since this seems to be the main gist of your argument.) Dozens of masters were tested. These ranged from the garden-variety NM all the way to the exalted class of GM. I generally found that the average master MIGHT be able to solve the puzzles ... if given enough time. (Of course 15-30 minutes were often required for combinations that Morphy produced in seconds, a few of these were from Morphy's blindfold games.) One GM - who was approximately 18 months away from winning the U.S. Championships - failed to CORRECTLY solve several of the most difficult puzzles. (From a few of his lesser known games.) ---> The GM in question found several wins, but none of them were the most precise nor the actual combination chosen by Morphy himself. (Of course the GM might counter that he did not take the tests seriously, nor give it his best effort. But this is all after the fact, I can only go on the actual results of the tests as I conducted them.) Averbakh wrote that chess is 99% tactics. If this is true, Tal and Morphy were both a genuine genius in this department. As for your claim that Paul Morphy - GIVEN THE PROPER TIME AND TOOLS TO PREPARE - would not be able to grasp the modern openings ... its so ludicrous a statement that it leaves me wordless, and unable to reply. As for my part, I have no doubt that a player of Morphy's immense talent would fare well in any generation ... as long as he has had sufficient time to adapt to the element that he finds himself introduced to. Of course - as you also noted - inter.generational chess matches are all pure theory, since (until someone introduces time travel) the actual results of such matches is simply hyperbole and hypothetical supposition. |
|
| Nov-15-05 | | LIFE Master AJ: <Eric Schiller>
Your comments has also generated several e-mails. The response has been 100% pro-Morphy, as <ckr>, <Makofan> and <Pawn Ambush> have also weighed in with their opinions. (Which also come down on the side of Paul Morphy as well.) |
|
Nov-15-05
 | | chancho: Morphy was a great player in his time, but to actually believe he could play in today's game, borders on the absurd. |
|
| Nov-15-05 | | uglybird: <Even then, I doubt he'd be able to beat most GMs.> An incomprehensible, shocking, and in my opinion, bone headed statement from Schiller. Morphy on several occasions took on eight master level players SIMULTANEOUSLY AND BLINDFOLDED and beat them easily without hardly making a mistake. A modern GM would not even attempt such a thing as he would probably not be able to remember all the games, much less win them all. |
|
Nov-15-05
| | KingG: Am i the only one who thinks that there is more to modern chess than opening theory? |
|
Nov-15-05
| | chancho: <Morphy went to europe well versed in openings knowledge, to which he made no significant addition; when outside of the bounds of his knowledge he played the opening no better than others.>
From The Oxford Chess Companion. Morphy was great playing open positions,but in closed games, he was not as good.Steinitz pointed out positional mistakes in Morphy's games. |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 112 OF 251 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
