|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Mar-21-13 | | shakespeare: wonderful game - and to all criticizing Morphy - this kind of play in an open position is moreless invented by him |
|
| Jul-15-13 | | builttospill: Just played through this one in guess the move. Really enjoyed that. I like the restraint Morphy shows in developing his pieces before he goes into an attack. 12. Bf4 was something I overlooked, thinking I should start attacking with Nd5 right away, but in retrospect the rook on a1 plays a crucial part of the winning attack. So what I'm saying is Bf4 moved the bishop off c1, which was necessary, and it was placed on a good diagonal nonetheless. I find that move in particular instructive, as quiet as it was. Another one I missed was 18. Qa6. With Morphy games you know those rook sacrifices are coming, looking to set up what looks like will be a brutal fork with Nc6, but it is actually first to play Qa6 (which prevents Kb7), that is the intention behind Rxe7. It forced black's hand with c5, which was correctly met with dxc6. (Yes, I did get that) Nb5 at the end was also better than Nc6, giving the rook a free path up to c7, the same path that I alluded to earlier as opening up as the result of developing that bishop. |
|
| Mar-27-14 | | yureesystem: Morphy conducted this attack wonderfully and accurate. |
|
| Jul-06-14 | | TPFIN: How about this?
9. Qb4 c5
10. Bb5+ Bd7
11. Qa3 a6
12. Bd3 Nf6
13. Bg5 g6
...And black has a small advantage! |
|
| Jul-06-14 | | raju17: Why criticise Morphy. His games are immortal like a gallilian telescope. |
|
| Jan-01-15 | | Mating Net: I really like the exchange sac 17.Rxe7. It guarantees that d5 & c6 remain firmly in White's control while maintaining the initiative. |
|
| Jan-02-15 | | 1971: Morphy is always so efficient, he got the max out of every move. |
|
| Jul-19-15 | | newzild: <raju17> and <shakespeare>, who's criticising Morphy? Nobody that I can see. |
|
| Nov-04-15 | | Mating Net: Morphy's e pawn managed to make all 5 possible pawn moves in a single game. They were:
1.e4 double square advance.
15.exd5 a regular capture
19.dxc6 en passant capture
20.c7 single square advance
21.cxd8Q a promotion |
|
| Nov-16-15 | | talhal20: I have gone through many a post saying to the effect that if Morphy were to play present day grand masters he would come out a loser. Presumption is that Morphy would play with his old knowledge of chess. If the present day grand masters are to play Morphy with the chess knowledge prevailing during Morphy's time they would get beaten from their head to toe. That is Morphy for present day grand masters. |
|
| Feb-17-16 | | thegoodanarchist: As <Sally Simpson> pointed out here, Larsen vs Spassky, 1970 (kibitz #227) White's e-pawn does everything a pawn can do.
1. Move forward on the file by 2 squares: 1.e4
2. Move forward on the file by 1 square: 20.c7+
3. Capture to the left: 19.dxc6 e.p.
4. Capture to the right: 21.cxd8=Q
5. Capture en passant: 19.dxc6 e.p.
6. Give check: 20.c7+
7. Promote: 21.cxd8=Q
8. Travel on both a light-square diagonal and a dark-square diagonal, moves 19 & 21 |
|
| Feb-17-16 | | thegoodanarchist: <Mating Net: Morphy's e pawn managed to make all 5 possible pawn moves in a single game. > I didn't see this post before making the one right above this. I expanded the repertoire a bit. |
|
Mar-12-16
 | | fearlessone: Want to talk about move 18.Qa6 I was thinking Nc6+ if Kc8 Qa6 is mate. If Ka8 qa6 qxa7 mate is unstoppable and just as I was beginning this note Kb7 after Nc6 stops the qa6 mating attack idea so that why Morphy played qa6!! Nice game |
|
| Sep-15-16 | | sudoplatov: It's difficult to compare older generations of chess players with moderns. Were these guys transported to the present, they would not only learn new opening theory, they would also know new endgame and middlegame techniques. However, we do have Lasker of the 1924 or 1934 to compare with Lasker of 1894 and the games of Ossip Bernstein in 1954. It reminds me of the comments of George Halas when (in the 1970s) he was asked how many yards Red Grange would gain had he played in the modern game. He said, about 500 or so. The questioner said, why so few? Halas answered, Red is 75 years old. |
|
| Sep-15-16 | | Poulsen: <newzild>< who's criticising Morphy? Nobody that I can see.> I am not critizing Morphy either - but I critize those who speak of Morphy as if he was a demi-God of chess. He had a very narrowminded understanding of chess - even compared to some of his contemporaries, such as Staunton. But clearly he was the best player in his days - but his heyday came at a point, where chess had come to an almost complete standstill - in terms of evolving into a true sport with ever increasing playing strenght among the best. Even the best of the rest was playing in a reckless coffeehouse style and had little understanding of f.x. the strategic aspects of the game. So Morphy's main feat is not his dazzling victories against players, that played with their head under their arms, but the fact, that his example instilled new energy into the game - making the best players study the game more thoroughly. <sudoplatov><However, we do have Lasker of the 1924 or 1934 to compare with Lasker of 1894 and the games of Ossip Bernstein in 1954> Very true - and also it is clear, that Anderssen became a much better AFTER Morphy than before - despite increased age. |
|
| Sep-15-16 | | WorstPlayerEver: Let's hear it from a master:
'Perhaps the most accurate player who ever lived, he would beat anybody today in a set-match. He had complete sight of the board and seldom blundered even though he moved quite rapidly. I've played over hundreds of his games and am continually surprised and entertained by his ingenuity.' ~ Bobby Fischer
___
QOTD:
"Such a unique, ingenious game must produce its own special matadors." ~ Stefan Zweig |
|
Sep-17-16
 | | perfidious: <shakespeare: wonderful game - and to all criticizing Morphy - this kind of play in an open position is moreless invented by him> No less a figure than Botvinnik wrote that no-one had managed to improve on Morphy's handling of open play since his time. |
|
Sep-17-16
 | | HeMateMe: <It reminds me of the comments of George Halas when (in the 1970s) he was asked how many yards Red Grange would gain had he played in the modern game. He said, about 500 or so. The questioner said, why so few? Halas answered, Red is 75 years old.> I love that! |
|
Sep-17-16
 | | keypusher: <HeMateMe: <It reminds me of the comments of George Halas when (in the 1970s) he was asked how many yards Red Grange would gain had he played in the modern game. He said, about 500 or so. The questioner said, why so few? Halas answered, Red is 75 years old.> I love that!> Sounds like it was adapted from a similar story about Ty Cobb ("He would hit .333 today." "Why so low?" "Well, he is now 75 years old.") In fact, if you moved Cobb into modern baseball he'd hit only .289. It's science. Morphy idolaters, take heed. http://research.sabr.org/journals/a... <WorstPlayerEver> <Perhaps the most accurate player who ever lived, he would beat anyone today in a set-match.> I suppose it would be churlish to point out that 23.Nc7+ is more accurate. |
|
| Sep-17-16 | | WorstPlayerEver: No kidding. I didn't know the average brain has grown that fast lately. It certainly does not rhyme with the theory of Evolution lol |
|
Sep-17-16
| | keypusher: <WorstPlayerEver: No kidding. I didn't know the average brain has grown that fast lately. It certainly does not rhyme with the theory of Evolution lol> No, it doesn't, but somehow or other we do play chess better than they did back in 1858. We run faster, too. |
|
| Sep-18-16 | | morfishine: <keypusher:...I suppose it would be churlish to point out that 23.Nc7+ is more accurate> Not only "churlish" but downright stupid: both force mate you idiot, so whats your point jerk face? ***** |
|
| Sep-18-16 | | pawn to QB4: morfishine, rather than resorting to silly abuse you'd do better to learn a small point from someone who has got it right. 23.Nc7+ forces Qxc7 24. Rxc7 and 25. Qxa7# is unavoidable. After 24. Rc7?! Qxc7 25.Nxc7+ mate takes a little longer. So 23.Nxc7+ is more accurate, and though it hardly matters here, someone who makes that error in this position will one day make a similar one - say in a position where Black has a lot more material but hey, after Rc7 I'm mating him anyway - which throws away the win. |
|
| Sep-18-16 | | morfishine: <pawn to QB4> Nice try, but the only point herr <KP> made is that he didn't bother to read the previous posts which clearly noted 23.Nc7+ but thats a common trait found in self-centered narcissists: The ability to dictate eloquently, but unable to listen due to the crap clogging their ears ***** |
|
| Sep-18-16 | | WorstPlayerEver: @keypusher
Quite obvious, yes. People are getting better nutrition and better healthcare than in the 19th century. Therefore we grow stronger on average and live longer than in the 19th century. Theory didn't stand still as did technology.
Besides, in the 19th century chess was a game for the few, while nowadays more than 600 million people play chess so now and then. Fischer never stated Morphy made ALL his moves in the most accurate way. However, I do apologize for calling you names. My bad. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 17.Rxe7