< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Apr-24-03|| ||ughaibu: I think Morphy only played in London and Paris. His visits were less than 10 years after the first international tournament. There were certainly known strong players who he didn't play. Philidor was demonstrating clearly greater strength over contemporaries who were known to be strong in a more local sense, really pretty much the same as the present world championship. |
|Jul-11-03|| ||hickchess99: i don't really know morphy, but he seems like a good player? |
|Jul-11-03|| ||chessaintforwimps: morphy fan....morphy did not lack in defence tactics,if your good at tactics your good at tactics and morphy is well respected by top grandmasters in the art of swindling even fischer said he admire`s morphys play in losing positions coz he always can fight back. |
|Jul-20-03|| ||chessamateur: <ughaibu:> Philidor's has only how many games in this database? He was a strong player we can see by his games, the strongest we know of his day, but he did not play everyone. Neither did Morphy, But he played matches with all of Europe's Elite, (with the exception of Howard Staunton) who would probably of lost to him (Howard was past his prime then). We have only 12 or so games by Philidor in this database, We have over a 100 games by Morphy. |
|Jul-20-03|| ||ughaibu: Fair enough but over 400 Morphy games are extant so the database is presumably similarly incomplete regarding Philidor. As far as I know Steinitz was the first to use the term world champion, I dont know enough of the history to say more really but looking back from the present Philidor is the first player who conspicuously stands out for me. |
|Jul-27-03|| ||unclewalter: what was wrong with 27. Qd7 Kf8 28. e7
|Jul-27-03|| ||unclewalter: other than, of course, that white was in check on move 27...haha...it was late when i posted that. |
|Sep-13-04|| ||briiian13: What would have been Morphy's rating using today's rating method for FIDE? |
|Sep-13-04|| ||clocked: I think ELO put him at 2690. Note that ratings are only relative to contemporaries. It in no way indicates relative strength to someone such as Kasparov. If you are interested in ratings, you may want to check out http://www.chessmetrics.com |
|Jan-10-06|| ||morpstau: All your comments are summed into one long and meeaningful sentence. Paul Morphy did beat Adolf Anderson but he score was 7-2, he did play in Europe and crushed any one brave enough to face him (i.e.Staunton), he was and still is considered the first World Champion and this is why Stinitz refused to accept the title until Morphy passed away in 1884; he was feared by all even at pawn move odds to the world!, i might add and he in 2 years of match play tore all competition apart like a whimpering rag doll!!|
|Feb-14-07|| ||Poulsen: Morphy's reign is IMO comparible to the one-eyed - as in 'in the world of the blind the one-eyed is king'.|
|Jul-04-07|| ||sanyas: <hickchess99> Yeah, he was pretty good. Didn't perform too well against the best of his contemporaries, but overall, not a bad chess mind.|
|Jul-04-07|| ||MaxxLange: In those days the challenger had to raise the funds to have a match against the World Champion. Staunton allegedly put up many other obstacles, Fischer-style, to defer a match with Morphy into the undefined future. It's crazy that we have come full circle to where the WC is such a mess again!!|
|Jul-04-07|| ||sanyas: Well, history repeats itself, so clearly Kramnik is Staunton, and is likely to lose his title to a short, squat, bearded man, whereupon he will take up an interest in Shakespeare. Then he'll learn to play the piano.|
|Jul-05-07|| ||Petrosianic: >>In those days the challenger had to raise the funds to have a match against the World Champion.
No, you're thinking of much later. Like, when the championship title actually existed.
Staunton was not the World Champion, nor was Morphy (though both were widely regarded as the best in the world at one time or another). In fact, Morphy bitterly resented the idea that he was a professional chess player at all, since he came from a world where it was considered a gentleman's game, not a profession. I don't believe Morphy sought sponsors for *any* of his many matches. Two gentlemen put up a stake, that was it.
Many books list what they call "Unofficial World Champions", people who weren't champion, but certainly would have been if the title had existed in their day. On lists like that, Morphy usually comes out 13th or 14th (depending on whether the lister recognizes McDonnell). Most lists list Ruy Lopez as the first Unofficial World Champion, though a few start as late as Philidor.
If Staunton *had* had an official title, he would have lost it in his match to Von der Lasa (who Morphy never played) in 1853. But most lists regard 1851 as the point where Andersson became the best player. Why Morphy was so keen to play Staunton (who in 1857 wasn't world champion in any sense of the word, official or unofficial), is anybody's guess.
>>Staunton allegedly put up many other obstacles, Fischer-style, to defer a match with Morphy into the undefined future. It's crazy that we have come full circle to where the WC is such a mess again!!
Have we? Topalov did duck the match for 6 months or so,
but it was mainly Kirsan forbidding it (and Topalov has certainly never been retired). Once Kirsan decided he needed the match for his election campaign, it was back on again.
I don't see much resemblance between Topalov and Staunton. Staunton was his own man at least.
|Jul-15-07|| ||get Reti: 27...c6+ 28. Nd6+. Does anyone know any other games with consecutive checks?|
|Jul-15-07|| ||SwitchingQuylthulg: There are plenty of games with two consecutive checks, and some with even more. Tim Krabbé's record page says that the record is as many as six consecutive checks: http://www.xs4all.nl/~timkr/records...|
|Jul-15-07|| ||get Reti: <SwitchingQuylthulg> Thanks. I found this page very interesting: http://www.xs4all.nl/~timkr/chess/c....|
|Mar-24-08|| ||heuristic: 1) BLK's Qb8 seems better one move earlier.
18...Qb8 19.Nf7 Rh3 20.Bd2 Bd4 21.Rac1 Nf6
2) 23.Bd3 looks better than 23.Qf3
23.Bd3 Bxf2 24.Kxf2 Bxd3 25.Bxf6 gxf6 26.Qxd3 (24.Bxf6 gxf6 25.Kxf2 c6 26.Bxg6 Nxg6) (24.Bxg6 Bxe1 25.Nxd6+ Kf8 26.Bxh7 cxd6)
3) BLK has the right piece but the wrong square. The B blocks the Q, which is the better piece to take the N.
29...Bc5 30.Kg2 Qxd6 31.Qh6 Rg8
4) WHT missed 24.Nxd5. This looks crushing.
24.Nxd5 c6 25.Bf4 cxd5 26.Bxd8 Rxb8 27.Bb5+ Kf8 (24...Nexd5 Bxd5 c6 26.Bf4 Bc7)
|Mar-24-08|| ||RookFile: <Petrosianic: No, you're thinking of much later. Like, when the championship title actually existed.>|
In the Spring of 1859, Morphy was proclaimed the "champion of the world" at the London chess club, and had a private audience with Queen Victoria.
Petrosianic's great grandfather was present, and he stated for the record that Morphy wasn't the champ, and Victoria was really the queen, either.
|Jun-08-08|| ||derek.mourad: here a big mistake was not castling|
|Jan-07-09|| ||notyetagm: Wow, this is *incredible* chess.
|Oct-17-09|| ||WhiteRook48: 26...Rh2+ is a big chance to take|
|Nov-08-13|| ||Mudphudder: Excellent hard fought game on both sides! 28.Nd6+! was a siiick move.|
|Feb-02-18|| ||TheChessSavant: <ughaibu> It's obvious he is very jealous of Paul Morphy.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·