|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Sep-07-15 | | Devin Larson: How if after the move d3+ then black move Kb1? |
|
| Sep-07-15 | | Devin Larson: I think black is save after kb1 |
|
Jan-25-16
 | | MichaelJHuman: Wow, how fun! |
|
| Jan-25-16 | | Papagambit: After 17.d3 if then Kb1 then 18.a3! still wins, W will 0-0 and move the b pawn to b4 and then the QBishop moves decisively 1-0 |
|
| Jan-29-16 | | juanhernandez: a different
view |
|
| Apr-07-16 | | yurikvelo: game analysis: http://pastebin.com/iEy1f9Cw |
|
| Apr-07-16 | | capafischer1: Morphy was phenomenal with the initiative. Time and time again i see him sacrficing a pawn or two or a piece sometimes for the initiative. I believe Fischer said Paul Morphy was the most accurate player that ever lived. Not taking to account the opening chess life did an article on who was the most accurate player and morphy came in first place followed by capablanca and fischer. They took 10 of their best games and compared it to top choice of the best computer at the time. If Morphy was alive today and you give him 6 months to study the modern openings it is extremely possible he would be the best ever because of his amazing memory. Remeber he finished law school a couple of years early and memorized close to a 2000 page law book from Louisiana so studying the openings would be a breeze for this super genius. And furthermore it is an absolute fact that nobody was further ahead of his contemporaries than Paul Morphy while he was alive. |
|
| Aug-20-16 | | talhal20: To capafischer from talhal20
I fully agree with you. One patzer has written that modern players take decades to study and master openings with computer engine !! |
|
Aug-20-16
 | | keypusher: < Not taking to account the opening chess life did an article on who was the most accurate player and morphy came in first place followed by capablanca and fischer. They took 10 of their best games and compared it to top choice of the best computer at the time. > Never heard of that, which doesn't mean it didn't happen. Do you have a cite? |
|
| Mar-31-17 | | bkpov: You cross a bridge when you come to it. Modern chess , had it been prevalent in those days; Morphy would have mastered it. It's a sacrilege to compare him with anybody. Such mastery... |
|
| Mar-31-17 | | morfishine: I've always loved this game
***** |
|
Sep-14-17
 | | FSR: <keypusher> This isn't what <capafischer1> was talking about, but it's interesting anyway: http://chesshive.com/2017/01/world-... |
|
Sep-14-17
| | FSR: <keypusher> This isn't what <capafischer1> was talking about, but it's interesting anyway: http://chesshive.com/2017/01/world-.... Looking at a large number of a player's games, as CAPS does, makes a lot more sense to me than looking at just his ten best games. It's possible for any fairly strong player to play ten games that are just about (possibly entirely) perfect. I've probably played hundreds of perfect games, most against weak players. For example, 1.d4! f6? 2.e4! g5?? 3.Qh5#! I'm a genius! One example of a game I played against a strong player that I think is perfect (apart from a repetition of moves I played to gain time on the clock) is F Rhine vs D Sprenkle, 1981. |
|
| Sep-19-17 | | Olavi: <FSR> Interesting, but it would seem to me that having only the games of each player's top years in the sample would be more reliable. For Karpov fans the last 10-15 years were rather painful, and nowhere near his best; are those included? Also one shouldn't take these things too seriously. It's perfectly possible to play worse than your opponent - in some objective sense - and still beat him/her in a match. |
|
Sep-20-17
| | FSR: <Olavi: <FSR> Interesting, but it would seem to me that having only the games of each player's top years in the sample would be more reliable. For Karpov fans the last 10-15 years were rather painful, and nowhere near his best; are those included?> Your position makes sense; otherwise you'd have to conclude that Fischer and Kasparov were much stronger than Karpov because they essentially retired at their peaks. I think that when asking who the greatest player is, people are mostly comparing players at the heights of their respective careers. But I think that longevity also deserves positive recognition where a player has been able to play at a high level for a very long time - Lasker, Korchnoi, and Smyslov are examples. <It's perfectly possible to play worse than your opponent - in some objective sense - and still beat him/her in a match.> Very true. I've had many games that I "deserved" to lose, but drew or even won, and the same could be said of my opponents. |
|
| Nov-23-17 | | Cornelius89: Papagambit <After 17.d3 if then Kb1 then 18.a3! still wins, W will 0-0 and move the b pawn to b4 and then the QBishop moves decisively 1-0> why 18.a3! ? - that just allows 18..Ka2. Much faster I think: 18.Be3 (threatens black Queen), ... 19.O-O# (or vice versa - 17...Kb1. 18.O-O (white pawn on c2 safe by bishop and queen), so same result :) naresh <They played a lot of games together. There was nothing special about this one.> You're joking. Aside from the fact that we have a game between the father of one of the greatest chess players before many of the modern chess tactics were developed and that man is itself astounding; regardless of how many games they played together. And how could this game not be amazing - the king ends up at the same row as the white king before the endgame! and mated by a castle! please, update your definition of 'special' :-) |
|
| Nov-23-17 | | RookFile: When you're a dad you don't mind losing like this if it keeps stimulating your son's imagination. |
|
May-29-18
 | | Phony Benoni: I don't understand whey Morphy is considered so great. It took him 18 moves to castle. |
|
| Sep-14-18 | | romancitog: I love these games between father and the son. There is nothing more satisfying to a father than when his son surpasses him and goes on to bigger and better things. |
|
| Oct-25-18 | | Mini Morphy: Crazy! |
|
Oct-26-18
| | Phony Benoni: I was just thinking: is <18.0-0#> a discovered check? The king moves away and unmasks a check by the rook, so it seems like a textbook case. |
|
Oct-26-18
 | | OhioChessFan: Black looks fine to me after 17..Kb1.
18. a3 Rd8 (...Ka3 19. 0-0 and it's all over)and Black is fine but still facing Morphy. 18. Be3 Bb4+ 19. Bd2 Qxb2 20. 0-0 Kxa2 and Black is much better but still facing Morphy. I lean toward yes, it is a discovered check. |
|
| Dec-30-18 | | fkohn: So according to the pastebin site it's #9 after 17 ... ♔b1. I fed this into Stockfish lite and got this possible continuation: 18. O-O ♗c5 19. ♗e3+ ♔xa2 20. ♗xd4 ♗xd4 21. ♕c2 ♖hd8 22. ♖b1 ♗xf2+ 23. ♔h1 ♖xd3 24. b4+ ♔a3 25. ♕xd3+ ♔a2 26. ♕b3# |
|
| Mar-28-19 | | Lampwick41: I just love the games of Paul Morphy’s!
If he had been a music composer, he would have been another Mozart.
If he had been a sculpture, he would have been another Michelangelo. |
|
| Sep-05-21 | | phenstyle: 14..Qd4??? worst move of the game for black, takes away a square you could potentially move your king to, restricting your own king's movement or potential escape squares is the worst thing you can do in chess. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
Annotations by 
sac: 17.d3+