|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 212 OF 284 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| May-29-08 | | RookFile: <I know modern 1700 players who play indistinguishably from a grandmaster for the first 20 moves or more.> Nah. You can do something strange, like answer 1. e4 with ....b6, or with white play 1. Nf3 d5 2. b3 c5 3. e4, and they don't have any idea what to do. |
|
| May-29-08 | | Amulet: Chessplayers of all ages, gathered together, Paul Morphy would be King. |
|
| Jun-01-08 | | Blackqueen: He played moves which look like blunders,but infact are really good traps |
|
| Jun-01-08 | | Knight13: <Amulet: Chessplayers of all ages, gathered together, Paul Morphy would be King.> Yeah, king of of dead chess players. |
|
| Jun-02-08 | | whiteshark: "Despite the universal opinion, resulting from ignorance, Morphy's main strength lay not in his combinational gifts, but in his positional play and general style. Combinations can only be carried out when the position allows." -- Capablanca |
|
| Jun-02-08 | | Knight13: <Despite the universal opinion, resulting from ignorance, Morphy's main strength lay not in his combinational gifts, but in his positional play and general style. Combinations can only be carried out when the position allows."
-- Capablanca> Positional style? yeah right. I don't see any positional style in Morphy. All I see is him pulling off impossible-to-see tactical combinations. I'm a positional player myself and I don't sense any of positional play in his games. |
|
| Jun-02-08 | | nimh: By today's standards his style is of course not very positional, but at his time it was deemed quite conservative. <Today many amateurs think of Morphy as a dazzling combinative player, who excelled in sacrificing his Queen and checkmating his opponent a few brilliant moves later. One reason for this impression is that chess books like to reprint his flashy games. There are games where he did do this, but it was not the basis of his chess style. In fact, the masters of his day considered his style to be on the conservative side compared to some of the flashy older masters like La Bourdonnais and even Anderssen.Morphy can be considered the first modern player. Some of his games do not look modern because he did not need the sort of slow positional systems that modern grandmasters use, or that Staunton, Paulsen, and later Steinitz developed. His opponents had not yet mastered the open game, so he played it against them and he preferred open positions because they brought quick success. He played open games almost to perfection, but he also could handle any sort of position, having a complete grasp of chess that was years ahead of his time. Morphy was a player who intuitively knew what was best, and in this regard he has been likened to Capablanca.> |
|
| Jun-05-08 | | Amulet: <Knight13: Positional style? yeah right. I don't see any positional style in Morphy. All I see is him pulling off impossible-to-see tactical combinations. I'm a positional player myself and I don't sense any of positional play in his games>
Are you an authority on this game of chess to even say emphatically that there is no positional play in Morphy's games? or are you just a delusional patzer? |
|
| Jun-05-08 | | Amulet: <Knight13>
How would explain the fact that the great Andersen, who performed that great Immortal game, which underlies subtle chess moves, lost to Morphy in match play? |
|
| Jun-05-08 | | SatelliteDan: What is positional play? |
|
| Jun-10-08 | | Pawn Ambush: I noticed in morphy's games he was never quick to make and obvious capture nor was he as likely to move a threatened piece. |
|
| Jun-10-08 | | RookFile: Lasker described Morphy as a rational player, which I think is an accurate description. |
|
| Jun-10-08 | | FHBradley: <Knight13> Read any reasonable description of Morphy's style, and the truth should dawn on you in almost no time. |
|
Jun-10-08
 | | keypusher: <knight 13><Positional style? yeah right. I don't see any positional style in Morphy. > Here's a good example. Morphy vs Lowenthal, 1858 |
|
| Jun-10-08 | | Whitehat1963: <I'm a positional player myself and I don't sense any of positional play in his games.> Another example:
Morphy vs De Riviere, 1863 |
|
| Jun-10-08 | | Whitehat1963: And how about this for a positional masterpiece?
Morphy vs Paulsen, 1857 |
|
| Jun-10-08 | | RookFile: Also, this one. Morphy's manuever on the g file was decades ahead of his time, and was a plan that Fischer frequently used: Paulsen vs Morphy, 1857 |
|
| Jun-10-08 | | JuliusCaesar: 'Positional' is one of the most misunderstood words in chess. As Reshevsky pointed out, it simply means that you play in accordance with the position at hand. Take many lines of the King's Indian, for example. Black has to react vigorously on the K-side otherwise he risks being overrun on the q-side and in the centre. This vigorous activity often leads to sharp, sacrificial play – in line with the requirements of the position. Many call a slow, maneuvering game positional chess. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. And most hail Karpov as the supreme 'positional' player due to his slow, patient style. However, in the end he he was bested by Kasparov, who turned out to be more positional even than his great rival.
Morphy was the first truly positional player. His understanding of chess was to a large extent codified by Steinitz. To call him a tactician is just silly and reveals an utter ignorance of chess. |
|
| Jun-10-08 | | Riverbeast: In higher level games, most tactical finishes arise from strong positional play...the tactics are usually the 'coup de grace' |
|
| Jun-10-08 | | veigaman: " His main strengh was not his ability to make combination, his main strengh was his positional game and his style"...capablanca |
|
Jun-11-08
 | | An Englishman: Good Evening: Here's a subject for debate--is the Morphy Defense (3...a6 in the Ruy Lopez) the most important innovation in chess history? |
|
| Jun-11-08 | | micartouse: <An Englishman> I honestly always thought 3 ... a6 in particular was a move that people played just because everyone else does. A lemming move! |
|
| Jun-11-08 | | Zygalski: Do you mean the Stanley Defence first played in 1845?
E Rousseau vs C Stanley, 1845 |
|
| Jun-11-08 | | RookFile: That happens. Take the 'NimzoIndian':
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4.
The dirty little secret is that Alekhine was playing this as early as Nimzo was, with far better results than Nimzo ever had, and in a much more modern style. As befits the rules of chess openings, it was named after Nimzo rather than Alekine. |
|
| Jun-11-08 | | euripides: First Nimzos by Nimzo and Alekhine in this database: Janowski vs Nimzowitsch, 1914
As far as I remember, Keene says this was the first use of the 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 order, though it had been played before by transposition. Rubinstein vs Alekhine, 1914
So it looks as if Alekhine got the idea from Nimzowitsch and used it in the same tournament. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 212 OF 284 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
