He does not come to grips why Morphy was so dominant in his time, noting that he could not find any great difference in combinative ability, endgame play, or understanding of position play that set him apart from players of this time.

<The case for Morphy against Van Wely is that Morphy belongs to a different order of player than Van Wely.>

Is this it?

Yeah, I'll stop harping on it. Anyway I consider myself a Morphy fan even if I don't come across as one in these debates. I love his games and I'm astounded by how good he was in a time with relatively little chess knowledge. I just don't believe it's possible to fairly compare players across so many generations. Morphy was clearly a better player *for his time* than Van Wely (or most other GMs) is for his time, and of course Morphy is a much more important figure in chess history. For me that's enough. Unfortunately Morphy's career was all too short to support conclusions such as Fischer's, and the popularity and viability of professional chess was still in its infancy.

Thanks for the complete Smyslov quote. I can't deny that some of the greatest legends of chess history seem to suggest that Morphy was already on the level of top players from a century later. Of all the praise perhaps Botvinnik's comment about Morphy's genius for *open games* is what I can agree with the most:

<OJC: An interesting take on the players from different eras problem: < From every point of view therefore the modern player is far better equipped than the older players; he has a wider range of understanding of different types of strategy, he knows far more about the openings, and he is better equipped technically. Can we then say with confidence that Botvinnik, Smyslov, or Tal would beat any former champion?

The best way to try to answer this is not as is usually done, to ask how Morphy would do if he were transplanted to the present, when the issue is confused by the feeling that Morphy would rapidly absorb our present knowledge. It is rather to ask how Tal (or Botvinnik or Smyslov) would do if he were transplanted to the past. I personally can feel no doubt at all that any of these three would in these circumstances have demolished with comparative ease all players before Lasker: their advantage in knowledge and technique would have been decisive. With Lasker, however, I must confess to doubt. This extraordinary genius, with his indomitable fighting spirit, resourcefulness, and psychological insight into his opponents' weaknesses, coped without any apparent difficulty with all the technical innovations in his lifetime - even when he was far past the normal prime of life for a chess-player. The Reti school which he first met when in his middle fifties caused him no trouble at all. I believe his knowledge was near enough to that of the moderns for his genius to carry him through. With somewhat less confidence I belive the same about Capablanca and Alekhine.

To sum up, my views are as follows. The general level of play among the great masters is far higher today than ever before, and no player before Lasker had a combination of knowledge and genius sufficient to enable him to compete on level terms with the moderns. With Lasker, Capablanca, and Alekhine, however, a level was reached which has not yet been surpassed - though it has been equalled by the 1948 Botvinnik and may again be equalled by (or even surpassed?) by Tal or Fischer. If this view is wrong, then it errs in overrating the older players. I rather hope it is wrong; I don't like to think that chess has been played as well as it ever can be. >

One day, I had been sitting viewing microfilm in the library for hours. And then, boom!, there was my first major discovery of previously unknown material.

When I realized what I had found, I just sat there for several minutes staring at the screen. My head felt foggy, tunnel vision set in, and I could hear nothing but my own breathing. My body felt drained, or, like I had been punched in the gut.

And then the world slowly came back, and I realized that I had actually discovered something everyone else had missed. It had sat in plain view for over 50 years.

What exactly are you on about ?

Just be more transparent.

Lawson says "now known to be incomplete" because of games he discovered and published in 8/1978 and 9/1979 BCMs which were not counted in those Chess Monthly totals. So those totals are not accurate which probably means they didn't come from Morphy (as I'm sure he knew the correct totals).

<What exactly are you on about ?

Just be more transparent.

Why be all cute about it ?>

I am saving the material for my Fischer book. I have several things that have not appeared in any other books about Fischer, and don't plan on releasing those either.

I guess you will have to wait for it.

But <parisattack> knows what my big find was. I sent him a copy.

<Why be all cute about it ?>

Maybe <paris> and I are friends and we were just sharing something here.

Hey no probs. And anyway sometimes I deserve it ! lol.

I am a lowly 5 :(>