19th century geniuses, how would they do today?

Well there is enough in this one thread to feed me blog material for weeks.

To drop Morphy into todays tournaments is like asking the Wright brothers
to fly a modern jet.

Yet without the Wright brothers there might not be a jet.

".....how far up the food chain could he [Morphy] rise in today's world "

How long would the food chain be without Morphy?

All this talk about Morphy's Brain, the evolution of mankind since the 1850's
and time machines is quite hilarious.

The following generations are standing on his shoulders, best to leave him
in the mid 1800's. If you remove him they may come tumbling down.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Well there is enough in this one thread to feed me blog material for weeks.

To drop Morphy into todays tournaments is like asking the Wright brothers
to fly a modern jet.

Yet without the Wright brothers there might not be a jet.

".....how far up the food chain could he [Morphy] rise in today's world "

How long would the food chain be without ...[text shortened]... ders, best to leave him
in the mid 1800's. If you remove him they may come tumbling down.

I guess the same could be said for Capablanca, the last unschooled world champ.

Originally posted by sonhouse
For instance, Paul Morphy, bitch slapped his opponents all over the board, all of them. But that was with the limited strategic knowledge of today. So suppose you snatch him in a time machine and put him up against today's masters, IM's, and GM's. Where would he fit in that spectrum?

Would a modern 2300 player be able to stop him? Even assuming Morphy go ...[text shortened]... the advantage of 150 years of technology and modern technique.

Could Morphy handle that?

I demand that all the geniuses out there get together and invent a time machine so we can settle the issue once and for all. I'm tired of seeing this ridiculous question. 😛

I told you I have a time machine and there is room for one more person but you have to bring your own weapons. I'm NOT joking.

Originally posted by Willzzz
http://web.zone.ee/chessanalysis/summary450.pdf

This goes some way to answering the question, it puts Morphy somewhere between a modern 2300 and a 2500.

I too doubt the human brain has evolved significantly in the past 1000 years, it's all about knowledge being passed down the generations in books, etc. By learning things from books we are able to take a shortcut and then we still have 50 odd years of life to make progress.

The paper made a huge blunder about Morphy. When it calculates average error by thinking time (the most important stat) for Morphy, it just split his 8 hour games in two, as if Morphy took four hour to play his games. It is known that he was extremely quick, and 30 mins for all his moves would be a lot more accurate. That would probably place him around 2600 easily.

Originally posted by gorookyourself
I think he wouldn't do as good as everone else thinks he would.
Most people say he had talent and no databases or opening knowledge that we have etc etc. I think the calculation ability that is needed for todays top players would destroy a player from the 1800's.
I give those 1800's players a rating of a modern day 2200.
Ya ya ya you can't compare ...[text shortened]... oday would not increase his calculation ability and that is what chess is...calculation.

You are very funny. I don't know what type of humour existed in the 1800's but you are a true modern day comedian!!

Morphy was an outstanding genius.

The only reasonable criterion for this sort of comparison is the player's record against his peers: Morphy comprehensively demolished all competition. Given the material available to the modern player he would have been a prodigious talent by today's standards.

Do we blame Newton for not discerning the intricacies of the cosmos; or do we hail him for advancing our understanding? Are the axioms of Euclid useless? Is Aristotelian logic out the window?

No! Context is everything!

Morphy would hold up the latest MCO and say

"Already in 1860 I knew chess was heading this way and that is why I quit.This guy,Fischer,was right!Y'all should follow our example.Now,please send me back,thank you."

toet.

Originally posted by gorookyourself
I think he wouldn't do as good as everone else thinks he would.
Most people say he had talent and no databases or opening knowledge that we have etc etc. I think the calculation ability that is needed for todays top players would destroy a player from the 1800's.
I give those 1800's players a rating of a modern day 2200.
Ya ya ya you can't compare ...[text shortened]... oday would not increase his calculation ability and that is what chess is...calculation.

Ironically, calculation is the one area where Morphy could match and probably exceed today's best players. Morphy was probably the fastest and most accurate calculator of all time and thats not just me saying that: Fischer said essientially the same. Morphy rarely used more than a few minutes to calculate a line and the accuracy of his calculations are astounding especially when you consider he didnt have a computer to check them against. He was by far the fastest calculator in an era when the games were far more tactical than they are now and players didnt have computers and teams of analysts to check everything beforehand. Morphy was head and shoulders above everyone he played. Not only did he destroy everybody but he even played simuls against some of the world's top players and won most of the games. He was probably the world's top player when he was 9 or 10 years old.

I've found that people who compare Morphy to 2200s and such are generally low rated players who have no frame of reference as to what a 2200 actually is. They see 2200s as gods. There's actually a 2200 at my club that I've played hundreds if not thousands of times. If we play 10 or more games in a night I can usually take one or two from him. He sometimes makes mistakes and generally the calculation for both of us isnt much more than a few moves ahead in blitz or rapid.

By comparison, I've played through Morphy's games and I dont think I could ever beat him. He almost never makes mistakes and even when he does they're too subtle for me to be able to exploit. You find positions in his games where he had to have been able to see 15, 20, 25 moves ahead. I dont even think today's best players could do that at least not as quickly and accurately as Morphy could.

Originally posted by sonhouse
For instance, Paul Morphy, bitch slapped his opponents all over the board, all of them. But that was with the limited strategic knowledge of today. So suppose you snatch him in a time machine and put him up against today's masters, IM's, and GM's. Where would he fit in that spectrum?

Would a modern 2300 player be able to stop him? Even assuming Morphy go ...[text shortened]... the advantage of 150 years of technology and modern technique.

Could Morphy handle that?

I think Morphy would be thrilled at the idea of a chess clock considering how frustrated he used to get at his opponent's slow play.

In open games, Morphy is probably better than today's best players. He's at least equal. He's certainly better than Anand.

In closed positional games Morphy wouldnt be as strong. But, consider this:
1) Morphy was 50 years ahead of his time as it was. He wouldnt have to learn that much.
2) Positional play was intuitive to Morphy. Most people have to learn it but it was second nature to Morphy.
3) Morphy always was able to adapt and learn from his opponents. See his match with Harwitz.
4) As far as learning in general and memorizing opening lines I dont think anyone could pick things up as fast as Morphy. He graduated from law school at 19, memorized the entire civil code of Louisiana and at the same time was the world's strongest chess player. I dont think learning how a game that he had mastered has changed over the course of 100 years and memorizing a couple of opening lines would be all that tough.

Hi Savage.

I'll always support PCM when this nonsense about how would
he fair today crops up. Better players than us have said he would
be OK and still up there, I'd leave it there.

I agree with everything about Morphy and this amazing ability to learn
from his opponents and cut new paths.

However...

"He's certainly better than Anand. "

Gosh Savage I hope you have a thick skin you have gone out on limb there.

The grade worshippers will flay you alive.

I hope you have an example or two tucked up your sleeve to beat them off with.
(fall back on the Anand 6 move lose that stalls them).

I will watch from afar but be assured that every blow you take I will wince at.

Don't let the coming raging tide put you off posting an opinion.
(perhaps you should have added 'in my opinion'😉.

Good Luck mate and may your wounds heal quickly.

Morphy without modern training would not stand a chance vs today's 2700+. The main problem Morphy has is that he never had any real competition in his era. While Morphy was clearly an excellent player, his contemporaries were not and therefore he was never stretched as a player.

Perhaps if he did have serious competition he would have elevated himself to an even greater level, however it is now impossible to tell. His absolute error is massive compared to any of the serious contenders for best player ever.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Hi Savage.

I'll always support PCM when this nonsense about how would
he fair today crops up. Better players than us have said he would
be OK and still up there, I'd leave it there.

I agree with everything about Morphy and this amazing ability to learn
from his opponents and cut new paths.

However...

"He's certainly better than Anand. " ...[text shortened]... should have added 'in my opinion'😉.

Good Luck mate and may your wounds heal quickly.

I was talking about in open games only. I realize he would still have a lot to learn to be able to handle closed games against todays best. Tactically Morphy is every bit as strong as today's players and the strategy in open games hasnt changed since Morphy's time (at least according to Botvinnik). I dont see any reason why he couldnt handle Anand in an Evans gambit. Here's one of Anand's efforts on the black side of an Evans gambit:

Hi Willzzz

But there is nobody today who is so far ahead of his contemporaries
as Morphy was in his day.

It's not Morphy's fault there was nobody good enough to challenge him.
Nobody about to show what he could really do.
He gave up the game because there was no one left to beat.

You cannot use his absolute error because the data on his side is flawed.

Also the OP's question was not was he the greatest player and could he beat
2700+ players, but could he hold himself v a 2300 player.

The answer to that is of course yes.

Savage pushes the boat a bit further and I am cheering him on from
the other side of the bank.

Look at the attack v Anand that came straight from Morphy's era.

A Rook lift from e1-e3, a classic Bishop sacrifice and a stunning Queen sac on f7.

No one did nothing like this to Morphy. A really nice game of chess.

Anand resigned after 25...Qxf7 I've added the mate.

Kaidanov - Anand, Moscow 1987.



But to play fair Anand's defence against the talented attacking player
Miguel Illescas-Cordoba (white) was perfect and again this attacking
set-up contains the same ideas as the previous game.

Of course this talk of a Morphy v Anand in an open game challenge is also
pie in the sky mumbo jumbo. But it does give us the excuse to display some
instructive GM's on here.

Usually GM's game are shown on here to prove how good one opening v another
so if we buy the book and memorise the moves we can play just like they do. 😕

Here is Anand holding it together OTB. there are some smashing
variations under the skin of these moves. The attack looks so good.

Originally posted by sonhouse
For instance, Paul Morphy, bitch slapped his opponents all over the board, all of them. But that was with the limited strategic knowledge of today. So suppose you snatch him in a time machine and put him up against today's masters, IM's, and GM's. Where would he fit in that spectrum?

Would a modern 2300 player be able to stop him? Even assuming Morphy go ...[text shortened]... the advantage of 150 years of technology and modern technique.

Could Morphy handle that?

Fischer was asked the same question pertaining to Morphy and claimed that if Morphy came back today (that was the 1970s) he would defeat any living player. Personally I disagree, but Fischer is a slightly more qualified judge than I am concerning this topic.