destroyed them,bitch slapped them,no competition.....poppycock
"Thus I found myself reviewing Morphy's most significant games and found,somewhat surprisingly,that they were hard fought battles with chances for both sides.His opponents were not always lambs for the slaugther - not by a long shot!" - Valeri Beim
toet.
Originally posted by WillzzzI disagree that Morphy didnt have any competition. In a relative sense that time period wasnt matched until the 1900s possibly until Capablanca showed up. Steinitz, who was actually older than Morphy, was never better than the 3rd or 4th best player in the 1860s but became world champion later on more by attrition than anything else. And Lasker beating a 60 year old Steinitz doesnt exactly impress me.
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 ...[text shortened]... . His absolute error is massive compared to any of the serious contenders for best player ever.
I do agree that there is a limit to how much better someone can be relative to their competition but shouldnt that be an argument FOR them being great not against them? Morphy was clearly the best player of his era and STILL had enormous room for improvement considering he hardly played chess from age 12 to 19 and retired in his early 20's. To me, that says he was one of the great chess talents of all-time. I dont get how you turn being talented into a bad thing.
Absolute error? Oh.. you mean that link. The way you said it sounded like it was the word of God set in stone. Honestly, there's so many things wrong with that analysis I could type for days and not cover everything. First and foremost, the whole thing hinges on the fact that Rybka 3 at 14 ply is absolutely right every single time. Its not and I think everyone would agree. Computers make dumb mistakes sometimes. I was just reading a book by Nunn the other day where he was showing positions that computers misanalyzed. On top of that 7 moves ahead isnt enough to definitively prove anything especially when the players themselves are looking much deeper into the position.
I could go on like on the selection of games or how its comparing apples to oranges to compare different eras etc. I honestly believe Morphy threw some games specifically to Loewenthal and Harrwitz and strangely enough those two players make up nearly half the games sampled. I mean Morphy playing the black side of a Petrov? Come on.
I could also talk about original moves and by that I mean the number of moves that the player had to come up with on his own without any assistance. In Morphy's day games were usually out of book just a few moves in and even so the moves you played were your own. There wasnt anything to check them against. Compare that to today where games run 30 moves or even longer before getting out of book and then players get to their computer checked home analysis which can frequently carry them to endgames they've already memorized. Its not hard to put up a good score with a computer when you get to check the analysis against a computer before the game. Most modern games there are only a handful of original moves. I've even seen games where there were no original moves and both sides just repeated a game that had been previously played. Not a lot of thought going into those games. I could teach a monkey to memorize moves and by your standards he would be one of the all-time great players.
Anyway, I could go on but that would just be beating a dead horse.
I also think Morphy had one of the most impressive calculative minds in the history of chess. From a chess strength sense he would be a very formidable adversary-
It's hard to imagine however that he would even enjoy modern chess.
On the subject of match rates with rybka 3 set to 14 ply - while interesting, I find it dubious as any real measure of quality of play. Anyone who has worked closely with Rybka in analysis knows that the evals can be flawed, particularly in endgames.
Hi Savage.
That splash you just heard is me jumping into the lake and swimming
towards you, I'm coming onboard.
Too long I have been one of the lonely voices howling against these anti
Morphy claims.
I don't think they dislike him, or his games. (most have never played over his games).
It's the grade. They cannot see past the numbers.
Someone somewhere has worked out PCM's grade is around the 2500/2600 mark.
Utter and compete nonsense but the numbers rule.
They have a scale.
2800+ = Rocket Scientist with mega brain who see so many moves
ahead you are beaten 3 weeks in advance.
down to...
1400 = dribbles food, cannot read or write.
There is no switching these guys. Their minds are totally closed.
You might as well go to the Religious Forum and try to convert everyone
to Catholics, you would have more success.
You take the helm, I'll man the guns.
If Morphy in his prime came through time and played a match with Anand he would almost certainly lose. In some situations he probably could win a game or two, but not a match. Give him a year of competitive play against the top masters and maybe he could mount a serious challenge.
Yes there are many many factors that mean we can't compare his play with that of today's players. While with modern advantages his play would certainly improve but it would be a big assumption to assume that it would improve to the standards of say Kasparov.
The only reason I mentioned the absolute error was because in an earlier post you disputed the thinking time, I was merely pointing out that by ignoring thinking time it doesn't change the result. Sure rbyka3 isn't infallible, but I'm pretty sure it would make fewer errors than Morphy.
I agree about the apples and oranges thing, we can't even make definitive judgements about the relative strengths of today's players. I suspect you are trying to make the point that Morphy's games were usually more interesting and exciting, you are probably correct.
I have to confess that I haven't read all the posts, so someone may have touched upon this.
I've heard enough of this put Morphy in our time mess. Let's put Anand or Kasparov in the 1860s or so. Let's see how they adjust without their computers, books, or databases. There would be no preparation (or very little at best). The lack of chess clocks would probably be a little irksome as well.
Let's go even further. All travel would be by long long boat rides, train rides, or horse and buggy. Information would travel only by letter and telegraph. There is no indoor plumbing either. Also, everyone is dressed (and I mean formally dressed) all the time, so the comfort factor goes out the window as well. Also, I doubt Anand would be able to find a decent vegeterian meal (if he is one).
Put all that together and some of the things I am overlooking, and then let's see them try to handle Morphy.
NOW, we have looked at this thing from every angle.
Next Question ...
How do you think Morphy, Fischer, Anand, and Kasparov would compete on the Planet Of The Apes?
LOL ... I've been up all night, and I think my brain is a little fried. 🙂
Originally posted by paulbuchmanfromficsTo say nothing of the fact they didn't use clocks in the mid 1800's. That alone would drive them batty🙂 Can you imagine a quick player like Kas in that situation? 4 hours later the guy makes a move, he takes 3 minutes, makes a move, 2 hours later the guy turns into a speed freak and actually moves.....
I have to confess that I haven't read all the posts, so someone may have touched upon this.
I've heard enough of this put Morphy in our time mess. Let's put Anand or Kasparov in the 1860s or so. Let's see how they adjust without their computers, books, or databases. There would be no preparation (or very little at best). The lack of ches ...[text shortened]... The Apes?
LOL ... I've been up all night, and I think my brain is a little fried. 🙂
Originally posted by greenpawn34I love Capablanca for that reason, his games are so crystal clear! Alekhine not so much...
Morphy's games were usually more interesting and exciting...
Yes but no more than Tal's, Fisher's or Kasparov's (to name but a few)
I think we all love Morphy because we can understand his games.
It's so annoylingly simple (and yet we still stumble).
We fear what we don't understand.
- Joined
- 20 Jan 07
- Moves
- 24972
Originally posted by greenpawn34I have to take issue with you here GP. It's actually been documented that Morphy gave the game up because the American civil war tore his heart out. He looked at what the war was doing to his beloved country and suddenly realised the futility of putting all his efforts in to a board game. If it hadn't been for this i think he would have continued to play.
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 ...[text shortened]... Nc4 16. Rg3 Qxd4 17. Bh6 Nxe5 18. Rxg7+ Kh8 19. Rd1 Qc5 20. Rd5 Bxd5 21. Qxe5 Be4[/pgn]
I'm sure we would have seen him continue to dominate the game in much the same way. He completely destroyed Anderssen. I think the over all games scores between them was something like 13-3 in favour of Morphy witha couple of draws. I think we have to remember also that Anderssen and Steinitz played for the first ever world title with Steinitz running out winner by a very narrow 8-6. Granted this was some 20+ years after the Morphy Anderssen encounter and Anderssen was undoubtedly a more rounded player but i think it just goes to show just how good Morphy really was.
I have a copy of a book by chess trainer and author GM Valeri Beim called "Paul Morphy A modern perspective" where he puts 50 of Morphy's serious competetive games under the modern microscope.
Morphy comes out pretty damn well with Beim's ultimate conclusion being that Morphy was a genius pure and simple. Sure he picks apart some of his games and shows some moves to be less than accurate but that can be said of the analysis of many a modern master. There are also games in the book described as masterpieces " EVEN BY MODERN DAY STANDARDS"
Morphy would need to pick up on the modern opening ideas and theory and perhaps get a bit of a grounding in what we know today as statics. However thats about all it would take to see him challenging for the world crown. It's quite laughable to think he would merely be in the league of a 2300 player. I'm sure he could beat a room full of modern day 2300's in a simultaneous blindfold dislplay!
- Joined
- 09 Aug 01
- Moves
- 54191
Originally posted by savage4731what do you think of some of morphy's losses? i recall some pretty ugly games too. so let's not go overboard, the man was not perfect.
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 as ...[text shortened]... y's best players could do that at least not as quickly and accurately as Morphy could.
Originally posted by greenpawn34Is there any more room on the boat? I can row!
Hi Savage.
That splash you just heard is me jumping into the lake and swimming
towards you, I'm coming onboard.
Too long I have been one of the lonely voices howling against these anti
Morphy claims.
I don't think they dislike him, or his games. (most have never played over his games).
It's the grade. They cannot see past the numbers.
...[text shortened]... eryone
to Catholics, you would have more success.
You take the helm, I'll man the guns.
True morphy did make mistakes and he is not a computer program so he might get tired or distracted from time to time. On the other hand, if you analyze his games with rybka and assign an arbitrary value for a bad move, such as a loss of .33 pawns on the evaluation. He has 8 games with no mistakes.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1011658
Rybbka could be misevaluating the positions. Even so, this is a difficult feat for modern players to match.
Secondly, the openings morphy played have been used to beat many world champions since.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1227872
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1034110
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1289139
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1018654
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1070668
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1078466
to name a few
It almost appears as though some modern players have forgotten how to defend against the king's and evan's gambits. Perhaps they are too busy memorizing opening theory for other openings.
Hi Tony.
Yes of course. All great players have a few of those in their locker.
In Morphy's case if the creativite juices were not flowing that day.
Then so be it.
Hi Paul.
We need a cook.
Hi Talisman.
My comment on the reason he gave up the game was because according
to Hooper & Whyld in the Oxford Companion quoting a letter from Anderssen
who states Chess was not a pastime to Morphy he needed to test his steel
and in the end he lost that sense of mssion.
I read that as him running out of opponents.
This I saw on another site dedicated to Morphy.
"Establishing himself as the best player of his time, Morphy, with nothing left to
prove, promptly quit playing chess much like Fischer."
And have often seen words to that effect elsewhere.
Edge claims it was because of the conduct of some of the European masters.
A psychoanalysis claimed it was because Staunton refused to play him
and he had no father figure to beat. (what utter crap).
A woman he fancied did not want to go out with a 'mere chess player.'
so he quit playing.
He wanted to be a lawyer so stopped playing.
The American Civil War...
Take your pick.
The net is covered with all sorts of nonsense about Morphy (and Fishcer).
It's best just to play over the games and ignore the chittle-chattle.
I agree totally about the 2300 player statement, I think the lad may have just
pulled this number out of the air.
I don't have the Valeri Beim book but have seen it and liked what I saw
exept the price.
I know how good he is, I've seen his games, I have been inspired by his games,
I have enjoyed playing over his games. I have written about and analysed
his games. What is this book going to do for me.
If I see it going going cheaper I'll pick it up.
That site that I mentioned: It's dedicated to the Opera Game.
http://www.academicchess.org/Pictureshows/morphymassacredone_files/frame.htm