19th century geniuses, how would they do today?

Hi dzhafner

So even Rybka is coming out in favour of the big 'M'.

Would expect Morphy to be low though. Tacics were his strength and he
placed some guys into psotions were his art showedt through.

He would have dropped a few points on the quicker mates.
A few of his games have quicker mates in them (not many).

I read once if he saw a winning line he rarely changed his mind and went for it.
Cannot recall the book - that's going to bug me.

If Morphy could travel through time why would he be upset about chess clocks?

Originally posted by Double G
If Morphy could travel through time why would he be upset about chess clocks?

The point was made that he was a quick player and would be frustrated by the slow play of the 19th century. He would have most likely welcomed clocks.

My point is if he had a time machine he would never be under time pressure.

If Paul Morphy, at the height of his career, decided to travel to the future to play chess, the Confederates would have won the Civil War and slavery would still exist in what would no longer be the United States.

Morphy briefly applied to serve as a member of Confederate General P.G.T Beauregard's staff, but was not asked to join up because of his being grossly unqualified.

Had Morphy not applied, the General wouldn't have wasted time interviewing someone who had no business being a staffer. He would instead have spent time searching for a qualified member for his general staff and found him.

If he had done so, the rebel forces under his command would have not suffered defeat at the battle of Shiloh, where he wrote, "want of general officers needful for the proper organization of divisions and brigades of an army brought thus suddenly together and other difficulties in the way of an effective organization delayed the movement until the night of the 2d instant, when it was heard, from a reliable quarter, that the junction of the enemy's armies was near at hand."


The Union Army was able to exploit this lack of organization to route the Confederates, winning a stunning blow against the boys in Gray.


If Morphy had vacated before the interview, the Confederates would have won at Shiloh, using that victory to lead to other key victories, and eventually it would have been Grant who would have capitulated to Lee. Slavery would have continued in the South unabated. There would be no abolition. There would be no civil rights movement, because there would be no U.S. Constitution to base any Supreme Court rulings on in southern states.


If Paul Morphy traveled in time to play today's GM's, it would be an unwitting crime against humanity.

Who was better Berthold Lasker or Alonzo Morphy? ... Discuss

Also, who was better The Count or The Duke? And if they travelled in this time machine with Morphy, could anyone else produce a more beautiful win against them?

I saw a video clip of that game.

Someone went back with a time machine and filmed it.

The Duke was not playing the game he was watching, it was the Count
who was making the moves and yet the Duke is often quoted as the loser.

I cannot find the YouTube link.

Originally posted by Thabtos
If Paul Morphy, at the height of his career, decided to travel to the future to play chess, the Confederates would have won the Civil War and slavery would still exist in what would no longer be the United States.

Morphy briefly applied to serve as a member of Confederate General P.G.T Beauregard's staff, but was not asked to join up because of his being ...[text shortened]... y traveled in time to play today's GM's, it would be an unwitting crime against humanity.

Good point well made. But if you were Paul Morphy you could travel to the distant future and learn an exotic variant of hyperchess, travel back to 2010 to beat Anand with your advanced skills, briefly stop circa 1985 to pen Back to the Future, and then travel back to apply for a job that you know you won't get in order to save western civilization. That whole process should only take a couple of weeks but if you were Paul Morphy you wouldn't care.

Originally posted by Willzzz
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 th ...[text shortened]... hat Morphy's games were usually more interesting and exciting, you are probably correct.

"If Morphy in his prime came through time"
Its funny you should put it that way since we have no idea how good Morphy would have been in his prime. He only played a handful of games after 1863 (almost all of them against Maurian) which would put him at about 25 or 26. Anand, by contrast, didnt achieve much of anything until he was nearly 40. At the age Morphy was dominating all the best players in the world, Anand was barely a GM and just struggling to stay in the world's top 50. Relatively speaking, Morphy was a vastly superior player when you compare them at the same ages. You make an unfair comparison when you compare Anand in his prime vs. Morphy 10 years from his prime.

"...and played a match with Anand he would almost certainly lose."
Again, in open games Morphy could hold his own. Closed games are a different story. There's just not enough to evidence to say one way or the other on how Morphy would handle closed games although I did provide some reasoning as to why I think he would do better than most people expect .

So, assuming we're talking about open games only, how do you reach that conclusion ? What evidence do you have? Some bad analysis from some guy using Rybka thats already been shown to be wrong ?

I've given you my own assessment of Morphy's tactical ability relative to some of the better players I've played against and backed that up with an assessment by the greatest expert that ever lived agreeing with me. I've also shown how Anand mishandled those same types of positions and ones likely to occur in a game with Morphy. Then I showed that Morphy completely understood all the strategy involved in those games. I have yet to see anyone even try to contradict the evidence I've provided yet you just seem to think you can ignore it and make wild assertions.

"but it would be a big assumption to assume that it would improve to the standards of say Kasparov. "
Morphy is certainly more talented. Their play is almost equal in some respects yet Kasparov had enormous advantages in getting there. Give Morphy those same advantages and I'm sure he would be light years ahead. On top of that, being the first guy to do something should count for something.

"The only reason I mentioned the absolute error was because in an earlier post you disputed the thinking time, "
I dont really know what you're talking about but like someone else said earlier the analysis is also horribly flawed because it just makes guesses on how much thinking time Morphy used (and even admits it) most of which are way off.

"Sure rbyka3 isn't infallible, but I'm pretty sure it would make fewer errors than Morphy."
It doesnt matter. One position that a human evaluates better than the computer proves the computer isnt perfect and thus the whole thing wrong. Just because a 1200 player makes better moves than an 800 player doesnt mean the 1200 player is perfect.

Originally posted by tonytiger41
what 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.

I dont really see how that responds to the post you quoted. I didnt say he was perfect or anything like that. I've re-read my post several times and I cant really find what you're taking issue with. My post is just facts. Sure I interspersed my opinion in there with comments such as "astounding" but they are facts nonetheless.

Did Morphy lose games? Absolutely. As has every player. You can name just about any player and I bet I could find an ugly loss. The difference is Morphy has one of the highest if not the highest recorded winning percentages there is. On top of that, he played at a time where not all games were saved. I'm sure all of his losses are there (If I beat Morphy there's no doubt I would keep it and probably frame the scoresheet and keep it on the wall) but his wins only survived if they were brilliant checkmates or against the very best players in the world.

Imagine if you applied those same standards to today's players.

Jeez you are at least as stubborn as I am.

A players prime isn't a set age, it's whenever he played his best chess. Anand's prime may be his 40's, Morphy's prime may have been his 20's. There are plenty of child prodigies who bombed, there are people who didn't even pick up a chess piece until their teens and are strong GMs. You cannot assume that people always progress as they get older.

No I am not assuming open games only, that would be stupid. Anand knows what sort of positions he is comfortable in and will try to steer games into those types of positions. Anand would know Morphy had huge gaps in his theoretical knowledge, and may even know specific examples. Let's assume in open games they are equal, in closed games or modern variations Anand will have an edge. Let's say Anand goes down one of these 30 move book lines, it may not be original but that won't affect the result.

Yeah being the first guy to do something is impressive, but that has absolutely no bearing on how he would perform vs today's players. Take any sporting great from 100+ years ago and put them in competition today and they will struggle. It's no reflection on their talent or their achievements it's just a reflection on how far the sport has evolved.

Here's a neat piece of trivia (relating to primes): Morphy was actually younger than Steinitz, but he didn't reign as World Champion until Morphy was long gone.

I wouldn't be too quick to say Morphy was "more talented" than Kasparov. Kasparov, like Fischer and Spassky was a child prodigy. Really though, I am dubious that any of us here can truly tell who of the above listed four are more "talented". They all are so far above our own ken.


On a sidenote, Spassky said at a lecture I sat in on that he had wished he had played Fischer around 1960 - he thought that at that time they were actually playing better chess and the creativity of a match then would have been exceptional.

Originally posted by Willzzz
Jeez you are at least as stubborn as I am.

A players prime isn't a set age, it's whenever he played his best chess. Anand's prime may be his 40's, Morphy's prime may have been his 20's. There are plenty of child prodigies who bombed, there are people who didn't even pick up a chess piece until their teens and are strong GMs. You cannot assume that people ...[text shortened]... lent or their achievements it's just a reflection on how far the sport has evolved.

Its not me being stuborn, its the facts. Sometimes facts are stubborn things.

No, the prime is the point where a player's increasing knowledge intersects with his decreasing physical ability. I could look up the average on chessmetrics but I would guess it would be mid 30s for most people. The point is that its unfair to compare Anand at 40 with Morphy at 20. Those 20 years would give Morphy the opportunity to double his chess knowledge. If we make it fair and either compare both at 20 or both in their prime that only helps Morphy and by quite a bit.

No, you cant assume Morphy would use those 20 years to improve but neither can you do the opposite and assume he wouldnt improve which is what you're doing. All you can do is to start with what we do know as fact and try to extrapolate the truth from it which is what I've done.

"No I am not assuming open games only"
Well then you're having a different conversation than everybody else is. This is what I said way back that started all of this:
"In open games, ....(Morphy) is certainly better than Anand."
Go back and look if you dont believe me. I even reiterated it in the next post after that. My point was this: First, there's not enough evidence to support an argument either way as to how he would handle closed games. A lot of the openings Anand plays are openings Morphy has never seen and Morphy wrote very little about chess so we woud just have his games to go by. Second, if we're trying to compare these two to figure out who the best player is it makes sense to make the field as level as possible. What you're doing is like comparing the fastest runner in 1860 with a guy in a car in 2010. Third, the game of chess is a very different game today. What I'm saying is lets start by looking at Morphy doing what Morphy does. There are certain positions that both players have reached in a game (such as the Evans gambit I gave earlier). Lets start by looking at those positions and then build from there. What you're doing is just wild speculation.

"Let's say Anand goes down one of these 30 move book lines, it may not be original but that won't affect the result."
I dont think anyone is questioning that Anand with all of his advantages (150 years of opening theory, 100 years of chess knowledge, computers and teams of analysts etc.) that Anand would win against Morphy just stepping off a time machine having no idea whats going on. I think a fairly mediocre player would be able to beat Morphy with all of those advantages. I bet I could beat Morphy if I had a chess supercomputer and a team of GMs sitting at the board to advise me. So, the only question is whether or not my analysts could anticipate Morphy's moves and whether I could memorize the analysis. Given enough time to prepare I think its very possible. That doesnt mean I think I'm a better player or even close to his class. Like I said earlier, monkeys can memorize moves but that doesnt make them good chess players.

"Yeah being the first guy to do something is impressive, but that has absolutely no bearing on how he would perform vs today's players."
Its funny after everything I said that you would ignore all of it and focus in on one little off-hand comment I made like my whole post centered around it. I never said it had any bearing on how he would perform vs. todays players. You took that completely out of context.