In the thread 'Kasparov vs '70's Fischer' we are all having fun
speculating the what if's and how's of taking today's great players
and matching them against the GM's of the past.
Today it's Fischer v Kasparov.
An old theme that has appeared on many chess sites in the past.
Always good fun and the cases put forward range from the bizarrre
to the plausible. I'm not knocking it, indeed I will most likely go
back in and chip in a name or two.
This thread differs in as much I speculate what if there was no Paul Morphy.
What would have happened then?
I think you all know what a big PCM fan I am but I do wonder.
Did Paul Morphy stunt the growth of chess as we know it today.
Now I have your attention I shall continue.
The latter half of the 1850 was Morphy's time.
He came, he played and everyone learned.
The Morphy style and ideas were adopted, crafted and absorbed.
It was not until Steinitz change his style from 'AUstrian Morphy'
to the 'Deep Thinker' did chess take another giant leap.
But no Morphy. What would have happened?
I take you to India. The year is 1853.
The Scotsman John Cochrane and the Indian Bonnerjee Mohishunder
Played hundreds of games. Were it not for the Morphy hype
then these games would have become more famous than the
games of the La Bourdonnais - Mcdonnel matches.
As it was they were to a large extent ignored.
Most will be surprised at the game I'm about to show you.
It is quite unlike any game you will have seen from the Romantic era.
These two prouduced many many games like this.
If the Morphy void had been filled with players studying what
was going on with these two players. There would have been a massive leap.
Of course The Morphy ideas would still be there waiting to be discovered
but would they have been so succesful if the players of the day had been
grounded in what we call the modern style of play.
Their defensive technique would be quite high a fault often laid at the
feet of PCM's opponents.
Did we need the Romantic era?
You won't see many games played with that style today.
But in the following game, played 150 years ago you will see the
set up and ideas that are GM's tools today.
If the players of the day had studied them then instead of waiting
till 1920 would chess be 70 years ahead of what it is today.
Enjoy the game. It's not perfect.
What you will see the is the raw ideas that were shoved into the background
and ignored the moment Morphy sat down in the New York USA ch. 1957.
They stayed ignored for 60-70 years.
And no I have not pulled it from a modern tournament, this and
100's of games like it were being played in India by these two in the 1850's.
There are Benoni's. Pircs, Nimzo Indians, Grunfelds and King's Indans.
Some of these games are quite brilliant.
I've chosen this one because I have a good idea what is going on
and it has a Queen sac wrap up.
John Cochrane - Bonnerjee Mohishunder, Calcutta 1853.
Originally posted by greenpawn34As ever, great post GP! 🙂
In the thread 'Kasparov vs '70's Fischer' we are all having fun
speculating the what if's and how's of taking today's great players
and matching them against the GM's of the past.
Today it's Fischer v Kasparov.
An old theme that has appeared on many chess sites in the past.
Always good fun and the cases put forward range from the bizarrre
to th little bit of Morphy.} 33. Rf8+ Kh7 34. Qxg7+ Kxg7 35. R1f7[/pgn]
You know, i read the first paragraph of this and got to the premiss and instantly thought of another Indian player, Mir Sultan Khan. I'm not sure if you've come across this guy before, i happened across a great little article on chess.com a couple of years ago but i can't seem to find it. There was a smaller article which i link below, but the original was written by a GM and he analysed the game in great depth.
http://www.chess.com/article/view/best-player-ever
In this game he defeats None other than the great Capablanca! Khans technique is just light years ahead of his time, you could spend 3 or 4 hours analysing it comfortably without even scratching the surface. Enjoy 🙂
Hi MT.
Yes of course I know all about Mir Sultan Khan.
His is an incredible story.
Never did the Cochrane game justice notes wise.
There is a lot of trickery going on.
Great player Cochrane. Years ahead of his time.
If only Morphy went to India instead of Europe, then we would have
seen some games of chess.
No Moprhy, then fear not.
TAL!
He would have kicked off the Romantic period.
The Gambits of the 1800's would all be getting explored in the 60's (the 1960's).
That would have been the perfect back drop to the Beatles.
I wonder what would have happened if Morphy had become a lawyer and never played chess.
Originally posted by greenpawn34A great player indeed, i've just been playing through a load of Cochranes games, i enjoyed his game against 'The Turk'.
Hi MT.
Yes of course I know all about Mir Sultan Khan.
His is an incredible story.
Never did the Cochrane game justice notes wise.
There is a lot of trickery going on.
Great player Cochrane. Years ahead of his time.
If only Morphy went to India instead of Europe, then we would have
seen some games of chess.
No Moprhy, then fear not.
T s.
I wonder what would have happened if Morphy had become a lawyer and never played chess.
The thing which i find amazing about Morphy, apart from his games of course, is the way he died. Hypothermia after getting into a cold bath after a walk on a hot day. Who dies like that? His whole life is a story, death included!
I agree with your thoughts on Tal, he was the first player i really studied (well i say study, i mean observe with my tongue trailing on the floor). It ruined my game, it's taken ten years for me to realise i'm simply not good enough to play that way, to my eternal disappointment.
I've never really spent much time looking at Classical games, my focus has been mainly on Korchnoi, Tal, Fischer and the modern players. I don't play e4, so studying these old masters always left me feeling like i was learning a game i'd never play. These games between Cockrane and Mohishunder have really grabbed my attention though. Thanks for that. 🙂
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by greenpawn34Alas, I fear nothing would have happened with these games whether or not Morphy had appeared, and that for one unfortunate word:
The Scotsman John Cochrane and the Indian Bonnerjee Mohishunder played hundreds of games. Were it not for the Morphy hype then these games would have become more famous than the games of the La Bourdonnais - Mcdonnel matches. As it was they were to a large extent ignored.
"Indian".
This was the height of the British colonial period. Nobody who was a native heathen could possibly have had better ideas than that stalwart of Anglo-Saxonity Mr. Howard Staunton, esq. Even Sultan Khan, over half a century later and even though he (vide his name) was presumably a Sikh and not an uncouth Hindoo, was never taken entirely seriously. (For one, he never got a master title, though he probably could have reached grand.) Someone with the name of "Mohishunder" would have been lucky to get the distinction of being made the butt of an "under" pun.
It's an interesting set of games, but in the real world, they would have been undeservedly ignored even in different circumstances.
Richard
Originally posted by Shallow BlueYeah. Who even takes that Indian Viswanathan Anand seriously, today? He's just a lucky cheatin' uncouth Hindoo.
Alas, I fear nothing would have happened with these games whether or not Morphy had appeared, and that for one unfortunate word:
"Indian".
This was the height of the British colonial period. Nobody who was a native heathen could possibly have had better ideas than that stalwart of Anglo-Saxonity Mr. Howard Staunton, esq. Even Sultan Khan, o ...[text shortened]... y would have been undeservedly ignored even in different circumstances.
Richard
I think you're confusing what Morphy is famous for and his actual style. My understanding was that most of the romantic chess players thought Morphy's style was very dry... Players feared his endgame technique just as much as his tactical vision. Morphy of course is known for the Opera Game and other fun sac-sac-mates, but Rubinstein is most famous for Rotlewi vs. Rubinstein even though in most games he strived for "clarity".
Also you've gotta consider that Morphy played tons of chumps/patzers, etc. It's easy to sac pieces and go for a quick beheading against a much lower rated player. In fact I'd go so far as to say that if ANY grandmaster played against the Duke of Brunswick it would have ended in a cool mating combination. Karpov, Petrosian, Capa. Wouldn't have mattered. When Morphy played against the top competition of his day his play really calmed down.
I'm even pretty sure Steinitz justified his "new chess" as trying to figure out what Morphy was really up to at the board. Morphy was more of an idol for him than someone he was rebelling against.
Anyway I think there's a good book on all this. Valeri Beim's "Paul Morphy a Modern Perspective" or something similar.
Hi SB
Maybe. I like to think chess crosses all barriers.
Staunton did publish some of these games in his magazine but perhaps they
were proving unpopular with his readers. This was after all the age of the
'The Immortal' and 'The Evergreen' and then up popped a wee genius from
New Orleans. These games were ignored.
Hi MM
He has to move it or defend it.
It was the idea of sucking the d-pawn forward weakening c5 and protecting it
against b4. Ideas you will see on the top boards in any tournament.
Of course there was still a bit to learned. These two never had all the answers.
It took 50 odd years before would start looking for them after the classical
style has been wring nearly dry.
Playing over these games you do get the feeling Mohishunder is a bit
of a Knights player and preferred them to Bishops. So he moved it.
Which is not to difficult to understand as in the Indian game
the Bishop’s range was three squares so the Knight was held in higher esteem.
Little wonder it took him a while to get used to the European Bishop.
(just a theory.)
One more game. This time Mohishunder is seen in a better light.
This is possibly a better example than the last game.
I could post this another thread Smith (2000) v Jones (2100) Brighton 2012
and you would not question it. The game looks so modern.
J. Cochrane - B. Mohishunder Calcutta, 1853
Originally posted by HiyahIt seems very clear that the European Chess Champion Howard Staunton was afraid to play Paul Morphy.
I think you're confusing what Morphy is famous for and his actual style. My understanding was that most of the romantic chess players thought Morphy's style was very dry... Players feared his endgame technique just as much as his tactical vision. Morphy of course is known for the Opera Game and other fun sac-sac-mates, but Rubinstein is most famous for Rotlewi ...[text shortened]... all this. Valeri Beim's "Paul Morphy a Modern Perspective" or something similar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Morphy
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by greenpawn34It probably does now, thank heavens, but this was the mid-1800s we're talking about. Things were different then; and where the English and foreigners were concerned, they were very different. You still look down upon the lot of us, Hindoo and Dutch Calvinists alike, but at least nowadays you're willing to listen. Sometimes.When it doesn't involve democratic principles or taking penalties in football.
Hi SB
Maybe. I like to think chess crosses all barriers.
One more game. This time Mohishunder is seen in a better light.
This is possibly a better example than the last game.
I could post this another thread Smith (2000) v Jones (2100) Brighton 2012 and you would not question it. The game looks so modern.
OK - never mind the blog, this you should write a book on. And I'd buy it. Or at least you should publish a PGN with all the games, with annotations or without.
Richard
Hiya Hiyah.
Good point. But I'm coming in from the angle there was no Morphy.
Forget Morphy.
Re The Opera Game.
Most players would would play 8.Bxf7+ nicking the a8 Rook or 8.Qxb7 nicking a pawn. 😉
Last time I looked the boxes were going for this.
Saw one lad once saying on another site saying 8.Bxf7+ it was best move.
You can imagine what a slagging he got. 🙂
Hi SB:
"this you should write a book on." there is one being written as I speak.
(cannot say anymore about it 'cept it hopefully will be out soon.)
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
The post that was quoted here has been removedYou are, of course, correct. Singh is the Sikh surname; Khan is Central-Asian muslim. I got the two mixed up.
Nevertheless, I think my point stands: it is not seriously disputable that Sultan Khan was never taken nearly as seriously by the majority of people as he would have been had he been white.
Richard