Originally posted by greenpawn34
"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.)

Of course. (this is the prelude to an advert) 😉

It's at the dotting of the 'i's" and the crossing of the 't's" stage.
I'm not writing it, this is another published author, I'm just helping a very little.

Thanks for this amazing thread. I've seen the name Cochrane before, but hadn't known he played an differently than his contemporaries-- I just never thought about it. But, and I say this as I'm about to go looking for more of these games, it seems like the glimpse into the 1920's was provided by Mohishunder more so than Cochrane.

I think if Morphy wrote and played more we'd have a different view of him. His disdain for the Sicilian says a lot about how he viewed chess (as does the fact that he played the exchange French which to me says he wanted to open up the position even though it obviously opens the position more for his opponent than himself), as does his refusal to be a chess professional. Winnings from one match he put up to help Anderssen get to France to play; he gave the loser of a match more than he won if I remember what I read correctly. The game was about the game to him more than winning, though he liked winning. I suspect he looked at anything other than the open game as the on-the-board equal of how Staunton appeared to hide from him-- that it's just not what the game should be about. We don't share that view, we also don't seem to get "odds" games the same way they all seemed to get them. But that is not the topic at hand.

If there was no Morphy, for all the wrong reasons Mohishunder would still remain under the radar-- as all already mentioned. Perhaps Paulsen would've made a ripple, but a very different ripple than Morphy's earthquake. I also think we have to thank Anderssen for Morphy's legend. Anderssen comes off as genuinely great dude. Both seemed to share the same sporting view of chess, and the romanticism that dominated all art of the time was what they both brought to the game of chess. I suspect any "improvements" found in their games, for either side, would be missing the point of the games played for both of them. Morphy referred to the art of chess in his writings. So, the 2 players might have been improvising or co creating art in the moment. The game as a work of art should then stand as a thing of beauty and any improvements only might have meaning in that they show the way to create the next work of art.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Originally posted by Bebop5
Then why don't the both of you stop making every thread about yourselves instead of the subject of the thread? Go meet in private and settle your differences and spare us readers the pain and tedium of having to wade through it all. Every thread eventually gets infested by the petty bickering and name-calling.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Originally posted by Bebop5
You just don't get it, do you? We don't care about your disagreements with someone else, if you feel the need to whine about it or anything other than the subject of the thread, do it in an appropriate place (i.e. a thread of your own). We are all just tired of the never-ending sob story being injected where it doesn't belong. Is that too difficult to understand???

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
You obviously weren't. Or do you not know what "sic" is for?

Richard

Originally posted by greenpawn34
[b]
This thread differs in as much I speculate what if there was no Paul Morphy.
What would have happened then?

I played a great game a few days ago, in which I sacrificed several pieces to chase my opponent's King around the board.

I showed it to a few people in my chess club and one guy said it reminded him of Paul Morphy!

Here is the game:

David Tebb - Graham Lilley, Merseyside League 2012