Chess King of Washington

Originally posted by Fat Lady
OK, it turns out that the event that Murphy was reported to have finished 15th in was the Blitz Championship held at the 2005 World Open. He was actually 18th and didn't beat anyone of note:
http://www.worldopen.com/WorldOpen2005/results/wob_open.htm

Plus he came in behind Andrew Cunanan... and when you can't beat a spree killer, how good are you, really?

(to those about to correct me: yes, this is a joke)

It is sad that he can't do more with his life and I wish him the best of luck in the future.

However, strong blitz players don't impress me (unless they're also good at standard). I certainly won't consider him a "Chess King" even in the most abstract sense. Blitz is poorly representative of chess strength and can hardly be called chess at all. Chess is considered a thinking man's game and blitz is anything but that. Blitz game is mostly a test of how well one knows a surprising pet opening, how quickly one sees simple threats and how well one can manage the very little time available. The quality of the opening makes little difference as long as you can play it quickly and, if possible, surprise your opponent. The Grob is perfect for blitz. Strategy, while very important in normal games, is almost irrelevant in blitz. You may try to exploit your opponent's backward pawn or many pawn islands, but while you waste time on that, he's setting you mate problems and making you work hard to not lose a piece. You may get a better position, but it doesn't matter because you spent too much time trying to solve his problems. In blitz, any move is almost always better than a great move that takes you a whole minute to make. Time rules over quality. Endgame technique? Forget it! In Blitz, you're lucky if you don't run out of time or get mated before the endgame. If there is an endgame, it is still just a battle of moving as fast as possible without losing and one side usually has such an overwhelming advantage that it is just a massacre. While the better chess player is the one who tries to win often playing beautiful moves, in blitz it is usually the one who moves fast and avoids loss. That Murphy could call his Blitz games works of art is very surprising to me. In blitz, the best parts of chess, often requiring real high level thought are lost. Blitz is akin to eating at McDonald's in five minutes compared to a high-end restaurant.

Of course, blitz has its place. It is great for helping one get a basic feel of some openings. It may be helpful in making one more quickly spot basic tactics and in general, to avoid huge blunders. And of course, it's fun to play a quick frantic game. I play blitz several times a week myself. However, I don't consider blitz to be good chess or a real show of skill.

What's clear about the article, is the journo clearly doesn't know anything about chess.

Anyway. Could it be this player? http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?12396676

Originally posted by Sam The Sham
Wonder what his rating on RHP would be?

~1200

Originally posted by exigentsky
It is sad that he can't do more with his life and I wish him the best of luck in the future.

However, strong blitz players don't impress me (unless they're also good at standard). I certainly won't consider him a "Chess King" even in the most abstract sense. Blitz is poorly representative of chess strength and can hardly be called chess at all. Chess ...[text shortened]... myself. However, I don't consider blitz to be good chess or a real show of skill.

If my thread is removed, this post should be too.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
If my thread is removed, this post should be too.

Sour grapes? I suspect your thread was removed because you posted private messages. Exigentsky didn't do that.

Here's why exigentsky hates blitz. He plays like this:

White: SwissGambit
Black: exigentsky

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. c4 Nc6 4. d4 cxd4 5. Nxd4 Nf6 6. Nc3 e6 7. Be2 Be7 8. Be3
O-O 9. f3 a6 10. O-O Bd7 11. Qd2 Qa5 12. Rfd1 Rab8 13. Nxc6 bxc6 14. Nd5 Qxd2 15. Nxe7+ Kh8 16. Rxd2 and Black let his last 3 minutes run out without resigning.

Originally posted by Mad Rook
Sour grapes? I suspect your thread was removed because you posted private messages. Exigentsky didn't do that.

It wasn't a private message. It was a conversation on RHP blitz. Show me anywhere that states that those are private, and I'll withdraw my complaint.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
It wasn't a private message. It was a conversation on RHP blitz. Show me anywhere that states that those are private, and I'll withdraw my complaint.

Well, I haven't played RHP blitz, so I'm not familiar with the blitz conversation system. Could the kibitzers (if present) see the conversation? If so, then you might be right. If not, then I still think I'm right.

Originally posted by Mad Rook
Well, I haven't played RHP blitz, so I'm not familiar with the blitz conversation system. Could the kibitzers (if present) see the conversation? If so, then you might be right. If not, then I still think I'm right.

RHP blitz isn't sophisticated enough to allow kibitzers.

But, if we adopt your reasoning, and label such conversations 'private' and forbid them on forums, then we should also ban all real-life chess stories that were not witnessed by a third party.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
RHP blitz isn't sophisticated enough to allow kibitzers.

But, if we adopt your reasoning, and label such conversations 'private' and forbid them on forums, then we should also ban all real-life chess stories that were not witnessed by a third party.

Good point. I'm not sure who's right here. Did the moderator give you a reason why the thread was deleted?

Originally posted by Mad Rook
Did the moderator give you a reason why the thread was deleted?

No.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
No.

Well, I guess you had more of a reason to be concerned about the thread's removal than me. I couldn't really get too interested in the thread and lost all interest about halfway through the game chat. Concerning the content of the chat, I've heard those types of discussions before, so it was just a rehash for me. Concerning the game, I did think it was bad form for your opponent to let the clock time burn off instead of resigning. That's his right, but it's not the best display of sportsmanship. I hope he doesn't do it all the time.

Originally posted by Fat Lady

Murphy has won several chess tournaments and finished 15th in the 2005 world blitz championship.

I find this very difficult to believe. I can't find any reference to the 2005 World Blitz Championship on the internet, does anyone have any more details?

Personally, I find it newsworthy because it reveals the low esteem in which chess is held. This guy is probably an expert level player 2000-2200 but he is a complete bum, partly because he is an alcoholic but also partly because chess isn't a commercial entity as decreed by capitalist society.

But wait a minute!! This guy may not be the greatest chess player in the world but does he deserve to live his life as a bum? Has he not worked sufficiently hard at something, given his attenuated alcoholism, to achieve expert status?

This story typifies the callous disregard we have for human achievement that cannot be measured in dollars, pounds, euro and whatever. Personally I'd listen to stories of broken down chess hobos all day rather than have to stomach the story of some moronic fat cat getting a golden handshake while the rest of us are getting a golden shower.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Here's why exigentsky hates blitz. He plays like this:

White: SwissGambit
Black: exigentsky

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. c4 Nc6 4. d4 cxd4 5. Nxd4 Nf6 6. Nc3 e6 7. Be2 Be7 8. Be3
O-O 9. f3 a6 10. O-O Bd7 11. Qd2 Qa5 12. Rfd1 Rab8 13. Nxc6 bxc6 14. Nd5 Qxd2 15. Nxe7+ Kh8 16. Rxd2 and Black let his last 3 minutes run out without resigning.

Do you have some sick desire to stir trouble and piss people off? How old are you to get joy from this? The game doesn't bother me and I stand by my comments about blitz, which are the same as I have made here. I do not hate blitz. I play blitz every week and enjoy it. I simply have a different idea regarding its value. It's great for trying out new openings and ideas as well as improving tactical vision. It is not too useful for developing strategic insight, better endgame technique and understanding the deeper more subtle beauty of chess. I will always value longer time control games more than something patched together in five minutes or less.

What bothered me was that you posted private messages without permission and your intention was only to demean. During the game, you attacked and ridiculed me, calling me a "crap player" and using many other insults. No one else could see those messages except you and it is silly to assume that every conversation is public if not otherwise mentioned or that having a right to do something means that it's the right thing to do. My dad has a right to kick me out of his house, but it doesn't mean it's the moral thing to do. To further mock me and brag, you decided to make a whole thread on the issue where you explicitly named me in the title and posted the game and our conversation as well as your ever so insightful commentary. The odd pretext that you wanted a debate holds no water. If that's what you wanted, you would have simply said my ideas or posted the game without singling me out. You also wouldn't have consistently misrepresented my ideas or attacked me. For example, it's false that I was hate-waiting. Immediately after the blunder, I said "that was foolish" and accepted defeat. I didn't officially resign because I was busy typing (as you were too), and it was the last thing on my mind. In any case, the game was not rated and you could have left anytime, sparing yourself waiting two minutes. It shouldn't be a surprise that your thread was removed. It used private chats and its sole purpose was to ridicule. I've been pretty clear with you several times and I have no intention of wasting anymore time on this. You have lost all credibility in my eyes.