I just stumbled across a couple games on the net by Morphy and I have to say he's my hero. Some of his sacs are absolutely awe inspiring, and I want to try to play the same type of sexy chess as him.
So far, I think I've only played sacs in 3 or 4 games, this probably being the most effective... Game 826929 I just very rarely see where sacs would work to my advantage. Fair enough I can see sacs, which will have a positive outcome within the next couple of moves, but Morphy spotted sacs which wouldn't resolve themselves for 6, 7, 8 moves.
What I want to know is how do I get better at spotting potential sacs? Is there a book that's good on this? Or is it just a natural style of chess combined with exquisite theory to spot weak positions?
D
Originally posted by RavelloYeah, check out this game. It seems to be sac after sac after sac, but he never seems to be down too much material.
You just hit the nail,sacs are sexy to a chess player!!
How good you feel after winning a game with a great unexpected sac? It's priceless!
I also would like to see a book entirely dedicated to sacs,it would be a top seller.
[Site "New Orleans"]
[Date "1849"]
[White "Morphy"]
[Black "Alonzo Morphy"]
[Result "1-0"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bxb4 5. c3 Bc5 6. d4 exd4 7. cxd4 Bb6 8.
O-O Na5 9. Bd3 Ne7 10. Nc3 O-O 11. Ba3 d6 12. e5 Bf5 13. exd6 cxd6 14. Ne4 d5
15. Nf6+ gxf6 16. Bxe7 Qxe7 17. Bxf5 Nc4 18. Re1 Qd6 19. Ne5 fxe5 20. Qg4+ Kh8
21. Qh5 Kg7 22. Qg5+ Kh8 23. Qh5 h6 24. Rxe5 Nxe5 25. dxe5 Qc6 26. e6 Kg7 27. g4
Qc3 28. g5 Qxa1+ 29. Kg2 Qf6 30. gxf6+ Kxf6 31. exf7 Rxf7 32. Qg6+ Ke7 33. Qe6+
Kf8 34. Qxh6+ Rg7+ 35. Bg6 Kg8 36. h4 d4 37. h5 d3 38. Qg5 Rd8 39. h6 d2 40. Qf6
Rgd7 41. Bf5 d1Q 42. h7+ Rxh7 43. Be6+ Rf7 44. Bxf7+ Kh7 45. Qg6+ Kh8 46. Qh6#
1-0
D
EVeryone loves sacs, and I tend to go for sacs and gambits constantly, although they're often unsound - it's a matter of style. I'm sure better players than I can advise you on the best books to help with the tactics and soundness of them, but generally it's tactical knowledge and a willingness to get it wrong from time to time. When they do work, however, it's brilliant (although most of mine don't work, in all honesty) - heres a game where I sac'd both bishops and finally the queen to win: Game 844014 (and again t'be honest, the second bishop was a blunder, but it worked out all right 🙂 )
An excellent book if you're interested in Morphy is Paul Morphy and the Evolution of Chess Theory by Macon Shibut. Lots of annotated games by Morphy and his contemporaries. One of the most interesting concepts Shibut puts forth is that there really wasn't a Romantic Period in chess, the way it's often portrayed. Authors tried to make chess fit neatly into the music and literature of the 19th Century. Many writers will say this was the era of "swashbuckling" chess, sacrifice everything for the sake of an exciting game. Anyone who plays over Morphy's games realizes he didn't sacrifice unless he had clearly seen a winning position ahead. Play over Staunton games or Paulsen and you'll be astounded how modern they are. that's why i think if Morphy would be alive today he would be a formidable opponent. He'd make you play his game and his game would overwhelm 99% of the masters today.
Originally posted by RagnorakIt surprising how similar that game is to this one.
I just stumbled across a couple games on the net by Morphy and I have to say he's my hero. Some of his sacs are absolutely awe inspiring, and I want to try to play the same type of sexy chess as him.
So far, I think I've only played sacs in 3 or 4 games, this probably being the most effective... Game 826929 I just very rarely see where sacs w ...[text shortened]... is it just a natural style of chess combined with exquisite theory to spot weak positions?
D
Game 804295
Originally posted by buddy2I am not so sure Morphy was that good, but he did what he did without Fritz and a team of GMs like the Russian players do. Morphy also did not seem to have a lot of great players in his era so he played lesser ability players. Morphy did not have a lot of chess theory in his day so he did what he did on talent. I am still wondering just how good Morphy was. I think he may have been at least as good as Marshall was. P.S. What are you refering to when you say "masters"? Do you mean Grand Masters?
An excellent book if you're interested in Morphy is Paul Morphy and the Evolution of Chess Theory by Macon Shibut. Lots of annotated games by Morphy and his contemporaries. One of the most interesting concepts Shibut puts forth is that there really wasn't a Romantic Period in chess, the way it's often portrayed. Authors tried to make chess fit neatly in ...[text shortened]... e opponent. He'd make you play his game and his game would overwhelm 99% of the masters today.
Originally posted by gambit3Very true. Morphy really was the beginnings of modern chess theory. You don't see much as far as annotated games before Morphy's time. Communications wasn't such that it really made much sense to write games down unless they were for your own private notes. Sure there were books written back even before Ruy Lopez's day, but who really knew they existed? It was thanks to the likes of Morphy that chess found new popularity. Not to long after Morphy gave up the game, the chess world crowned its first official "world champion", Wilhelm Steinitz, to be followed soon after by the likes of Capablanca and Alekhine. Add mass media to that and the study of chess went from zero to 60 in a hurry...The advent of computers has added even further analysis to the game.
I am not so sure Morphy was that good, but he did what he did without Fritz and a team of GMs like the Russian players do. Morphy also did not seem to have a lot of great players in his era so he played lesser ability players. Morphy did no ...[text shortened]... u refering to when you say "masters"? Do you mean Grand Masters?
A good website for a history of chess...
http://www.eudesign.com/chessops/basics/cpr-hist.htm