Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 22 Feb '06 22:48
    I think Morphy would be World Champion if he were alive today. Do you guys think Paul Morphy was good enough to beat today's best? Do you think at Morphy's best, he would be World Champion today if he knew the rules and the way we play today? In other words, not accepting sacrifices for the beauty of a combination? I wonder... hmmm... I think he would, but that's just me.
  2. 22 Feb '06 22:58
    Nah, I don't think so. The theory that GM's possess now days if so much greater then in his day. Morphy's opponents seems so weak and their opening play is so bad compared to our standards now.

    I would say a 2500 GM would beat him if he played exactly the way he did back in his day with the same theory he has about chess. However, if he started to study the new theory and stuff we have now days, I'd say he would have a good shot.
  3. 22 Feb '06 23:03
    Morphy was the best of his time and would be one of the best today, if he was allowed the same advantages in chess knowledge of todays players.
    To dispute that is ignorant.
  4. Standard member Ravello
    The RudeĀ©
    22 Feb '06 23:06
    Dumbo,your comments are ignorant.
  5. 22 Feb '06 23:08
    Originally posted by Drumbo
    Morphy was the best of his time and would be one of the best today, if he was allowed the same advantages in chess knowledge of todays players.
    To dispute that is ignorant.
    Who is disputing that?

    That's exactly what I said. Give him the same knowledge and he would be up there with all the greats right now.
  6. 22 Feb '06 23:17
    Originally posted by RahimK
    Who is disputing that?

    That's exactly what I said. Give him the same knowledge and he would be up there with all the greats right now.
    Yes rahim,I agree, it's ravello that's off-base.
  7. 22 Feb '06 23:40
    Morphy certainly had the talent, but from what I know of him I doubt if he had the personality to put in the kind of effort required of todays top players. It doesn't sound to me as though he took chess all that seriously. He enjoyed the game and happened to be stupendously talented at it, but it doesn't sound as though there was a time in his life when chess was a major part of his life's ambitions. Without that kind of drive I doubt he'd be motivated to put in the study that being a world champ would require today.
  8. 23 Feb '06 00:32
    I just read something about Morphy which I found most interesting. (Many of you will probably already know this.) Morphy was the first to play positional chess. This was largely why he trounced so many. Up until Morphy's time, it was all about attack, and attack quickly. Morphy, on the otherhand, would forego attacking possibilities while tending to his piece development.
  9. 23 Feb '06 00:41 / 1 edit
    Doesn't look like Morphy comes close--according to this guy: http://www.chessmetrics.com/CM2/PeakList.asp?Params=199510SSSSS3S000000000000111000000000000010100
  10. 23 Feb '06 02:38
    But, then again, if you look at it from an Elo perspective, he's very close to the top players. I'd have to say he'd be competetive.
  11. Standard member Grandmouster
    ChessObsessed
    23 Feb '06 06:20 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by RahimK
    Nah, I don't think so. The theory that GM's possess now days if so much greater then in his day. Morphy's opponents seems so weak and their opening play is so bad compared to our standards now.

    I would say a 2500 GM would beat him if he played exactly the way he did back in his day with the same theory he has about chess. However, if he started to study the new theory and stuff we have now days, I'd say he would have a good shot.
    It depends on if morphy where transported to present time, with the same knowlede as then, or if he was born in this era, and accumilated chess knowledge, and vied for the chess championship.
    Of course, he could be alive today, in the form of a current chess genius. If you believe in re-incarnation.
  12. 23 Feb '06 11:00 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by powershaker
    I think Morphy would be World Champion if he were alive today. Do you guys think Paul Morphy was good enough to beat today's best? Do you think at Morphy's best, he would be World Champion today if he knew the rules and the way we play today? In other words, not accepting sacrifices for the beauty of a combination? I wonder... hmmm... I think he would, but that's just me.
    Paul Morphy was born 1837 and would be 169 years of age at the time being.

    Only the fact that he would be still alive today would be a miracle, not to mention that he still plays chess at this age.

    But if he would be the world champion? - I don't think so, he's too old for that nowadays.
  13. Standard member flexmore
    Quack Quack Quack !
    23 Feb '06 11:15 / 9 edits
    of the many players able to be judged the best, or super duper ...

    morphy is one.

    so are many other players...

    how can you choose one from the other ...

    they play against separate opponents, and at different times of chess evolution ...

    i think they are all legends, and noone can exist on their own ...

    i suggest from my reading, in no special order:
    botvinnik ... influenced an entire generation like no other ... THE teacher of chess,
    capablanca ... achieved almost complete domination, taking all comers, unbeaten for many years,
    karpov ... after a worlwide tournament spree, winning massively, fischer hiding, botvinnik's perfect pupil, he faced kasparov and turned kasparov's play from one type into another, making kasparov what he became:
    kasparov ... the best ever ... but just a few years too old now .. and now seriously lacking adrenaline (he has been winning easily for a long time),
    morphy ... turned an important corner of chess theory ... (others have too, but morphy is american so we had better put him in )

    i believe these players have all affected the way of play and confronted their challengers, and given the answers.
  14. 23 Feb '06 11:20
    Originally posted by flexmore
    of the many players able to be judged the best, or super duper ...

    morphy is one.

    so are many other players...

    how can you choose one from the other ...

    they play against separate opponents, and at different times of chess evolution ...

    i think they are all legends, and noone can exist on their own ...

    i state in no special order:
    botvinn ...[text shortened]... y.

    have all affected the way of play and confronted their challengers, and given the answers.
    Fischer doesn't make that list?
  15. Standard member flexmore
    Quack Quack Quack !
    23 Feb '06 11:31 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Balla88
    Fischer doesn't make that list?
    no ... i think fischer does not make such a list ...

    he is famous because he was a us citizen.

    he was good because he faced a huge team and won ... he won in one streak ... and then hid in the shadows.

    he only had one massive streak, and did not back it up ... he made no major contribution ...

    i admire what he did ... i hate what he became ... i pity his life ...

    but no ... he does not make my list of great chess players.

    similarly with alekhine ... they both managed to beat the champ ... then hid ... neither made a massive change in the way we play ... neither showed us the light.

    morhpy did.