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

Only Chess Forum

  1. 10 Sep '09 09:50
    Being a fan of Morphy, I was really struck with this game, Played in 1858, against white, who was Thomas Barnes. it seems that if one wants to avoid the theory of the Ruy while creating a counter threat which is not as compromising as ..d5 ( i cant remember what that is called but apparently its in bad shape now-a-days), or become as crazy as those Lativian aficionados, then one could try this little beauty, the Philador countergambit.

    here is the game, Morphy anchors his e5 pawn, before playing ...f5

  2. 10 Sep '09 10:14
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Being a fan of Morphy, I was really struck with this game, Played in 1858, against white, who was Thomas Barnes. it seems that if one wants to avoid the theory of the Ruy while creating a counter threat which is not as compromising as ..d5 ( i cant remember what that is called but apparently its in bad shape now-a-days), or become as crazy as those ...[text shortened]... 3 exd3 18.O-O-O Bxa3 19.Bb3 d2+ 20.Kb1 Bc5 21.Ne5 Kf8 22.Nd3 Re8 23.Nxc5 Qxf1 24.Ne6+ Rxe6[/pgn]
    IMO, 6.e6 deserves a ?. Too greedy. More or less that and 11.Bc4? are what killed white.
  3. 10 Sep '09 10:37
    Originally posted by Kristaps
    IMO, 6.e6 deserves a ?. Too greedy. More or less that and 11.Bc4? are what killed white.
    the problem with 6.e6 is that it abandons the centre, although it does threaten 7.Nf7

    11.Bc4, white tries to hold the e6 pawn, and provide a support point for the retreat of the greedy knight, but black has better development, better centre control and even better king safety!
  4. 10 Sep '09 10:51
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Being a fan of Morphy, I was really struck with this game, Played in 1858, against white, who was Thomas Barnes. it seems that if one wants to avoid the theory of the Ruy while creating a counter threat which is not as compromising as ..d5 ( i cant remember what that is called but apparently its in bad shape now-a-days), or become as crazy as those ...[text shortened]... 3 exd3 18.O-O-O Bxa3 19.Bb3 d2+ 20.Kb1 Bc5 21.Ne5 Kf8 22.Nd3 Re8 23.Nxc5 Qxf1 24.Ne6+ Rxe6[/pgn]
    It's hard to explain, but Morphy's games always give me the impression that he plays like a patzer. A very, VERY strong patzer. It's almost unfair.
  5. 10 Sep '09 10:54
    Originally posted by philidor position
    It's hard to explain, but Morphy's games always give me the impression that he plays like a patzer. A very, VERY strong patzer. It's almost unfair.
    Lol, Fischer termed him the greatest genius of all. i thought you may appreciate the opening which bears your illustrious name
  6. 10 Sep '09 10:56 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Lol, Fischer termed him the greatest genius of all. i thought you may appreciate the opening which bears your illustrious name
    I know how that sounds, but what I meant was that his style is always very direct and towards checkmating the opponent's king.

    It's not like he keeps an eye on not exchanging his bishop on g2 with the opponent's knight to take advantage of his queenside pawn majority later in the game. It's more like how online blitzers play.

    only difference is that he is actually one of the greatest geniouses of course, and yeah, he can play chess.
  7. 10 Sep '09 11:05
    Originally posted by philidor position
    I know how that sounds, but what I meant was that his style always very direct and towards checkmating the opponent's king. It's like how online blitzers play.

    only difference is that he is actually one of the greatest geniuses of course, and yeah, he can play chess.
    this is true, he is totally uncompromising, threats are met with counter threats. although who can deny the positional awareness that he exhibits, greater control of the centre, his use of space, for example in the above, his central pawns create the space for development and attack. look at 12.Nc6, threatening Ne5 and the crushing Nf3.
  8. 10 Sep '09 14:31
    Hi PP.

    I see what you mean by liking Morphy to a ‘Patzer’.

    Like all great artists he had the ability to do what
    he did seem very easy.

    Most players know of his under 20 move beautiful crushes but if this
    was all he did then he would not receive the high praise lavished
    on him by Fischer and others.

    Play out this game Morphy v Paulsen, New York 1857.
    Even in the middle and endgame Morphy showed his brilliance.

    Morphy had no need to sac the Rook, there was a more mundane win
    with 61.Ka5 but here we see Morphy the Artist at work.
    The end is beautiful, instructive and pure Morphy.

  9. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Gonzalo de Córdoba
    10 Sep '09 19:24
    Morphy came before positional theory. Thus, he looks like a patzer because he doesn't know any theory.
  10. 10 Sep '09 20:24
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Morphy came before positional theory. Thus, he looks like a patzer because he doesn't know any theory.
    on the contrary, Morphy was the first positional player!

    Reti writes of Morphy, what was the secret of his success? the reply is that he had a wonderful talent for combinations. Anderssen possessed that talent no less than Morphy and in addition more imagination than the latter. The deciding advantage in Morphy's favour was the fact that he was the first positional player.
  11. 10 Sep '09 20:52
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    on the contrary, Morphy was the first positional player!

    Reti writes of Morphy, what was the secret of his success? the reply is that he had a wonderful talent for combinations. Anderssen possessed that talent no less than Morphy and in addition more imagination than the latter. The deciding advantage in Morphy's favour was the fact that he was the first positional player.
    In my opinion, Morphy was the first chess player. All who came before played something that closely resembled chess.