14 Apr 10
Originally posted by Mad RookYeah Morphy took minutes while his opponents took hours. It was normal for the top rated ones back then to take forever to move, while Morphy is said to have usually moved almost instantly with little thought. Must have been maddening for him
Also, don't forget that chess clocks weren't in use then. Morphy usually took much less time than his opponents did, thereby giving his opponents a significant advantage.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 27974
14 Apr 10
Originally posted by Paul LeggettThanks for being that way. I come from a less blessed area of the country and tho it is too late for me now I know I could have been a better player if the best competition around had been available to test me. Since rating points were so hard to come by most of the better players 'nursed' their way to master and scrupulously avoided fish that threatened their ascent. Ratings are very incomplete picture of what a player really is.
I knew Macon (a little bit) when I lived in Virginia. He is what I very respectfully refer to as a "Strong Playing Master". He was always USCF 2300-something, and he played often, against anyone in a tournament. I'm sure his rating would have been 100+ points higher if he had "nursed" it and only played in tournaments where his rating was not at risk ...[text shortened]... players did that for me when I was just starting, and I feel obligated to pay it forward.
15 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by TerrierJack Ratings are very incomplete picture of what a player really is.[/b]Sometimes we blunder, and sometimes we lose to good moves- and sometimes those good moves are played by lower-rated players. I certainly like to win, but I sometimes really appreciate losing to a good move, even if I'm the victim, and if the other guy enjoys it even more because he saw me as a challenge, I feel honored to be considered as such.
Although they may not see me as that much of a challenge after the game...😕
15 Apr 10
2 edits
Originally posted by TerrierJackPerhaps the title of "Master" shouldn't be awarded just on the basis of ratings alone. Once a person reaches 2200, they should also have to have shown that they have a sufficient number of "quality wins" over players with Master status.
Thanks for being that way. I come from a less blessed area of the country and tho it is too late for me now I know I could have been a better player if the best competition around had been available to test me. Since rating points were so hard to come by most of the better players 'nursed' their way to master and scrupulously avoided fish that threatened their ascent. Ratings are very incomplete picture of what a player really is.
I would be wary of awarding Master status to someone who merely amassed a ton of wins against players in the 1700-2000 range and never played anyone better than that. I would want to first see if they can succeed against "major league pitching"
16 Apr 10
Originally posted by nimzo5I don't necessarily disagree, but a modern day 1800 player (like myself) can spot some questionable moves from some of the early masters. I find that Alekhine often played some very dubious moves during the opening phase but his superior tactical/strategic strength made up for his somewhat optimistic approach to the opening.
you can't really compare that era to now. Besides the lack of sophistication, culturally a gentleman didnt turn down a sacrifice. Tactically, I would guess that most of the amateurs Morphy crushed were quite good. Probably a modern player could beat them fairly easily with modern openings, but I doubt an 1800 would do very well against them in the old school openings.
Going back to the original example, Morphy's opponents...
I think that we get a scewed view of Morphy (and a lot of the old masters). Many of his cherished brilliancies are against 'NN', much the same as Grecho's. Morphy played some brilliant games against Masters (don't get me wrong) but if you look through chessbase database (megabase for instance) a lot of the games are against nobodies.
16 Apr 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesA chess rating only gives the relative strengths of players in the same pool. 20 years ago a elo of 2600 would put you almost in the top 10 in the world. Nowadays the same rating would put you well outside the top 100.
Perhaps the title of "Master" shouldn't be awarded just on the basis of ratings alone. Once a person reaches 2200, they should also have to have shown that they have a sufficient number of "quality wins" over players with Master status.
I would be wary of awarding Master status to someone who merely amassed a ton of wins against players in the 1700-200 ...[text shortened]... than that. I would want to first see if they can succeed against "major league pitching"
Its the same with titles. The average GM today is probably weaker than the average IM from 40 years ago.