10548 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
And both went nuts. Just goes to show ya.
no i think morphy would win on tactics
Steiniz is a tactical beast too in his peak.
But Morphy went nuts first!
A match between them in middle 1870s would have been interesting!? By that time Steintz would have gained credibility. I think Steinitz's improved defensive technique would have eventually stopped Morphy. In a match the first to win ten games, i could imagine Morphy when leading, abandon the match, just like Karpov did in 84. Steintz had a strong constitution as exemplified in his match v Zukertort 1886. Morphy i think would have needed pre match tournaments or matches to get him up to speed. I think that is one of the reasons Fischer did not defend his title in 75.
A match between them in middle 1870s would have been interesting!? By that time Steintz would have gained credibility.
Beating Anderssen in 1866 didn't give Steinitz credibility?
morphys endgame skills trumph steintizs' (play over their games). The great american can even play solid positional chess. Steinitz sticks to his principles win or lose while morphy sticks to his plans and emither mates or gets a formidable position. Morphy would have definetly beat Steinitz but not crush him totally.
Your description is correct but you interchanged the players. Pls read Kasparovs "My predecessors" part1 to know who Steinitz was. Steinitz is like the inventor of positional chess. He even took geat risks by having cramped positions & accepted all gambits just to prove his theory that chess is not just about attacking. Steinitz formalized all the chess principles that we use to day. Although im more of a Morphy fan, I believe Steinitz in their peaks has the edge because of his more matured chess knowledge.
Boris Spassky vs Howard Staunton
Boris Spassky vs Howard Staunton
Steinitz vs Nakamura seems a good idea too.
while this is correct, most people tend to forget that Morphy while he didn't quantify his ideas and his genius, he was more of a positional player than anyone at the time he played. He wasn't all about attacking it was just it was easier to attack when the option was given to him.
I'm guessing here but Steinitz would loved to have played a game against Morphy when they met in New Orleans.
Think about it, Morphy's reputation and legend had grown since his retirement, and Steinitz would have wanted to test that reputation and legend.
Like Kasparov with Fischer, every champion wants to rate himself against their predecessor.
Steinitz against Morphy and the outcome? I'm too biased to see past Morphy winning. He always won!
Steinitz wins, stronger positional player, better in the opening, incredible defensive skills and much stronger in the endgame.
Interesting, the stronger players always seem to side with Steinitz; the reason is Steinitz contribute were incredibe, his white side of Ruy Lopez was more modern than Morphy , Steinitz also had a greater understanding in Queen's pawn opening, Steinitz played the whiteside of French better than Morphy. Morphy prefer the exchange variation and Steinitz was correct to increase space (1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5! the way for white get an advantage.) and plus Steinitz endgame technique was stronger.
This is the hypothetical question of chess history with the least objective consensus.
It's worse than Karpov vs Fischer.
There is no doubt that Morphy was a stronger player. In his early 20s, he absolutely whipped Anderssen, a mutual opponent. After Anderssen regressed and Steinitz was at his peak, Steinitz still did not whip Anderssen so badly.
It's not that I think Morphy would have destroyed Steinitz, but a person can't possibly conclude objeively that Steinitz would have won or that the match would have been close.
This is just undiagnosed mass mental retardation at it's most severe.
Morphy was even younger than Steinitz. Hypothetically, had he continued playing, Steinitz never would have been equal or better.
Got a better one. Star Wars or Star Trek?
@chesshole he would both own him at tactical and positional
Well, let's just say they're every bit as reliable as the statistician's POV...
Nigel Short: Women's brains not chess brains
by bb_gum234 a few minutes ago
eliminating blunders without the wait?
by now_and_zen a few minutes ago
No honor among amateurs
by bhavik1978 a few minutes ago
Where have all the flags gone
by lisa_zhang_tok a few minutes ago
by power_2_the_people 3 minutes ago
Are tactics really the way to go?
by hicetnunc 6 minutes ago
What's your favorite excuse for why you lost game of chess?
by now_and_zen 8 minutes ago
what do people mean when they call a win "clean"?
by tkbunny 8 minutes ago
Pawn Ending - a little quiz
by Omega_Doom 12 minutes ago
Women and Chess
by lisa_zhang_tok 13 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2015 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!