Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Paul Morphy vs Wilhelm Steinitz


  • 17 months ago · Quote · #41

    AndyClifton

    And both went nuts.  Just goes to show ya.

  • 17 months ago · Quote · #42

    Ubik42

  • 17 months ago · Quote · #43

    jambyvedar

    chesshole wrote:

    no i think morphy would win on tactics

    Steiniz is a tactical beast too in his peak.

  • 17 months ago · Quote · #44

    indurain

    AndyClifton wrote:

    And both went nuts.  Just goes to show ya.

    Laughing

    But Morphy went nuts first!

  • 5 months ago · Quote · #45

    nwt1000

    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.

  • 5 months ago · Quote · #46

    batgirl

    nwt1000 wrote:

    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?

  • 5 months ago · Quote · #47

    konhidras

    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.

  • 2 weeks ago · Quote · #48

    Jhorwin

    @ konhidras.

    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.

  • 2 weeks ago · Quote · #49

    varelse1

    Boris Spassky vs Howard Staunton

    Discuss!

  • 2 weeks ago · Quote · #50

    konhidras

    varelse1 wrote:

    Boris Spassky vs Howard Staunton

    Discuss!

    Steinitz vs Nakamura seems a good idea too.

  • 2 weeks ago · Quote · #51

    jetfighter13

    Jhorwin wrote:

    @ konhidras.

    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.

    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.

  • 13 days ago · Quote · #52

    Jhorwin


Back to Top

Post your reply: