Paul Morphy vs Wilhelm Steinitz
Sort:
[COMMENT DELETED]
lol
What was the date of the tournament in the Bird quote and how much did 19th century chess subsequently advance?
"... It was due to [Morphy's] principles of development that he had, in most cases, at the outset a better development than his opponent. As soon, however, as these principles of Morphy's had become the common property of all chess players it was difficult to wrest an advantage in an open game. ... the next problem with which players were confronted ... was to discover principles upon which close positions could be dealt with. To have discovered such principles, deeper and more numerous as they were than those relating to development in open positions, is due to Steinitz. ..." - Richard Reti (1923)
"... The analytical work of Steinitz extends over thirty years and is very valuable. In the Field, in the Tribune, in his publication International Chess Magazine and in his book Modern Chess Instructor, one may find his penetrating and profound analysis. The world did not comprehend how much Steinitz had given it ... the chess world did not understand Steinitz, neither his manner of play nor his written word which treated of his 'Modern School.' ... Now let us turn back to Steinitz and demonstrate his revolutionary achievement from his history and from his writings. ..." - Emanuel Lasker (~1925)
"... Steinitz ... started out as an all-out attacking player, as it was common at the time, but then went on to change his approach toward chess and became very positional. Positional, at that time, was very shocking to the rest of the chessplayers, and they actually considered his new way - his new style of playing as cowardly and controversial. It was only, later, his successor on the world champion's throne, Emanuel Lasker, who acknowledged the influence and the impact of the concepts Steinitz introduced. ..." - IM Anna Rudolf (2018)
https://www.chess.com/video/player/games-that-changed-chess-history-part-4
https://www.chess.com/blog/janwerle/finishing-touch-from-the-world-champions-2
https://www.chess.com/article/view/behold-steinitz-the-austrian-morphy
https://www.chess.com/article/view/steinitz-changes-the-chess-world
https://www.chess.com/article/view/steinitz-the-official-world-chess-champion
I disagree with Bird because of Steinitz chess was modernize, if you look at the later games of Morphy, he still was stick in the dazzling combinative and attacking era, not like Steinitz who through his concept of positional play advance chess to higher level.
"Paul Morphy would have gone through that tournament like a meteor. He was head and shoulders above every player taking part in it." He further remarked:
"Probably, with the exception of Steinitz, Blackburne is the finest living player. Steinitz is a slow player and is always pretty well crowded for time, and I doubt if he could have made as good a showing against Zukertort had the latter been less confident and arranged the match at a time limit of twenty moves to the hour instead of fifteen. I trotted Steinitz the closest heat he ever contested. He beat me 8 to 7, with 6 draws. This was in '67. In '58 Morphy beat me 10 to 1, with 1 draw. Steinitz claims that he is a better player than ever Morphy was, but I think my record with each is a fair test of the strength of the two. Steinitz claims that when I played with Morphy I was out of practice, but I cannot explain away my crushing defeat by that great player in any such way. I never played better chess in my life than when he beat me. Morphy had more science than Steinitz - more imagination. His career was very short, though very brilliant, and, whether or not he could have held first honors as long as Steinitz, is a matter of some doubt; but Morphy never met his match. He was never compelled to play his best game. His resources were never fully tested.