Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Morphy the Terrible


  • 11 months ago · Quote · #361

    bresando

    Yereslov wrote:
    dashkee94 wrote:

    Morphy was about as good of a chess player as Greco.

    You gotta get me some of what you're smoking.

    Greco has a 100% winning percentage.

    He was the number one player of the 17th century.

    Nobody knows Greco winning percentage. The general belief is that the games found in his book are mostly made up for teaching purposes. he was probably the greatest player of the time, but since the opposition mostly consisted of very weak players, it's no surprise that morphy games are more fascinating for us. 

  • 11 months ago · Quote · #362

    Yereslov

    bresando wrote:
    Yereslov wrote:
    dashkee94 wrote:

    Morphy was about as good of a chess player as Greco.

    You gotta get me some of what you're smoking.

    Greco has a 100% winning percentage.

    He was the number one player of the 17th century.

    Nobody knows Greco winning percentage. The general belief is that the games found in his book are mostly made up for teaching purposes. he was probably the greatest player of the time, but since the opposition mostly consisted of very weak players, it's no surprise that morphy games are more fascinating for us. 

    "he was probably the greatest player of the time, but since the opposition mostly consisted of very weak players, it's no surprise that morphy games are more fascinating for us. "

    That's a bit ironic, don't you think?

    Morphy didn't have weak competition?

    His opponents didn't really bother to defend.

  • 11 months ago · Quote · #363

    ponz111

    Those who think Greco has or had a 100% winning percentage are clearly not using their critical thinking skills.

  • 11 months ago · Quote · #364

    Hypermodern27

    Gioachino Greco 
    Number of games in database: 79
    Years covered: 1590 to 1625
    Overall record: +79 -0 =0 (100.0%)*
       * Overall winning percentage = (wins+draws/2) / total games
          Based on games in the database; may be incomplete.

  • 11 months ago · Quote · #365

    bresando

    Yereslov wrote:
    bresando wrote:
    Yereslov wrote:
    dashkee94 wrote:

    Morphy was about as good of a chess player as Greco.

    You gotta get me some of what you're smoking.

    Greco has a 100% winning percentage.

    He was the number one player of the 17th century.

    Nobody knows Greco winning percentage. The general belief is that the games found in his book are mostly made up for teaching purposes. he was probably the greatest player of the time, but since the opposition mostly consisted of very weak players, it's no surprise that morphy games are more fascinating for us. 

    "he was probably the greatest player of the time, but since the opposition mostly consisted of very weak players, it's no surprise that morphy games are more fascinating for us. "

    That's a bit ironic, don't you think?

    Morphy didn't have weak competition?

    His opponents didn't really bother to defend.

    Oh, really? so morphy's opponents usually played like this?

     

    Seriously speaking, Morphy played many strong professionals in his life. Just to nema a few, Paulsen and Anderssen among others were both at least IM strenght players which would have chrushed people like me and you at knight handicap. 

  • 11 months ago · Quote · #367

    Irontiger

    Yereslov wrote:
    dashkee94 wrote:

    Morphy was about as good of a chess player as Greco.

    You gotta get me some of what you're smoking.

    Greco has a 100% winning percentage.

    He was the number one player of the 17th century.

    Sooner in this thread (page 1)...

    Yereslov wrote:

    How can he be a great player if all his games are based on luck? His attacks have no poison to them. All of his games are easily refuted. You can't say the same for Steinitz or Lasker. Steinitz was far more precise, and his attack are not easy to refute. He saw farther ahead.

     
  • 11 months ago · Quote · #368

    SmyslovFan

    Ya know, Yereslov is probably right, Steinitz almost certainly did play more brilliancies than Morphy. But then again, he also played far more games than Morphy ever did. 

    Going through Morphy's games is like going through game after game of a 2350 tactical monster at a Renaissance Festival. The games are usually short and brutal. Every now and again, Morphy faced strong opponents, and did pretty well. But the majority of his brilliancies were against weaker opponents. 

    If you believe Jeff Sonas, Paul Morphy played at 2743 strength. But in order to believe that, you must also believe that Serafino Dubois was +2640 strength. 

    Steinitz and Dubois played a match which Steinitz won, 5.5-3.5. Compare the quality of this match to the quality of any +2500 rated player today.

    Take a look at these two games from the match.

    The point isn't to denigrate the great players of the past. The point is that today's chess professionals who eat, drink, sleep, and defecate chess, and who have learned from the past masters, are just worlds better than those who played in the 19th Century. 

    Unlike Pfren, I do use a few Morphy games to demonstrate some basics such as how to develop with tempo. But like Pfren, most of my examples are more modern. And Steinitz, who was contemporary with Morphy but continued to improve long after "the pride and sorrow" left the game, helped to create a scientific revolution in chess.


  • 11 months ago · Quote · #369

    quadriple

    You said 11.Rxe6 was a blunder(signified by the double question mark) and said the move leads to an equality.

    ->If it leads to an equality doesn't mean it's a blunder(or else 1 . e4 is a blunder. so is 1...e5 and so is almost every move in chess)

    ->Your alternate verion isn't any better either.

    Why is 14.Qe2 a blunder??

    In your alternate version ..the 19.Ke8 line..plain sight tells us you are giving up the rook advantage you just got and a amateur wouldn't want that. and why would white play 23.Re1??giving away the knight because you feel like it???

    what are you talking about???

  • 11 months ago · Quote · #370

    SmyslovFan

    quadriple wrote:

    You said 11.Rxe6 was a blunder(signified by the double question mark) and said the move leads to an equality.

    ->If it leads to an equality doesn't mean it's a blunder(or else 1 . e4 is a blunder. so is 1...e5 and so is almost every move in chess)

    ->Your alternate verion isn't any better either.

    Why is 14.Qe2 a blunder??

    In your alternate version ..the 19.Ke8 line..plain sight tells us you are giving up the rook advantage you just got and a amateur wouldn't want that. and why would white play 23.Re1??giving away the knight because you feel like it???

    what are you talking about???

    Which game are you referring to, and which post?

  • 11 months ago · Quote · #371

    quadriple

    The first one.

  • 11 months ago · Quote · #372

    quadriple

    goldendog wrote:

    Hell hath no fury like a 900-rated patzer with an engine.

    what's a patzer?

  • 11 months ago · Quote · #373

    batgirl

    "Another terrible move from the so-called "great" Morphy. Yet again he displays his misunderstanding of attack."

     

    :-D

  • 11 months ago · Quote · #374

    Irontiger

    quadriple wrote:
    goldendog wrote:

    Hell hath no fury like a 900-rated patzer with an engine.

    what's a patzer?

    "Patzer" is a colloquial chess term from German, that designates a weak club player who usually believes he is stronger than he really is. See for instance the proverb "patzer sees check, patzer plays check".

  • 11 months ago · Quote · #375

    Irontiger

    sushi362 wrote:
    Irontiger wrote:

    "Patzer" is a colloquial chess term from German, that designates a weak club player who usually believes he is stronger than he really is. See for instance the proverb "patzer sees check, patzer plays check".

     

    does that include guys like me who are rated low 1300s who can take on guys that are 1600 OTB, acquire a winning position, and then completely blow it?

    It's not really about how strong the player is on an absolute scale, but compared to the audience... I could call you a patzer, but any decent player would call me a patzer too.

    It's also a matter of arrogance - usually the patzer believes he is stronger than he really is. That's the difference between a "patzer" and a "beginner".


Back to Top

Post your reply: