Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Paul Morphy's Rating>2638


  • 4 years ago · Quote · #81

    Atos

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nona_Gaprindashvili

    In 1961, aged 20, Gaprindashvili won the fourth women's Candidates Tournament, setting up a title match against Russian world champion Elisabeth Bykova. She won the match easily, with a final score of 9-2 (+7−0=4)...

    If Fischer's statement was made in 1962., the World's Women's Champion would already have been Gaprindashvili, not Bykova. 

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #82

    orangehonda

    notlesu wrote:
    orangehonda wrote:

    Here's some wiki stuff I found also
    ----------------------------------------------------------

    In an interview with Ralph Ginzburg published in the January 1962 issue of Harper's Magazine, future World Champion Bobby Fischer was quoted as saying that he could successfully give knight odds to any woman in the world:[50][51][52]

    They're all weak, all women. They're stupid compared to men. They shouldn't play chess, you know. They're like beginners. They lose every single game against a man. There isn't a woman player in the world I can't give knight-odds to and still beat.

    Fischer later claimed that Ginzburg had distorted what he had said.[53]There is no doubt that Fischer would have failed at such an endeavor.[54] World Champion Emanuel Lasker had failed at such an endeavor in 1894, losing a match at knight odds to Jackson Showalter's wife; he scored two wins and five losses.[55]

    In 2001, London businessman Terence Chapman, a master-level player, played a match against former world champion Garry Kasparov with Kasparov giving odds of two pawns in each game (the pawns to be removed being different each time); Kasparov won the match by two games to one, with one draw
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If you're still not convinced, like I said before, we'll just have to agree to disagree.


     Orangehonda, You believe the Fischer statement--- "They're all weak, all women. They're stupid compared to men. They shouldn't play chess, you know. They're like beginners. They lose every single game against a man. There isn't a woman player in the world I can't give knight-odds to and still beat."--- was taken out of context???  Man, you got to be the most gullible guy on this site!!!!!!

    Orangehonda, You believe --- Lasker lost a match, at knight odds, to Jackson Showalter's wife; he scored two wins and five losses    Man, you got to be the most gullible guy on theis site!!!!!

    Orangehonda, you're becoming very annoying. you keep throwing crap around hoping something is going to stick. I dont want to waste my time on Showalter 's wife---that is complete BS. If  some lady beat him at knight odds, its because he let some lady beat him. 

    Oh yeah----What the hell does the following have to do with Fisher's statement in 62'---"In 2001, London businessman Terence Chapman, a master-level player, played a match against former world champion Garry Kasparov with Kasparov giving odds of two pawns in each game (the pawns to be removed being different each time); Kasparov won the match by two games to one, with one draw."

    You know orangehonda---it would be ever so helpful to the readers if your little stories actually had a point. Any kind of point!
     


    I guess if you didn't understand in the first place I shouldn't expect you to get it after someone spells it out either Tongue out  Not a problem, you can think whatever you want.

    In fact it's so bad notlesu, it's one of those blurry lines between stupid and troll.  Although I'm willing to stay optimistic and think of you as willingly ignorant.

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #83

    philidor_position

    Computer analysis shows Morphy was master level. I found the analysis very convincing, and consider Morphy mostly as a hype.

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #84

    Estragon

    In the case of the match against Showalter's wife, Lasker most certainly threw it in a gentlemanly gesture.  I agree a master would win with Knight odds against a World Champion caliber player, but Mrs. Showalter was no master.

     

    Fischer did make the claim about giving Knight odds to women players, but at the time he said it the only women masters were Soviets.  The US Women's Champions in those days were typically rated in the 1850-2150 range.

    Fischer also wrote that "In a set match, he [Morphy] could beat any player alive today."  It was in the short-lived Australian quarterly Chess World, now a collector's item like his King's Gambit "bust" in American Chess Quarterly of similar vintage.  It is worthy of note that the article was Fischer's top ten players of all time, and he didn't include himself on the list, so even in 1964 we might wonder if he meant "besides me."

     

    To me the most remarkable thing about Morphy is the casual approach he had to the game.  He was a social player, the local offhand champion but never a serious competitor until he passed the bar exam at age 18, but could not join the bar in Louisiana until he was 21, which led to his chess excursions first to New York and then to Europe - he was killing time.  He had access to only a couple of chess books, and was only able to play a master-level player on a couple of occasions before the American Congress, yet he dominated.

    And in Europe, he dominated again.  Throughout, in the age before any time limits, he rarely took more than one minute on a move, and would read while long-thinking opponents sat for long periods.

    The only purse he won was from Anderssen, who insisted upon the standard stake for their match.  Knowing it to have come from his opponent's own pocket, he had it secretly returned to Mrs. Anderssen.  He detested being called a "chessplayer" as almost an insult.

    So to Morphy it was a hobby, yet he dominated the world.

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #85

    Atos

    As Notlesu pointed out, in this case correctly, Adolph Anderssen never married, so the story about Morphy "secretly returning the purse to Mrs. Anderssen" could not be true. But as a general point, I think you are right that Morphy detested the idea of being a professional chess player, and rejected such a career even if it was available.

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #86

    Atos

    notlesu wrote:
    Atos wrote:
    notlesu wrote:
    Atos wrote:
    tonydal wrote:

    If say a lawyer goes bankrupt, weren't they still a professional lawyer until they crashed and burned?


    I guess so, but if they never made any significant amount of money from law profession to begin with then I think not. Just because someone did not happen to have another reasonable source of income, and once in a while made a few dimes from chess, does not make them chess professionals unless one is really prepared to stretch the concept. 


    Atos, I get the distinct impression that you think Morphy never made a significant amount of money from chess. In  Aug 1859 thru Aug 1860 he wrote a chess column for the New York Ledger. He was paid $3,000 for the column. That $80,000 in todays money---do you consider that significant?


    I wasn't directly talking about Morphy. It may be that Morphy made some money from chess, but he was from a rich family so he probably wouldn't have considered that a significant amount of money. There was also the issue of him / his family/ social milieu considering chess as a kind of gambling, and feeling a disgust toward making a living from it. Between it having been practically difficult to make a regular / significant income from chess, and it having been considered unacceptable in the higher social circles, I still find it hard believe that there were really chess professionals then. 


     Atos, you're babbling---talking follishly. Adios!


    You refuse to consider a distinction between making some money from an activity and being a professional in it. As for babbling, I must have followed your example. A person so convinced that they know everything, so fond of listening to themselves, and so devoid of debating culture is rarely encountered even on the Internet.

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #87

    blake78613

    Partly there is a battle of sematics going on here.   Professional has more than one meaning.  When we talk about sports, a professonal (vs. an amature) is one that takes any kind of money for playing the sport.  Another meaning of professional is following a caree path.

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #88

    Atos

    In part it is a matter of how these people perceived / described themselves. Morphy may have made some money from chess but he strenuously objected to being described as a (professional) chess player. Steinitz was the first one who openly proclaimed that he did want to make a living from playing chess.

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #89

    Hammerschlag

    chessmaster102 wrote:
    arashi_star wrote:
    Hammerschlag wrote:
    arashi_star wrote:

    his rating is at least 358 points higher than Eugene Rousseau 

    at least 226 points higher than Louis Paulsen

    at least 412 points higher than George Hammond

    at least 457 points higher than John William Schutten

    at least 320 points higher than Henry Edward Bird

    and finally at least 257 points higher than Adolf Anderson..


     I'm curious as to how these numbers were determined. I think Morphy was one of the best player the game has ever seen but determining ratings for older players (before) the rating system was introduced is somewhat controversial; arguments usually start after such declaration.


    I "determined" these numbers from this information...

     Eugene Rousseau - +45−5=0

    Louis Paulsen - 9.5/12

    George Hammond - 15/16

    John William Schutten - 23/24

    Henry Edward Bird - 10.5/12

    Adolf Anderson 14/17

    117/131 or 89%


    im kinda convinced I just wanted you to show proof of your information.


     I understand he had great results over his contemporaries, but what are the strengths of those players you listed? I thought that the amount of points someone earned from winning a game is due to their opponent's rating compared to theirs. Thus a 2300 beating a 1300 will not earn much point(s) or any at all. Now, I am not saying the players you listed are 1300s because I don't know, although I am sure they are not 1300. So I guess the next question is how were the ratings of his opponents determined?

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #90

    Hammerschlag

    Atos wrote:

    As Notlesu pointed out, in this case correctly, Adolph Anderssen never married, so the story about Morphy "secretly returning the purse to Mrs. Anderssen" could not be true. But as a general point, I think you are right that Morphy detested the idea of being a professional chess player, and rejected such a career even if it was available.


     Mrs. Anderssen does not necessarily mean his wife. I'm not sure about the story, I'm just saying.

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #91

    dancd

    I think there is no way to find his real rating, because he didnt play with today's masters, so u can take a guess but this math doesnt make sense.

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #92

    orangehonda

    Estragon wrote:
    Fischer also wrote that "In a set match, he [Morphy] could beat any player alive today."  It was in the short-lived Australian quarterly Chess World, now a collector's item like his King's Gambit "bust" in American Chess Quarterly of similar vintage.  It is worthy of note that the article was Fischer's top ten players of all time, and he didn't include himself on the list, so even in 1964 we might wonder if he meant "besides me."

    So Fischer did say that, that's interesting.  His ranking Morphy as #1 I never took seriously, but then again Fischer changed his mind 40 years later.  If he meant in those 40 years opening theory had advanced too much or not... it doesn't change my opinion either way Smile

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #93

    Atos

    I sure don't make a habit of reading your posts.

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #94

    rooperi

    When I started my thread

    http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/how-many-chessplayers?page=1

    this is what I actually wanted to try and figure out.

    Looking at numbers of players, I think there is a statistical method of estimating the average strenght of the (say) top twenty players of that time.

    If there are 20m players today, which includes 200 2600+ players, how many 2600+ players were there in the 1860 pool of 100,000 players?

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #95

    Atos

    I thought for a moment that you had something to say, but I'll know better next time.

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #96

    yoshtodd

    Here's what Capablanca had to say on the subject (echoes what people already said earlier):

    "It is often said that Morphy is the strongest player there has ever been. In our judgment such assertions are absurd, since not only do they lack any basis but it is in any case impossible to prove them. All that would be possible is to make comparisons on the basis of his matches, and according to the strength of his opponents. If we made such comparisons, the result would be disastrous for the assertions of the admirers of the great master of the past."

    and

    "Concerning an oft-repeated declaration by a large number of admirers, who believe that Morphy would beat all today’s players, as we have already said, this has no foundation. On the other hand, if Morphy were resurrected and were to play immediately only with the knowledge of his time, he would most certainly be defeated by many present-day masters. Nevertheless, it is logical to suppose that he would soon be at the necessary level to compete against the best, but there is no way of knowing exactly how successful he would be."

     

    The whole article is here http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/capablanca3.html

     

    He has great respect for Morphy, as should anyone who loves chess, but seems to be of the opinion that the "how strong would he be today" question is idle and useless.

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #97

    Atos

    This is a good link.

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #98

    Atos

    Notlesu, please try to rein in your hysteria to some extent. I did write "if" because I didn't have time to check the exact date Fischer's statement was made. I have other things to do except wading through your muddled posts. If Fischer was so well informed about women players, had he not heard about Gaprindashvily (who had already qualified as the challenger) in the beginning of 1962. ? 

    You are not saying which "Lazarevich" was meant; if it was Milunka Lazarević, she was Yugoslav not Soviet. Maybe you should brush up on your geography and history, not mentioning logic.

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #99

    Atos

    You must be one of those guys who still play without a Queen, Rook, and a couple of minor pieces.

  • 4 years ago · Quote · #100

    batgirl

    I'd been away on a trip to the gorgeous and fascinating city of Savannah, Ga. all this week and unfortunately missed reading some of the insightful and congenial postings in my absence.

     

    A slight correction to someone's previous posting:

    ChessWorld was not an Australian magazine. ChessWorld was very much American, with all three issues published in NYC by Frank Brady, who later authored "Bobby Fischer: profile of a prodigy."  Strangely enough, since this discussion has focused partly on Fischer's printed opinion of Morphy, it should be noted that Fischer's article, "The Ten Greatest Masters in History," appeared in the first issue of ChessWorld.  Also in that issue there were articles by Pal Benko and Alexander Kotov, an article by Paul Leith on "Shakespeare's Checkmate," one by Jerome Tarshis on "How the Blind Play Chess," one by Irving Chernov on "Chess Curios,"  but most intersting, a very extensive article by a chess collector named David Lawson on Paul Morphy - so extensive was that article that it formed the very basis of Lawson's book twelve years later called "Paul Morphy, The Pride and Sorrow of Chess."
    The cover of issue one can be seen here: http://www.edochess.ca/batgirl/CHESSWORLD.html .
     

    Speaking of Frank Brady:

    In "Bobby Fischer: profile of a prodigy," Frank Brady wrote on the subject
            "Of course, to make an unforgettable impact on established chess is one of Bobby's sacred missions. In the first issue of ChessWorld he authored a piece called "The Ten Greatest Masters in History," which included Tal and Spassky and left out Botvinnik and - unpardonable outrage!  - Emanuel Lasker, who was named as the greatest ever by Tal, Korchnoi and Robert Bryne in a poll of the leading players of the day taken sometime after Fischer's list appeared.
            A Dutch magazine, Elsevier, that summer picker up articles by Botvinnik, Euwe, and Kotov, all denouncing Bobby's omissions.  He hadn't included himself among the Greatest Masters, either, but that fooled nobody.  When he had preciously written that "in a set match . . . [Paul Morphy] would beat anyone alive today," I'd asked him if that included himself. 'Oh, no,' he replied, with an embarrassed smile. "I didn't include myself on the list.'"

     

    Here, Brady commented on Ginzburg's  Harper's Magazine interview  with Fischer (some of the text is abbreviated, but the context is fully intact):
    Another event took place in August 1961 that blemished Bobby's public chess image.  Writer-editor, Ralph Ginzburg arranged for an interview-in-depth with Fischer, which appeared in Harper's Magazine the following January.  Mr. Ginzburg succeeded in getting Bobby to open up to an unprecedented extent, and the result was disastrous or pathetic or funny, depending on your point of view.  Although not written in malice... Bobby is depicted as a monster of egotism, scornful of everything outside himself and the game, while understanding nothing of what he scorns.  As the image develops, we see a callow arriviste who, in attempting to delineate his notions of, and pretensions to "class," convicts himself to an increasingly hopeless vulgarity..  The interview was partially tape-recorded and much in it rings true, yet many of us have trouble recognizing the Fischer we knew in this article. ...
    For a while, he couldn't even stand to hear the name Ginzburg, and when I once bought it up in passing he screamed: "I don;t want to talk about it!  Don't mention Ginzburg's name to me!"
    When he commented on the interview, he claimed emphatically that much in it had been twisted, distorted and taken out of context. Ginzburg says on the other hand that he toned it down.  Both claims may be true though the latter is less convincing.


Back to Top

Post your reply: