12733 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!
So, your argument isn't that Morphy was demonstrably better than Steinitz, but that he had the ability to improve and play better against Steinitz than he ever played against anyone else.
I think yureesystem's point is that the actual games that were played show that Steinitz was better at his best than Morphy at his best. That is measurable, and demonstrably true. Your argument is speculative and impossible to prove one way or the other.
Morphy attacking...sac..sac..sac...Steinitz defending and simplyfying ...swish..swish...swish...Morphy holds Steinitz hands.."Come on dude lets take a walk under the sun". :)
Changed my mind with some more thinking on it, and I'm going with Steinitz. Steinitz had a willingness to learn and he improved his game a lot over the years and I doubt Morphy would have had the ability to beat Steinitz in a match, a close one at that.
SmyslovFan, on what can this be demonstrable with certainty? Basing on games played against other players? Or just on Kenneth Regan's analysis? As you said, Steinitz learned from Morphy... why wouldn't have been possible the opposite?
I believe that human progress can actually be a regress. I think over the course of a reasonable match length (first to 12.5 points) I think that Morphy would win. would it be by Morphy's usual gigantic margin, no. the match would be within at least 1.5 points, probably closer. Morphy would quickly learn how to deal with Stientz play. Morphy was known for quick learning, he also had tremendous talent and contrary to popular belief he was not another 1850's sac everything in a crazy attack to win. His attacks came from the position. He fluidly developed all of his pieces, then used all of them in a cohesive maner to eliminate his opponents Monarch.
jetfighter13, as rdecredico said: just "idiotic fantasy wanks"... Luckily, there are people as smart as him lol
another point I like to bring up is that you can't reach the endgame if you don't survive the middle, give morphy even the hint of a winning position and he will attack. give him an active position and he will attack. Morphy knew how to use what the position gave him and his opponents almost never made it past the middle game, I suspect Stientz would run into a similar problem at first.
All common opponents of Morphy and Steinitz expressed the opinions that Morphy was stronger player. Match results confirm this.
Guess there's no point in having tournaments or matches then since we can just predict who would win and declare him a winner.
on the internet. (but don't tell morphy anything about anything)
Steinitz and Zukertort match, Zukertort try to attack and Steinitz defend all threats and pocket a pawn and won in the endgame. And there were time Steinitz completely outplay Zukertort in positional play and won. This what would happen to Morphy, Paul will gambit a pawn and Steinitz would defend and win in the endgame or will outplay Morphy in positional play and win. Steinitz also played a tougher opponent, Chigorin and you see what happen, Steinitz won another attacker, Chigorin. Chigorin was a better endgame player than Morphy; and Steinitz beat Chigorin twice in match.
Steinitz and Lasker mention some of Morphy faults and deficiency in his skills, they pointed to unsound combination, poor understanding of positional play and poor endgame technique. Look at Lasker's Manuel, he mention this in his book.
In Morphy's time there was no time limit and a player could take a long time calculate all the possibilities. Some of Morphy faulty combination could be over confidence or just a bad day. Doesn't mean he was not a genuis, just made him human and humans make mistakes.
This endgame I representing is one the reason I think Steinitz would of won a match against Morphy. Steinitz is practical player and a win is more important than a flashy combination that might not win or to play an accurate endgame to win or draw according to the demand of the position.
This game from a match with Loewenthal, on the 8th game.
It would have been Lasker taking the title from Morphy after a close match with Steinitz
Who would win: Morphy or Steinitz (both at their peak)?
That would definitley be an interesting match. The unstoppable force vs. The immovable object. Since i think defense wins games, id go with Steinitz.
Indeed, this is the big difference between Morphy and all his opponents and/or later players: Paul never thinked more than a few seconds or at worst not many minutes for his moves. Just brainwaves, no matter for a little (human) mistakes.
7/6/2015 - Entrapment
by Mrmath 4 minutes ago
Strange and dubious openings I: The Alapin opening
by ponz111 4 minutes ago
HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE? 1800+
by MelvinDoucet 7 minutes ago
by Petrosianic 13 minutes ago
When a coward refuses to resign.......
by aerodarts 17 minutes ago
How do I castle?
by Rsava 30 minutes ago
an italian repertoire for players under 1200
by Game_of_Pawns 32 minutes ago
Should chess be considered a sport?
by Migilla 47 minutes ago
Your analysis chess set
by BigKingBud 67 minutes ago
Nakamura's bullet skills
by TrumanB 71 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!