Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Steinitz vs Morphy


  • 3 months ago · Quote · #241

    yureesystem

    Steinitz, is better positional player with better endgame technique, and also he understand securing the center and pawn chain, judging from his Steinitz defense against Ruy Lopez. Steinitz would beat Morphy in the queen's pawn opening, Morphy understand in queen's opening was poor. Steinitz played the Ruy Lopez better than Morphy.

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #242

    il_Nick

    Even if so, Morphy probably would learn soon against Steinitz in a series of games.. we cannot be sure about whom would have been winning in long term. This will remain an unsolved case. My favorable opinion inclines to Morphy.

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #243

    SmyslovFan

    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.

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #244

    konhidras

    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". :)

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #245

    windmill64

    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.

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #246

    il_Nick

    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?

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #247

    rdecredico

    people that understand the dynamic of human progress pick steinitz 

    people that have hard time accepting that knowledge moves forward pick morphy


    applies to all of these idiotic fantasy wanks



     

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #248

    jetfighter13

    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.

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #249

    il_Nick

    jetfighter13, as rdecredico said: just "idiotic fantasy wanks"... Luckily, there are people as smart as him lol

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #250

    jetfighter13

    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.

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #251

    SilentKnighte5

    balente wrote:

    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.

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #252

    knightkrawlirr

    on the internet. (but don't tell morphy anything about anything)

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #253

    yureesystem

    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.

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #254

    yureesystem

    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.

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #255

    yureesystem

    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.

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #256

    yureesystem

    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.

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #257

    MISTERGQ

    It would have been Lasker taking the title from Morphy after a close match with Steinitz

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #258

    I_Am_Second

    Yereslov wrote:

    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.

  • 7 weeks ago · Quote · #259

    il_Nick

    yureesystem ha scritto:

    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.

    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.


Back to Top

Post your reply: