10594 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!
Jetfighter, there was never any claim that Morphy was a World Champion.
The question: "If Steinitz could hold on to his WC title until his fifties, why couldn't Morphy do the same?" is asking an IF question.
IF questions do not make statements.
I may be no expert in language, but I am the leading authority on what I say, I never once said anything about a statement unless it was in referece to something later on.
If you expected a responce where we explained that Morphy didn't want to play chess publically, would you be happy if we just used his name instead of the pronoun he. The reason the pronoun he is utilized is because the question is asking about Morphy not Stientz, if there was no distinction then it would be nececary to use Morphy and not the pronoun used.
sorry if you forgot pronoun antecedant rules.
In the context of the conversation, "he" does not require an antecendent.
Example: "He was World Champion until 1921" makes it obvious who I am talking about.
Language is a bit more complex than you kake it out to be.
yes that is true, with one person being used, but in the question it was stated that Morphy was being asked about and you were finding problem in that you assumed Stientz was the person Batgirl was refering to. Now I assume it was a well intentioned mistake, and I know the english language is more complex than I said, even with regards to the rules about pronoun antecedant, but your real problem is that you are just looking for Pidly Bull#&$^ to complain about.
And I don't remember using the pronoun "he."
I refered to them by name.
Notice how I mention "them" without an antecedent, yet everything is still clear as day?
you may not have, but Batgirl did, and I implicetly stated that the question it was refered to by name, giving you the credit of being specific, but Batgirl utilized a pronoun without an antecedant, now grow up and learn to read.
I guess great chess players never really met each other at their peak.
1. Euwe vs. Alekhine (rematch).
2. Kasparov vs. Karpov (rematch).
3. Spassky vs. Fischer (1972).
A few examples.
Kasparovs peak was in 2005, Karpov ?
Fischer 2785 (correct me if im wrong) Spassky at 2660
Euwe was handpicked by alekhine (it would have been better if it was Capa).
So they never really met each other at their peak.
No, she skewered my comment to fir her own opinion of me.
She made the mistake. Not me.
I don't care how many blogs she has written. A mistake is a mistake.
Spassky had an undefeated record against Fischer until 1972.
Euwe was picked because he was doing extremely well at that time. Even after the rematch, he gave Alekhine some trouble.
Like Botvinnik, Alekhine's strength was his preparation.
Kasparov was in his prime when he took the crown away from Karpov.
Kasparov was in his rise but not in his prime yet when he beat Karpov.
Spassky was on his way down in 1971. (Alekhine Memorial won by Karpov). I think his peak was in the 1966-69 years when he defeated the likes of Tal, Geller, Larsen, Keres.
And of course Botvinnik? Well...he never really was able to defend the title..he won em by rematch. except of course against bronstein who (until now) baffles me why he didnt see the obvious winning move which could have won him the crown.
Carlsen was at his peak while Anands was on the downhill.
But to answer the thread..i still think Morphy would beat Steinitz hands down.
Wow. Batgirl made one slightly ambiguous statement and Yereslov goes on for pages about how his willful misreading of that statement was justified, and how Batgirl, not he, is the troll.
Gotta admit, that was well played. Yereslov should teach classes on how to be a troll.
Smyslov, what did I misread exactly?
Wow. Batgirl made one slightly ambiguous statement
I made a posting the other day in which I put a game that I transcribed from a written game score. In the game score Black's 12 move was written 12...Nbc6 because there was a Knight on e7 that was also eying c6 and the author was trying to avoid ambiguity. But the Knight on e7 was pinned, so I immediately decided that writing Nbc6 was unnecessary and Nc6 would have been perfectly fine. The ambiguity that the author was trying to avoid stemmed only from his own perspective and what seemed ambiguous to him wasn't really so when more closely examined.
This gets my vote for most illiterate post of the month.
If Steinitz could hold on to his WC title until his fifties, why couldn't Morphy do the same?
Because a) he didn't have a title and b) he didn't want to play public chess.
Yereslov's response was: "He didn't have a title when he fought against Lasker or Zukertort?
You learn something new everyday..."
He then went on about this willful misinterpretation of pronouns for several posts. It was clear which "he" batgirl meant. Yereslov is a master troll who knows how to milk the slightest ambiguity.
Master troll or illiterate bumpkin? You decide!
Never ascribe to malice, etc.
He didn't have a title when he fought against Lasker or Zukertort?
You learn something new everyday...
Steinitz was a boxer?
I have lost complete track of what we are arguing about now.
Such is the way of chess.com forum posts that exceed a few pages...
I think it's curious that you mention Steinitz "holding onto his WC title until his 50s" since he didn't win the official title until he was 49.
There was no "official" title until the formation of FIDE.
So he never held onto his title until his fifties then.
FIDE wasn't created until 1923 and had no say in the title. Steinitz-Zuckertort was a World Championship match because they said it was, and was held in 1886, after Morphy's death, because anybody claiming to be WC while Morphy lived would be laughed out of chess. Steinitz could claim to be WC as much as he wanted, but with Morphy alive no one would respect his claim. Morphy hadn't played publically for over 20 years and the world still recognized him as the best. Morphy never, in public nor in private, claimed to be WC nor gave a damn about "the title." And while Morphy didn't claim to be WC, the world did, and looked on him as the best until he died--the world, not Morphy.
1.Nc3 : A Different Approach
by shell_knight 7 minutes ago
8/22/2014 - White To Draw
by kevinreji01 11 minutes ago
Has anyone challenged CCA's "Mixed doubles" yet?
by shell_knight 19 minutes ago
Bad chess joke
by varelse1 25 minutes ago
Main principles behind playing the Slav
by TwoMove 28 minutes ago
Using small bait to mate
by wu1010 29 minutes ago
by wu1010 36 minutes ago
Post your sets!
by FBeyer 49 minutes ago
My noob "immortal" Anglo-Dutch
by Boogalicious 50 minutes ago
Opening Book Symbols
by notmtwain 57 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 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!