Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Steinitz vs Morphy


  • 6 months ago · Quote · #181

    jetfighter13

    Yereslov wrote:
    jetfighter13 wrote:
    Yereslov wrote:

    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.

  • 6 months ago · Quote · #182

    jetfighter13

    Yereslov wrote:

    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.

  • 6 months ago · Quote · #183

    konhidras

    Yereslov wrote:
    konhidras wrote:

    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.

  • 6 months ago · Quote · #184

    Yereslov

    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.

  • 6 months ago · Quote · #185

    Yereslov

    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.

  • 6 months ago · Quote · #186

    konhidras

    Yereslov wrote:

    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.

  • 6 months ago · Quote · #187

    SmyslovFan

    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.

  • 6 months ago · Quote · #188

    Yereslov

    Smyslov, what did I misread exactly?

  • 6 months ago · Quote · #189

    batgirl

    SmyslovFan wrote:

    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.

  • 6 months ago · Quote · #190

    Ubik42

    Yereslov wrote:

    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.

    This gets my vote for most illiterate post of the month.

    DuuuuhhhhHHHhhhhh.....

  • 6 months ago · Quote · #191

    SmyslovFan

    batgirl wrote:
    Yereslov wrote:

    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. 

     

  • 6 months ago · Quote · #192

    Ubik42

    Master troll or illiterate bumpkin? You decide!

  • 6 months ago · Quote · #193

    Irontiger

    Never ascribe to malice, etc.

  • 6 months ago · Quote · #194

    SilentKnighte5

    Yereslov wrote:

    He didn't have a title when he fought against Lasker or Zukertort?

    You learn something new everyday...

    Steinitz was a boxer?

  • 6 months ago · Quote · #195

    SilentKnighte5

    I have lost complete track of what we are arguing about now.

  • 6 months ago · Quote · #196

    jfiquett

    SilentKnighte5 wrote:

    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...

  • 6 months ago · Quote · #197

    SilentKnighte5

    Yereslov wrote:

    If Steinitz could hold on to his WC title until his fifties, why couldn't Morphy do the same?

    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.

  • 5 months ago · Quote · #198

    Yereslov

    SilentKnighte5 wrote:
    Yereslov wrote:

    If Steinitz could hold on to his WC title until his fifties, why couldn't Morphy do the same?

    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.

  • 5 months ago · Quote · #199

    SilentKnighte5

    Yereslov wrote:
    SilentKnighte5 wrote:
    Yereslov wrote:

    If Steinitz could hold on to his WC title until his fifties, why couldn't Morphy do the same?

    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.

  • 5 months ago · Quote · #200

    dashkee94

    Yereslov wrote:
    SilentKnighte5 wrote:
    Yereslov wrote:

    If Steinitz could hold on to his WC title until his fifties, why couldn't Morphy do the same?

    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.


    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.


Back to Top

Post your reply: