Steinitz vs Morphy

This 9.Nh3 or another Nh3?

Smyslovfan

Why are directing this at me when I was refuting claims by Yereslav?  I repeat--Morphy NEVER claimed to be World Champ and there is ample evidence that the world did.  Morphy actually got angry when people introduced him as the "World Chess Champion."  Steinitz waited until AFTER Morphy died to claim WC status--and that is an historical fact.  The world hated Steinitz but couldn't field anyone who could beat him, and that's the entirety of his "official" title.  I never claimed that Morphy had a title; Yereslav implied that he did, and I was refuting that claim.  And did you actually read what I posted?  Yereslov claimed there was no "official" title until FIDE, which as I pointed out was created over 30 years AFTER the Steinitz-Zuckertort match--so how did they obtain the "official" title?  FIDE had no claim on it until after WW2 when Alekhine died with no successor to the title--so, according to Yereslov, there could be no "official" WC until Botvinnik, which is just ridiculous.  Oh, and you left out 1975-1978 when mainly only the Soviets (and not all of them) considered Karpov as WC, showing that you cannot legislate the WC (after '78, though, even die-hard Fischer fans like myself had to admit that Karpov was champ).  The world's strongest player is the world's strongest player, regardless what some ink on paper says.  So do me a favor--save the lecture for someone like Yereslov who obviously doesn't know chess history and don't argue with someone who made the exact same points as you did.

Yep, this one. We live and learn.

I guess Fischer digged up the idea and everyone thought it was a novelty. There is a game with that line (up to 9.Nh3) in his 60 Memorable Games, without much commentary.

@ anyone sincerely contributing to the original thread : Sorry for the hijack.

9. Nh3 is a bit drawish.

Plus, Fischer does not mention what happens after an immeditate capture of the knight. 

Steinitz also introduced the knight maneuver Nc1-Nd2-Nf1 in the Ruy Lopez.

Maybe because it's stupid to do so ?

The knight has nowhere to run, so Black can wait a bit.

It's not as if Fischer's delayed variation is somehow better. He's just lazy when it comes to including variations that don't justify his crazy ideas.

9... Bxh3 and it's pretty much a drawn position.

Yeah, sure.

You have some lines to show, or your authority is supposed to sway me ?

It's pretty much the same position either way.

4 months ago·Quote·#36

batgirl

sir I think you are missing the testemony of people who actually played both saying Morphy was better, and you sir have probably not looked at Morphy's games because he did have positional and endgame skill, that was the base of his attacks.

I agree with yureestystem here. 

The quality of the moves can be measured. Morphy's play was higher than that of his opponents, but he played about 2350 strength by today's standards. Steinitz played closer to 2400 strength. The testimonials that Batgirl collected are interesting, but they aren't actually evidence of how well either person played. 

Morphy's endgame weakness is well documented. I know that Batgirl can come on and defend his play. But I also know that if she were objective, she could find even more sources and resources that agree that was his weakest area. Modern GMs do go back and study the games of Morphy. They find inspiration in his great attacks and the way he handled open positions. But they also see his weaknesses. Steinitz was more well rounded than Morphy was. His generation learned from Morphy and improved their defenses. (Yes, I know that Morphy and Steinitz were the the same age, but since Morphy quite so early and they never played each other, Steinitz can rightly be considered a different generation.)

Native speakers often make grammatical mistakes that non-natives find very jarring. Yes, he shoulda written "would have". Oh well.

Batgirl example is poor and biased because Steinitz is dislike among the masters and Morphy was very popular in Europe and America; Paulsen was much stronger player in 1860 and getting stronger and Bird also was a lot stronger too. I look at the match between Paulsen and Morphy, Paulsen opening was much weaker and also the way he handle the sicilian was poor in 1857; within three years his opening improve dramatically and I say the same for Anderssen too. Paulsen challenge Morphy in 1860 and Morphy declined. Morphy prefer to play weaker opponents and never played strong masters again after 1859. Steinitz was playing against the strongest master, one very strong master Hirschfeld, Steinitz beat him badly. I can safely say Steinitz would of beat Morphy.

 It is obvious to me Batgirl never looks at all the games of Morphy and other masters in that era, she would of noticed a much improve Paulsen and Anderssen.

Look at Bird's comment, he said, He played better in 1857 when he played Morphy than later against Steinitz. That is ridiculous, was Bird saying he was getting weaker after 1857, he beat Lasker. No, Bird was a lot stronger after 1857. You see how biased they were against Steinitz.

He's a USCF expert, balente, as am I.

Isn't it patently ridiculous to attempt to rate the old players through the lens of the modern game?

The one thing every great champion (I use the term to mean winner, beating all comers, not as an official title) has in common, in any sport throughout history, is that they played as well as they felt they had to, to win. No more, and certainly not any less. Morphy played a far deeper game of chess than anybody before him, and everybody after him played the game with the knowledge he fathered. Likewise for Steinitz years later. Just as you can't compare Michael Jordan to Wilt Chamberlain, you can't compare any two chess greats of different era, for they simply played the game at different phases of its evolution.

To attempt to assign a rating system to players' games by the accuracy of their moves according to a chess engine would be the same as saying LeBron James is better than Jordan (pardon, I'm a Chicagoan and he's an easy example of a great champion) because he runs faster, jumps higher, and averages more points per game. It does not explain the fact that the technically weaker player played precisely the game he needed to walk away victorious. I believe this holds true of Morphy, and for that matter any number of other players pre-modern era chess. Inaccurate moves do not mean a thing if his inaccuracies led to a win: he played as he believed he must to win as many games as he could, many at ridiculous odds. The computer can say what it wants, but winning is winning, and it is the only objective.

Has the overall quality of chess improved since? Absolutely, and with the aid of computer analysis it is much easier to learn how to play accurate chess. Blunders at a high level of play today are nearly unheard of, but to suggest that the finest player of his time could not learn to cope with the changing defensive game had he continued to play it with a sound mind and body seems completely nuts to me. This thread is just as silly as the Kasparov vs Morphy thread, with a smaller time gap between players.

balente, you will NEVER be equal to me, your quality in your chess move is weak. This your record: Bullet, your current rating 1431 and your highest is 1554, your avg. opp. is 1328; Blitz, your currentis 1667 and your highest is 1682 and avg. opp. is 1393.

 My bullet is at 1512 and my highest is at 1587. I am not quick with mouse and still higher than yours. My avg. opp. 1445 and most the time I playing opponent rated at 1500 to 1600, compare to your low 1300 opponents you play.

 My Blitz is at 1708 and my highest is at 1791 and my avg. opp. is 1663, yours opponents is a low 1393.

I beat otb masters and otb experts and you, balente are probably a 1200 otb player.

 I can't help it if I know more about chess than you and you are a duffer.

 I study past master's games and analyze their games and it beyond your understanding; it is not my fault you are a fool. 

BTW; My tactical trainer highest rating was at 2229 and my current is 2020. My online is 1891 and my highest is at 1963 and my avg. opp: is at 1905.

 I noticed you don't do your tactical trainer, you are probably bad in tactics and if did you, you have a ridiculous very low rating in tactical trainer.

The good answer to rating claims of 'mine is bigger' is never 'no, mine'.

balente, you too much of a loser to realize you are not in my level. I played higher rated players than you, my average rated opponents I played is 1905 and yours is 1300 rated players. You can't beat a decent rated player. Come on do some tactical trainer big mouth and let see if you can reach in the 2000 level, duffer. You could not even understand Paul Morphy's games, on final position you would have to consult a computer program to get your answer. You should of stated why Morphy was better than Steinitz but you prefer to criticize and attack me; maybe you know don't why the Steinitz and Lasker found fault with Morphy positional play. Do you know some Morphy's sacrifice is unsound and he has played poorly in the endgame: it is obvious you have not played over all his games. That is why you are a duffer and you will be a weak player all your life. I bet you never beat an otb expert or otb master; btw what is your otb rating?

lol belente, you must be dense!!! Your average opponents is 1300 and mine is at 1905. Do some tactics in tactical trainer, I like to see your first  low rating. I sure you weak in tactics!! A patzer for life!  Start playing some high rated opponents, dude; maybe your best effort is 1300 level opponents.