12684 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!
Blunder: to make a mistake through stupidity, ignorance, or carelessness.
His ignorance of 9...Qb3 and 10...Bxf7! counts as stupidity.
Not even I would miss suck obvious moves.
Uh...you didn't even give the game correctly. The game you showed is a casual game that Morphy played against his uncle Charles Le Carpentier at rook odds. The white queen rook is not supposed to be there. Charles Le Carpentier barely knew how to play chess as evidenced by this game. Morphy was drinking and talking and socializing while he beat the guy at rook odds. In 13 moves. And you think he blundered....
That is your example of a Morphy blunder??? Just when I think your posts can't get any stupider, you come up with this.
By the way, idiot, this is from ChessGames.com.
Apparently you know more than the whole user base.
Yes here it is in ChessGames.Com. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1238130
Notice the missing rook.
Now I want you to evaluate your performance here. Honest self-appraisal is the way of improvement. When asked to come up with an opening blunder from Morphy, you came up with a game that Morphy won at rooks odds against a guy who could barely play chess (though perhaps better than you) and Morphy won in 13 moves. You didn't cite the game correctly and for a blunder, you came up with a move that was probably stronger than the move Morphy actually made except he clearly didn't give a crap and won the game a couple of moves later.
If you were trying to prove that Karpov was a weak player would you pick out a game he played at a party with his brother in law?
Some honest appraisal here - did you do a terrible job and post incredible nonsense because you are rather stupid and uneducated? Did you?
The game is a direct copy of ChessGames.com. By the way, if the rook is stuck behind three pawns and a piece it's kind of useless in the middlegame.
I just checked again with the correct format.
It's still a blunder.
Enjoy arguing in a circle.
I guess I must be Morphy. I play blunder-filled games that look good.
Where is my praise?
Its okay guys, the results are just in of the 3-way match of the century. Kasparov 19, Morphy 5, Yereslov 0.
You are simply utterly foolishly wrong again. Get that brain cell going son.
The game from ChessGames is clearly missing the queen rook. The game you posted has a queen rook. That is undeniable. UNDENIABLE.
But you failed at the self-appraisal too. You will likely be an idiot your entire life.
You do realize it makes no difference, right?
Both moves are still the best.
You keep forgetting that the rook is kind of useless.
P.S. I checked all of his games with computer analysis.
They are all full of amateur mistakes.
Morphy plays at my level.
I am going to try not to be insulting. You are 1291. I am not fit to analyse Morphy properly, you certainly are not either.
"You do realize it makes no difference, right?"
Uh...No difference huh? Really Yereslov, can you dress yourself and put on your pants right side out?
Rook odds is worth about 1000 ELO rating points according to GM Larry Kaufman. That means that Morphy wasn't taking the game too seriously. He won the game in 13 moves assessing the play of his opponent as really terrible anyway. That your computer says that 9. Qb3 is a better move than 9. Re1 (and it seems somewhat better to me as well) hardly means that Re1 is a blunder. It won in 13 moves. What more should he do? In fact, Morphy played the move that won because he knew his opponent would screw up. This isn't Houdini playing itself at 3200 strength - this is Morphy playing his 1300 strength uncle who had been drinking. There was no way that Morphy's uncle wa going to play optimal lines. Morphy knew it and played the better move for the circumstances.
So with all the other stuff you don't know (which is damn near everything) you don't know when the move the computer says is "best" is not really best.
The difference is 3.00-.
Try again, idiot.
You still dont get it. BTW - For the idiot comment I will let you choose the test and I will bet you at 10 - 1 odds and give you a huge advantage. I will play Go with you while I am drinking and smoking marijuana (since you are a Go expert). You are among the dumbest people I have ever seen.
You have never played go in your life.
Actually study the game before you challenge me.
When the difference is three points that isn't little or equal as you claim.
You are most likely a club player. I can't trust your analysis to be accurate.
So arguably the finest player in the world ever (Fischer) says that Morphy is one of the strongest players to ever live, but 1300 player Yereslov (a rating I surpassed when I was 7) says he is as strong as Morphy. Could you be more stupid?
The problem with you Yereslov is that someone fed you a load of crap growing up that you didn't have to earn anything. That you could just declare that you were special without actually doing anything. The result is this - a very silly troll who disagrees with Bobby Fischer over matters about chess with a rating that Bobby Fischer would have exceeded when he was 3.
Ratings have nothing to do with things outside of chess.
Fischer also claimed that Lasker was nowhere near Moprhy's level. He didn't even include him in his top ten.
Why in the world would I respect his opinion when he disregards a player like Emanuel Lasker who kept his title for twenty seven years?
You need to use that brain once in a while. You are trying to relate a chess rating to real life thinking.
The sexual tension between joeydvivre and yereslov is palpable
No, I think everyone reading this drivel is equating a 1291 rating with a fantastic ability to understand chess. We are not comparing philosophies. We are comparing chessplayers. Your inside leg measurement is not the key to this evaluation. Nor is your hat size. Your chess rating, however, dictates how seriously we take your critique of someone who was the best player in the world at one point and an inspiration for many since.
Paul played this casual game at age 12 against his Mother's brother giving Rook odds.
There is nothing wrong with inspirations or calling Morphy a great player, but claiming he is the best player in history is where I draw the line.
The best player in history has to be the best, yet Morphy makes tons of blunders. His opponents don't even play the best moves for each position.
Your blitz rating is worse than mine.
Nobody said he was the best player in history. You said he was: a) 1300, b) average, c) your level.
Not for that era.
That makes you a worse player.
can anybody tell what this rating system is about?
by ibrahimsa36 a few minutes ago
12/13/2013 - Back Rank Power
by Choklat 2 minutes ago
Best opening for white
by watcha 5 minutes ago
Sicilian Defense - suicidal(now nominate or vote me for troll of the month)
by EttoreMajorana 5 minutes ago
Numbers of games
by Wilbert_78 7 minutes ago
can a women ever become world chess champion
by DavidStyles 12 minutes ago
by NomadicKnight 16 minutes ago
what does u mean in live game notation 15 10 u
by my_chezz 19 minutes ago
Problem if unable to abort games
by jac1yn 21 minutes ago
Borislav Ivanov is BACK!
by gambit-man 22 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 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!