12025 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!
Yereslov - You are an idiot kid who doesn't understand the evolution of knowledge. I'm a vastly better mathematician than Isaac Newton just as many, many players today could take Morphy. But I would never compare myself favorably with Newton even though I could absolutely school him at modern math. You don't understand that because you have never learned anything. What's really amazing to me is that these luminaries who have learned more than you could ever imagine have a different opinion about what they have learned than you and you ...and I just can't believe anybody is this dumb ...you think they are wrong and you are right. You are among the world's most stupid people. You will never learn anything because the first step in learning something is to recognize that you are now ignorant.
Are you done fuming, idiot?
That's a really poor comparison.
Isaac Newton invented algebra. Morphy simply played a game that had already been studied and invented hundreds of years before.
Maybe when you can collect your thoughts and actually think instead of regurgitating what everyone else believes, then you can figure out the truth in my arguments.
You are not the best by playing players way below you.
To be considered great you have to play against "great" players.
Preying on the weak does no constitute genius.
I can't believe I am arguing with someone who doesn't know anything about either chess or math, but..
Isaac Newton inveneted calculus not algebra which was invented thousands of years previously. Honest to God, what makes a guy who is not even a 1300 player, who doesn't even have a high school diploma, who has never learned anything well in his life think you can coment on this?
Tell me Yereslov can you claim expertise in anything? Anything on Earth? Is there any field of human knowledge where you are not an absolute beginner?
I love how your only logical response was to one simply slip of the fingers.
1. I am in college.
2. I am around 1500.
3. I am an expert in go. A game far more complex than chess will ever be.
I am of course hoping that you have looked at all of Morphy's games with the same insight that would have been used by Kasparov and Fischer and so on when they looked at them. I understand that you will have analysed them extensively so as to not fall into the trap of repeating someone else's opinions unthinkingly. I have been playing chess for 34 years now and Morphy is worth looking up to. In my humble uninformed opinion. He is not in my top 5 favourite players but I feel for him given the struggles he had in life and the way the world in general treated him. Yes, Kasparov would beat him, but thats not whats going on in this thread. What has been going on here is that you have been saying some wildly inaccurate stuff which is only serving to diminish the "Kasparov" side of this argument. I also pointed out that you had claimed Morphy would be 1300 on chess.com...that is really the point you should have started retracting statements.
You seem to think that Morphy won all his games and won them in under 20 moves. That isn't the case as a simple Google search would reveal. Ah, but writers whose work is available on Google aren't credible ... Never mind (sigh)
What a pity, a cruel twist of fate, that you weren't born in the 1830s so you could beat Morphy and dominate everyone in chess! But wait ... then there'd be a troll in 2012 who would say you're a patzer!
Your only argument is that other players have called Moprhy great.
You aren't actually thinking for yourself. You are just repeating what the rest of the sheep have taken to heart.
A 1300 USCF with modern chess knowledge would be equal to Moprhy's level in the 1800's.
Please do show my inaccuracy. As I see it, my arguments are infallible when examined without popular view.
It's like arguing that Lucena or Greco are in the top ten.
He was great for his era, but his method of attack would not work against modern players.
If I were as smart as you, I'd say you're a desperately lonely person who is seeking attention to stave off feelings of inadequacy and who enjoys getting a rise out of people because it adds drama to an otherwise humdrum life. But I'm not as smart as you so I will refrain from saying that. Oops!
Don't get upset because someone is not following popular opinion.
I'm not into just accepting the the view of the world without my own thinking.
I'm not mindless like the rest here.
I also never said Morphy was a bad player. For his era he was the best.
In college and rated around 1500? Morphy graduated from law school and beat retroactively-rated 2600s with ease. Ah, but law school was so easy in the 1800s - like junior high school today - and the chess players back then were like today's beginners
"1. I am in college.
1. I'll bet it's a great college. I'll bet it is a non-competitive piece of crap let anyone in school.
2. You are not and your rating and games are here for everyone to see. In any case, a 1500 player is not at all qualified to comment on Morphy. Morphy could easily beat you blindfold while listening to the opera.
3. I've got $10K says I can take you at a 4 stone handicap at Go.
1. College blows.
2. I normally play an even game against 1500's.
3. I have actually studied go. I doubt you are anywhere near 20 kyu.
You said Morphy would be rated 1300 on this site. That is a bad player
"No, I said that Morphy, in his 19th century form, would be an average player."
That would hardly be the case. While playing with such limitations would put Morphy at a serious disadvantage at a professional level, players like yourself he would mop up blindfolded while sipping on water discussing French literature.
Does so-called challenging a popular opinion in itself show insight?? While, indeed there is a certain myth surrounding Morphy - even PW Sergeant noted that back in 1916 - there is much clarity too. The "brain-dead zombies," if that's the case of people who admire Morphy for what he was and appreciate his legacy of games against the great talents of his era, include Steinitz, Capablanca, Botvinnik, Reti, Soltis, Edouard Lasker, Em. Lasker, the great Alekhine, Smyslov, Euwe, Fischer and Kasparov himself.
Kasparov would have beaten Fischer, who would have beaten Capablanca, who would have beaten Morphy, who would have beaten a modern 2200, who would have beaten a modern 1800 who would have beaten a modern 1600 who would have beaten you. Now THAT's the best trolling I can do, I am too tired for this nonsense.
Yes, you're being contrary for the sake of being contrary and so you can appear pseudo-intelligent. Not surprised you're in college - only someone so young and inexperienced in life would be so arrogant to dismiss the evaluations of the best chess players of the modern era. Sorry, but I'm through being a balm for your loneliness. Call up a friend from high school and go somewhere. You'll feel better
Fischer was at the same level as Kasparov.
That is trolling.
Try to actually be logical.
If you examine the games of Fischer with an engine he tends to make the recommended moves.
"3. I have actually studied go. I doubt you are anywhere near 20 kyu."
You are right - I haven't been anywhere near 20 kyu for almost 40 years. About that $10K game (if you are a 20 kyu player - I can give you way, way more than a 4 stone handicap. I can give you so many stones you would think it wa simpossible for me to make life anywhere on the board.) It is absolutely stunning that you think a 20-kyu Go rating allows you to claim Go expertise. That's worse than a 1300 chess rating.
You must have suffered in school.
I never claimed to be 20 kyu. I said I doubt you are anywhere near 20 kyu.
Do you suffer from autism?
But my friend, I was being logical - I decided to use your logic about players of the past being weaker than players of the present as they had less theory to use! And Kasparov's workrate was way better than Fischer's. His analysis, if you actually go over it, was dazzling. Read his articles. Play his games. Fischer IS also one of my top 5 favourites (one of the best, yes, but not for that reason) but he also would have gotten beaten by Big K.
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=182832158398382 Her's a little bit on Morphy for all the idiots who think he would play like a 1400 player if he was around today.
In Dr. Brady's "Chessworld" magazine, Jan.-Feb. 1964, Fischer wrote: "Paul Morphy: Perhaps the most accurate player who ever lived, he would beat anybody today in a set-match. He had complete sight of the board and seldom blundered even though he moved quite rapidly. I've played over hundreds of his games and am continually surprised and entertained by his ingenuity."
Fischer probably overstated his case, but as any follower of Fischer would tell you, when it came to anything about chess (although perhaps not with anything else), he was brutally honest and fair. So, overstated or not, Fischer wasn't clouded by myth or mystique, and saw Morphy through very laser-intense eyes.
"Fischer was at the same level as Kasparov.That is trolling.Try to actually be logical."
It's eminently logical to trace a sequence of relative connectivity. To call it any but logical is irratiional.
The two big Ks worked hard to obtain knowledge others do not have--Morphy would have to be able to do this and even with all the modern advantages he could not do this as well as the two big Ks.
Morphy was best in a world with little chess knowledge--how well he could accumulate todays knowledge is unknown but it stands to reason he could not accumulate such knowledge as well as the best in the world now.
Ye are RONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
5,000 Signs You Don't Know Enough About Chess
by chessgm8 a few minutes ago
Sacrifice - Bishop for A Knight
by Elizabeth_Teri_Baker a few minutes ago
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd6 4.Nb5
by tjl60 a few minutes ago
Need Help Getting Kids To Take Chess SERIOUSLY...
by Aetheldred 3 minutes ago
White to move.
by Berkmaster 4 minutes ago
how to get titled players to play untitled players
by nameno1had 5 minutes ago
Karjakin (6) Wins Norway; Carlsen(5.5) nakamura (5.5)
by MidnightExpress1 5 minutes ago
There are two kinds of chess players...
by reflectivist 6 minutes ago
Chess apps for iPad mini
by Musikamole 7 minutes ago
Wang Hao beat Anand too!
by FelixPlatypus 8 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com