10367 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!
Thanks for answer:) I always thought Alekhine avoided the rematch out of fear of losing (based on fleeting knowledge and a bad memory) but that doesn't seem to be the case. Some of Alekhine's games were really amazing. His reputation as a combitional genius is justified
Didn't Staunton refuse to play Morphy?
It's a bit more convoluted than that. Staunton, turning down an invitation to come to America, invited Morphy to come to England and wrote in his chess column in the "Illustrated London News:"
...if Mr. Morphy - for whose skills we entertain the highest admiration - be desirous to win his spurs among the chess chivalry of Europe, he must take advantage of his proposed visit next year; he will then meet in this country, in France, in Germany and in Russia, many champions whose names must be as household words to him, ready to test and do honor to his prowess.
Morphy took this as an implication that Staunton would play him if he were the one to travel. Even if Staunton didn't intend this, he never once disavowed Morphy of this belief.
When Morphy arrived much earlier than anticipated, Staunton was a bit taken back. Morphy met Staunton at St. George's Chess Club and renewed the challenge in person. Staunton asked for a month ot brush up on his openings. In fact, Staunton was under severe pressure to deliver his installments on his annotated Shakespeare, at that time Staunton's bread and butter. Rather than just tell Morphy he couldn't play, Staunton led him on - as if he would play him at some indefinite time. Eventually Morphy, who had just a limited time in Europe, demanded a set time to which Staunton agreed in front of the president of the London Chess Society and other dignitaries with "Mr. Morphy, if you will consent to the postponement, I will play you the beginning of November. I will see my publishers and let you know the exact date in a few days." This was August, so Morphy sailed to Paris, waiting for November. While in Paris, Staunton wrote, declining the match. Morphy played Anderssen instead.
Staunton's excuse not to play was quite real and valid. That he couldn't simply admit he couldn't play under such pressure is hard to understand, but Staunton had a very strong personality, and one that alienated his friends and enemies alike. Unfortunately, his awkward mishandling of Morphy would go on to define him forever.
Staunton and Morphy did meet over the board however, in two games at Staunton's home in Streatham. They were consultation games Morphy & Barnes vs. Staunton & Owen. Undoubtedly, Morphy and Staunton had the final decision on each move. Morphy & Barnes won both games.
I think I read the Staunton story in a chess book by Dan King. He made it sound like Staunton was always coming up with lame excuses to get out of playing. Sudden illness, etc.
[Site "Chess.com"][Date "2012.07.01"][White "Morphy, Paul"][Black "Kasparov, Garry"][Round "1"][WhiteElo "unrated"][BlackElo "2812"]
1.e4 c5 2.d4 0-1
Kasparov withdraws because refuses to play this opening!!!
[Site "Chess.com"][Date "2012.07.01"][White "Kasparov, Garry"][Black "Morphy, Paul"][Round "2"][WhiteElo "2812"][BlackElo "unrated"]
Morphy resigns because don't know how to play againt Queen's pawn openings!
[Site "Chess.com"][Date "2012.07.01"][White "Morphy, Paul"][Black "Kasparov, Garry"][Round "3"][WhiteElo "unrated"][BlackElo "2812"]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 1-0
Again, Kasparov refuses to play this opening!!!
[Site "Chess.com"][Date "2012.07.01"][White "Kasparov, Garry"][Black "Morphy, Paul"][Round "4"][WhiteElo "2812"][BlackElo "unrated"]
Morphy resigns: "- I don't know how to play with this pawn! did you teach me?
Final Score: Morphy 2 vs 2 Kasparov
That is hilarious lol
The Day Kasparov Played Morphy.
"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.
His games are not that remarkable compared to what modern GM's dish out every day. I can show you thousands of games that are far more brilliant and educational.
The comparison here is to Kasparov. Morphy in his original state would be an average club player. No opponent would fall for his pitraps in todays world, and it's very unlikely they would work.
Can we discuss actually decent players?
Most people consider Morphy great because that is the popular opinion.
I saw some of his games and was not impressed.
It is absolute crap compared to what you see regularly in Super GM tournaments.
It seems everyone here is just following the myth blindly, or they must not have viewed a different variety of games that are much more complex.
Greco and Lucena were also great for their time period.
That means crap. They too defeated the best players of their time, who just happened to be terrible players.
Morphy would not stand a chance against Kasparov.
Romanticism in chess was killed the day the computer came into existence and we found out flashy and dubious play is not the best method of attack.
There is no real reason to consider Morphy one of the best players in history. I
I wouldn't even put him in the top one hundred.
Actually i would have preferred a Steinitz-Morphy match though.
Steinitz vs. Morphy is more realistic.
Imagination is not relevant in the modern world where a Ruy Lopez variation can be thirty moves deep.
Love that story, Batgirl. I'm going to try to play it out tomorrow. Sounds like a great game and the writing's very good
She is the best blogger on Chess.com.
Thanks for sharing that:)
I think someone should close this thread.
It's kind of asking to be trolled.
Yes, I can see that. Only been here a few days but I've been on other chess sites and no one's been nearly as good. She writes well, has a lot of knowledge and her posts are interesting
Yeah, it may have run its course but I'm hardly the one to make that decision. Trolls are best ignored anyway.
Have a good night
I'll check out your Immortal tomorrow; late here:)
Kasparov would walk in with his most dangerous weapon -- an opening repetoire unmatched by anybody anywhere in the world. Morphy would be handicapped with opening theory which is 140 years out-of-date, playing lines which have not been sharpened through decades of practical master play. Kasparov would dominate.
(If we are talking about chess960 however, Gary may just have that smug smile wiped off his face.....)
You might find this posting interesting - My Conversation with Steinitz.
Harold Phillips, once president of the USCF (in the 1950s) recounts a conversation he had with Steinitz around 1896. Steinitz touches on Morphy.
If Morphy is to play with Kasparov instantly today surely Kasparov will win the game. The following reasons are:
1. Kasparov knows more about Morphy style and tactics; 2. Morphy has to do a lot of learning Kasparov's ways;
This is a silly question, Morphy would be over 150 years old, and age would have taken its toll. Korchnoi may have been GM level into his 80s but I think it would get increasingly hard after your 120th birthday. The young Kasparov would take this match easily.
(btw love batgirl's comments).
12/12/2013 - Polugaevsky - Szilayi, Moscow 1960
by xRiPT 8 minutes ago
Is there any chance that a 1300 rated player can beat a 2700 rated player?
by flubdub 9 minutes ago
How To Find Better Plans In Complicated Positions?
by LongIslandMark 9 minutes ago
Fischer: mentally disturbed or just mean spirited jerk?
by tucumcari 12 minutes ago
Keep losing on Easy (800)
by condude2 12 minutes ago
Cannot log in to chess.com email .. Need Help !
by Kikyo_Sushi 14 minutes ago
by JBades6310 14 minutes ago
The Ultimate Test of Engine Fanatics
by Haiku575 15 minutes ago
Puzzle ---- Force Mate
by zschess 24 minutes ago
Cannot add utube videos no more!!
by suezy 29 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!