10136 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!
All of your previous posts since you joined now make perfect sense
yeah....you like said it man....
This must be the ingredient needed for Yeres nano engine.
If Morphy is to play with Kasparov, endless arguments will be settled by all parties involved. The ratio must be 10+ vs. 1. But the odds of one is greater than the many. Consider the backing of an engine against the wisdom of the many. In the end the issue reached to a topic of "man against engine". Morphy is the man and Kasparov must be the engine. Yereslov must be the judge.
Engines can consistently beat human players, that's true, but they each play incredibly different styles of game that makes such a statement just a little too simplistic. There are parts of the game that humans easily outperform engines in, and as a result, blindly trusting an engine's assessment as to the validity of human moves is problematic to sy the least. Where engine's make it up is in pure calculation.
Consider this: if it was as simple as Yereslov suggests, then a centaur (human assisted engine) would be no better than an engine alone. Centaurs, however, can consistently outplay even today's top engines.
Yes, but that's with the help of an engine.
You have no evidence to make the claim that humans are superior in a specific area of chess.
What we consider brilliant or genius is spotted by an engine in seconds, or is later to be found false.
Please tell me you're not really this thick.
i can defeat Usain Bolt in a straight 100m any day by being shot out of a cannon.
This must be a nano engine that is over heating and better than humans. Lol.
Anyways, how could Morphy be Morphy if he was born in the future?
He would be a different person, hence not Morphy.
Did anyone actually try realizing this?
"Paul Morphy" is a person from the 19th century. If he was born today he would most likely have a different name and be born in a different place, with different parents, a different life, and a different education.
If we're arguing from the "time travel argument" then he would still definitely not be "Paul Morphy."
That would be a completely different person simply because of the historical and experiential change.
Lol!!! This statement is very funny......this thread is just for opinions and can never be real.
I kept referring to Yereslov as a 1300 player on a couple of threads and two people - not one but two people - sent me e-mails about how offended they were along with his USCF activity which says that (if I remember correctly) he has broken 900 once but is generally an 800's player. He is in college which he thinks sucks.
Yereslov must be a 12 year old boy. Funny thing if my prediction is right, we are making folly of ourselves by responding to Yereslov seriously. In proverbs it state that if a fool questions you, answer it foolishly too. This way the guy will be aware of his foolishness. Lol!!!!
Morphy would beat kasparov blind folded.
What if Kasparov doesn't want to be blindfolded?
Ok, Morphy blindfolded and Kasparov handcuffed
Ok maybe I said that wrong, Morphy blindfolded would beat kasparov unblindfolded.
Kasparov would beat Morphy.
Kasparov lived in a time where chess theory was more advanced and where competition was rife.
You can't compare two people from different epochs.
Morphy was an innovator of chess; something like the great great great great great great grandfather of the modern grandmaster.
Using the same analogy, Kasporov would be one of his many great great great great great great grandchildren.
The progression of any game or art is the same. Without Bach, there would be no Baroque era, and without it, there would be no Classicists like Haydn or Mozart, no Beethoven, the shepherd that lead the people to Romanticism, and no Stravinky or Rimsky-Korsokov. All of them played a role in the evolution of music.
Kasparov would have been the chess counterpart of Rimsky-Korsokov while Morphy would have been a Mozart. Their music cannot be compared to each other because of the sheer difference in style in their time periods (20th century vs. classical), and thus, whether one is better than the other is independent of scientific determination and boils down to individual tastes.
Good point VULPES_VULPES.
it takes a willingness not to accept authority for the sake of authority.
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 know it's been over a year, but I'm really distressed that nobody seems to have corrected you in that time. Newton invented Calculus. Algebra was invented long before. It was arguably in use by the Islamic mathematicians of Europe's "dark ages".
Paul Morphy would be hammered.
But if you gave Morphy 5 years of master chess books and expereince in 2013, he would get an IM title and beat some weaker GMs.
Nimzowitsch's Defense answer to d4 d5 Nc3
by aww-rats a few minutes ago
3/7/2014 - Mate in 4
by jiangyh a few minutes ago
Making the Chess.com Forums Better
by richie_and_oprah a few minutes ago
Steinitz vs Morphy
by SilentKnighte5 4 minutes ago
If We Renamed the King to Queen, and...
by mosai 5 minutes ago
[HURT HEAL] OPENINGS
by WizardlyChess 7 minutes ago
How Many Squares Are In A Chess Board?
by winerkleiner 8 minutes ago
Group help II
by Atomic_Rift 9 minutes ago
windows 8 tablet
by IfeelGreat 9 minutes ago
Popular chess myths to be disproven.
by condude2 9 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 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!