Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

what would be the result if morphy had played up against kasparov?

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #681


    The famous kid, forgot to bring with him his nano engine.
  • 3 years ago · Quote · #682


    Morphy would beat kasparov blind folded.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #683


    Luminosity1 wrote:

    Morphy would beat kasparov blind folded.

    What if Kasparov doesn't want to be blindfolded?

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #684


    Ok, Morphy blindfolded and Kasparov handcuffed {#emotions_dlg.laughing}

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #685


    Ok maybe I said that wrong, Morphy blindfolded would beat kasparov unblindfolded.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #686


    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. 

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #687


    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. 

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #688


    Good point VULPES_VULPES.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #689


    it takes a willingness not to accept authority for the sake of authority.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #690


    Yereslov wrote:
    joeydvivre wrote:

    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".

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #691


    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.

Back to Top

Post your reply: