great article, thanks!
Steinitz vs. Morphy: The style of systematic strategy vs. impulsive genius ?
Sort:
Steinitz was the successor to Morphy in many ways. His play-for-an-advantage-before-attacking style had its roots in Morphy's demolition of anyone trying to attack him with undeveloped pieces. The means they used however were quite different, as we can see from the article. Great article, very interesting.
He was indeed the greatest!
On the subject of Paul Morphy, please see my biographical novel about Morphy's life at http://www.mattfullerty.com and http://theprideandthesorrow.blogspot.com
The Pride and the Sorrow: Press Release
Paul Morphy's story is a rites of passage tale about a boy who becomes famous by playing chess. It is also a cautionary tale about New Orleans, family pride and a mind who cannot cope with the real world...The Pride and the Sorrow is a cross between Josh Waitzkin's Searching for Bobby Fischer (about a chess prodigy) and Vladimir Nabokov's The Luzhin Defense (about chess causing madness). Paul resists gambling and dueling and despite Morphy family rivalries he takes on the Europeans at their own game. But the red-light district and temptations on the other side of New Orleans are never far away...
The Pride and the Sorrow: Book Review, June 2008
New Zealand novelist Geoff Cush, a member of the Bookhabit judging panel, had the following to say about the Bookhabit Award 2008: "What made Matt Fullerty's writing stand out, from the very first sentence, was an unusually strong and individual way with words. Taking us into the vanished world of old America and Europe he uses a highly textured language to give an almost physical experience of being in that place and time. Drawing subtle lines between a society top-heavy with leisure and the profligate genius it produced in Morphy, he holds back the historical and personal reckoning while letting it gather and brood like the storm that finally washes away New Orleans. In my view this makes The Pride and the Sorrow a stand-out all rounder in the craft of literary fiction."
Thank you for reading!
My page specifically about Paul Morphy and Bobby Fischer is here http://mattfullerty.com/chess_paulmorphy_neworleans_bobbyfischer.aspx
Also, you can read more about Paul Morphy at http://www.paulmorphychess.com
Wilhelm Steinitz (1836 - 1900) represented a completely different chess style compared to the "classical play" which dominated around the 1850s.
As argued in another blog post, Morphy represented the idea of "continuous development" (usually answering a threat with an aggressive development or attack move) and is mainly associated with forceful attacks combined with sacrifices, applied early in the game. I don't think there exists any factual confirmation of to what extent his play was based on "systematic analysis" or on "genial intuition", or which combination thereof. I have computer analyzed some of Morphy's games, and without any scientific verification - what strikes me is that in critical phases his positions seem to be "high risk" - basically showing one "genius move" and many inferior ones (of course, Morphy selected the genius one).
However, compared with Morphy, Steinitz may be characterized as the "first modernist". He emphasized a scholastic approach to the game, characterized by the concept that a strategic advantage is made up of a multitude of marginal advantages in positioning and mobility. His key point was that a forceful attack or combination should only be attempted once such a strategic advantage had been reached (which of course, made it necessary to define such strategic advantages in detail). Looking at his games, they seem to be characterized by low risk early play, strong defense, and gradual improvement - until he strikes!
Steinitz' theoretical work was substantial; here are a couple of games as an illustration (comments are included): In the first one, Steinitz focuses on systematically limiting the mobility of his opponent's bishop/knight by using his own pawn structure; in the second game his scholastic theories of how to play against closed positions comes into play (one of his thesis were: If you play against an opponent with a closed positions, do not be tempted to exchange, as this will give your opponent the room to maneuver he does not have):
In the previous game it is striking how Steinitz totally immobilizes the officers of Rosenthal from the 16th move on.
In the following game he applies his principles of how to play closed positions, narrowing down his opponent's room to maneuver, and avoiding all bishop exchanges that are being offered. Take a look:
Steinitz emerged on the scene around 1862, played "classical chess" for a decade, and then intensively promoted his ideas for the rest of his life. His style was controversial at the time, and the recognition of Steinitz' contributions came mainly after his death in 1900.