Bobby vs Paul ?

1.f4 Morphy vs. Thompson 1859

1.b3 Morphy vs. Maurian 1869

1.f4 Morphy vs. Thompson 1859

1.b3 Morphy vs. Maurian 1869

. . . are games at Queen Bishop odds. Normal openings don't apply to odds games, especially piece-odds.

Actually, it is pretty interesting that Morphy would deviate from his almost exclusive 1.e4, even in odds games, to play 1.g3 in his last recorded game.

It would also seem that his application of Bird's opening in his odds match against Thompson was more an act of insolence - showing Thompson that he could play any opening against him and win, even at Knight-odds. You see, Thompson himself was insolent, convinced he was Morphy's equal, refusing for a long time to accept any odds, fully believing that Morphy had absolutely no chance against him at Knight-odds. Yet Morphy won the match +5-3=1.

I am being educated by all of you!

Salut, mademoiselle Joann!

It is very difficult to assess questions like this at the best of times because as players are different, the more time lies between the heydays of the players involved, the harder it is to gauge their relative merit, I believe.

Fischer re knowledge of the game for his era was likely unparalleled in the history of chess -- his knowledge of every major player before him -- and the breadth of his game study. Especially his knowledge of Morphy and his contemporaries...he knew Morphy et al. in greater depth than any of his modern rivals. In terms of his command of open and semi-open positions, Fischer ranks with Morphy and Capablanca among the tops ever.

Arm Morphy with a laptop, give him some theoretical updating, and a year or two to get ready...in this hypothetical match scenario it would be something to see whether a player of Morphy's stature could close the theory gap between he and Bobby.

 A Chess960 scenario would be more intriguing, I feel. With no opening rubric to rely on and pure OTB talent to judge the intricacies of the unfolding positions, it would be one hell of a match. I would estimate Fischer would have had an edge in that environment because of his knowledge of positional theory (Nimzo and later).

Russ 

"thought he gave Queens Knight"  

duh!  i did type queen's bishop.  yes, queen's knight.  sorry.

Go Red Sox!!!

 Let's hear what the geniuses themselves have to say about Paul Morphy:

Wilhelm Steinitz - 1st World Champion
 
"...Morphy was stronger than anyone he played with, including Anderssen"

Emmanuel Lasker - 2nd World Champion
 
"Paul Morphy was the greatest chess player that ever lived...no one ever was so far superior to the players of his time"

"In Paul Morphy the spirit of La Bourdonnais had arisen anew, only more vigorous, firmer, prouder... Morphy discovered that the brilliant move of the master is essentially conditional not on a sudden and inexplicable realisation, but on the placing of the pieces on the board. He introduced the rule: brilliant moves and deep winning manoeuvres are possible only in those positions where the opponent can be opposed with an abundance of active energy... From the very first moves Morphy aimed to disclose the internal energy located in his pieces. It was suddenly revealed that they possess far greater dynamism than the opponent's forces."

"La Bourdonnais [a great player, b. 1795 - d. 1840] died young in London, and the goddess of Chess, Caissa, very much grieved, mourned for him and forgot to inspire the masters with her sunny look. A dreary time then came over the Chess world. The masters played a dry style, without enthusiasm, without imagination, without force, and the Chess fraternity was full of the wrangles of the mediocrities. It is true, the goddess soon repaired her omission. She flirted – Goddess! pardon me this vulgar expression, but the coarse human language does not know the shades of meaning such as undoubtedly you would be able to express by means of Chess pieces – she flirted, I beg to say, with the English historian [and renowned authority on Shakespeare, whose name has been given to the style of Chess pieces we now use] Staunton and prevailed upon him to organize in 1851 an international chess tournament in London, during the great International Exposition of that year. And then – fickle Goddess – she gave her love to a young mathematician, the German Anderssen, and inspired him to superb combinations. And then -- oh the weakness of her – she spied with her great sunny eye in far distant Louisiana a boy, highly talented; she forgot all about Anderssen, guided the steps of the young American, fell in love with him, introduced him to the world and said triumphantly: “Here is the young Paul Morphy, stronger and greater than master ever was.” And the world listened and applauded and cried “Hurrah for Paul Morphy, the King of Chess!”

In Paul Morphy the spirit of La Bourdonnais had arisen anew, only more vigorous, firmer, prouder. He never formed columns of Pawns for the purpose of assaulting a firm position as Philidor had taught, he always fought in the centre, only a few Pawns in front, and if he needed the lines open, he sacrificed even these few advanced posts. Should the adversary make use of Philidor’s maxims, Morphy’s pieces occupied the gaps in the oncoming mass of Pawns and opened up an attack, so as to leave the enemy no time for slow, methodical maneuvering. Paul Morphy fought; on good days and on bad days, he loved the contest, the hard, sharp, just struggle, which despises petted favourites and breeds heroes.

But then the Civil War broke out in the United States and broke the heart and mind of Morphy.

...When Paul Morphy, despairing of Life, renounced Chess, Caissa fell into deep mourning and into dreary thoughts. To the masters who had come to ask her for a smile she listened absent-mindedly, as a mother would to her children after her favourite had died.

Therefore, the games of the masters of that period are planless; the great models of the past are known, and the masters try to follow them and to equal them, but they do not succeed. The masters give themselves over to reflection. One of them reflects a long time and intensely on Paul Morphy, and gratefully Caissa encourages him; and the greatest landmark in the history of Chess is reached: William Steinitz announces the principles of strategy, the result of inspired thought and imagination...

...Principles, though dwelling in the realm of thought, are rooted in Life. There are so many thoughts which have no roots and these are more glittering and more seducive than the sound ones. Therefore, in order to distinguish between the true and the false principles, Steinitz had to dig deep to lay bare the roots of the art possessed by Morphy.

And when Steinitz after hard work had bared these roots, he said to the world: Here is the idea of Chess which has given vitality to the game since its invention in the centuries long past. Listen to me and do not judge rashly, for it is something great, and it overpowers me...

... The world would have benefitted if it had given Steinitz a chance. He was a thinker worthy of a seat in the halls of a University...And I who vanquished him must see to it that his great achievement, his theories should find justice, and I must avenge the wrongs he suffered..."

Jose Raul Capablanca - 3rd World Champion

"Morphy's principal strength does not rest upon his power of combination but in his position play and his general style....Beginning with la Bourdonnais to the present, and including Lasker, we find that the greatest stylist has been Morphy. Whence the reason, although it might not be the only one, why he is generally considered the greatest of all."

"Reviewing the history of chess from La Bourdonnais to the masters of our day right up to Lasker, we discover that the greatest stylist was Morphy. He did not look for complicated combinations, but he also did not avoid them, which really is the correct way of playing... His main strength lay not in his combinative gift, but in his positional play and general style. Morphy gained most of his wins by playing directly and simply, and it is this simple and logical method that constitutes the true brilliance of his play, if it is considered from the viewpoint of the great masters."

"I play in the style of Morphy, they say, and if it is true that the goddess of fortune has endowed me with his talent, the result of the match with Emanuel Lasker will not be in doubt. The magnificent American master had the most extraordinary brain that anybody has ever had for chess. Technique, strategy, tactics, knowledge which is inconceivable for us; all that was possessed by Morphy fifty-four years ago."
 
Alexander Alekhine - 4th World Champion

"...Morphy, the master of all phases of the game, stronger than any of his opponents, even the strongest of them..."

"How much more vivid, more rich does the figure of Morphy appear before us, how much clearer does the secret of his success and charm become, if we transfer ourselves in our thoughts to that era when he lived and created, if we take the trouble to study, only a little, his contemporaries! Then...in London and in particular in Paris, where the traditions of Philidor were still alive, where the immortal creations of La Bourdonnais and McDonnell were still in the memory, at that time, finally, when Anderssen was alive, and with brilliance alone it was hardly possible to surprise anyone. The strength, the invincible strength of Morphy- this was the reason for his success and the guarantee of his immortality!"

Max Euwe - 5th World Champion

"If the distinguishing feature of a genius is that he is far ahead compared with his

epoch, then Morphy was a chess genius in the complete sense of the word."

Mikhail Botvinnik - 6th World Champion

"To this day Morphy is an unsurpassed master of the open games. Just how great was his significance is evident from the fact that after Morphy nothing substantially new has been created in this field. Every player- from beginner to master- should in this praxis return again and again to the games of the American genius."

Vassily Smyslov - 7th World Champion

"There is no doubt that for Morphy chess was an art, and for chess Morphy was a great artist. His play was captivated by freshness of thought and inexhaustible energy. He played with inspiration, without striving to penetrate into the psychology of the opponent; he played, if one can express it so, "pure chess". His harmonious positional understanding; the pure intuition, would have made Morphy a highly dangerous opponent even for any player of our times."

Bobby Fischer - 11th World Champion
 
"Morphy, I think everyone agrees, was probably the greatest genius of them all."

"A popularly held theory about Paul Morphy is that if he returned to the chess world today and played our best contemporary players, he would come out the loser. Nothing is further from the truth. In a set match, Morphy would beat anybody alive today... Morphy was perhaps the most accurate chess player who ever lived. He had complete sight of the board and never blundered, in spite of the fact that he played quite rapidly, rarely taking more than five minutes to decide a move. Perhaps his only weakness was in closed games like the Dutch Defense. But even then, he was usually victorious because of his resourcefulness."

Garry Kasparov - 13th World Champion

"What was the secret of Morphy's invincibility? I think it was a combination of a unique natural talent and brilliant erudition. His play was the next, more mature stage in the development of chess. Morphy had a well-developed feel for position, and therefore he can be confidently regarded as the first swallow - the prototype of the strong 20th century grandmaster."

Vladimir Kramnik - 14th World Champion

"I did not have the opportunity to study chess classics when I was a child. I was born in the Russian provincial town of Tuapse where chess literature was difficult to obtain; only books on modern players, such as Karpov, Petrosian, etc. were available. Of course, later I filled the gap in my education. However, it is much easier for me to talk about those who I met over the board, i.e. Karpov, Kasparov."

 interviewer: As you see it, should young chess players study the classics?

"In my view, if you want to reach the heights, you should study the entire history of chess. I can't give any clear logical explanation for it, but I think it is absolutely essential to soak up the whole of chess history."

 interviewer: Starting from Gioachino Greco?

"I don't think it is important to start with those ancient times because that is just the ABC of chess. However, Philidor's games should be gone through, not to mention Anderssen and Morphy, whose games should be studied without fail. This knowledge will be a real help in self-improvement."

Richard Reti

"Morphy was the first positional player who, unlike his Romantic rivals, understood the strategic basis for attack. He wrote nothing more than a few game notes and played fewer than seventy-five serious games. But his exploitation of open lines prepared the way for Steinitz's scientific treatment of closed positions and the era of modern chess."

Adolf Anderssen

As to why he was not as brilliant as he was when he faced Paul Morphy in a match: "Morphy will not let me."

On first scroll through reading,, I thought the relevance was obvious or have I missed some subtlety?

In truth you could probably compile such a list of quotes of just about any world champion. Though it may indeed be true that some of the strongest comments have been made of Morphy. I actually enjoyed reading through the quotes.

I liked Kramnik's quote about soaking in the whole of chess history. I'm not completely convinced it makes someone a more complete chess player, but I can't deny that I wish a desire to learn the history of chess upon anyone who takes an interest in the game.

"I thought the relevance was obvious or have I missed some subtlety?"

I understand the well-known quotes are tributes to Morphy, but I'm unclear about their function in this thread. Are they meant to show that Morphy is greater of the two (Morphy and Fischer)?  or are they just for informational purposes - that great players had high opinions of Morphy?  which is why I asked what is their purpose.

"to be spoken of and not to is delightful"

Through their recorded quotations, let's imagine that dead and living legends have joined our forum about Bobby vs Paul.  Unfortunately most legends have not witnessed Fischer play chess, they could only comment about Morphy obviously.  I'm still gathering the quotations about Fischer by the greats, I'm sorry but I have to listen to video recordings as well.  It is interesting how  geniuses describe Morphy, but it's quite one-sided - dead geniuses like Morphy, Alekhine, Capablanca etc. cannot comment about Fischer.  If Fischer, a genius himself, has already drawn the line between him and Morphy, then the issue is settled.  Yes if Morphy is alive (give him a laptop and allow him to update his openings repertoire), then we might be able to agree with the statement of Fischer.  I'm thinking, for example, Viktor Korchnoi vs Magnus Carlsen - are years of experience really a factor here, or by depth of understanding?  Bobby Fischer did not compete for 20 years yet he once more defeated Boris Spassky who remained active and was among the top 50 players.  I've read Kasparov's comments on the 1992 Fischer-Spassky match, he said Fischer's line were old but he was fascinated by Fischer's incredible play even being been idle for two decades.  And since Fischer and Morphy have never met on the board, despite Fischer's declarations, we could still choose as to who is the better player - it now depends on our tastes, knowledge of the characters' personalities and achievements, among others. 

Vladimir Kramnik commented about Capablanca: "When I was a child I very much liked his book Capablanca Teaches Chess because he explained certain principles in a very simple and accurate way, which was easy to understand. Now, however, I don't consider some of his statements to be correct." 

And so it is with Fischer's statements about Morphy.  It may be acceptable to some, and those some may change their minds someday - people's judgments evolve in time - or maybe not to some.

Gokukid,

I really like your brief synoposis, thank you.

Here are some quotes and comments on Bobby Fischer: 

Garry Kasparov - 13th World Champion

I regard him as a mythological combination of sorts, a centaur if you will, a synthesis between man and chess.

If one may judge a player's strength by comparing him with his contemporaries, it seems to me that Fischer's achievement is unsurpassed. The gap between him and his closest rivals was the widest there ever was between a World Champion and the other top-ranking players of his time. He was some 10-15 years ahead of his time in his preparation and understanding. This could be attributed in part to his dedication to the game, which was unequaled by any other player before or since.

It’s impossible to compare two players from different epochs. It’s extremely unfair because we know more now and also because my opponents are stronger than those Fischer had to face. I am not trying to underestimate Fischer’s achievements! The only real point of comparison between the two of us is the size of the gaps between ourselves and our respective opponents. I think that the gap between Fischer and his opponents is still the widest in chess history. The only possible way to compare Fischer, Botvinnik, Morphy, Steinitz and Kasparov is to place them in the context of their eras and to measure the distance between themselves and their opponents. Fischer’s distance was vast! 

By this measure, I consider him the greatest world champion.

Fischer demolished the Soviet chess machine but could build nothing in its place.  He was an ideal challenger - but a disastrous champion.

///Garry Kasparov's statement regarding Fischer's death

With the death of Bobby Fischer chess has lost one of its greatest figures. Fischer’s status as world champion and celebrity came from a charismatic and combative personality matched with unstoppable play. I recall thrilling over the games of his 1972 Reykjavik world championship match against Boris Spassky when I was nine years old. The American had his share of supporters in the USSR even then, and not only for his chess prowess. His outspokenness and individuality also earned him the quiet respect of many of my compatriots.

Fischer’s beautiful chess and his immortal games will stand forever as a central pillar in the history of our game. And the story of the Brooklynite iconoclast’s rise from prodigy to world champion has few peers for drama. Apart from a brief and peculiar reappearance in 1992, Bobby Fischer’s chess career ended in 1972. After conquering the chess Olympus he was unable to find a new target for his power and passion.

Fischer’s relentless energy exhausted everything it touched – the resources of the game itself, his opponents on and off the board, and, sadly, his own mind and body. While we can never entirely separate the deeds from the man, I would prefer to speak of his global achievements instead of his inner tragedies. It is with justice that he spent his final days in Iceland, the site of his greatest triumph. There he has always been loved and seen in the best possible way: as a chessplayer.

Anatoly Karpov - 12th World Champion

Fischer had his personal problems I believe, he was not ready, and, I don't want to claim that he was afraid of me, but most probably he was afraid of himself, and so he, as he became world champion he gave some interviews and then, he believed that a world champion has no right to make mistakes.  And then with such position and with such claim you cannot play chess because you cannot avoid mistakes.

Mikhail Tal - 8th World Champion

It is also important to remember that he was a real chess gentleman during games.  He was always very fair and very correct.

Vladimir Kramnik - 14th World Champion

It is good that Fischer was freed, and I hope that he can live in peace in Reykjavik. We are all very indebted to him, after all that he did for professional chess. I have carefully studied Fischer’s games and in my opinion he is today already a classic player, just like Capablanca and other great chess personalities.

Nigel Short

Well Bobby Fischer is like a Zeus, I mean, the god of all the gods!

Larry Christiansen

It's like this god of chess hanging over everybody's head.

Fischer was a consummate fighting player with a demonic will to win that overwhelmed his opponents.  He was like a force of nature on the chessboard - sometimes a tornado, sometimes an earthquake, and once in a great while a fog.

Al Horowitz

The huge egos of great chess players are legendary. Psychologists have been amazed by their vanity, have studied it, and anecdotes concerning it are abundant. But never before has there been such a prima donna as Bobby. Already he has managed to alienate and offend almost everybody in the chess world. That includes officials, patrons, writers, almost everybody and anybody who might be in a position to help him in his career.

Yasser Seirawan

It's a tragedy.  Imagine: The greatest chess player who ever lived is living in our time, and he's not even playing.  I've never even met him.  It's very frustrating. – Yasser Seirawan (on Fischer, 1985)

Lubomir Kavalek

Players Bobby's age, like myself, are a lost generation.  We always lived in the shadow of Bobby.  We had him as an idol.  He was someone to follow.  When he stopped playing, I somehow got lost.  We lost our inspiration.  The last decade belonged to me in the United States.  I was always ahead in ratings; but I can't say I was first because, in the back of my mind, there was always Bobby.  He was still alive.  He is still alive.

Susan Polgar

Fischer gained respect for chess in an ideological war.  Practically everyone outside the chess community… even 35 years later, now still sees chess players as smart.

Larry Evans

Bobby had a fierce killer instinct and sublimated his aggression into chess, which was his life.  He was well-prepared and relentless. He was uncompromising, hated draws, and fought most of his games to the bitter end.  His greatest weakness probably was using the same openings over and over.

By 1970 the essence of Fischer's style was that he had none.  He was already the ultimate universal player.  At Buenos Aires 1970 he mopped up the field, undefeated at 15 – 2, winning games in every conceivable way.  Like Petrosian, Bobby maneuvered mercilessly against Damjanovic; like Tal, he uncorked unexpected combinations against Panno and Schweber; like Capablanca, he made something from nothing against Szabo, when experts on the scene thought the game was a dead draw. 

Kasparov has been rated number one for nearly 20 years, an incredible feat in any sport. 

Most champions have a period when they are virtually invincible.  Fischer's reign was brief.  He burned out when he reached the peak, whereas Kasparov kept improving.  I think all we can say with certainty is that the gap between Fischer and his rivals in 1972 was greater than the gap that existed between Kasparov and Anatoly Karpov.

Mark Taimanov

His memory was amazing.  Just one more example.  It happened in Vancouver, Canada in 1971.  At the closing of my infamous match against Fischer, Fischer and I were sitting with fellow grandmasters at a banquet and were talking peaceably after the preceding storms. 

The conversation revolved around the match until my second, Yevgeny Vasyukov, suddenly turned to Fischer: “Bobby, do you remember that in 1958 you spent several days in Moscow and played many blitz games against our chessplayers?  I was one of your partners.”  “Of course, I remember,” Fischer replied.  “And the result?” Vasyukov asked.  “Why only the result?” Fischer responded. “I remember the games.  One was a French.”  And he rattled off all the moves!

///They (Fischer and interviewer) talk about the book “Parting with Illusions”, which came out in 1990 and was written by the US-Soviet journalist Vladimir Pozner, a well-known TV personality during the Cold War. Fischer reads from this book:

I remember Mark Taimanov, an International Grand Master and, at one time, a contender for the world chess crown, talking about losing his match with Bobby Fischer by the implausible score of six to zero. For those of you whose knowledge of chess is limited, I should make it clear that Grand Masters never lose matches by a score of whatever to nothing, especially considering that a draw counts for half a point and more games are drawn during a match than are won or lost. So when Taimanov fell to Fischer six-zip, it was a sensation that rocked the chess world. It was, in fact, such an unbelievable affront that the Soviet Chess Federation stripped Taimanov of his title as Grand Master of the USSR. Later, when several other Grand Masters were blitzed by Fischer, the Soviet Chess Federation realized its mistake, but refused to acknowledge it. To this day, Mark Taimanov retains the rank of International Grand Master but has not had his Soviet ranking restored.

Describing his famous defeat at the hands of the future world champion, Taimanov said, “When Grand Masters play, they see the logic of their opponent's moves. One's moves may be so powerful that the other may not be able to stop him, but the plan behind the moves will be clear. Not so with Fischer. His moves did not make sense – at least to all the rest of us they didn't. We were playing chess, Fischer was playing something else, call it what you will. Naturally, there would come a time when we finally would understand what those moves had been about. But by then it was too late. We were dead.”