Bobby vs Paul ?

As you may or may not know, I've written extensively about Paul Morphy and studied him in great detail. I mention this not to assert any special expertise, but rather to signify my love for Morphy. However, my love for Morphy isn't blind and fanatical, but honest and rational, accepting his flaws as well as his strengths.

Of course, I've studied all the famous quoted opinions about Morphy and have concluded that most were really obligatory hommage.  I'm not sure most of these later masters knew what to make of Morphy who literally came out of nowhere, having made no great study of chess and never having played opponents of master level (with the exception of 3 games with Loewenthal at age 12), to destroy everyone of the older, highly experienced and proven masters he encountered over the board, and then just quit playing.  They certainly couldn't deny, nor could they explain, his results.  So they paid their proper hommage, called him a genius, and saved themselves the trouble of trying.  Most of what they wrote was perfunctory and somewhat back-handed if read carefully.

Even Fisher's somewhat unqualified praise: "In a set match, Morphy would beat anybody alive today..."  was pretty much nullied by an earlier interview (with Ralph Ginzburg, January 1962):

  RG - "Would you consider yourself the greatest player that ever lived, even better, say, than Capablanca, Steinitz, or Morphy?"
  BF -  "Well, I don't like to put things like that in print, it sounds so egotistical. But to answer your question, Yes." 

Lasker, in his wonderfully eccectical Lasker's Chess Magazine, often made some pretty big historical blunders clothed in exotically floral language. The one he made here:  "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"

Anderssen's oft-quoted  "As to why he was not as brilliant as he was when he faced Paul Morphy in a match: "Morphy will not let me." has generally been taken out of context, as Max Lange explained.

Here Lange gave an Anderssen-approved version:

• He was asked if the American was superior in coolness and self-possession, and if his play in general had seemed to him superior to his own. The first part of the question was not strictly answered, for Anderssen merely replied to it as follows :—" I cannot say I believe so; for, in my own opinion, I was quite cool, but still I have overlooked the most simple moves." The second question was answered without reserve:—" He did not even in his dreams," he said, " believe in the superiority of his opponent; it is, however, impossible to keep one's excellence in a little glass casket, like a jewel, to take it out whenever wanted; on the contrary, it can only be conserved by continuous and good practice." It was asked of him, if there were any external disturbing influences at work, and how the witnesses and spectators behaved. As to the first question, it was not denied that unwonted noisy surroundings in the hotel chosen (Hotel Violet), produced sleepless nights, which by no means contributed to fortify him for the exhausting play of a match. The near spectators, as Messrs. A. de Riviere Preti, Journoud, and Edge, as well as the proper witnesses or honorary seconds, Messrs. St. Amant, Lequesne, Mortimer, and Grandboulogne, behaved, all of them, most honourably; amongst the other spectators, however, there were unmistakable, and sometimes very disturbing, sympathies shown for his opponent. Signs of impatience were chiefly exhibited when the German player took time for reflection; especially conspicuous therein was a certain baldheaded Italian, who generally managed to place himself close to the American player. To such influences may be attributed the turn in the sixth game of the match, move twenty-eight. The German master was, amongst, other things, also asked wherein the strength of his opponent lay, and what was his opinion of the lost games in comparison with those he won. As to the first part, he had already mentioned that the American never committed a mistake, and very seldom an error. As to the second point, the games won by the German player must be good, because Morphy never loses through mistakes or errors. The contrary may be said of the other games, which were generally thrown away by evident blunders. Besides, the question has been addressed to Anderssen, and especially from Leipzig, if he would again fight with Morphy, and how the latter had behaved to him. The answer was, that Morphy was invariably polite to him, but more so after his victory, and that he manifested his satisfaction by several little attentions. He had distinctly promised, besides, to pay a return visit to Germany in the month of March ; whereupon, if he had no objection to idle away a fortnight in Breslau, most likely a return match could be arranged. Finally, the same parties inquired how the American master spoke of Anderssen's play. Upon this the German player replied with well-founded confidence:— " To express an opinion upon this subject was impossible for Morphy, as I had not gone to Paris to get a certificate of ability. Those who surrounded the American, however, seemed to think that they flattered me most when they said, how high an opinion the American had of my play, and that he considered me the strongest of all opponents he had met till now. But to be reckoned stronger than a Lowenthal I consider next door to nothing! " 
  

 The point is that we have to take these quotes with a grain of salt. They're fun to read, but they pose some difficulties if examined too closely. 

Here's what Fischer had to say about the legends and chess itself.

They (interviewer and Fischer) start to talk about the greatest players from the past century. Fischer:

"In chess so much depends on opening theory, so the champions before the last century did not know as much as I do and other players do about opening theory. So if you just brought them back from the dead they wouldn’t do well. They’d get bad openings. You cannot compare the playing strength, you can only talk about natural ability. Memorisation is enormously powerful. Some kid of fourteen today, or even younger, could get an opening advantage against Capablanca, and especially against the players of the previous century, like Morphy and Steinitz. Maybe they would still be able to outplay the young kid of today. Or maybe not, because nowadays when you get the opening advantage not only do you get the opening advantage, you know how to play, they have so many examples of what to do from this position. It is really deadly, and that is why I don’t like chess any more."

Morphy and Capablanca had enormous talent, Steinitz was very great too. Alekhine was great, but I am not a big fan of his. Maybe it’s just my taste. I’ve studied his games a lot, but I much prefer Capablanca and Morphy. Alekhine had a rather heavy style, Capablanca was much more brilliant and talented, he had a real light touch. Everyone I’ve spoken to who saw Capablanca play still speak of him with awe. If you showed him any position he would instantly tell you the right move. When I used to go to the Manhattan Chess Club back in the fifties, I met a lot of old-timers there who knew Capablanca, because he used to come around to the Manhattan club in the forties – before he died in the early forties. They spoke about Capablanca with awe. I have never seen people speak about any chess player like that, before or since.

Capablanca really was fantastic. But even he had his weaknesses, especially when you play over his games with his notes he would make idiotic statements like “I played the rest of the game perfectly.” But then you play through the moves and it is not true at all. But the thing that was great about Capablanca was that he really spoke his mind, he said what he believed was true, he said what he felt. He wanted to change the rules [of chess] already, back in the twenties, because he said chess was getting played out. He was right. Now chess is completely dead. It is all just memorisation and prearrangement. It’s a terrible game now. Very uncreative. 

----------

While Morphy said that chess was not a fitting profession for a grown man.

----------

Fischer had that view, Morphy had this view - about chess.  The problem now is, if both are alive, will they play chess?  How are we going to know who's better then.  Hmmm...I think Fischer might play since Morphy is not a Russian.  While Morphy, well, let's hope that if he rises from the dead again he has the body of a teenager.

I wish I could learn more.

That's so true of all of us. One of the nice things about forums is the exchange of ideas, so we all learn from each other. Your inclusion of the chess quotes about Morphy and Fischer exposed ideas to folks who may have otherwise been unaware of them. Hopefully, enough facts lead to a greater degree of understanding - which is the ultimate goal. 

Give Paul Morphy 6 months to study up on new material in the openings and he'd be a match for anyone, including Karpov.

In an interview I recently heard with Fischer, recorded in August of 2006, Fischer said the same thing.  He said no one ever played more accurately than Morphy, including himself.

    PERHAPS....keep in mind, ' immortallity of the soul'....

I am bobby  AND  you are....?!

                      hmmmmm......     ;  ' )

I think Paul Morphy would lost on first game but he might comeback from his lose and win Bobby Fisher()

While Morphy said that chess was not a fitting profession for a grown man.

                                                                __ Morphy will not say that Gokukid