Greatest Chess Master in History

kindaspongey

SteamGear wrote: "... Steinitz himself said that he owed his entire chess career to the games of Morphy."

kindaspongey wrote: "Do you have a quote that indicates whether or not Steinitz was referring to being inspired to pursue chess activity by Morphy?"

SteamGear wrote: "'It was Paul Morphy and his exploits that first induced me to enter chess life and to him I owe my career in the first instance.' — Wilhelm Steinitz, International Chess Magazine, May 1886, p. 114"

kindaspongey wrote: "Sounds to me like inspiration to pursue chess activity. Another 1886 Steinitz quote: 'We all may learn from Morphy and Anderssen how to conduct a king’s-side attack, and perhaps I myself may not have learnt enough. But if you want to learn how to avoid such an attack, how to keep the balance of position on the whole board, or how to expose the king apparently and invite a complicated attack which cannot be sustained in the long run, you must go to the modern school for information.'"

FBloggs wrote: "... your constant posting of quotes is boring. It is not purpose of this thread to engage in a lengthy debate about Morphy or any other master. You've gone on long enough about him. Now you need to stop. ..."

kindaspongey wrote: "To take my most recent previous post as an example, I was replying to the claim of someone else about Steinitz and Morphy (a claim involving a quote, by the way). I fail to see why it should be okay for someone else to make a claim involving Morphy and inappropriate for me to reply to it."

FBloggs wrote: "Nice try. You asked him to provide a quote."

In response to SteamGear's claim about Morphy and Steinitz (involving what Steinitz said), I raised the question about what would be indicated by the actual quote.

robbie_1969

You can effectively ignore everything fbloobs says, its simply pomposity at its worst.  A windbag of the windiest proportions.

kindaspongey
FBloggs wrote:

... Chess wasn't [Morphy's] profession and he didn't devote his life to the game as Fischer and others have. ...

How many titled players think that the 1858 chess world was as much of a challenge as the chess world faced by Fischer?

kindaspongey
FBloggs wrote:

... [Morphy] had an innate ability and an understanding of the game that was well ahead of his time. ...

"... Morphy ... could combine as well as anybody, but he also knew under what circumstances combinations were possible - and in that respect he was twenty years ahead of his time. ..." - GM Reuben Fine

kindaspongey
FBloggs wrote:

... this is ... about the greatest master in history. I nominated Morphy ... because of his domination of the greatest masters of his time - and his superior understanding of the game. ...

It seems reasonable to me to consider whether or not it is really fair to evaluate based on performance against the strongest players of a person's time. I see no escape from the difference between dominating 1858 players and dominating twentieth century players. It is perhaps worthwhile to keep in mind that, in 1858, the chess world was so amazingly primitive that players still thought tournaments were a pretty neat idea. There were no chess clocks. There was no generally accepted authority for handing out master titles.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1295510

"... Morphy ... could combine as well as anybody, but he also knew under what circumstances combinations were possible - and in that respect he was twenty years ahead of his time. ..." - GM Reuben Fine
Does 20 equal 160?

kindaspongey
FBloggs wrote:

... Capablanca was one of the best of his time but his results in matches and tournaments don't support the claim that he was the best. ... Capablanca won the championship by defeating Lasker, who was well past his prime (and as you said, didn't even want to play). Then he lost his only title defense six years later.

It might be worthwhile to consider how the Capablanca record would look if his post-1921 behavior had been similar to the post-1858 Morphy behavior towards serious chess competition.

kindaspongey
yureesystem wrote:

... Morphy announced that he will play against anyone odds, ...

From the time, no record has been found of such an announcement actually being made. To be at all meaningful, such an announcement would have had to be well-publicized with arrangements for Morphy's opponent to at least be compensated for his time and travel expenses. Sadly, there are many misconceptions in chess history. Lawson's biography quoted this:
"... Mr. Morphy has again and again declared ... that he would play no more even matches without having been first conquered at odds. ... He has said that ... the larger portion of his future years would be devoted to graver studies and more serious avocations. ..." - New York Saturday Press, October 20, 1860
As can be seen, the playing of a match at odds with Morphy was a post-1858 obstacle placed by him in the path of those who sought a match of level games.

robbie_1969

they don't seem willing to engage you spongey

StanShue
I read so many morphies, I have a friend that is called Paddymorphy!!
kindaspongey
yureesystem wrote:
... Steinitz had girls wanted to be with him, sorry William was a ugly man and women were still chasing after him, ...

 News to me.

yureesystem
kindaspongey wrote:
yureesystem wrote:
... Steinitz had girls wanted to be with him, sorry William was a ugly man and women were still chasing after him, ...

 News to me.

 

Read his bio, I was shock too; And they were pretty young girls. I don't understand it. lol

yureesystem

@ kindaspongey, the girls chasing after Steinitz this information came from; {  The Life and Chess of Wilhelm Steinitz by Lucas Anderson, excellent historical video. } Batgirl is not the only one with information.

yureesystem
kindaspongey wrote:
FBloggs wrote:

... Chess wasn't [Morphy's] profession and he didn't devote his life to the game as Fischer and others have. ...

How many titled players think that the 1858 chess world was as much of a challenge as the chess world faced by Fischer?

 

 

 

Maybe more challenging in Morphy's time, less information on chess and this will come from good chess books. You have a tournament on 1851 with all the games played and a few chess manuals. You have the match of La Bourdonnais vs. McDonnell, 1834 to study and probably without annotation. How did they become master is a good question? It must of been they were immensely talented to become a chess master in 19th century; Morphy without any training and very little European influence, he becomes the best player entire world.

kindaspongey
yureesystem wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
FBloggs wrote:

... Chess wasn't [Morphy's] profession and he didn't devote his life to the game as Fischer and others have. ...

How many titled players think that the 1858 chess world was as much of a challenge as the chess world faced by Fischer?

Maybe more challenging in Morphy's time, less information on chess and this will come from good chess books. You have a tournament on 1851 with all the games played and a few chess manuals. You have the match of La Bourdonnais vs. McDonnell, 1834 to study and probably without annotation. How did they become master is a good question? It must of been they were immensely talented to become a chess master in 19th century; ...

Is there any titled player today, who thinks that, in 1858, "they" were anywhere near the quality of players faced by Fischer?

kindaspongey
yureesystem wrote:

... Morphy without any training and very little European influence, he becomes the best player entire world.

I see no escape from the difference between dominating 1858 players and dominating twentieth century players. In 1858, the chess world was so amazingly primitive that players still thought tournaments were a pretty neat idea. There were no chess clocks. There was no generally accepted authority for handing out master titles.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1295510
"... Morphy ... could combine as well as anybody, but he also knew under what circumstances combinations were possible - and in that respect he was twenty years ahead of his time. ..." - GM Reuben Fine

robbie_1969

I think Reti put it best, 'Morphy was the first positional player'.  Actually Anderssen had more imagination and certainly as equal a grasp of combinations but Morphy outplayed him positionally. If you guys haven’t read Reti's books, Masters of the chessboard and Modern ideas in chess I would highly recommend them for they are the finest chess books possibly ever written.

kindaspongey

Modern Ideas in Chess by Richard Reti

https://web.archive.org/web/20140708233433/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review317.pdf

Masters of the Chessboard by Richard Reti

http://www.thechessmind.net/blog/2012/4/1/book-notice-richard-retis-masters-of-the-chessboard.html

yureesystem

Today there is a lot materials and access information, any player with a little ambitious can become expert, master or even GM; not in the 19th century player needed to be extremely talented to get master level.

kindaspongey
yureesystem wrote:

Today there is a lot materials and access information, any player with a little ambitious can become expert, master or even GM; not in the 19th century player needed to be extremely talented to get master level.

How many titled players think that 1858 chess players were as much of a challenge as chess players today?

kindaspongey
SmyslovFan wrote:

... Kenneth Regan, an IM and a professional statistician, has proven that not only has there been no rating inflation over time, Elo is actually an accurate measure of objective strength and can be used to determine how well people have played historically. ...

As yet, I don't think that funding has been approved for DeLorean-testing.

"... Another argument to make is that players such as Morphy, Capablanca, and Fischer were the greatest chess talents of all time. Their success relative to their peers indicates that they had a remarkable gift for chess, and had they been born in the modern era, they would have achieved all that today's top players have achieved and perhaps more. This is obviously a fanciful argument, but in principle, I agree. These players deserve recognition for being as talented, and perhaps more so, than today's talents such as Carlsen. ..." - NM SamCopeland

https://www.chess.com/blog/SamCopeland/how-strong-were-fischer-and-morphy