Favorites of mine would be, first and foremost --> Me, my uncle that taught me chess... And then probably Nakamura, Anand, Topalov... Pretty much all the current professionals who have led me to better understand the game.
As for other players like Morphy... It is popular belief that there were none, a tribute to why he was so "great" as people say; a player like Morphy would be decimated by today's professionals though, sorry to say =(
I would like to add that I hate hypermodern chess.
I also like openings such as the Kings Gambit, Budapest Gambit, and Smith-Morra Gambit - all of these gambits are reasonable and give the player attacking chances
I hate every gambit (now) except the Queen's... Which isn't really even a gambit anyway, but whatever. :) I really like hypermodern chess.
@usayuwansum
The thing is, I don't like current grandmaster chess; we've grown to play like computers - playing slow, positional, prophylactic moves.
I completely agree with your statement that Morphy would be decimated by today's grandmasters, but his style of play was exciting, creative, and FUN.
Current chess has lost its magic
When you use the word "we've" it gives me the impression that you think we are all forced to play "like computers"... I think the word you are looking for is "they've"! And you know pal, maybe one day you will become so good at chess (playing in the style Morphy did) that you will bring the "magic" back, as you say! ;D I mean... If you are going to be even a little serious about chess you have to want to play in a way that is fun (for you) and that suits you... In my case, I am learning to play hypermodern; in yours, gambiteering! ;)
Why am I talking semi-seriously about chess? I have no idea... God be with all - Good night ^^)
I would like to add that I hate hypermodern chess.
I also like openings such as the Kings Gambit, Budapest Gambit, and Smith-Morra Gambit - all of these gambits are reasonable and give the player attacking chances
If wat yur saying is true i wud suggest alekhine he has brilliant combos and was a master of many gambits and a handful of fischer's games are exciting
The early Steinitz was called The Austrian Morphy. He might be good to look at.
On the flipside, I hate slow, posititional chess and even some tactical chess with dubious moves (such as some games by Mikhail Tal - some sacrifices just don't make sense!)
lol...well, maybe they'll make a bit more sense to you once you've boosted that USCF a bit (then again--as Tal himself was the first to admit--maybe not). :)
Mind you, I've only played USCF blitz games so far.
You should look at the games of english grandmaster Nigel Short. He has a very classical, attacking style and maintains his place in the top 50 players for 25 years+ (at one time world no 3 and WC challenger to Kasparov).
You should look at the games of english grandmaster Nigel Short. He has a very classical, attacking style and maintains his place in the top 50 players for 25 years+ (at one time world no 3 and WC challenger to Kasparov).
Thank you! He's exactly the type of player I was looking for.
Do you guys have any opinion on Siegbert Tarrasch, Harry Pillsbury, or Frank Marshall?
Morphy would do well against today's players. The only thing he lacked was the body of opening theory that has developed since his time.
Apparently Morphy was a genius who did university level math in his teen years. he got his law degree early and memorized the entire legal code of his state. he was also a fast player (more ike blitz speed).
Could he be thrashed by GM's today gievn that he has a few months to brush up on all the theory developed after his death? maybe. maybe not.
but I'm more willing to bet my money on Morphy with his super duper photographic memory to digest all the chess theory that came after him given a few months of study. he'd be unbeatable.
Well lets be real for a minute; take a player like say.. Nakamura, and put him up against Morphy... With the resources that have been available to them, and developed theory.. Yeah, modern professional > past professional; I am sure future professionals will be > than today's as well; overall though, you should not compare in such a manner... For the men and women are living in different times, different worlds, so to speak; comparisons should be made at who achieved more in their time of (prime) play; it completely relates to the posts above, where it has been said perhaps Morphy would be "unbeatable" if he will be given time to study up on what he did not know - who knows if he could contend? Lol
Whether or not Morphy would perform well against today's grandmasters is irrelevant - he could crush any of us any day blindfolded which is why his games are worth analyzing. I'd also like to point out that he's rated #84 on Chess Metrics. http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/PeakList.asp
I don't know about you guys, but when I play chess I try to create beauty. For me chess isn't a game or a science - it's an art.
2. Ke2!!
"I''d also like to point out that he's rated #84 on Chess Metrics. http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/PeakList.asp"
If you want to put stock in retro-ratings, then give the more historically inclusive EDO system a try.
Is EDO calculated by comparing the strengths of players relative to eachother whereas Chess Metrics uses a computer to calculate the accuracy of the moves of players?
I think the main difference is that EDO uses games and customs of the time while Chessmetrics ignores this important aspect of historical chess. For instance, Howard Staunton's games as used by Chessmetrics would include his match and tournament games and maybe some casual games, but would ignore his games at odds as if they were meaningless. However, Staunton played almost exclusively at odds after a certain point. EDO attempts to take such factors into consideration. In a sense, I think you might say that EDO is subjective while Chessmetrics is strictly objective and ignores the areas that made chess different in different times. You may also notice that EDO only goes to the year 1902, I believe. So, older players aren't being compared with modern players.
My favorite player is Paul Morphy - his tactical yet straightforward style of play during the classical age of chess appeals to me.
On the flipside, I hate slow, posititional chess and even some tactical chess with dubious moves (such as some games by Mikhail Tal - some sacrifices just don't make sense!)
Could you guys name any other players like Paul Morphy?