The Unknown Morphy: was he really that strong?

@Unk wrote:

Yuree, Morphy played lots of casual games and committed several mistakes just from inattention or from moving too quickly.  Morphy rarely thought longer than 5 minutes and yet sometimes his opponents would take over an hour to make a move!  Morphy would politely sit there and let them take forever but he probably blundered sometimes out of sheer boredom and frustration.  

You can say that Morphy didn't really understand positional play or closed positions (there was no King's Indian back then).  You would be wrong in my opinion, but at least there might be some justification for such an opinion.  What you can't say is that anybody played pure, open chess like Paul Morphy.  Nobody to this day has even equalled Morphy's mastery of the open game.

Morphy offered handicaps of pieces and pawns and still won brilliantly with his eyes closed!!!  When he retired NOBODY IN THE WORLD could even play him at pawn odds!  He was the BEST.  EVER.   

Yuree wrote: I am not saying Morphy is not great master, you are correct that even a genius like Morphy will blunder and lose to weak players: I just addressing some Morphy weakness, it does not take away from his genuis, it just make him human.

At least Steinitz wouldn't have run away like that pompous peacock, that's for sure.

Sashko wrote: Morphy played at a time when chess players were not as  strong as they are today. His unusual sacrifices and impeccable ability to see many moves ahead allowed him to crush his opponents with ease. If Morphy were around today he would probably lose to Carlsen and Caruana. But that is normal considering the time period change. All in all, he was a solid player whom many regard as the greatest of all time/his time. 

I would have to disagree with you, the past masters were unbelieveable strong. Just take Paulsen, it is true he lost to Morphy in a match but he grew as a player and correct his major weakness which is the opening. Paulsen opening were incredibly strong and tactics were incredible and because of Paulsen, he study and use the Sicilian as a weapon and played very modern in the Sicilian.

stuzzicadenti wrote:   

Morphy lost to Anderssen and, in fact, gave Anderssen praise for having demonstrated White not to have the incredible advantage in the Evans as was generally supposed at that time.

Morphy also lost an Evans to George Medley, a rather strong English player and economist and the French player/writer Jules De Riviere  as well as one with De Riviere consulting with Paul Journaud, another French player/writer.

@yuree by your own reasoning vs five of swords, your online rating of 1700 translates to otb of 1200 and therefore means you cannot possibly comment on the strength of Morphy by your own analysis. Why not just believe the consensus opinion that Morphy was a true great, the king of his era? As king of his era he deserves his place in the line up of all time greats. It really is that simple.

"Why listen to the opinions of one of two or three strongest chess players who ever lived?"

Because he was simply wrong about the Morphy of the 1850s beating Tal, Botvinnik et al of the 1960s.

As he was wrong about all Korchnoi's, Karpov's and Kasparov's matches being pre-arranged move by move, Lasker being a coffeehouse player that should be ranked behind Reshevsky and Chigorin, that he could beat Gaprindashvili while giving her knight odds etc. There's too many statements of that sort to make Fischer sound believable.

In my opinion Morphy was ahead of his time. He was the best tactician of the 19th century and fought like hell for the centre-board!

klimskiwrote:

Your reasoning still makes no sense (you establish a general rule but then declare yourself the only exception). No problem, just thought I'd point that out.

Bull crap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yureesystem has valid points that Morphy didn't engage all the strongest non-American players.  For example. he missed Serafino Duboi, Alexander Petroff, v.d.Lasa, Max Lange, Ignatz Kolisch, and Joseph Graham Campbell.  I don't subscribe in the least to the reasons put forth, but the fact remains that he never encountered those strong players. 

Contrary to what anyone might say, Paul Morphy started disengaging himself from public chess while still in Europe in 1858-9. Returning to America, the perfuctory engagements and celebrations only hardened that resolve. During that time Paulsen tried to set up a match but Morphy was half off the carousel and couldn't be persuaded to climb back on.  Around this same time Kolisch was also trying to arrange a match. But Morphy was disinclined to play anyone in serious chess and Kolisch hadn't yet established the credentials — and by the time he did, Morphy was all but done with chess.   Morphy had pretty much extricated himself from public chess by 1861 and only played either with friends or on very rare occasions in public (such as in Cuba). During his two later trips to France he couldn't be enticed to play at all publicly (During his second trip in 1863, Petroff wrote to editor of the "Shakmatny Listok," Viktor Mikhailov, "I've visited Morphy twice, and he has visited me. Doazan has told me that he has absolutely given up the game."  Gabriel-Éloy Doazan, along with De Riviere, was a close friend of Morphy in Paris) although  Kolisch was at his peak during Morphy's final trip to Paris in 1867.  Sheriff Spens wrote concerning this:
"He [Morphy] lost his taste for chess entirely and Neumann told us in 1867 that he could never prevail upon Morphy to play a game. They frequently met at De Riviere's house, and Morphy would occasionally condescend to look at some variations, when the Paris congress book was being prepared for press. We recollect his coming once as far as the door of the Régence to make some inquiries, but he would not enter, in spite of M. Lequesne's entreaties."

While in England back in 1858, backers tried to arrange a match between Morphy and well-known problemist Joseph Graham Campbell (Campbell was capable enough to score 1-1 against Anderssen at JJ Lowenthal's home in 1861, while in a match with Barnes in 1860, Campbell came from behind, from 1-6, to winning the match 7-6). The match never materialized for whatever reasons.

So there have been many missed opportunities and questions unanswered.  150 years after the fact is probably no time to try to answer the unanswerable or to ascribe reasons without sufficient evidence.

He was fascinated by European shoes, and decided then and there to become a collector. Chess took a back seat...

Yep.

Actually, it ended up HERE.

The watch dial, which was painted by John and George Webb, watch-dial painters by profession who emigrated from England to the US in the 1850s, is at the San Francisco Academy of Science. 

The watch itself disappered.  WJA Fuller (co-editor with Morphy of "The Ledger" chess column and later chess editor of "Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper") saw it in 1885 with de Riviere who claimed he had it as collateral for a loan he made to Morphy (presumably in 1867) because Morphy needed cash to proceed with a lawsuit against his brother-in-law (Malvina's husband who was a cotton merchant and consul for Sweden) John Sybrandt (which came to nothing). 

In 1821, A.W. Mongredien, the son of Morphy opponent Augustus Mongredien saw it in Paris an offered the de Riviere's heirs 6000 f. for it.  They refused to sell it. After that, nothing is known.

I think that some perspective has to be drawn here. Morphy did study the games of other masters of his day such as Lowenthal. But to criticise Morphy for being positonally weak? 

** Positional play was still in its infancy in Morphy's day ** 

He did remarkably well with what he had. I have no doubt that Morphy would be a GM in a few years if you put him in chess in 2015. 

see it yet Huey ?