yeah, why do top chess players go funny sometimes??
The Unknown Morphy: was he really that strong?
Sort:
yeah, and i am too, almost no one has my rating
yureesystem wrote:
@ yibla2, Batgirl and Silman had wrote an article last year. You can also review it in chessgames.com. I believe they were to meet in Paris 1863 ...
So, just to be clear, you have no specific quote specifying that Morphy and Kolisch "set a date and a place to meet"?
http://www.chess.com/article/view/the-kolisch-supplement
http://www.chess.com/article/view/kolisch-unknown-tactical-monster
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=16011
Gunvald123 wrote:
The thing that made Morphy a chess genius is maybe not so much about his absolute, but rather his relative playing strength. Today's chess elite is a product of a higly competitive environment, offering a player from a very young age to compete regularly against opponents of similar strength, allowing the gifted ones to climb the ladder.
In Morphys days, there were no engines, not much literature or coaching or theory of any sort whatsover, and the few people that played chess were not exactly on a GM level. Just browse through some of his games to get a sense of how limited the understanding in these days was: His opponents obviously were oblivious to such concepts like king safety, piece development and the like. as a result the typical ending position of a morphy game has his opponents king naked and his pieces still on the back rank.
But Morphy almost always delivered the beatdown in stunning fashion. One really has to aknowledge the genius capable of getting to that level of play pretty much on his own.
I couldn't agree more! Perfectly stated!
yureesystem wrote:
chessmichky wrote:
"Fischer's opinions should never be taken seriously -- not even those relating to chess. "
I agree completely! Why listen to the opinions of one of two or three strongest chess players who ever lived? A man dedicated to chess history, who played over hundreds of 19th century games. What could such a patzer have to tell us that would compare with the supreme chess wisdom of yureesystem?
I so glad you are so objective and what is your otb rating? So you know more than a FIDE master and have went through all Paul Morphy's games; well FIDE master Macon Shibut might know a little more than a non-expert. Have you ever read Paul Morphy and the Evolutuion of chess Theory by FM Macon Shibut. In his book he show some of Morphy's games lacking in positional understanding, poor endgame technique and tactical blunders. I personally went through over four hundred games of Morphy and read accounts of Morphy refusing to play against the very strong European masters, one them being Kolisch. Do you know who is Kolisch? Paul also refuse to play against a much improve Paulsen in 1860 and what about the other very strong European masters Hirschfeld, Suhle, Neumann,Machenzie, Blackburne,Chigorin and Steinitz. It is nice to be completely clueless and a sheep; Fischer might left out Morphy's blunders and maybe not being objective, you should of know even Bobby's has his own ommissions.
Conjecture at best.
You should stick to discussing the games and matches that Morphy did play and not waste time speculating about games/matches that were never played.
indurain wrote:
Conjecture at best.
You should stick to discussing the games and matches that Morphy did play and not waste time speculating about games/matches that were never played.
Morphy was a hard person to understand, for him to turn his back on chess is shocking; especially when he was at the top. Now I begin to have some understanding why he had some deficiencies; first: he was not a chess professional; second: did not take chess seriously, meaning did not do any investigation and developing chess concepts or theories like to Steinitz did; third all his win were basically on talent, and that is amazing on its self. If Morphy would of put the same effort like Paulsen and Steinitz, chess might been in much higher level. Morphy blindfold skills should put him to be one of the greatest master, he played masters in simul with this skill, that alone is incredible.
The unknown Morphy not so strong, Paul Morphy was quite a player though!
Alvin_Cruz wrote:
Who are we... amateurs... to judge a master?
Who are we... amateurs... to tell any people what they could have done?
Winning and lossing is part of chess. Even the best player who ever lived (name anyone) loses sometimes.
You are missing the point in this thread, first did Morphy all best players in Europe and second Morphy had some difficiency in his games, two of them were positional understanding and the other is the endgame, why not learn from his mistakes.
Later on Guibert played very well in the middlegame, using a lot positional concepts of Nimzovitch, like the restraint pawn h5,h4, h3, to explore the white diagonal h1-a1 very creative in his part, we can learn a great deal in this game, a lot hypermodern ideas by Guibert.
These type of threads make the chess.com community look amateurish, though it is far from that.
Nov 28, 2015
0
#92
Morphy's positional understanding was equal to the development of theory of that time.
yureesystem wrote:
... did Morphy all best players in Europe ...
You can have any opinion that you want about the time after Morphy decided to stop playing matches. As I understand it, the verdict of history is about Morphy's admittedly brief time of serious chess activity from 1857 to 1859.
"... Morphy became to millions ... the greatest chess master of all time. But if we examine Morphy's record and games critically, we cannot justify such extravaganza. And we are compelled to speak of it as the Morphy myth. ... [Of the 55 tournament and match games, few] can by any stretch be called brilliant. ... He 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. ... [Morphy's] real abilities were hardly able to be tested. ... We do not see sustained masterpieces; rather flashes of genius. The titanic struggles of the kind we see today [Morphy] could not produce because he lacked the opposition. ... Andersson could attack brilliantly but had an inadequate understanding of its positional basis. Morphy knew not only how to attack but also when - and that is why he won. ... Even if the myth has been destroyed, Morphy remains one of the giants of chess history. ..." - GM Reuben Fine
I am not here to drag Morphy through the mud, my main concern is to learn from his games. Morphy-Guibert was annotated by Loewenthal, in his analysis there is more unanswer questions than answers; the only way a player is going to get better is to do their own analysis. I personally find this game interesting, Guibert plays a horrible opening but later on outplay Morphy in the middlegame and Morphy to his credit hold the balance and prevent a lost.
Edo Historical Chess Rating A.M. Guibert
| 1849 | 50 | 2301 | (121) | 2 |
| 1850 | 50 | 2304 | (120) | 0 |
| 1851 | 56 | 2307 | (118) | 1 |
| 1852 | 49 | 2315 | (118) | 0 |
| 1853 | 53 | 2323 | (118) | 0 |
| 1854 | 47 | 2331 | (117) | 0 |
| 1855 | 46 | 2339 | (116) | 0 |
| 1856 | 43 | 2347 | (115) | 0 |
| 1857 | 44 | 2355 | (114) | 0 |
| 1858 | 40 | 2363 | (111) | 3 |
| 1859 | 48 | 2355 | (116) | 0 |
| 1860 | 53 | 2348 | (121) | 0 |
| 1861 | 56 | 2341 | (125) | 0 |
| 1862 | 61 | 2333 | (128) | 0 |
| 1863 | 56 | 2326 | (131) | 1 |
I personally don't think Guibert played that strong, it is more in 2198 to 2200 strength, not bad.
Some players claim Morphy was about 2300 strength, I believe more in the 2680 to the low 2700s.
I still going to analize this game further, there is a lot to learn from this game, especially when you lose control and get outplay by a player not at your level.
Nov 29, 2015
0
#95
When Morphy played Guibert, he was blindfolded and played 7 other opponents and a room full of kibitzers.
@ Batgirl, do you know the other 7 players?
Nov 29, 2015
0
#97
Why would anyone who was serious about the topic use Edo ratings to support their claim?
Just go back and read the explanations behind the Edo ratings and you will see why it's not a serious or reliable rating system. Then, just to be sure, take a look at the top players from Morphy's day according to that Edo system.
Nov 29, 2015
0
#98
It should be added that during that blindfold exhibition Morphy was sick in his stomach, refusing to eat anything during the 10 hr. ordeal to avoid any possibility of needing to leave his seat and be accused of cheating (something that Paulsen had encountered when he took a break during a long blindfold exhibition).
"Nothing proves so satisfactorily to me Morphy’s wondrous powers in chess, as his contests in France, laboring, as he constantly did, under positive bodily suffering. A man’s brain will often be more than ordinarily active and clear when the body is weak from late illness; but it is not so when there is pain existing. At breakfast, on the morning fixed for this blindfold exhibition, he said to me, 'I don’t know how I shall get through mywork to-day, I am afraid I shall be obliged to leave the room, and some evil-minded persons may think I am examining positions outside.' Yet, in spite of this, he sits down, and, during ten long hours, creates combinations which have never been surpassed on the chess-board, although his opponents were men of recognised strength, and, as a collective body, Pawn and Two Moves stronger than the Birmingham eight." —Fred Edge
Nov 29, 2015
0
#99
1. Baucher
2. Bierwirth
3. Bornemaun
4. Guibert
5. Lequesue
6. Potier
7. Préti
8. Séguin
batgirl wrote:
It should be added that during that blindfold exhibition Morphy was sick in his stomach, refusing to eat anything during the 10 hr. ordeal to avoid any possibility of needing to leave his seat and be accused of cheating (something that Paulsen had encountered when he took a break during a long blindfold exhibition).
"Nothing proves so satisfactorily to me Morphy’s wondrous powers in chess, as his contests in France, laboring, as he constantly did, under positive bodily suffering. A man’s brain will often be more than ordinarily active and clear when the body is weak from late illness; but it is not so when there is pain existing. At breakfast, on the morning fixed for this blindfold exhibition, he said to me, 'I don’t know how I shall get through mywork to-day, I am afraid I shall be obliged to leave the room, and some evil-minded persons may think I am examining positions outside.' Yet, in spite of this, he sits down, and, during ten long hours, creates combinations which have never been surpassed on the chess-board, although his opponents were men of recognised strength, and, as a collective body, Pawn and Two Moves stronger than the Birmingham eight." —Fred Edge
batgirl
It should be added that during that blindfold exhibition Morphy was sick in his stomach, refusing to eat anything during the 10 hr. ordeal to avoid any possibility of needing to leave his seat and be accused of cheating (something that Paulsen had encountered when he took a break during a long blindfold exhibition).
"Nothing proves so satisfactorily to me Morphy’s wondrous powers in chess, as his contests in France, laboring, as he constantly did, under positive bodily suffering. A man’s brain will often be more than ordinarily active and clear when the body is weak from late illness; but it is not so when there is pain existing. At breakfast, on the morning fixed for this blindfold exhibition, he said to me, 'I don’t know how I shall get through mywork to-day, I am afraid I shall be obliged to leave the room, and some evil-minded persons may think I am examining positions outside.' Yet, in spite of this, he sits down, and, during ten long hours, creates combinations which have never been surpassed on the chess-board, although his opponents were men of recognised strength, and, as a collective body, Pawn and Two Moves stronger than the Birmingham eight." —Fred Edge
Thank you Batgirl, I can appreciate Morphy's games better knowing some of his difficulties and why some games he played poorly. It is a feat in its self, Morphy playing eight players blindfold but being ill and playing decent strength opponent, Guibert not a bad player, in the middlegame he played very well but Morphy was able to neutralize his threats and draw from a bad game. Morphy had tremendous stamina and will power to win, to be ill and do well in a blindfold simul, one word can be describe Morphy "extraordinary". Morphy was no 2300 elo, meeting all the masters I played or they are my friends don't have Morphy's ability ( blindfold or simul blindfold is incredible feat), Morphy was GM level at least.
So no one ever wonder if Morphy played steinitz who would win? I think players would wonder because it would been interesting match.
Morphy quit chess for personal reasons, too bad, because there would been a lot brilliant games we would had to view.