in my opinion Paul Morphy would have been able to beat Stienz and get the world championship
Would Paul Morphy had been the first world champion if he didn't get sick?
Sort:
yes
lets see if more public agree
no i mean if he lived and didn't die because of sickness
did you see his famous win over the consultants???
that was probally part of his sickness
Steinitz got the "official" title in 1886 when he played Zukertort in a match. Morphy died in 1884.
Until 1886 there was no generally acclaimed WC.
If you ask how long Morphy would have been the best player had he kept playing while maintaining sanity, hard to say. Steinitz after all was the manifestation of the next step of evolution and the founder of modern chess, after he stopped emulating the combinative style.
morphy was dominent before he got sick, remember
Jan 3, 2010
0
#10
Morphy was over rated, playing at no more than Elo 2500 ABSOLUTE MAX (GM standard, I agree). He would not be in the world's top 100 now. Steinitz was a far superior player and would easily have defeated Morphy. Morphy was only short lived, flash in the pan (similar to Fischer......)
Steinz would have been the best. He was the founder of modern chess, but Morphy made beautiful sacrificial combinations and most of them were insecure.
MRO314 wrote:
Steinz would have been the best. He was the founder of modern chess, but Morphy made beautiful sacrificial combinations and most of them were insecure.
???? Stienz was the best player at the time... what do you mean he would have been???
if you like debates like this one than check out
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-players/fischer-or-karpov
my new started forum that shows a simmilar cause
that was probally the start of his major illness
Given that Morphy if had continued to play he would have held the number one position and it would have been Morphy-Steinitz for the 1st. World Championship in 1866.
But Morphy was well read in chess theory. He was not hidebound and would have appreciated Steinitz's ideas. It would have been interesting to see if Morphy could have capitalized on Steinitz's strict adherance to his own theories.
he was the one who supported quick developement
Morphy didn't die from his reclusive psychological illness, but from a stroke caused by entering too cold bath water.
My own - no doubt very ill-informed - feeling is that Morphy could have given Steinitz a run for his money.
Jan 3, 2010
0
#19
I'm a Morphy fan so I'm prejudiced. At his peak Morphy could have played anyone alive or dead or not yet born and beaten them in, say, a twenty game match. And it wasn't because he represented a "school" like romanticism or because he had learned the secret of development. He simply played the most accurate moves most of the time. I'm sure if he had been able to play Steintz or Kasparov he would have been annoyed by the openings( especially at the beginning), but in the end he would adjust and in the middle game come out on top. As was said in a previous post, Fischer, who had studied Morphy games said he was the best of all time.
buddy3,
Morphy was a wonderful chessplayer, indeed. But horribly overrated. Lasker would have annihilated him, let alone, Kasparov. It wasn't like Morphy dedicated his life to chess. It appears he had a really beautiful understanding of the game, creating nice gems to savor against less than world class opponents. It's absolutely ridiculous to speak of Morphy in the same breath as those that had made a profession of it. Morphy had no inclination to make a profession of it, and he would be confused and dazzled by those who did. Morphy, gave us some nice games to admire, but no doubt, one can understand his games almost at any level. Whereas the Masters that proceeded him, their genius, takes quite a bit of time to understand. Today's 2700 club, is in a different world than Morphy would have given a damn to even take a walk in, let alone, pry open the depth of understanding of a professional chessplayer and grandmaster of the first rank. Because of people like you, Paul Morphy's only title will be: 'Most over- rated player in history'.
Would Paul Morphy had been the first world champion if he didn't get sick? Paul Morphy was at the peek of his time scoring big wins on Andersson and others. Stienz was the first world champion but if Paul Morphy didn't get sick, would he of been able to beat him????