Who is Morphy?
Signs you're a bad chess player

I was just clowning around.
BTW...are you aware that he died in a bath tub? Somewhere back earlier...way back...I wrote about the "bad chess player", buying the original Morphy bath tub. Turned out, it was a cheap knock off.

actualy a lot of Morphy's games were not so razor sharp, he played safely, and only played those beautiful attacks when they presented themselves.
you are a bad chess player if you think that the petrov is a good drawing tool.
disdraught the opponent asks for a rematch, colors the same.
and then one more game is asked for same colors

I was just clowning around.
BTW...are you aware that he died in a bath tub? Somewhere back earlier...way back...I wrote about the "bad chess player", buying the original Morphy bath tub. Turned out, it was a cheap knock off.
"His chess was always razor-sharp, rational and brilliant. One of the best ever."
That was said of Bobby. Just seeing if you'd recognize the comment.
Didn't know that, died in a tub - maybe not a bad way to go out.
BTW, I have a genuine shower stall tile that BF once wrote e4 on, if anyone wants to buy it. $5000.

That was said of Bobby. Just seeing if you'd recognize the comment.
Naw. In the context, it looked as though you were talking about Morphy.
From Wikipedia:
Death
On the afternoon of July 10, 1884, Morphy was found dead in his bathtub in New Orleans at the age of forty-seven. According to the autopsy, Morphy had suffered a stroke brought on by entering cold water after a long walk in the midday heat.[16] The Morphy mansion, sold by the family in 1891, is today the site of Brennan's, a famous New Orleans restaurant.

Jetfighter - On 5... Ng6 black should be winning.
Also, in the last game what was wrong with 11...Bxd6?
Here's one line where the knight sac actually works with perfect play:

If you keep reading this thread to see if you have any of the signs you may be a bad chess player...
Whoo...
Paul Morphy might rank at 2100-2400 in today's world.
Most IM's are way beyond his level in the modern age.

Paul Morphy might rank at 2100-2400 in today's world.
Most IM's are way beyond his level in the modern age.
I tend to think this way about Byrd too, though I have a game that puts them on par with all of the other greats. I am going to go out on a limb and say that they were looked at as innovative enough, to be able to evolve their game, to counter anything thrown at them. On some level I agree. Should they be penalized for how bad their opposition was?
Paul Morphy might rank at 2100-2400 in today's world.
Most IM's are way beyond his level in the modern age.
I tend to think this way about Byrd too, though I have a game that puts them on par with all of the other greats. I am going to go out on a limb and say that they were looked at as innovative enough, to be able to evolve their game, to counter anything thrown at them. On some level I agree. Should they be penalized for how bad their opposition was?
It's not even fair to claim he's 2100-2400.
Paul Morphy's opponents made moves no 1500 in today's chess world would play.
Most of his "brilliant" games result from terrible blunders in the opening.
I doubt he would last in today's tournaments.

You are probably right. But, you see, if he was alive today...he'd have the advantages that you and I have...computers, books, databases, advances in theory, etc.
And with these assests, can you imagine how much better he would be?

Paul Morphy might rank at 2100-2400 in today's world.
Most IM's are way beyond his level in the modern age.
I tend to think this way about Byrd too, though I have a game that puts them on par with all of the other greats. I am going to go out on a limb and say that they were looked at as innovative enough, to be able to evolve their game, to counter anything thrown at them. On some level I agree. Should they be penalized for how bad their opposition was?
It's not even fair to claim he's 2100-2400.
Paul Morphy's opponents made moves no 1500 in today's chess world would play.
Most of his "brilliant" games result from terrible blunders in the opening.
I doubt he would last in today's tournaments.
It makes me wonder how those two might have responded against players who would have pushed them. Some people only play to the level of their competition. I have even noticed that the net results of my play, in terms of the strength each of moves consists of, is probably better against better players, than it is against weaker ones. I chalk this up to better players forcing me to play positions from more sound theory and thus my choices by default end up making my moves better.

I apologize, if necessary. I felt the obligation to stand up for some of the greatest players in history. It is not right to get "snarky" when I could get serious.

I apologize, if necessary. I felt the obligation to stand up for some of the greatest players in history. It is not right to get "snarky" when I could get serious.
The premise of your idea is totally legit.

I think it's entirely valid to say that Morphy would have risen to a different level in todays chess world. If you took our champions today and they had the training and opposition of Morphy's time where would they be now?
It would be interesting if we could take a time machine or a quantum leap for one of our >1800 players or master players back to play a couple hundred games with Morphy and see what he picked up.
"I know people who have all the will in the world, but still can't play good chess."
Must have been talking about politicians.
You know you're a bad player if you think Morphy didn't work at it to become good.