You also must look at Morphy's games through "romantic" glasses. 'Twas the style...
Morphy had some stones
Sort:
Morphy's games are my favorite to study. And quite often, I just like to run through them for fun. The guy was brilliant.
Here's another great Morphy game. In many (most?) of the Morphy games I've played through from the book so far, M has had his king out in the open, yet he still wins. Morphy didn't seem to play many "quiet" games!
Keep the interesting Morphy games coming, guys.
Immortal Morphy 
Mar 20, 2017
0
#30
That game in the original post is just sick. I'd never seen it before -- thanks!
Another great Morphy win, this time at rook odds. Love the way M castles into checkmate - I wonder how rare that is?
Another game that required major nerves by Morphy. Look what happens to his king early into the game!
fierce chess he played
I don't think it was so much about Morphy's nerve as it was about his confidence. Because he was clearly better than his contemporaries, he could afford to take liberties. And the OP said the game was from a simultaneous exhibition, which obviously wouldn't include world class opponents. The blindfold shouldn't have affected Morphy's advantage in skill over much weaker players.
Oct 21, 2017
0
#37
FBloggs wrote:
And the OP said the game was from a simultaneous exhibition, which obviously wouldn't include world class opponents. The blindfold shouldn't have affected Morphy's advantage in skill over much weaker players.
Morphy played blindfolded simuls against the strongest players in the region.
And yes, his opponents were often much weaker. But then again, everyone was weaker than Morphy.
Oct 21, 2017
0
#38
Thanks for the great games. Morphy's understanding of how the pieces cooperate with each other and how "mating nets" work are so instructive for the rest of us!
Oct 21, 2017
0
#39
aa-ron1235 wrote:
Morphy Paul (2680) vs. Cunninghamm (0)
RE: post #14
This participation in a b.f. simul with Morphy must have inspired James Cunningham of the Leeds Chess Club who was 21 years old at the time. 23 years later (Jan. 26, 1882) he is recorded as having given his own b.f. simul, against 9 opponents (one more opponent than Morphy), from the Dewsbury C.C., winning 4, losing 4 and drawing 1..
The contestants in Morphy's b.f. simul at the London C.C. on April 13, 1859 were:
1st bd. Lord Cremore
2nd bd. Capt. Hugh Alexander Kennedy
3rd bd. H.G. Cattley
4th bd. Lord Arthur Hay
5th bd. Thom Worrall
6th bd. James Cunningham
7th bd. J. Thrupp
8th bd. Thomas Wilson Barnes
....all good players.
Morphy won 5 but due to time (the event lasted from 2:00 pm - 6:30 pm) the remaining 3 were left unfinished.
SIowMove wrote:
Morphy played blindfolded simuls against the strongest players in the region.
And yes, his opponents were often much weaker. But then again, everyone was weaker than Morphy.
Right. A while back I created the forum topic, "Greatest master in history (relatively)," which generated no interest whatsoever. I thought it was an interesting topic though. I had read discussions in forums about how much weaker yesterday's masters were than today's. It's an unfair comparison because today's masters have enormous advantages. They have countless grandmaster games played over many decades to study. They benefit from all the improvements in theory, particularly opening theory. And obviously they have access to chess engines far stronger than any grandmaster to assist in analysis. Morphy had none of those. I made the case that masters of different eras should be compared on a relative basis - performance against their contemporaries. I nominated Morphy. He dominated his contemporaries, including Louis Paulsen, one of the world's best (5-1-2) and Adolph Anderssen, considered by many the world's best (7-2-2). He also beat both convincingly in casual matches. I don't think any player in history has dominated the best masters of his time as Morphy did.
Barnes played excellent endgame. Those who say Morphy played patzers are wrong.