If only you could find those moves without your computer!
Morphy the Terrible
Sort:
I have more games Scott.
Pretend I photoshopped a chess piece in
Yereslov wrote:
I have more games Scott.
Parcheesi? Solitaire?
ivandh wrote:
Yereslov wrote:
I have more games Scott.
Parcheesi? Solitaire?
I meant chess.
For a list of people who don't play terrible chess according to Yereslov's standard can be found here.
If a man is considered the greatest player in history, then his games should reflect that title. Morphy played terrible moves. What's the point of appreciating a game for its attack on the king, if the attack is just an illusion? All the moves are refuted through analysis. A player of Morphy's calibre has no excuse.
So you're saying that, because he is such a great player, he is a bad player?
How can he be a great player if all his games are based on luck? His attacks have no poison to them. All of his games are easily refuted. You can't say the same for Steinitz or Lasker. Steinitz was far more precise, and his attack are not easy to refute. He saw farther ahead.
The world's greatest troll has resurfaced for another round of abuse from the fans of chess!
I'll bite: Yereslov, if you could play anything half as crappy as Morphy on a day when he had a migrane or hangover, I'd be impressed. Why don't you publish one of your gems to illuminate just how much better you are than the sucky Paul Morphy!
Yereslov wrote:
How can he be a great player if all his games are based on luck? His attacks have no poison to them. All of his games are easily refuted. You can't say the same for Steinitz or Lasker. Steinitz was far more precise, and his attack are not easy to refute. He saw farther ahead.
Yeah he was consistanly lightyears ahead of all of his competition because he was lucky.
By the way I am the world champion of coin flipping and when I roll dice they always land on 6 unless I don't want them to. I also win the lottery every week. It is all skill.
Yereslov wrote:
How can he be a great player if all his games are based on luck?
Are you talking about parcheesi again?
DrSpudnik wrote:
The world's greatest troll has resurfaced for another round of abuse from the fans of chess!
I'll bite: Yereslov, if you could play anything half as crappy as Morphy on a day when he had a migrane or hangover, I'd be impressed. Why don't you publish one of your gems to illuminate just how much better you are than the sucky Paul Morphy!
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/yereslovs-immortal
Do you know the exact circumstances of this game?
Was it a casual game or a blindfold game or....?
mrguy888 wrote:
Yereslov wrote:
How can he be a great player if all his games are based on luck? His attacks have no poison to them. All of his games are easily refuted. You can't say the same for Steinitz or Lasker. Steinitz was far more precise, and his attack are not easy to refute. He saw farther ahead.
Yeah he was consistanly lightyears ahead of all of his competition because he was lucky.
By the way I am the world champion of coin flipping and when I roll dice they always land on 6 unless I don't want them to. I also win the lottery every week. It is all skill.
How is he lightyears ahead when his attacking moves always lead to equality? He lived in an era of terrible players. Had he played Steinitz, he would have had his butt handed to him.
Compare Morhy's games to Steinitz or Lasker's. Far better quality, and far more accurate.
But he didn't play Steinitz. And he wasn't playing 2012 Houdini.
It's like saying Bannister was a terrible runner because people have run 3.43 miles now.
Here is a game showcasing how terrible and overrated Moprhy has become: