Steinitz:
1. Lived in the same era.
2. Played almost the same players.
3. Was only born a year after Morphy.
4. Played chess with greater accuracy.
5. Played far more brilliant combinations.
And it took 4 months of hard work for yereslov to come up with this brilliant observations.
No, it took the responders four months to realize this.
Morphy was about as good of a chess player as Greco.
It has nothing to do with analysis.
I was just pointing out that Greco was more succesful than Morphy ever was, yet he is still less famous.
Mummy Returns. Still devoid of any logic but yes mummy returns.
Morphy was about as good of a chess player as Greco.
You gotta get me some of what you're smoking.
Morphy was about as good of a chess player as Greco.
You gotta get me some of what you're smoking.
Greco has a 100% winning percentage.
He was the number one player of the 17th century.
Morphy was about as good of a chess player as Greco.
You gotta get me some of what you're smoking.
Greco has a 100% winning percentage.
He was the number one player of the 17th century.
Nobody knows Greco winning percentage. The general belief is that the games found in his book are mostly made up for teaching purposes. he was probably the greatest player of the time, but since the opposition mostly consisted of very weak players, it's no surprise that morphy games are more fascinating for us.
Morphy was about as good of a chess player as Greco.
You gotta get me some of what you're smoking.
Greco has a 100% winning percentage.
He was the number one player of the 17th century.
Nobody knows Greco winning percentage. The general belief is that the games found in his book are mostly made up for teaching purposes. he was probably the greatest player of the time, but since the opposition mostly consisted of very weak players, it's no surprise that morphy games are more fascinating for us.
"he was probably the greatest player of the time, but since the opposition mostly consisted of very weak players, it's no surprise that morphy games are more fascinating for us. "
That's a bit ironic, don't you think?
Morphy didn't have weak competition?
His opponents didn't really bother to defend.
Those who think Greco has or had a 100% winning percentage are clearly not using their critical thinking skills.
Gioachino Greco
Number of games in database: 79
Years covered: 1590 to 1625
Overall record: +79 -0 =0 (100.0%)*
* Overall winning percentage = (wins+draws/2) / total games
Based on games in the database; may be incomplete.
Morphy was about as good of a chess player as Greco.
You gotta get me some of what you're smoking.
Greco has a 100% winning percentage.
He was the number one player of the 17th century.
Nobody knows Greco winning percentage. The general belief is that the games found in his book are mostly made up for teaching purposes. he was probably the greatest player of the time, but since the opposition mostly consisted of very weak players, it's no surprise that morphy games are more fascinating for us.
"he was probably the greatest player of the time, but since the opposition mostly consisted of very weak players, it's no surprise that morphy games are more fascinating for us. "
That's a bit ironic, don't you think?
Morphy didn't have weak competition?
His opponents didn't really bother to defend.
Oh, really? so morphy's opponents usually played like this?
Seriously speaking, Morphy played many strong professionals in his life. Just to nema a few, Paulsen and Anderssen among others were both at least IM strenght players which would have chrushed people like me and you at knight handicap.
I do not use the Morphy games as examples to my students. While Morphy's play was very high class, even with the current standards, most of his opponents were very weak.
I do start the classics presentation from Steinitz, but I will certainly mock at the O.T. (original troll) of this thread anytime.
Morphy was about as good of a chess player as Greco.
You gotta get me some of what you're smoking.
Greco has a 100% winning percentage.
He was the number one player of the 17th century.
Sooner in this thread (page 1)...
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.
Ya know, Yereslov is probably right, Steinitz almost certainly did play more brilliancies than Morphy. But then again, he also played far more games than Morphy ever did.
Going through Morphy's games is like going through game after game of a 2350 tactical monster at a Renaissance Festival. The games are usually short and brutal. Every now and again, Morphy faced strong opponents, and did pretty well. But the majority of his brilliancies were against weaker opponents.
If you believe Jeff Sonas, Paul Morphy played at 2743 strength. But in order to believe that, you must also believe that Serafino Dubois was +2640 strength.
Steinitz and Dubois played a match which Steinitz won, 5.5-3.5. Compare the quality of this match to the quality of any +2500 rated player today.
Take a look at these two games from the match.
The point isn't to denigrate the great players of the past. The point is that today's chess professionals who eat, drink, sleep, and defecate chess, and who have learned from the past masters, are just worlds better than those who played in the 19th Century.
Unlike Pfren, I do use a few Morphy games to demonstrate some basics such as how to develop with tempo. But like Pfren, most of my examples are more modern. And Steinitz, who was contemporary with Morphy but continued to improve long after "the pride and sorrow" left the game, helped to create a scientific revolution in chess.
You said 11.Rxe6 was a blunder(signified by the double question mark) and said the move leads to an equality.
->If it leads to an equality doesn't mean it's a blunder(or else 1 . e4 is a blunder. so is 1...e5 and so is almost every move in chess)
->Your alternate verion isn't any better either.
Why is 14.Qe2 a blunder??
In your alternate version ..the 19.Ke8 line..plain sight tells us you are giving up the rook advantage you just got and a amateur wouldn't want that. and why would white play 23.Re1??giving away the knight because you feel like it???
what are you talking about???
You said 11.Rxe6 was a blunder(signified by the double question mark) and said the move leads to an equality.
->If it leads to an equality doesn't mean it's a blunder(or else 1 . e4 is a blunder. so is 1...e5 and so is almost every move in chess)
->Your alternate verion isn't any better either.
Why is 14.Qe2 a blunder??
In your alternate version ..the 19.Ke8 line..plain sight tells us you are giving up the rook advantage you just got and a amateur wouldn't want that. and why would white play 23.Re1??giving away the knight because you feel like it???
what are you talking about???
Which game are you referring to, and which post?
Hell hath no fury like a 900-rated patzer with an engine.
what's a patzer?
When are you going back to school yerslov ?
How is that related to chess?