... There were no ratings back then. But in comparing chess players, odds was indeed a measure commonly employed. ...
Rating calculations can be attempted at any time. Practice in Morphy's day is not necessarily accurate by today's standard.
I don't know who has been asking "why [Morphy's] opponents weren't like the ones today". I quoted from a GM Reuben Fine book that is, to a large extent, an account of the progress of chess.I have not seen disagreement with what I quoted in #397.
"... We do not see sustained masterpieces; rather flashes of genius. The titanic struggles of the kind we see today [Morphy] could not produce because he lacked the opposition. ... Anderssen could attack brilliantly but had an inadequate understanding of its positional basis. " [ #397]
I don't see a question identified in the #397 quote at all. Again, the GM Reuben Fine book is, to a large extent, an account of the progress of chess.
By the way, my "disagreement" sentence went like this: "Again, in book after book about Morphy, I have not seen disagreement with what I quoted in #397."
... I can't say *how* strong de Rivière was, but he was stronger than most people seem to assume. ... I'm no authority but they look pretty darn close to me: ...
Judgments from small numbers of games (especially if informal games are involved) are notoriously inaccurate. I will wait for an authority.
Anderssen had been long gone when Steinitz got to the point that he was recognized as world champion.
... the really real question should be why Morphy wasn't more like his opponents (as he should have been), ...
"... Morphy remains one of the giants of chess history. ..." - GM Reuben Fine (#397)
Morphy would be clueless about today's chess systems, but that's like saying Archimedes would be dumbfounded as to how airplanes fly without any explanation. It doesn't make Archimedes, or Morphy, any less remarkable or important to their fields. The modern equivalent of what they practiced simply wouldn't exist without them.
Also, to those who say that Morphy only looks good because he played poor players - no, he did not. Morphy was good enough to make everyone in his day look inferior in terms of playing skill. That's how good he was.
... His match vs de Rivière was to fulfill promise, ...
I am wondering if some sort of confusion has taken place here. My copy of Lawson mentions Morphy playing "a good many" games against Rivière in 1863, but I don't see any reference to those games being a match. I did find a reference to a match played (in 1859) because of a promise, but Lawson identifies Morphy's opponent as Mongredien.
... to those who say that Morphy only looks good because he played poor players - no, he did not. Morphy was good enough to make everyone in his day look inferior in terms of playing skill. That's how good he was.
I am not sure who is being addressed here, but, just to try to make sure that there is no misunderstanding, I wish to note that GM Reuben Fine, as far as I can tell, was not saying that Morphy only looks good because he played poor players.
"... [Morphy] knew under what circumstances combinations were possible - and in that respect he was twenty years ahead of his time. ... Morphy knew not only how to attack but also when - and that is why he [defeated Anderssen]. ... Morphy remains one of the giants of chess history. ..." - GM Reuben Fine
The point about Morphy's opponents was:
"... [Morphy's] real abilities were hardly able to be tested. ... We do not see sustained masterpieces; rather flashes of genius. The titanic struggles of the kind we see today [Morphy] could not produce because he lacked the opposition. ... Anderssen could attack brilliantly but had an inadequate understanding of its positional basis. ..." - GM Reuben Fine
Anyone who is slamming Morphy on this thread is frittering their life away. G.A.L. !
That appears to be a myth. It has been reported that Steinitz indicated, in public writing, that he felt he had a claim to the title in the 1870s, well before Morphy's death. If I remember correctly, this is mentioned in the Oxford Companion to Chess and in Steinitz: Move by Move.
... You don't have to go looking for Staunton's worst games. Just go through any tournament he ever played and play through every game. You will see tons of errors that any +2000 player could have taken advantage of. ...
Staunton's tournament involvement was in 1851-1858. That was well after his peak years that are usually given as 1843-1846.
I want to see people discussing on Wang hao or Ni hua than a century old fiction, myst and fantasy .When will this site grow up?
Very often, Morphy played attacks which would lose to most players today because he was giving blindfold simuls,and when playing 10+ games blindfold,it isn't so important to play well as it is to win.He knew he could win with these attacks because he was light years ahead of his opponents,so he did.When was the last time you played a blindfold simul and played perfectly?
Very often, Morphy played attacks which would lose to most players today because he was giving blindfold simuls,and when playing 10+ games blindfold,it isn't so important to play well as it is to win.He knew he could win with these attacks because he was light years ahead of his opponents,so he did.When was the last time you played a blindfold simul and played perfectly?
I am not sure that much is known of Morphy playing 10+ games blindfold. Anyway, his 1857 tournament games against Paulsen and his 1858 match games against Loewenthal, Harrwitz, and Anderssen were not blindfold and were not parts of simuls.
Now seems like as good a time as any to reproduce some of my comments about places to look for discussion about Morphy.
Morphy's games of chess by Philip Sergeant is discussed, along with A First Book of Morphy by Frisco Del Rosario, here:
https://www.chess.com/blog/Chessmo/review-a-first-book-of-morphy
If you want lots of Morphy games, you can find about 300 of them in Sergeant's book, but I do not think it has ever been converted to algebraic. There is game commentary, but, of course, with so many games, there is less room for explanation in any one of them. On the other hand, there is more about Morphy's life than you are likely to find in any book written in the last two decades. Lawson's Morphy book covered his life very thoroughly, and perhaps subsequent authors have felt it best to not devote too much space to biographical information. Del Rosario selected a much smaller number of games "to illustrate basic principles" (using algebraic notation).
In his book, Morphy: Move by Move, GM Franco uses Morphy's games for instruction at a somewhat higher level than the instruction in the Del Rosario book.
https://www.newinchess.com/Shop/Images/Pdfs/7625.pdf
The quality of Morphy's play is a particular focus of GM Beim in his book, Paul Morphy: A Modern Perspective.
http://theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/historical-and-biographical-works-installment-2
Everyman Chess has recently reprinted an examination of selected Morphy games by Chris Ward.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708234305/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/morph.txt
Perhaps the most complete readily available Morphy game collection can be found in a Dover reprint of a study of Morphy by Shibut. If I remember correctly, Shibut was primarily concerned with the role of Morphy in the evolution of chess. Shibut included an extended discussion of Morphy by Steinitz.
Just four years ago, it became possible to obtain an English translation of the monumental 1909 study of Morphy's games by Maroczy.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708095424/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review845.pdf
Staunton's Morphy commentary (primarily of historical interest) can be found in a recent reprint of Chess Praxis by Staunton. If you share my interest in what was written about Morphy around 1860, you might want to also look into reprints (in the last few decades) of works (about Morphy) by Lange and Loewenthal.
Some additional nonMorphy books with substantial commentary about Morphy:
Secrets of Attacking Chess by Mihail Marin
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708092913/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review494.pdf
Improve Your Chess by Learning from the Champions by Lars Bo Hansen
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708095920/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review724.pdf
Chess Secrets: The Giants of Power Play by Neil McDonald
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708112104/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review711.pdf
The Book of The First American Chess Congress, New York 1857 Edited by Daniel Fiske
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708095613/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review355.pdf
Garry Kasparov on My Great Predecessors, Part I by Garry Kasparov with Dmitry Plisetsky
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708110300/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review385.pdf
Play Chess Like the PROs by Danny Gormally https://web.archive.org/web/20140708090724/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review760.pdf
(Ironic that Morphy was discussed in a book with that last title.)
Roger Bannister was first man to run a sub 4 minute mile. Now there are lots of people who do it. Still doesn't take any shine off Roger's fame in my book. Would sure like to see how the current generation would play without any any computers or with the really poor chess books and analysis that were available in Morphy's day, and just had to rely on what they found out for themselves in over the board play. Even better would like to see how any of the old great players would play now with the aid of computers and a century of good books and analysis. Can you imagine Petrosian's ability to defend, Tal's ability to attack, Korchnoi's tenacity, Fischer's brilliancies. There have been some spectacular games in recent years by the younger folk with the tremendous ratings, but because of the orders of magnitude of more players now, I would certainly expect more. Chess.com boasts over a million games a day. To look up a line of an opening takes seconds now, as does credible analysis of a position. Najdorf talked of spending days to evaluate an opening position. As for the comment on Stanton, show me someone who hasn't ever played a poor game.
Here's one good example of why Morphy wasn't +2700 strength.
The Philidor Countergambit is refuted. It was refuted long before engines came along, and yet Morphy won several games with it. This game is a great example of both Morphy's weaknesses and his strengths. He played some brilliant chess, despite the limitations of theory, not just opening theory, but middlegame and endgame theory too.
Batgirl, Steinitz came up with a scientific approach to chess during Morphy's life time. Coming up with the postiional rules that Steinitz used is not quite as anachronistic as you imply. Sure, Steinitz and the rest built from the foundations that Morphy created. But if Morphy hadn't given up chess when he did, he would have been confronted with the beginnings of positional chess. In fact, it's quite possible (perhaps even probable) that Morphy followed Steinitz' progress and understood the changes that were occurring in chess during his lifetime.
I appreciate your desire to keep things in their historical perspective, but you repeatedly break your own rules by quoting other commentators who discuss "what if" questions. What would have happened if Morphy had been well from the beginning of the Barnes match? What if playing odds games were equivalent to playing tournament games? and so on.
Odds games are not the same as tournament games, and they weren't the same as tournament games in the 19th Century.
Morphy retired from chess just as positional chess was beginning to make its mark. There's a good reason he's known as the Pride and Sorrow. There are many unanswered "What if" questions surrounding Morphy.
Fine was right about Morphy's chess skill. One of the great "what if" questions is what sort of player Morphy could have become if he'd played Steinitz. It's clear that Steinitz surpassed the Morphy of 1858, but Morphy almost certainly could have improved on that mark too.