Morphy the Terrible

What "rating data" ?   There were no ratings back then.  But in comparing chess players, odds was indeed a measure commonly employed.  

I can't say *how* strong de Rivière was,  but he was stronger than most people seem to assume.  Was he stronger than  Löwenthal?  I don't know but here's the two times they met OTB- http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?pid=19545&pid2=31145

Here he is vs Harrwitz-  http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?pid=15956&pid2=31145

... and vs Anderssen-  http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?pid=10342&pid2=31145

I'm no authority but they look pretty darn close to me:

de Rivière vs  Löwenthal  +2-0

de Rivière vs  Harrwitz    +1-2

de Rivière vs Anderssen  +5-4=1

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 did not quote from The Psychology of the Chess Player and would not want to comment on a statement in it without seeing the actual quote. Again, in book after book about Morphy, 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]

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.

Rating calculations can be attempted at any time. Practice in Morphy's day is not necessarily accurate by today's standard.

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."

Judgments from small numbers of games (especially if informal games are involved) are notoriously inaccurate. I will wait for an authority.

Shrug.

Anderssen had been long gone when Steinitz got to the point that he was recognized as world champion.

"... Morphy remains one of the giants of chess history. ..." - GM Reuben Fine (#397)

Des this site has any fetish with morphy?

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. 

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.

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.

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?