The funny thing is, I think if Morphy had been born today he would not play chess, or at least quit after two years like he did in the 19th century. Too boring and drawish, no more romance. Romance doesn't win games when your opponent is playing solid.
So the "What if Morphy applied himself to chess like modern GMs do?" Question is even more meaningless than it seems at first glance.
To me the "what if Morphy applied himself" question is valuable in the sense that we are comparing apples to oranges when we try to compare players from different periods. In order to try to conceptualize the comparison, we have to make the categories more similar, which means we have to wonder what Carlsen would play like without the benefit of modern instruction, or what Morphy would play like with modern instruction. Of course, Morphy probably wouldn't accept the modern instruction and be a professional chess player- chess was also closer in his time to the medieval ideal that a gentleman should know how to play chess well, but it should not be his primary passion- in fact, Europe's reply to a general challenge from the American Chess Association (before Morphy's trip to Europe) for a European champion to come to New York to play against Morphy was declined on the basis that all of the European chess players had other, more serious, careers. (In fact, nearly all of Morphy's own chess career took place in between completing his college studies and starting his law practice, since he graduated well before he could begin practicing law.) So, overall point- Morphy probably would not play on today's terms, but if he did, he would play brilliantly. Carlsen would probably play games like Morphy's if he were restricted to Morphy's training and upbringing in the chess world.
modestandpolite, I didn't mean to say that the 1200-1400 player would easily be able to win, only that the way chess was played in that time resembles what we today would call an amateur game. I have no doubt that these men had a genius which would easily overpower current amateurs, and if they faced modern masters, their intelligence and vision would at least keep them in the game. My point is that chess learning at the time was in a completely different place, and specifically, we shouldn't judge prior chess players by current standards because they introduced a host of brilliance to the game, and probably would have contributed even more if given the modern advantages available to precocious titled players.
THanks for clarifying your thoughts. Seems we have much the same views.
Hence the clarification- I saw that I was a little sloppy with my language and left it open to interpretation. I started playing chess after reading the book, "The Immortal Game", a pop history of chess with vignettes from the game itself spread throughout. After learning a little in the years since, I understand the critiques, and the value of looking for better moves for the old players. But it's also clear that the game goes through a fundamental transformation at some point between then and today. So the premise of this post, declaring Morphy to be terrible on the basis of an example game is a bit like Magnus Carlsen snidely commenting on a match between eight year olds- in poor taste, and lacking understanding of the greater state of development.
It is wrong to judge Morphy's play in comparison with modern GM's guys. Today, as soon as a child gets a trainer, he/she quickly learns those chess principles that in time of Morphy nobody knew. But Morphy's games show that gradually he started to discover those principles.
Have you read his comments to McConnell - La Bourdounnais match? He writes, that because of bad openings, McConnell was not able to challenge La Bourdounnais. And he always strived to play best openings himself.
And chess is not just openings, principles and endgame databases. To say that Morphy calculated worse than modern 2700 GM's is simply wrong. He might have needed few more minutes because modern GM's memorize the patterns since their childhood, but still... When he arrived in England, he got in trouble in openings but through his brilliant calculation he managed to salvage many of those games.
What does it mean to say that it's wrong to judge Morphy's play compared to today's play?
If we judge the play objectively, we can say whether it's similar, weaker, or stronger than today's play. What does it mean to say that it's wrong?
This thread is 5 years old, and probably should remain dormant.
People who claim that Morphy or Steinitz would be able to compete with today's elite players do a terrible disservice to our best players today.
People who claim that Morphy would lose to fish here do a terrible disservice to Morphy and Steinitz.
The truth is in between these two extremes.
Kenneth Regan, a statistician and International Master, did what Jeff Sonas suggested and measured the actual quality of moves made by Morphy and Steinitz.
Morphy played ~2350 strength. That's really impressive, especially considering most of his contemporaries were ~2000 strength. (Staunton wasn't even expert strength!) Steinitz was a bit erratic, but at his best, he was nearly 2500 strength.
Good summary, as always. Thanks.
Bobby Fischer, who even according to Magnus Carlsen, is the most accurate player ever; studied all of Morphy's games and said that in his (Fischer) opinion Morphy was the best. That Morphy rarely blundered, and that even he (Fischer) sometimes took 20 minutes to find the correct replies to some of Morphy's moves! Fischer even goes on to say that in a set match Morphy would beat anybody alive today! that statement was from the late 60's I believe, and chess has not changed as much as most people would like to think. theory has advanced, true, but you do not have a computer otb telling you how to play. in the end you can only rely on your memory and gut instincts and I'll trust Bobby Fischer's opinion over any body else's any day of the week.
This thread is 5 years old, and probably should remain dormant.
Please stay on topic, DUDE!
This topic has already been spent, repeatedly, dude.
Catch up on your reading, please.
But feel free to join in on mindless food fights -- comparing luminaries from the past with (even greater) luminaries in the present.
Morphy did not play rote, robot style like many of todays top players....something that Fischer detested.
Morphy 2350 elo, shocking! Today experts (2000 - 2199) will get kill if they played Morphy without any opening updates, Morphy is a chess genius. Even today masters (2200-2399) will get destroy by Morphy, its Morphy's tactical and attacking genius abilities that able him to beat these modern master; this is without any update in the opening.
I agree.
LOL I remember this guy from when I had my old account. The one and only person on chess.com who's actually managed to really make me angry enough to get me name-calling online.
Yereslov exemplified the beginner using an engine and thinking he was a half-OK player because his engine spit everything out for him. I see since 2012 to 2015, his low rating has increased a net of 100 points in blitz, and even worse gains in some of the other categories.
People who claim that Morphy or Steinitz would be able to compete with today's elite players do a terrible disservice to our best players today.
People who claim that Morphy would lose to fish here do a terrible disservice to Morphy and Steinitz.
The truth is in between these two extremes.
Kenneth Regan, a statistician and International Master, did what Jeff Sonas suggested and measured the actual quality of moves made by Morphy and Steinitz.
Morphy played ~2350 strength. That's really impressive, especially considering most of his contemporaries were ~2000 strength. (Staunton wasn't even expert strength!) Steinitz was a bit erratic, but at his best, he was nearly 2500 strength.
Good summary, as always. Thanks.
We have to be careful not trust any studies and judge for ourselves and play through masters game ourself. To say Anderseen is a mere 2100 elo, Blackburne is 1927 elo ( that is so laughable) but Harriwitz is 2496 elo and he never beat Anderssen or Staunton. In the Morphy and Harrwitz match, Harrwitz is even higher than Morphy { Harrwitz 2496 elo (240 moves) to Morphy 2433 elo ( 232 moves), can we really trust their results. Staunton highest rating 1940 elo to Harrwitz 2496, why did Harrwitz lose to Staunton, come on! Harrwitz should of beat Staunton easily with such high rating 2496 to Staunton 1940 elo. This study is not be trusted. Anderssen would beat easily any expert and lets add Blackburne 1927 elo ( lol), does Smyslovfan think he beat Blackburne in a match of 10 games. Morphy, Anderssen, Kolisch, Paulsen, Blackburne and Steinitz can beat any expert. No, this is my favorite in this ridiculous study, Anderssen is a mere expert 2100 ( too funny), Smyslovfan vs Anderssen in ten game match, I think we all know result of the match, 10- 0 in favor of Anderssen; I don't what opening or positional ideas Smyslovfan think he knows, Anderssen just crush him without effort. Its like playing against a GM versus expert, you don't need to be a genius to know the final result, I bet on the GM to win, I don't what study is out there claiming the GM will lose to the expert. I went through Anderssen's games and playing is GM level, he can beat any IM and possibly some GM, this is without any preparing any modern opening. This players were chess genius and you have to born one to be one.
People who claim that Morphy or Steinitz would be able to compete with today's elite players do a terrible disservice to our best players today.
People who claim that Morphy would lose to fish here do a terrible disservice to Morphy and Steinitz.
The truth is in between these two extremes.
Kenneth Regan, a statistician and International Master, did what Jeff Sonas suggested and measured the actual quality of moves made by Morphy and Steinitz.
Morphy played ~2350 strength. That's really impressive, especially considering most of his contemporaries were ~2000 strength. (Staunton wasn't even expert strength!) Steinitz was a bit erratic, but at his best, he was nearly 2500 strength.
Good summary, as always. Thanks.
We have to be careful not to trust any studies and judge for ourselves and play through masters game ourself. To say Anderseen is a mere 2100 elo, Blackburne is 1927 elo ( that is so laughable) but Harriwitz is 2496 elo and he never beat Anderssen or Staunton. In the Morphy and Harrwitz match, Harrwitz is even higher than Morphy { Harrwitz 2496 elo (240 moves) to Morphy 2433 elo ( 232 moves), can we really trust their results. Staunton highest rating 1940 elo to Harrwitz 2496, why did Harrwitz lose to Staunton, come on! Harrwitz should of beat Staunton easily with such high rating 2496 to Staunton 1940 elo. This study is not to be trusted. Anderssen would beat easily any expert and lets add Blackburne 1927 elo ( lol), does Smyslovfan think he beat Blackburne in a match of 10 games. Morphy, Anderssen, Kolisch, Paulsen, Blackburne and Steinitz can beat any expert. No, this is my favorite in this stud ridiculous study, Anderssen is a mere expert 2100 ( too funny), Smyslovfan vs Anderssen in ten game match, I think we all know result of the match, 10- 0 in favor of Anderssen; I don't care what opening or positional ideas Smyslovfan think he knows, Anderssen will just crush him without any effort. Its like playing against a GM versus expert, you don't need to be a genius to know the final result, I bet on the GM to win, I don't care what study is out there claiming the GM will lose to the expert. I went through Anderssen's games and his playing strength is GM level, he can beat any IM and possibly some GM, this is without any preparing any modern opening. These players were chess genius and you have to be born to be one.
If Morphy were alive today and if he was motivated, he could be a STRONG GRANDMASTER!
He wouldn't make stupid mistakes that elite players today make (Naka Ne2??) and when they went astray he would dole out severe punishment.