Morphy the Terrible

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.

I've played 1900s, and trust me, none of them were close to Blackburne in any way. 

@ Cherub_Enjel, totally agree with you.

I think it's possible that Morphy would be at a really weird skill level where he would beat 2200 - 2300 players easily but lose to grandmasters every time.

I think I said this before on this thread. Morphy was really good at beating players even slightly worse than him, but I think he would have trouble against an opponent who really put up a fight. He wasn't used to having to make complex plans since any plan he made wouldn't last five moves before he would spot a subtle tactical mistake by his opponent.

yureesystem

Excellent post.  I agree that those ratings are dubious, at best, and again does not consider that the style of play is different from today.  If you take the play from Morphy's time and bring it to today's game Magnus would be spotting Naka a pawn every time they played until Naka could consistently beat him.  That is not factored into the analysis.  I consider modern chess as starting at 1895, when tourneys were established, players recorded their own games, clocks were used, adjournments were used, and the games of Morphy and Steinitz were analyzed.  Prior to 1895 is the slow evolution to professional chess.

Cherub_Enjel

I've played and beat 2000-2200 players that would be slaughtered by Blackburne, and Blackburne could probably spot me a knight and win.

Lasker?  You mean this lasker?  Everyone has off days, even he lost in 12 moves once. eta:  Didn't realize there was anothe 25 pages of responses.  Sorry if this has become off topic.  Enjoy the game regardless, lol.

"Lasker ... didn't understand positional chess." - another Fischer quote from around the same time as his Morphy comments.
Extended discussions of Morphy have been written in books by GM Franco, GM Beim, GM Ward, GM Marin, GM Bo Hansen, GM McDonald, Garry Kasparov (with Dmitry Plisetsky), and GM Gormally. Anyone see any of them express the view that we should accept Fischer's conclusion about Morphy? There seems to be general agreement that Morphy was, as GM Fine put it, one of the giants of chess history, but that is a long way from saying that he was better than anyone playing today.
https://www.chess.com/article/view/who-was-the-best-world-chess-champion-in-history
"... Morphy became to millions ... the greatest chess master of all time. But if we examine Morphy's record and games critically, we cannot justify such extravaganza. And we are compelled to speak of it as the Morphy myth. ... [Of the 55 tournament and match games, few] can by any stretch be called brilliant. ... He could combine as well as anybody, but he also knew under what circumstances combinations were possible - and in that respect he was twenty years ahead of his time. ... [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. Morphy knew not only how to attack but also when - and that is why he won. ... Even if the myth has been destroyed, Morphy remains one of the giants of chess history. ..." - GM Reuben Fine
It is perhaps worthwhile to keep in mind that, in 1858, the chess world was so amazingly primitive that players still thought tournaments were a pretty neat idea.

I would rather trust Vishy Anand(and other world champions), than some random guys here...

"Paul Morphy just appeared from nowhere and it was only thirty or forty years later that people understood why he was so dominant. His understanding of chess at [that] point was at least forty years ahead of the rest of the world. For the era in which he lived the kind of chess he played was unbelievable."

And Anand has also said, that if he could choose from the past best players to play with, he would choose Morphy. 

Don't feed the trolls please. Most 2300- players try to bash Morphy. Let's listen to Kasparov, Anand, Karpov, Fischer, Botvinnik, Alekhine, Capablanca and Lasker... 

Is there any quote of Kasparov, Anand, or Karpov saying that we should accept Fischer's conclusion about Morphy? Is there a quote of Botvinnik or Alekhine asserting that Morphy was the greatest chess player of all time? Neither Capablanca nor Lasker lived to see 1948 when Botvinnik became world champion.

The bottom line is that Morphy would crush everyone who's posted here blindfolded and in simuls. 

What foul necromancer dug up this cursed garbage?

So I guess we all agree with our previous World Champions about their assessment of Morphy - that he was far ahead of his time and that makes him one of the all time greats. I just brought Anand's quote proving this.

But what about his actual playing strength? If Carlsen time-traveled when Morphy was at his peak, Morphy would have no chance. But that's because of Carlsen's better opening and endgame technique - which is not product of his genius, but his time --- databases and etc.

I am sure that Morphy's talent would be have been enough, so if he was born in the same year as Carlsen, he would be a 2800 GM. Playing strength(opening+middlegame+endgame) is different from raw chess talent. 

Well said, BoggleMeBrains, which is why I focus on the only real evidence we have and compare it directly. That evidence is the moves they made. Kenneth Regan and the people behind the CAPS method also focus on the moves.

Oh, and Bobby Fischer's ranking of Morphy was entirely an act of a chess provocateur. He didn't include any of the current Soviet players in his list of the top five players, and he ranked Staunton ahead of Capa. He did that to diss Botvinnik. If he'd rated Capa higher, Botvinnik would also have to be rated in the top ten. But there's no way he was about to put the face of Soviet chess in his top ten.

No professional chess player agrees with Fischer's list. It was just a way for him to stick it to the Soviets.

This made me LOL

I mean, I've seen Morphy's games against pretty strong opposition, and I'm more than very impressed, comparing with my games vs. weak masters and close to master opposition. That's all I need to really care about. 

 Any player who reach a decent rating 2000 elo know how hard it is to go to the next level { 2200 elo  master level } and once you obtain you desire rating its hard to keep it. I know too many experts who reach to low 2200 to drop back to 2100, it take a lot work just to go to the next level. It took me two years to get to 2255 in tactical trainer, and a lot hard work and going to 2300 maybe this year: put a lot work in tactics knowing it will reap great rewards. Morphy didn't need to work that hard to achieve GM level strength, it was his natural talent that able him reach to high standard of chess.   

 dashkee94 wrote:  And don't forget one critical fact--Morphy did NOT retire in 1859--he retired in 1852, when he gave away his chess sets (except one) and all his books--he claimed they couldn't teach him anything.  From 1852 to 1857 he played almost no chess, and no games against anybody who could challenge him.  From age 14 to 20 he was retired.  He came out of retirement in 1857, played all that would play him for two years, then retired again, because there was something going on in the US that was a bit more important than chess.  To sacrifice those critical years and to still reach the heights he did--I won't say he was the strongest player ever, and I won't say he was the best player, but I will say I think he was the most talented player of all time.  To go as far as he did with such little effort--yeah, I think he was the most talented ever. 

What dashkee94 wrote, show what a great genius Paul was. To put away all your books and not study and when Morphy did compete and he beat best players; that is remarkable. I have study hard to raise my level of strength but not Morphy. Fischer to beat the best Russian player, he study very hard because of his diligence he was beating the best player, Carlsen had  trainers and many tools to arrive to being one of the best players, in his last match he could not beat his opponent standard time but had to beat his opponent in blitz to become world champion. The players who discern correctly, bring Morphy back to current time and give him about a year, he will be beating the best players. Dashkee express it the best, " Morphy was the most talented chess player." I would add there was only two players who had natural talent, Morphy and Capablanca; every other players had to study hard to get to a high level. I like what Fischer said of Morphy when ask about him, " Morphy beat all the strong players in his time." I would add, and complete domination in his matches, Carlsen can't even do that and let add another weak world champion, Botvinnik, Botvinnik could not win a match the first time, needed a return match to win it. Fischer to his credit completely dominated Spassky in their match, Spassky had a lot help, a team of GM seconds and could not beat the lone wolf Fischer, that is true a champion.

Karpov and Seirawan were disappointed that Carlsen wins his title through rapid time control, and Fischer was winning the match by twelve games, 5 to 3, it show Fischer was in much higher league than Carlsen, Carlsen couldn't even beat Karjakin standard time control. Morphy dominated his peers  completely, this is with little effort compare to Carlsen struggling to beat Karjakin.