Morphy was ahead of his time but Alekhine would win hands down.
Alex Alekhine vs Paul Morphy
Sort:
Dec 15, 2016
0
#3
Morphy would destroy him.
Alekhine would play on both sides of the board as he liked to do and Morphy would chuckle at the Russian's efforts and then out calculate him FTW.
Alekhine would play on both sides of the board as he liked to do and Morphy would chuckle at the Russian's efforts and then out calculate him FTW.
Alekhine would. Gimmie the gun!
One only have to compare the profile of Morphy' opponents and Alekhine' opponents: think José Raúl Capablanca, Emmanuel Lasker, Max Euwe, Akiba Rubinstein, Aaron Nimzowitsch; they are among the best in chess history and Alekhine was World Champion in their time...
Dec 15, 2016
0
#6
Jogo, and Morphy in the 19th century only played Rufus and Dufus and Adolph Anderssen. Your point is?
The website http://www.chessmetrics.com/ gives historical estimations of Elo rating: http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/FindPlayer.asp?Params=199510SSSSS3S003629000000111000000000001310100
Paul Morphy picked at 2743 in 1849 at age 22
Alexander Alekhine picked at 2860 in 1931 at age 38
It should be remembered that, with the current state of flux capacitor technology, there is no way to test theories about what would happen if a player were transported through time. One does not get a guarantee of accuracy from the crunching of a lot of numbers.
Soon computers will accurately give you your top Elo rating by analyzing your best games, this will offer the history of chess a new perspective.
Yup
JogoReal wrote:
"Soon computers will accurately give you your top Elo rating by analyzing your best games, ..."
Who will pick the "best games"?
«Who will pick the "best games"?»
The computer?
kindaspongey wrote:
JogoReal wrote:
"Soon computers will accurately give you your top Elo rating by analyzing your best games, ..."
Who will pick the "best games"?
The games that you make the least ammount of mistakes in would be your best...dough!
SonOfThunder2 wrote:
"... The games that you make the least ammount of mistakes in would be your best...dough!"
So the magnitude of the mistakes is not a factor? The opponent's mistakes are not a factor?
JogoReal wrote:
"... The computer [pick the 'best games']?"
Does this mean giving the computer all games? Only tournament and match games? Are time controls relevant? Chronology of the games? Strength of the opponents? How would it effect things if a player abruptly stopped playing?
The engine evaluate the position with a number after the best move (like 0,25) and after the move you made (like 0,00), so you lost 0,25. It take in account all the points you lost in the game. If the engine is rated 3300, and you lost few points you are close to the engine power. To calculate the human rating you need a formula and you need more than a handful of games for it to be statistically significant and for the same reason you need short games, long games, etc. If you have a good sample of games, the strength of the opponent is not so important, you are being measured against the computer, not against the opponent.
kindaspongey wrote:
SonOfThunder2 wrote:
"The games that you make the least ammount of mistakes in would be your best...dough!"
So the magnitude of the mistakes is not a factor? The opponent's mistakes are not a factor?
If you make 2 innacuraces in the whole game and your opponent makes 1 mistake and 2 innacuraces you would still come out on top
JogoReal wrote:
"The engine evaluate the position with a number after the best move (like 0,25) and after the move you made (like 0,00), so you lost 0,25. It take in account all the points you lost in the game. If the engine is rated 3300, and you lost few points you are close to the engine power. To calculate the human rating you need a formula and you need more than a handful of games for it to be statistically significant and for the same reason you need short games, long games, etc. If you have a good sample of games, the strength of the opponent is not so important, you are being measured against the computer, not against the opponent."
Does the computer use modern positional ideas in its evaluations? Do all computers give the same evaluations? Is there any reason to believe that they ever will?
SonOfThunder2 wrote:
"... If you make 2 innacuraces in the whole game and your opponent makes 1 mistake and 2 innacuraces you would still come out on top"
Isn't the order of the mistakes and inaccuracies going to be a factor in who comes out on top? Is the computer going to decide the difference between mistakes and inaccuracies? If so, how, and how does the computer use the inaccuracy and mistake counts to evaluate one game as better than another?
Who would win in a game? Let me know in the comments.