How well does Newton's knowledge of physics stand up by today's standards?
Alex Alekhine vs Paul Morphy
Sort:
"... the games of Rubinstein, Capablanca, Morphy, Siegbert Tarrasch, Harry Pillsbury and Paul Keres are strongly recommended ..." - GM Andrew Soltis (2010)
May 8, 2017
0
#85
All past generations knowledge is crap when compared to the knowledge we have today. That does not mean they werent strong or that they were weak. It just means that Morhy is an historical figure and a strong player, but he isnt as strong as all of you that even consider he would stand a chance against Alekhine, Fischer, Kasparov, Carlsen etc... want him to be.
BronsteinPawn wrote:
... a strong player, he isnt as strong as all of you that even consider he would stand a chance against Alekhine, Fischer, Kasparov, Carlsen etc... want him to be.
I think that GM Fine was expressing a similar idea with his "myth" comments. When people talk about Morphy against modern players, I think they usually are thinking about how he would do after stepping out of the DeLorean and taking the time to study. I am not one of those taking a stand on that subject.
May 8, 2017
0
#87
Just sit down with some Morphy games and try to guess his winning moves.
If you guess wrong, you at least know that he'd mop the floor with you. 
Against Alekhine? It's tough to say, because their styles were so different. My money would be on whoever could make the other more uncomfortable. I think Morphy would look to disrupt Alekhine's position and whip things into a tactical melee. Alekhine would, in my opinion, look to clamp things down and squeeze out small advantages. Would be a battle, either way.
I'd say Morphy would come out on top—his tactical vision was darn near engine accuracy. Not sure if Alekhine, great as he was, could hold things together against a Morphy onslaught. But who knows?
BlunderLots, Morphy did not love chess but Alekhine did; Alekhine was exactly like Fischer always studying and had his beloved pocket chess set, Morphy could careless about chess. Alekhine would crush Morphy, he had a better imagination than Morphy and was more accurate in calculation. You must of forgotten Barnes, Morphy lost to Barnes to the ridiculous 1...f6, never would happen to Alekhine, in another game against Barnes accuracy was wanting. Two past masters crush Barnes like a fish, Anderssen and Kolisch; Barnes should not given Morphy such a hard time but he did { combine defensive and positional style was Morphy weakness.
intermediatedinoz wrote:
he would be even weaker in the kindergarten
most kindergartens can not even play...and some people for instance Bobby Fischer think he was one of the best chess players of all time
May 8, 2017
0
#90
Yuree—
Most great players have suffered a few cringe-worthy losses.
Morphy found himself on the losing end of the board several times, that's true. Though, Alekhine did, too. Remember his loss to Reti in 1924? In that game, Alekhine played like a 1700 at best (sad to say).
Had he been facing Morphy on that day, Alekhine's blood would've been all over the board.
I agree with you, though, that Morphy got caught off-guard against certain styles of play. Though if you follow the matches in which those games were played, you'll see that, as the match went on, Morphy always adapted and began piling up the wins. This was part of his strength: how quickly he learned and adjusted as the match went on.
His match against Barnes was yet another domination by Morphy—once he figured out Barnes' unusual style, Barnes stood no chance.
To be fair, Alekhine was certainly a powerhouse as well, with his own unique approach. His record definitely speaks for itself. And maybe you're right—perhaps his talent and dedication to the game would've proven too much for Morphy. Who knows?
We might not agree on who we think would've won, but hopefully we agree that it would've been a great match to see. 
I do not think that there was a Morphy-Barnes match. The common theory is that Morphy health was involved in some of the losses. My own pet theory is that Morphy had been accustomed to winning with ease and had to experience some losses before he began to take Barnes seriously. I do not know if an examination of the games would support this view. I think many of the games were not preserved.
BlunderLots wrote:
Yuree—
Most great players have suffered a few cringe-worthy losses.
Morphy found himself on the losing end of the board several times, that's true. Though, Alekhine did, too. Remember his loss to Reti in 1924? In that game, Alekhine played like a 1700 at best (sad to say).
Had he been facing Morphy on that day, Alekhine's blood would've been all over the board.
I agree with you, though, that Morphy got caught off-guard against certain styles of play. Though if you follow the matches in which those games were played, you'll see that, as the match went on, Morphy always adapted and began piling up the wins. This was part of his strength: how quickly he learned and adjusted as the match went on.
His match against Barnes was yet another domination by Morphy—once he figured out Barnes' unusual style, Barnes stood no chance.
To be fair, Alekhine was certainly a powerhouse as well, with his own unique approach. His record definitely speaks for itself. And maybe you're right—perhaps his talent and dedication to the game would've proven too much for Morphy. Who knows?
We might not agree on who we think would've won, but hopefully we agree that it would've been a great match to see.
I like what you wrote and very fair assessment. This might be interesting to you, Alekhine defended Morphy, there was a debate between Alekhine and Znosko- Borovsky; Alekhine passionately defended Morphy. Some of Alekhine's moves are Morphy like, he must did a deep study of Morphy's games. 
May 9, 2017
0
#94
Interesting point about the Alekhine/Znonko-Borovsky letters from the "Shakmatny Vestnik," but I think the debate wasn't about Morphy himself, but about the source of Morphy's undeniable strength. Alekhine claimed Morphy's strength and beauty came from his deep positional sense, while Znonko-Borovsky saw Morphy simply as the sublime tactician.
Here are some excerpts (the actual debate which is much, much longer and involved. It was a little snide, as well as a source of forceful arguments from both sides:
Alekhine: When he encountered players of his own class, he no longer achieved victories with these rattles [cheap tricks or combinations against players who can't defend -batgirl] His strength (and the real beauty is in this strength) consisted in deeply thought out position play, chiefly of the aggressive character, and ln longer, of course, in 'effects' capable of bringing indescribable rapture only to beginners or those who, right up to old age, were unable to advance from a corresponding stage of chess development."
Znonko-Borovky:"I think such an appraisal is essentially erroneous, very harmfully alluring to "those fellows" [Alekhine's phrase -batgirl] the 'beginners,' and more that that, very out of date, so that Mr. Alekhine himself in the given case is not advancing from the stage of development which chess players reached way back in the days of Steinitz (for it was the view of the latter that Moprhy played 'beautifully' only against weak players) . . . And so it is with Morphy. Combinations, sacrifices and threats must have flashed in his mind during a game like showers or sparks.... out of nothing he created magic worlds of irresistible assaults, and what is there t0 say here of position play?
It's curious to note that in his "Art of the Combination" Znonko-Borovky gives 7 illustrative games of Paul Morphy.
Did this appear in Shibut's book?
May 10, 2017
0
#97
His name is actually Znosko-Borovsky - unless he changed it recently. 
May 10, 2017
0
#98
Thanks. I wish he would change it. He and Dus-Chotimirsky had the hardest to remember spellings.
And? For today standards he would be quite weak.