Chess Brilliancies

"Morphy is in his element. The brilliant combination with sacrifices makes this game one of the most beautiful achievements in the entire history of chess."

-- Maroczy

So now the Opera Game is beginner's stuff -- A player vs C player -- Et tu, Batgirl?

Horse-gack.

"So now the Opera Game is beginner's stuff -- A player vs C player -- Et tu, Batgirl?"

Whatever that means...

Karl, the very strange duke of Brunswick and the more mysterious Count Isouard were frequent opponents of Morphy during his first time in Paris.  Neither were even close to being in Morphy's league, not even in consultation.  The Opera game was a beautiful piece of work, but nothing far out of the ordinary for Morphy who had dozens of games equally tantalizing. I think the story behind the game is what makes it eternal.

@Batgirl

"The same could be said..." You're saying Morphy vs Duke & Count is A player vs C player there. 

If you don't understand the Et tu? reference in regards to the irony of a Morphy historian likening the Opera Game to the work of an A-player... you are less well-read than I'd imagined.  The "et tu" speaker of course would not be me but the imagined ghost of Morphy.

The Morphy game has a very nice finish -- but umm... it doesn't exactly take a GM to find it (not that I think I would have found it OTB).  To me it still says ~Master level player (and Morphy was even stronger of course).

I think it's the accuracy of the moves plus how aesthetically pleasing the game is.  It features both a queen "sacrifice" and white mates with his only 2 remaining pieces.  I don't disagree with Maroczy, but I don't think Maroczy was saying "this is the game that proves Morphy's incredible strength"

It's the beginners taking the attitude "if Morphy were alive today, he'd have beaten Fischer and Kasparov blindfolded!" after seeing this game that I don't like.

Don't fear calling these beautiful games brilliant, batgirl. And thank you. This beauty is the soul of chess. All such examples are welcome. 

Sharp finish. I liked the Ra3 move. :)

The Morphy game was, from memory (which speaks volumes in itself) the first game I remember playing out from a book; that, 30 yrs ago.

Yes: the romance of the Opera House, the Duke and Count playing the brilliant chess master. And yes, certainly, the brilliance of the combination, to my early chess eyes. 

It is true that, deconstructed, and with a lot of chess under the belt, I can see that the Nsac pretty much played itself, as does the build-up of the attack. But the swiftness of the finish, crashing like thunder, that - along with Batgirl - remains forever a thing of beauty, nourishing the soul. 

All this leads me to an interesting question: what would you, Batgirl, propose as the single game most suited to convince us of Morphy's brilliance? So not te neatest game, but the best achievement.

This topic has strayed a little, but allow me to chime in.  The "opera box" game is a nice little game, but it is a miniature, which means that Black (in this case) played poor defense.  Morphy wanted to see the opera, but they placed his chair facing away from the stage, so Morphy played to end the game as quickly as possible.  If this and the Paulsen game from the 1857 US Congress finals (the Q-sac) are the only two games of Morphy's you are familiar with, then you'll be quick to assume that Morphy only played no-talents or people with little to no understanding of master-level chess.  But look at the games of, say, Fischer in the games collections.  Almost exclusively, they give the Donald Byrne game, the Robert Byrne game, the 7th game of the Petrosian match, and the 6th game of the Spassky match.  Are those the best of Fischer's career?  The 1st game with Larsen, the 1st (and second) of the Petrosian match are of much higher quality than the 7th, and the 6th is the turning point of the match.  And as far as one game from Morphy's career defining him as a player--show me the one Capablanca game, or Smyslov, or Kasparov.  It simply cannot be done.  I say again--do not look only at the games in the anthologies.  They are one-sided affairs, chosen to show a players dominance.  Get GM Shibut's book, "Paul Morphy and the evolution of chess theory," play through the games you haven't seen yet, and then try and tell my that Morphy was a minor talent who had the good fortune of living in a time when no-one understood chess.

Now, let's remember the start to this post--it was about brilliancies.  By thier nature, they are short games where one side overlooks either a glaring or subtle defense and gets crushed in a few moves.  These are more like bon-bons than a full-course meal.  But they taste good and go down easily.  Don't confuse that with culinary excellance.  And I'll say it--batgirl has good taste in bon-bons.

Thank you, Sarah.

I agree we're straying from the topic; in my experience, that's what fora are for.

Taken literally, nothing that you (dashkee94) say is in disaccord with my remarks so far, but I have the impression that you misunderstood me. I would never claim that "Morphy was a minor talent who had the good fortune of living in a time when no-one understood chess", in fact I indicated the opposite when I said that a fun little game like the one we discussed could hardly do justice to his accomplishments.

As to my question: I did not ask for a game that defines Morphy, because I don't know what that means. But let me rephrase the question. (Caution: going into hypothetical mode) Let's say that I was unconvinced of Morphy's talent and allowed you to show me one hard-fought, brilliant victory over a tough opponent. Which would you pick. The question was directed to Batgirl, but I'm quite interested in your pick too.

Can incredible strength be proved in any single game. Morphy proved his incredible strength by making the greatest chess players Europe could throw at him look (at least on the surface) like patzers.

If I  could pick just one game it would be the game 10 beatdown of Anderssen... This isn't some scrub, this is Anderssen in a formal match setting (Morphy's KG victory over Anderssen in a casual game is also insanely impressive), and the Unofficial World Champion is smashed in 17 moves...  Morphy played on another level and he played this game at blitz speed (or so they say).

No chess player since Morphy has been criticized for not having been able to find decent competition!

I recommend the annotations in Kasparov's On My Great Predecessors to better appreciate this game. The notes here are the classic Lowenthal notes. Sorry the thread's been hijacked by Morphy... but hey, it is called Brilliancies

Thanks, that's the sort of thing I was looking for.  A highly original conception.

I want to point out two things. My question was construed  to make Morphy aficionados pick a single favourite game to show off his talent. I wasn't after proofs or objectivity.

Second, I haven't once criticized Morphy for anything in this thread.

I was saying the disparity between the opponents was significantly wide, indicating that the combination was possible in part because of one side's weakness as well as one's side's brilliance.  I'm sorry I didn't make that clear.

I know Julius Caesar and believe Morphy was an honorable man.  I didn't understand the application of the quote. 

btw, although I like Morphy a lot, I'm not a historian.

_________________________

Mathijs, Morphy had so many good games, it's hard to pick a favorite.  Actually, one of my favorites, though, was his well known game against Paulsen. But here is a Ruy Lopez I've always liked. I shows Morphy's seemingly effortless style - fast, active development with deadly threats or with moves that pose difficult problems - against a strong opponent, possibly the strongest at that time next to Morphy himself. I used the chessgames.com pgn since it contained Lowenthal's little annotations. Also, appropriately for this thread, it's a sort on miniature. According to Anderssen writing to v.d. Lasa, Morphy did not play any of his games against Anderssen fast, but rather that he always took enough time for each move suitable to the position.

To mathijs

I guess I'm guilty of putting words from other forums in your mouth here.  I'm sorry, I didn't intend to disparage you personally, but some of the other posts from other forums that I have seen here claim Morphy was no more than a 2400.  I agree that Morphy would not have been as dominant as in 1859, but he would learn today's game and eventually play at a super-GM level.  It's why I named those Fischer games; if those are all you looked at, Fischer wouldn't seem so great, either.  I hope you will accept my apology.

Now for what you asked.  Hard fought Morphy wins are few, for he had settled matters long before most players were aware they were worse.  The game I'll post here really doesn't fit your request, but if you want to see an example of what amazes me about Morphy, here it is.  (The games editor doesn't seem to want me to post a Knight-odds games, so I'll just have to give you the moves.)

White: P.Morphy; Black: J. Thompson    Event: Knight-odds match, NY, NY, 1859

1.f4, d5; 2.e3, Nf6; 3.Nf3, Bg4, 4.h3, Bf3; 5.Qf3, c5; 6.b3, e6; 7.Bb2, Ne4; 8.0-0-0, Nc6; 9.d3, Nd6; 10.g4, d4; 11.Bg2, Qc7; 12.Rhe1, Rc8; 13.c4, b5; 14.Kb1, a5; 15.ed4, cd4; 16.cb5, Nb5; 17.Rc1, Nba7; 18.Rc4, Qd6; 19.Rec1, Kd7; 20.Bd4, Qd8; 21.Rc6,Nc6; 22.Rc6, Ba3; 23.f5, Rhe8; 24.fe6, fe6; 25.Bg7, Qh2; 26.Qf2, Qb8; 27.Qd4, Bd6; 28.Rb6, Qc7; 29.Rb7, Qb7; 30.Bb7, Rc7; 31.Be5  1-0

For the master of the open game to be playing Hyper-Modern chess back in 1859 is to me just astonishing.  And it's games like this that convince me that Morphy really wasn't that far from a complete modern master.  And just for your information--the losses and draws of Morphy are closer to what you mean about the close, fighting games.  Morphy-Lowenthal, London 1859 (game 263 in Shibut's book of Morphy) and Morphy-Anderssen, Match game 1, Paris 1858 are a couple you might want to play over.

Dashkee, I wasn't offended, so I have no trouble accepting an apology (or does that mean that I should have trouble  accepting?). Just to show you my good intentions, I put the game in a viewer for you.

Inspired again by this fruitful discussion, I was looking over the Morphy anthology at chessgames and I found one other very famous game that I certainy think could serve as an answer to my question: Bird-Morphy (as here). I think Rxf2 is an absolute stunner and the whole game has that superhuman feel to it that I was looking for.

I also like very much the KG game that JG27pyth mentioned. Almost every move white makes is part of a combination. I did wonder, however, to what extent contemporary theory covered the opening of that game. Nowadays it's an accepted part of the theory, so much so, that my book ends when the position after 15.Rg8 is reached with the hilarious comment: "-/+ Hebden-Littlewood, Hastings 1982/83". If Morphy found the combination that won the queen when he played 8.Bxf4, that's quite impressive.

Here is a little tactical brilliance from the Austrian Morphy, Wilhelm Steinitz, who defeats an amateur, the ubiquitous NN, with style:

I love the way the tangled combinations of the early Steinitz become the tangled manoevering of the the later postional Steinitz. He really may be the most creative/imaginative player ever. That whole game is extraordinary --  But I digress.

Speaking of Brilliancy

I was looking for more Morphy genius and I came across this game which just blows my mind. It's really not a chess game, it's more of a sammurai chess haiku/zen koan. I mean there's beating a much weaker player, which anyone can do, and then there's this... 

"I mean there's beating a much weaker player, which anyone can do, and then there's this... "

Charles Le Carpentier was Telcide's (Paul's mother's) brother (in addition, Telcide had two sisters, Aménaide and Amelie)  i.e. Paul's maternal uncle.  He was an amateur flautist. Keyes portrayed him as somewhat effeminate but I never saw anything to justify that portrayal other than the fact he never married - shrug.  This game was played at Rook-odds.  Paul should have probably offered him Rook+Knight+Bishop minimum.  Morphy, to me, always seemed to play his brightest either at odds or blindfold.

Three of the great Russian chess players before Tschigorin came on the scene were Alexander Petroff, Carl von Jaenisch and Ilya Schumoff.

Here is a famous game nicknamed "Petroff's Immortal," played in Warsaw in 1844 against the Warsaw master, Alexander Hoffmann.

from The Chess Player's Magazine 1867 -

Petroff
The great Russian master, whose superiority over all other Chess players in the Northern Empire was asserted with unhesitating unanimity by his countrymen, has lately died, much to the regret of the Chess community throughout the world. It is true that he did not enter into international contests, but his reputation in Russia was so high, and the pupils of the school which looked up to him as its legitimate head were so able and accomplished, that Europe was content to allow that Petroff must have been a Chess player of the first order. The Princes Ouroussoff, of whom, for the interests of Chess, we wish that we could hear again, Jaenisch and Schumoff were disciples of whom any master might justly be proud. But we had also evidence in our hands enough to convince the most prejudiced opponent of the general opinion that Petroff was really first-rate. His magnificent problems, of an entirely original character, contributed to the early volumes of England's first Chess Magazine, his able articles in the Schachzeitung, the invention which he displayed in the development of theoretical knowledge, spoke strongly in his favour. Few, unhappily, are the games of his played over the board which have been preserved, but those few, with exceptional instances, attest the hand of a perfect artist. If he did not travel out of his country to encounter foreign players—and from this he was debarred by his official duties—he was ready to do anything in his power towards the improvement of his native school. When in 1854 the Chess Club of St. Petersburg was formed under the happiest auspices, Petroff left Warsaw on purpose to attend the meeting, and we can well imagine the pleasure with which Prince Sergius Ouroussoff, whom similar enthusiasm had drawn from Moscow, would greet the veteran. The 1st of June, so glorious in the annals of the British navy, was the brightest day in the history of Russian Chess. Alas that war should to a great extent have dispersed that band of fine players who had already begun to influence the Chess play of Europe!

The countrymen of Petroff almost idolised him ; he was coupled with Marshal Paskiewitch as one of the first two honorary members of the St. Petersburg Chess Club. That old Marshal was also a Chess enthusiast, though we have never heard that he attained the skill of a Saxe. Petroff must indeed have considered it an honour to have his name mentioned in connection with the greatest Russian commander of his time. We wish that we were in a position to give a sketch of Petroff's career in his own country, but we are unable to do so. One fact may, however, be mentioned; although officially dependent on the Government of Warsaw, he does not seem to have aroused any personal hatred;  for, when he fell into the hands of the Polish insurgents, naturally embittered as they were in the late abortive attempt at insurrection, he was dismissed unharmed. We may conclude, therefore, that he was of gentle demeanour, and not unpopular even amongst the Poles. But it is with Petroff as a Chess player that we have especially to deal. . . It is, indeed, not without some feelings of a painful nature that we place the three names together. We continue to hear of Jaenisch and Schumoff, but where now is the veteran teacher, where the pair of gallant young cavaliers who promised to raise the Chess play of the Russian Empire to a higher pinnacle of fame than it has ever yet attained ?

Here's a game played between Schumoff and Jaenisch in St. Petersburg in 1845.