Could you beat Morphy if he gave you knight odds?

Gawd! Spell-checker can be a nuisance. I mean child.

Rumo75 wrote:

0/5 in 3-minute blitz. And 0/100 in tournament games, which is what we are talking about, I think.

You're being pessimistic.

you missed #193

I read it. But I assumed Scott wouldn't.

No, I already knew the story.

Bazinga!

What the heck is 'bazinga'?

No way.

what does giving knight odds prove

Giving odds doesn't "prove" anything.  The original purpose for giving odds was to allow player of different strengths to play together with each side having a good chance of winning.  Then odds became a factor in playing for stakes with the better player trying to negotiate lower odds, improving his chances and the weaker player trying to negotiate the higher odds. Odds became the standard of coffee house chess.  Finally, until after the 19th century, it became a way of evaluating comparative playing strength. First class players played even against other first class players. Second class players played even against other second class players but received odds from first class players, and how much odds determined their perceived abilities. A third class played, one who received piece odds from first class players, received lesser odds from second class players and played other third class players even.  This led to an intricate, almost political, scheme of etiquette.  Who could play whom and whether it was even or at some particular odds had to be carefully weighed against who that player had already played and under what circumstances. Reputations, and future opponents,  depended upon this scheme.  Since there were no objective standards yet, these somewhat subjective ones were all that could be used.  Oddly, as some highly interesting experiments (a fertile area for research) indicate, they didn't measure what they purported to measure since playing at odds actually requires different skills and knowledge than playing even, but the idea that one side starts off with a losing or lost game is a fascinationg one.

Today, time is the most common form of odds given. What most people don't seem to understand is that as long as a player has the time to make the moves, his understanding will still be sufficient to overcome the time odds. He will be able to think on his opponent's time. This is why someone who is rated ~2200 will beat a 2000 rated player in time odds, even 5-1 odds, about as often as if they are playing without time odds. 

It also kills the the notion that some amateurs have that if they just had more time to think, they could play like Carlsen. 

Statisticians have shown that playing a 10 board simul drops a person's performance by about 400 points, which is similar to the effect of playing a single game blindfold. (Unfortunately, I can't find the academic paper which measured these differences right now).

was paul morphy good though

because most of the stuff that the players missed back in the 1800s they would be able to see today in tournaments.

plus i think it was expected to play romantically

i sure am glad i was not around in the 1800s because you had to wear a tuxedo at chess tournaments instead of shorts and t shirt

he could play a lot of people

but i don't think he gave knight odds to  anyone wearing a top hat

James Thompson, a London-born American player and once a habitué of the above café where he had great success, probbly wore a top hat quite often.  He considered himself better than St. Amant and equal to Morphy, initially refusing any odds, but ending up accepted Knight-odds (winning at those odds would allow him to then play at lesser odds and finally even) and losing -5+3=1.   J. J. Löwenthal wrote (to Willard Fiske), "I am decidedly of the opinion that his (Morphy's) winning the match at the large odds of a Knight to a player like Mr. Thompson, is the most marvelous feat which ever a master of his rank has performed. Neither La Bourdonnais, M'Donnell nor Philidor could ever have accomplished a similar task."

One difficulty for Morphy would be that today even class players aren't afraid to develop all the pieces and play e.g. a closed position. Who in Morphy's time did either of those consistently?

For example James Thompson, in his games against Morphy, was usually castling very late, if at all.

But yes, if it turned into a messy open game, then you'd better be rated 2500 lol

I can't imagine anyone with the skill and knowledge that today's >1800 players possess losing at Knight odds to someone with the equivalent of Morphy's talent and knowledge.   But I can't imagine someone with Morphy's temperment playing a series of games against someone who insisted on closed games. 

When he was in Philadelphia in 1859 after his return from Europe, he played 2 games at Knight-odds to William G. Thomas. Thomas played all closed games and was two strong at those odds in closed games.  Morphy then beat him 2 games at Pawn&move and offered to play him at Knight odds if Thomas would play 1...e5. They played three games with Morphy winning 2 and one game drawn.

Like Anderssen said, Morphy was the king of the open game.

But could Morphy beat Tartakower if he time traveled? 

Tartakower could beat Morphy at quip odds.