Tartakower is best known for being a punching bag for Capablanca, Alekhine, and others and coining the phrase hypermodern (Nimzowitsch and Reti frequently used neo-classical) but in position play at least Tartakower has a marked advantage over Morphy. Does he outclass him outright? Maybe, maybe not.
Could you beat Morphy if he gave you knight odds?
Sort:
Mar 23, 2015
0
#203
kiloNewton wrote:
WGT was not weaker by 400+ elo.
all under 2000 fide will lose to Morphy.
i played few knight odds with a 2200 fide in otb. it was 50-50.
There were no ratings back then, no elo. Anything anyone might speculate is just that, speculation.
How strong was William G. Thomas? After his Knight-odds games with several of the Philadelphia players, Morphy gave a 4 board blindfold exhibition for the deserving benefit of the Mt. Vernon Fund. Morphy won all four games. His opponents were Dr. Samuel Lewis, B. C. Thilghman, Samuel Smyth and our guest of honor, William G. Thomas. Thomas was the third person out. After that simul, Morphy played Thomas 2 more games at Knight-odds winning one, drawing the other.
Mar 23, 2015
0
#204
Let's ask another question: Could you beat William G. Thomas in an even match?
If the answer is "yes", then you could probably also beat Morphy at Knight odds.
The advantage of that question is that there's not so much mythology built up around William G. Thomas.
Mar 23, 2015
0
#205
I think players today were raised on closed games. Positional chess itself probably favors that type of game while tactical play probably favors open games. Positional chess was in it's infancy in Morphy's time but combinative chess, which Romantic players felt was chess-playing's raison d'être, was in it's heyday. While Morphy, seemingly intuitively, employed position elements in his style, he was by and large a combinative player and used his positional instincts to either threaten combinations or to spring them on the unwary opponents. Morphy simpley hated what he called the interminable shifting of pieces and saw closed games as an insult to Caïssa. Morphy's difficulty with closed games probably stems from his distaste for them and his impatience in playing them. It seems quite unlikely that he would subject himself to playing chess in the style of modern players. I think even 1800s today far surpass Morphy in their understanding of closed positions, in endgame technique and in things like the relation between openings and endgames. In an open game, Morphy was brilliant; in a closed game he was just determined (and sometimes this was more than enough).
I wouldn't say closed but rather dynamic centers. Those tend to be the best and richest.
SmyslovFan wrote:
Let's ask another question: Could you beat William G. Thomas in an even match?
If the answer is "yes", then you could probably also beat Morphy at Knight odds.
The advantage of that question is that there's not so much mythology built up around William G. Thomas.
I could beat him with or without a top hat.
Mar 23, 2015
0
#208
TheGreatOogieBoogie wrote:
I wouldn't say closed but rather dynamic centers. Those tend to be the best and richest.
Morphy could rock a dynamic center.
Morphy lost the one time he played the Sicilian, but his switch to the Dutch in lieu of d5 aided him in Europe.
Mar 23, 2015
0
#210
Then again, other than a Knight-odds game against Maurian, Morphy never lost against the Sicilian.
SilentKnighte5 wrote:
Morphy lost the one time he played the Sicilian, but his switch to the Dutch in lieu of d5 aided him in Europe.
Bulls*** !!
A thirteen year-old Paul Morphy beat Johann Lowenthal's Sicilian Defence.
He also defeated the Sicilian of Adolf Anderssen.
i could beat carlsen with queen odds. if you can't beat carlsen with queen odds you should stick with checkers
jackfast wrote:
I can SOOOOO DEFEAT MORPHY with double Rook and Queen odds. You know why??...................... He is DEAD
Oh, you thought the poster's question is to be taken literally ?
You didn't know the question is rhetorical ?
Yeah, I could beat the crap out of Rocky Marciano.
I can run faster than Jesse Owens
I can play the guitar better than Jimi Hendrix....etc. etc. ad nausium
Mar 23, 2015
0
#214
batgirl wrote:
I think players today were raised on closed games. Positional chess itself probably favors that type of game while tactical play probably favors open games. Positional chess was in it's[sic] infancy in Morphy's time but combinative chess, which Romantic players felt was chess-playing's raison d'être, was in it's[sic] heyday. While Morphy, seemingly intuitively, employed position[sic] elements in his style, he was by and large a combinative player and used his positional instincts to either threaten combinations or to spring them on the unwary opponents. Morphy simpley[sic] hated what he called the interminable shifting of pieces and saw closed games as an insult to Caïssa. Morphy's difficulty with closed games probably stems from his distaste for them and his impatience in playing them. It seems quite unlikely that he would subject himself to playing chess in the style of modern players. I think even 1800s today far surpass Morphy in their understanding of closed positions, in endgame technique and in things like the relation between openings and endgames. In an open game, Morphy was brilliant; in a closed game he was just determined (and sometimes this was more than enough).
Wow! for once I think Batgirl has actually underestimated Morphy. Well, actually, I think she overestimates today's average 1800 player. Regarding the endgame, yeah. Just about "every Russian schoolboy" knows more about the endgame than Morphy did. But in closed positions, Morphy was still Morphy. He wasn't great, but he was constantly alert for tactics. Closed positions were certainly a weakness. But few 1800s today really understand them either.
I think if you'd made the same statement with "2000" instead of "1800", I would have agreed with you. But I've beaten far too many "A" players because they didn't understand how to maneuver in closed positions to believe that Morphy was any worse than them.
Other than that, I agree with Batgirl! Morphy was indeed brilliant in open positions, and was demonstrably weaker in closed positions and technical endgames.
Mar 23, 2015
0
#215
SmyslovFan wrote:
Well, actually, I think she overestimates today's average 1800 player.
Highly possible. From my vantage point a Class A player seems pretty good.
Class A is much better than the average tournament player . Fischer once said of A class players though that : " they dont really understand anything about chess " ! Ofcourse , compared to the top GMs I guess thats true .
Mar 23, 2015
0
#217
Reb wrote:
Class A is much better than the average tournament player . Fischer once said of A class players though that : " they dont really understand anything about chess " ! Ofcourse , compared to the top GMs I guess thats true .
I have that same attitude towards gibbons, though perhaps not towards orangutans.
Ever he a ptofession or go to college
He was the best player that ever lived... Once said Ben Finegold 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.
WGT was not weaker by 400+ elo.
all under 2000 fide will lose to Morphy.
i played few knight odds with a 2200 fide in otb. it was 50-50.