Could you beat Morphy if he gave you knight odds?

Good for you.  I haven't even attempted a blindfold game in at least 20 years.  And even when I was trying it for fun, I'd lose the position that's in my head 15-20 moves into the game, especially in complex middle games.  Some people have a knack for that... but I do not.

He'd have to give me king odds in blindfold.

One thing about Morphy, was that he 'progressed' the game of chess.  he was a chess GENIUS 'WAY ahead of his time'.  He brought the game of chess to a 'whole new level'.  He introduced MANY new concepts and he was a chess revolutionary, he was also a child prodigy.

But, that was A LONG time ago(like 150 years), and even in just the last 15 years(with internet advancements) and younger players having access to "all the infos", it has brought the players to a MUCH higher level.  But, I still wouldn't just 'count Morphy out', he was like 'part alien' or something, I know I couldn't do ANYTHING with him.  Like maybe if i played him 100 times in a row, I might 'get him' once,or whatever.  But, just straight up, one game, he starts off down 6 points?  No way, he'd run me off the board.

Haha stop, your killing me. The ghost of Morphy laughs with me. Try queen odds. Then maybe you could beat Morphy

SilentKnighte5 wrote:

One reason people stay low rated is because of an unnatural fear of stronger players.  Trust me, they aren't as good as you make them out to be.  Agree with Ed that any 1800 should be able to give Morphy a run with knight odds.

   I just found some interesting comments on this subject:

http://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/1gu1nj/

   And, if this is true, then I am impressed:

I'd give him more credit than that.

Edit: For instance, he could defeat 8 strong players blindfolded, and is reported to have played up to 16 games at a time without sight of the board. No mean feat.

Many of Morphy's opponents had neither the knowledge nor inclination to play positionally or in any case solidly. I think any modern 2000 player would be able to bypass many of Morphy's more dangerous abilities in a knight odds game, and achieve a plus score against him.

Yes! Carlsen, or Morphy for that matter, could beat us giving knight odds better than Stockfish or Houdini. The human master understands our psychology and can set traps and complicate the game in ways that would make us screw up. The computer just calculates best play and says, move x ends in evaluation 1.03 and move y ends in evaluation .83, so I should play move x. A human master would think, move y is much more demanding for my opponent to find the one best response.

hayabusahayate16 wrote:

MrEdCollins wrote:

A lot of 1800+ players could beat Morphy if Morphy gave knight odds. Oh sure, Morhpy would win some games.  He'd thrown everything at you and attack and sacrifice even further and you'd probably make a mistake now and thenBut any 1800+ player would also know to trade down at evert opportunity, and use that extra piece decisively.  They'd also win a lot of games.  It's not that hard.  I know, since I've beaten Stockfish with knight odds before, and Morphy, as good as he was, is no Stockfish.

Chess engines suck at winning lost positions. They will play the better objective mood instead of the one that will complicate matters.

I could beat Morphy without knight odds

Steintz said he could beat God giving him pawn-and-move odds so i could probably beat Morphy with knight odds if a God can lose in chess :P

Some really strong players of the day thought they could take Morphy with Knight odds.

They couldn't.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1016090

Fortunately for Morphy, this guy James Thompson was (apparently) not so sure how castling worked and didn't seem to value development very much. (Morphy's play in open positions is dazzling, but it's his understanding of development and using all his pieces that really put him so far ahead of everyone).

Not that I'd beat the crap out of Morphy, I'm sure I'd lose some, but this Thompson guy managed to win 3 games to Morphy's 5.

Definitely, if he gave me queen odds

A knight is just a whole piece for no compensation. I think I'd have a good chance of beating Houdini with knight odds, never mind a human.

I beat houdini with knight odds, but it was easy, it played some passive crap and I just slowly wore it down.

A human 2400 player with an eye for tactics would be many times more challenging.

Lol, are you saying that Houdini is easier to beat

When compared to a 2400 rated human??

With knight odds, definitely.

The difference is the engine knows it's losing and plays passive crap.

The human knows it's losing so plays as dynamically and risky as possible to make up for it.

One way to try to simulate it would be to try and play with the engine's contempt value. You could probably find some settings to make the engine very difficult to beat.

I've beaten a couple of 2400s on equal terms so beating one with an extra knight I don't think would be very hard.

A world-class 2800 might be harder though - although even then they can't perform magic tricks, can only play with the material on the board, and if you take care and play to iron out the complications without ceding a big initiative, you should be ok.

Sure, but you are talking from the perspective of someone who is able to make his way at the IM level. I don't feel myself having a loser mentality or idealizing old masters when I say I couldn't beat Morphy with queen odds, I'm only being realistic.

Yeah, the stronger you are, the more odds boosts your rating.

If you're e.g. 2300, then knight odds should be enough to beat Carlsen fairly consistently I'd think (tournament time controls).

Pulpofeira wrote:

Sure, but you are talking from the perspective of someone who is able to make his way at the IM level. I don't feel myself having a loser mentality or idealizing old masters when I say I couldn't beat Morphy with queen odds, I'm only being realistic.

I can beat Morphy with rook odds. And I'm being realistic.