Could you beat Morphy if he gave you knight odds?

One minor point. Once I gave an exhibition game where I gave odds of the first move and one of my pawns.

I chose to give up my pawn on h7 which was much better for me than giving up my pawn on f7.  It is a mistake to think giving up the h2 pawn or h7 pawn is the best pawn to give up.

 The players back then did not understand this.

"Players back then" understood far more that you want to give them credit for.  In fact, they considered giving up a Rook pawn tantamount to not giving odds at all.

Geo. Walker, "The Chess Player" 1841:

"The reason why the King’s Bishop’s Pawn is the one always selected to be given, in odd, is, that it is of greater value than either of the others, from the opening its loss makes upon the King. To give one of the other Pawns would be less odds, and to receive a Rook’s Pawn would be hardly any odds at all."

^

Pish tosh there are countless examples of GM's beating an 1800 player with Queen odds. 

lol.

no.

You'll notice one of Kauffman's main points was that the rating gained by the weaker player depends on that players rating.

He give the example that knight odds to a beginner may only be worth 50 points. It's only when you're an 1800 that knight odds are worth as much as 600 points.

Morphy was the greatest player of his time. Many think he would be a top player right now. He would destroy any non-GM with knight odds. I've seen games where he used the missing knight as an ADVANTAGE.

"About fifteen percent of the known games of Paul Morphy (1837–1884) are games in which he gave odds."

The man was used to playing this way. Wouldn't bother him a bit.

Any non GM?

In a 100 game knight odds match vs an IM, Morphy would score exactly ZERO.

But yes, if we cloned Morphy i.e. if he were born today, with modern training, he would have good chances to grow to become a top player.

I wouldn't be able to beat Morphy if he gave me queen odds.

At knight odds I think he could win most the time over any player ranked below 2200. But then again who knows?

Well Fischer thought Morphy could play high level chess NOW. You think you could beat Fischer with knight odds? Bronstein? Lasker? Tal?

This belief that Morphy was a patzer is fantasy.

Lets do it!!!

Fischer was BSing people on that one.

What heroes did Fischer have to look up to? Who were the greats in all the literature he read? Almost 100% Russian.

He was just figuratively flashing a huge middle finger to Soviets by leaving e.g. Chigorin off the list and putting Morphy, practically the only notable American player, at #1.

Fischer also said Lasker was overrated, but "secretly" studied and admired his games.

Fischer also said... well, that's not polite conversation. Let's just say it's better to admire Fischer's games than his quotes lol.

Morphy was playing blindfold exhibitions when he was NINE. He beat the hell out of Anderson. Who had a positive score against Steinitz. I think some of you are severely underestimating Morphy.

https://youtu.be/CbRkqqawcTo?list=PLVWaFpMwtaGiBxi79IUqnqn67WF5g5PR4

Any modern expert can play blindfold chess. I've given a two board blindfold simul against players rated 1400 and 1500 USCF and won both. I was only ~2100 at the time.

I'm not saying how I'd do against Morphy. I'm just pointing out that these things you find incredible that Morphy did aren't that special.

Today, people give time odds rather than material odds.

Name 6.

Were you 9 years old at the time? :)

"He would destroy any non-GM with knight odds"

Kasparov was much stronger than Morphy and he didn't "destroy" an untitled player (Chapman, who a dozen years later reached FM level) giving less than knight odds (two pawns). I'm not certain Morphy would destroy an IM without any odds at all, and a knight down I think he would lose to most players in the 2100s.

Don't agree. In a hundred game match giving an IM knight odds I think Morphy would get a few draws and even a couple wins. Mostly he would lose.

leiph18 wrote:

Any non GM?

In a 100 game knight odds match vs an IM, Morphy would score exactly ZERO.