The bishop is slightly better in general. But knights are better in the first 8-10 moves.
Could you beat Morphy if he gave you knight odds?
Sort:
Spiritbro77 wrote:
Well Fischer thought Morphy could play high level chess NOW. You think you could beat Fischer with knight odds? Bronstein? Lasker? Tal?
High level sure, but not top level. Chess has improved as many have said. My hunch is he'd be a strong IM today.
Mar 20, 2015
0
#144
The analogy between Borg and Djokovic is more apt for comparing Fischer to Carlsen.
Comparing Morphy to Kasparov would be more like comparing Willam Renshaw to Federer.
SmyslovFan hat geschrieben:
The analogy between Borg and Djokovic is more apt for comparing Fischer to Carlsen.
Comparing Morphy to Kasparov would be more like comparing Willam Renshaw to Federer.
True. ;)
+700 elo opponent is stronger without a knight.
i mean i can beat easily a 900 elo player with knight odds.
so if Morphy would have 2400 now, under 1700 players will score less than 50% with knight odds.
BigKingBud wrote:
I think Morphy really wanted to be a women's shoe salesman. I think he was originally reincarnated as Andy Warhol, and then he was spiritually reincarnated as Al Bundy. So, let's give the old fella a break, that's a tough life.
Fischer actually reminds me somewhat of Al Bundy!
The only people in this thread who can convincingly beat Morphy without odds are FM Rumo75 and NM Reb.
I don't think I'd win a match but I would seriously study the Caro-Kahn since he'd think it was unorthodox and therefore underestimate it. The Panov-Botvinnik Attack seems like a line Morphy would transition into so I'd prepare against that line especially.
I've looked at some of Morphy's rook endings and he really wasn't as great as his reputation. He had no competition that could be considered modern IM level and was probably himself FM level (excellent by the day's standards however.) The most reliable measure of a chess player's overall skill is their ability to play rook endings.
I agree, but at least in my case (and that also counts for most of the posters here) I think we wouldn't reach any type of endgame.
Mar 20, 2015
0
#150
I'd love to find out how I'd do against Morphy. I know I'd give him a challenge like he'd never faced before.
Pulpofeira wrote:
I agree, but at least in my case (and that also counts for most of the posters here) I think we wouldn't reach any type of endgame.
I agree, most of us would win in the middlegame.
SmyslovFan escribió:
I'd love to find out how I'd do against Morphy. I know I'd give him a challenge like he'd never faced before.
So are you Staunton, then?!
SilentKnighte5 escribió:
Pulpofeira wrote:
I agree, but at least in my case (and that also counts for most of the posters here) I think we wouldn't reach any type of endgame.
I agree, most of us would win in the middlegame.
Pulpofeira wrote:
SmyslovFan escribió:
I'd love to find out how I'd do against Morphy. I know I'd give him a challenge like he'd never faced before.
So are you Staunton, then?!
No, but he knows a century more of theory :p
leiph18 escribió:
Pulpofeira wrote:
SmyslovFan escribió:
I'd love to find out how I'd do against Morphy. I know I'd give him a challenge like he'd never faced before.
So are you Staunton, then?!
No, but he knows a century more of theory :p
I think you haven't got my joke...
no
because he is dead
it couldbe posible to win against him if he was alive
Pulpofeira wrote:
leiph18 escribió:
Pulpofeira wrote:
SmyslovFan escribió:
I'd love to find out how I'd do against Morphy. I know I'd give him a challenge like he'd never faced before.
So are you Staunton, then?!
No, but he knows a century more of theory :p
I think you haven't got my joke...
lol, I see it now :p
Yes, the bishop pair is worth something, so when you lose the first bishop, it's more than losing your first knight (in general).
But for example B vs N or even R+B vs R+N it will just depend on the position which piece you'd rather have.