Morphy games are both highly instructive and highly entertaining. The ideas he helped to develop were so far ahead of his time. He showed how powerful it can be to rapidly develop pieces instead of prematurely chasing tactics, and how it was possible to transform a lead in development into an overwhelming attack.
Of course, it all looks easy when Morphy did it - he was able to see combinations, at a glance, in positions where most players couldn't find anything at all ...
I´d say that for the vast majority Morphy´s games are well worth studying. For those few who rely on memorizing engine lines, not so much.
sometimes when i look at morphys games he makes basic blunders that even i can see. it's good to study from bc perfect games are boring but just don't expect the level of play to be as good as today.
Show us some games when Morphy did basic blunders. Some idiot called Fischer did not find any, because he called Morphy most accurate player who ever lived.
Morphy was a great talent like Capablanca and Tal.
But Morphy eventually went crazy.
Nice list of Morphy games here. His life spanned the Civil War.
377 games listed.
In those games Morphy won 77% drew 12% and lost 11%.
But were those all his games?
https://www.chess.com/games/search?fromSearchShort=1&p1=Paul%20Morphy&playerId=82&page=4
it's a bit hard to rate him highly when idk if his opponents would even be titled today.
it's a bit hard to rate him highly when idk if his opponents would even be titled today.
You are thinking of those opponents who were amateurs. Morphy usually played those players in a simul, or a blindfold simul, or gave piece odds.
His best opponents like Löwenthal or Anderssen would of course be masters today. Just look at those guys games when they don't play Morphy.
it's a bit hard to rate him highly when idk if his opponents would even be titled today.
that claim is often made - that the greats of the distant past weren't very strong.
But one of the things that can be looked at is when top players with a big age gap played each other and then when the younger player has aged 20 years more and he plays a much younger but top player and so on.
Maybe a good example would be Botvinnik. He was very strong both before and after world war II. Who beat him before the war? Who did he beat after the war? Who did they beat? But then there's this argument that computers can compute the strength of the play in pre war games and compare it with the strength of top games this century. Including by looking at the depth.
Games of Morphy are absolutely must know for intermediate player who do not want to be intermediate forever. I actually think that studying games of actual super GMs is absolutely senseless for intermediate player.
Another remarkable and very qualified post!
This game was mentioned earlier. With diagram.
I downloaded this so it could be gone over interactively.
Thinking that d5 seems to be a mistake. Three against two.
Chess before the era of engines is a joke humans ate inept. That includes Morphy. Soo quit playnf chess and do someting you´re better at than the machins. Like making love.
Yes. Beginners and advanced beginners should be exposed to Morphy’s games. The specific opening sequences are not important. However, the concepts of quick development, king safety, and gambiting pawns for open lines are ideas that all newcomers to the game should learn.
i think the Duke of Brunswick game is very instructive and is one of the best ways to demonstrate basic opening principles.
According to Elo’s study of the ratings of historical players, Morphy was rated 2690–far above the best players of his day. He outclassed his peers in the same way that Fischer, Kasparov, and Carlsen outclassed their contemporaries.
Of Course, opening theory had evolved. Instructors won’t use Morphy to teach modern opening theory. But to teach the basics of quick development and king safety? Morphy’s games should be a part of every beginner’s manual.
According to Elo’s study of the ratings of historical players, Morphy was rated 2690–far above the best players of his day. He outclassed his peers in the same way that Fischer, Kasparov, and Carlsen outclassed their contemporaries.
Of Course, opening theory had evolved. Instructors won’t use Morphy to teach modern opening theory. But to teach the basics of quick development and king safety? Morphy’s games should be a part of every beginner’s manual.
This is like estimating Einstein's IQ though. They came up with less than mine as it happens. Is that yet more proof that they're wrong?
imo Morphy's games will confuse beginners. Leave it until they know the basics,
The only thing it´s proof of is that humans can´t relate to numbers in a meaningful way.
40 That rating seems really high. America wasn't good at chess back then.
I think Morphy is prob as good as Gothamchess?
The ratings from different eras are not intended to be directly compared to one another. They reflect the probability of winning against one’s peers, not some abstract measure of chess strength.
i agree that a 2690 rating in Morphy’s time is weaker than a 2690 rating today. However, they are equivalent in terms of the likelihood of beating their opponents.
Games of Morphy are absolutely must know for intermediate player who do not want to be intermediate forever. I actually think that studying games of actual super GMs is absolutely senseless for intermediate player.
An interesting idea.
There was a pattern in 'older chess' of so many many games of top players beginning with e4 e5.
An extremely high percentage of master and GM games began that way.
Nowadays there's a better balance.
But point: why e4 e5 ....?
you'll hear different rationales.
Idea - the moves Nf3 by white and Nf6 by black are very important moves. In frequency in the first four moves of master games - you'll find they're played more than any other move.
Including by black on his move 1. Except against 1) e4.
Idea: 1) e4 is the most popular first move by white. Why? Because its the one good and best way to deter black from playing Nf6 immediatly.
Black doesn't want his knight 'bumped' by white playing e5 (yes Alekhine's defense is considered sound but the top layer of chess players seems to play to the effect that there's several better Preferable replies to 1) e4.
And black's first move - in reply to e4 - usually has an effect. An intended effect.
To make e5 by white less likely soon. Or immediately.