Morphy vs. Modern GMs

 Fischer said a lot of things...

Regardless, Morphy would certainly have no chance against a mid-level or higher GM if he played the way he did in the mid 1800s against modern opening theory, etc.  Especially when the modern GM knows all of Morphy's games. But of course give Morphy the time and patience to bone up on the games of Lasker, Capablanca, Tal, Fischer, etc. and give him a year or so to analyze Anand,  Carlsen, etc.  then there's no reason he couldn't compete at that level if he had the desire (A big if with Morphy of course)

      It's the same question as could Babe Ruth dominate baseball today like he did in the 20's? If he stepped right out of a time machine from 1929 and immediately stepped on to the field he'd likely be embarrassed, but given time to get in shape, use modern equipment, and practice against modern pitching.. sure he'd do fine. 

All the great masters at chess became who they were because of their environment. Take them away from their era...and they would not be the same person. They developed into great chess players because of influences on them in their time period. Take them out of that time period...with different influences etc. and the end result would be different. 

The level of play today is due to an accumulative body of work from chess inception to today's computer assistance. So clearly, Morphy would not know as much in relation to today's super GMs to which he is being compared. So, it really is unfair to compare...because you really can't in any meaningful way.

And all the talk about teleportation is meaningless...science fiction. What if he was born in the same era as say Kasparov etc?...again meaningless, he would not be the same person, hell with what goes on in high school today, poor Morphy might have turned out to be a pot smoking gangster rapper pimp hooked on drugs.

IMO the greatest "natural" players are Morphy, Capablanca, and Reshevsky.  Morphy had other interest, Capa said he didnt really study, and Reshevsky was so feared by the Russians that they ganged up against him in WC Qualification tournaments. 

And maybe Mir Sultan Kahn too...

 Hi roop,

I recognize the name but dont know anywhere enough about him to know.  But thanks for the addition, ill read up on him.  Also...about the 3 i mentioned.  I think they would more than hold there own against todays top players.

Mir Sultan Khan (1905 – April 25, 1966) was the strongest chess master of his time from Asia. This manservant from British India traveled with his master to Britain, where he took the chess world by storm. In an international chess career of less than five years (1929–33), he won the British Championship three times in four tries (1929, 1932, 1933), and had tournament and match results that placed him among the top ten players in the world. His master then brought him back to his homeland, where he gave up chess and returned to his humble life. David Hooper and Kenneth Whyld call him "perhaps the greatest natural player of modern times".^[1] Although he was one of the world's top players in the early 1930s, FIDE, the World Chess Federation, never awarded him any title (Grandmaster or International Master), as these titles did not exist during his career.

We will never know who would have won between the " Rock " and the " Greatest " , nor will we ever know who would have won between  Kasparov and Fischer , or Karpov and Fischer. What we do know is that Marciano retired as an undefeated/undisputed heavy weight champ and had enough sense to stay retired....

I agree with you Red...we will never know, and that is why we need to appreciate the masters in the context and era in which they played...and stop thinking about science fiction teleportation nonsense. If man ever does achieve time travel he will not waste such energies on trying to answer this question...

Sure, it's pointless to speculate like this, but so what?

I only know - the modern level of chess would  be very interesting for him.

Nope! You can't even know that!

Don't place in the same row the best genius and his pupils. Paul Morphy was the father of modern style in chess. Modern GMs imitate Morpy's style of play.

Modern Gms know various openings. Professional chess players today train with  computer programs. But an adventure  with a chess program it is enought to beat the best genius in  chess history. Modern chess is the art of memory. It is not make sens. Real chess it is not a game of memory. In my opinion Morphy's strategic genius is enought to beat modern GMs.

Modern chess is not in any way a game of memory. The super gms have to come up with the idea, and see unlike most of us if they're playing moves they've prepared past move 20, they actually understand them, and very, very deeply. They can't just pick some random move, memorize, and hope for good things to happen; they have to know if the move is actually good or not! It's kind of cool how in a given opening some people can play extremely accurate for so many moves, even if it is from memory (but when they determined if the idea was good they had to understand it, memory merely came with it). It shows how far we've come.

Strange how you quote the first statement, but not the rest that backs it up.

I'm not saying you don't have to memorize, I'm saying you do have to memorize the ideas you come up with in preparation, that is indeed very important but the way moves are chosen in preparation require very deep understanding. How many new moves (not considered or hardly considered by opening theory) have you thought of, that actually turned out better than the book move? It's very hard, usually left to the super GMs.

But these guys are actually playing chess, at an extremely high level, and the fact that with each opening move they are trying to (and often do) squeeze the absolute maximum, I actually think that says a lot about their work ethic and skill. I mean these guys can punish the tiniest opening mistake; how can that not be admirable? You think it's easy to come up with new moves? It's only because people today have so much skill and knowledge of the game in general that you have to sneak in a new, strong move to catch them off guard to have any decent chance of getting an edge against them, let alone beating them. It does not go the other way around, which seems to be quite a misconception. It's not really the opening moves that are beating the top level players, it's the skill of the players and their thoughts behind their preparation first, then comes opening moves. That's why some amateur booked up 25 moves in a sicilian defense will still never beat a grandmaster. Perhaps another amateur (though even that is debatable, says a lot about the strength, or lack thereof, of opening moves), but never a grandmaster. Opening moves are the cherries on top: tricking their near invincible opponent into an inferior position (as otherwise a win will be extremely difficult because they make so few errors), then winning just because of it. That is what I call high level chess.

High level games today perhaps tend to not be as wild as those played back then, but how can you blame them? They're simply playing moves that are really hard to counter! If it was a "game of memory", then anyone with a good memory would be good. You need much much more than that, even though memory is involved.

 I am pretty sure Marciano could beat the Russians, but Fischer???

"It's nothing personal but there is no reason to go further and waste space.  Anyone is able to scroll up and read the rest of what you posted so there is no reason to keep reposting it."

You'll have to back this up for it to have any credibility. It's a rude copout to  say that something is so wrong that it's not worth explaining why. But this makes no sense. If it's so obviously wrong you should not only be able to explain why, but quite easily and painlessly.

"Memory is THE single most important characteristic to play better chess.  PERIOD."

What I said above I will also say to this.

"Modern Chess at high levels is all about remembering preparation and computer aided lines.   The players themselves keep saying this directly when they talk about remembering their preparations."

This is why you need to read the rest of my posts. I go on to say that you indeed need to memorize, quite a bit in fact but say why that doesn't make high level chess "a game of memory". They need to come up with and understand the moves first, and I go into more detail in my earlier posts. The memory is really just a culmination of their work, which requires lots of "chess-thinking". Also the conversion of the position after the new opening move, if it worked, and that can be very tough too.

"Yeah,well, that's just like your opinion, man. "

And I have good reasons to have that opinion.

Well, memory has an important role, but it is ridiculous to overstate it this grossly. Surely beyond the opening stage even the top players think about their moves. Or are you saying that they are all the time sitting there trying to recollect their home preparation ?

"AND understanding in chess is knowing what specific move is played in what specific situation.  This comes from memory."

Actually, understanding is not about "specific" moves in "specific" situations, that's actually memory (like say in an opening book, "in this opening on move 14 white plays this", THAT is a specific move in a specific situation and that's obviously memorizing the opening). It does train you to come up with those "specific" moves in the game though, because you will be able to logically figure out what to do with this foundation of knowledge, and knowing what it means. Still, every position is a little different, even if you know what you're "supposed" to do in a given structure, so you definitely can't consider it "specific"

"No sense reading a book if you can't remember what you read."

True, but first of all understanding something aids your memory of something, as opposed to just playing it out with your brain in another place. In that case you'd likely forget. Also, understanding helps to know when the piece of information in your book would apply in an actual game. Memory of course has its purpose, but my point is understanding is more important and will actually help you to consistently make good moves and plans.

But if they sucked at chess the prepartion they were memorizing would naturally suck as well...

And then once they got their "advantage" they'd probably then throw it away. It's only because they're so good that they can benefit so much from an opening advantage.