Morphy vs. Modern GMs

Elubas... actually, one thing that clearly seems to separate talent and non-talent is specifically memory. This has been studied. A non-talent patzer like me is pre-disposed to store chess positions in short term memory which is constantly overwritten and rarely stored. Talented chess types seem to default chess positions into the longer term memory. They solve a position once -- and remember it. Patzer are doomed to make the same mistakes over and over they just don't retain it like the talented do. There's more to chess than that of course, but this memory stuff has been studied -- it's something strong players can do -- they remember their games. They remember last year's games. They remember their prep... I think it was Sam Shankland but maybe it was another chess.com IM who was recently blind-sided by Ray Robson on like move 25(!) ... in the post mortem Robson said... "oh yeah I came across this position with my computer sometime ago and I noticed it gave move x a strong evaluation"  -- People mention these sucky amateurs  "who are booked up to move 25"  but otherwise can't play chess because they don't know "ideas".Well, you can spot them easily at tournaments because they  always arrive riding unicorns: They don't exist. No patzer is in book at move 25, or he's not a patzer -- if he's got the memory to stay in his book 25 moves deep he's got a gift that is going to warp-speed his progress!  GMs will regularly tell you what game they are following to what move and where the critical branch is -- they seem to have entire mini-databases in their brains... most of us with normal chess memories struggle a good bit to replay from memory a 40 move game we just finished.

I'm not saying a strong chess memory is the only thing needed -- it's not a sufficient condition... but it is a necessary condition.

Sorry guys, you have it wrong.  Memory aids a player, but it is not the single most important factor.  Talent is.  Without talent, I don't care how much you memorize, you will not be a strong player.  Talent is the single most important quality in any endeavor, not just chess.  That is why most strong players will stress understanding over memorization.  With understanding, there is little need for memory--although a good memory coupled with understanding will help the higher you progress as a player.  But it is talent that is necessary to be strong--memory without talent is like a parrot repeating without knowing. 

Well, at first I was thinking, "I totally disagree", because of my experience that when I understood things they stuck with me, and when I saw tactics they'd stick in my head, but now I wonder if maybe that's because I'm one of those people with talent who can store many patterns in my brain. I never used to think I had talent, but ever since I had a mature approach to the game I have been improving extremely quickly (although when I tried getting better at a younger age that didn't work, but I wasn't very determined), and things have just been starting to click. And of course I'm still very young, with plenty of opportunity to improve further.

Not long ago I thought I didn't have the mind to be a very strong chess player, who comes up with so many creative ideas, but these days I have been starting to come up with creative ideas I never thought I could before and now I think my love of analyzing stuff fits in very well to finding strong ideas in a chess game. I have had to put in lots of work, but I seem to get rewarded pretty quickly.

o contriare, capablanca was the best, ok? he went EIGHT years without losing, in which he played lik 150 tournaments

You always seem to miss my point.

You have to memorize good moves and be able to convert the position! Working backwards, you can only get those "good" moves from strong preparation, and you can only get that strong preparation with good chess skill and understanding to find the right moves you plan on playing.

In the high level game, the memory may carry out most of the work, but you had to do a lot beforehand, which requires actual chess knowledge. Without that, what would you do? Just look in a book written by some lesser GM and memorize that? Probably not if you're playing for a world championship!

Look, if you want to be technical, obviously chess would be impossible to be good at if you never remember anything.

Is that all you mean? If so I'd have to agree with such a trivial point.

All I was saying is that memorizing random concepts is relatively pointless if you don't understand it. Those ideas in a book, you need to understand them to really use them, but if you're being technical, sure you couldn't understand the point of a concept if you don't have the concept in your head. Does this mean memorizing a ton of random book will get you good results? No. And the good moves they come up with to memorize wouldn't be there if they didn't understand the game.

Do you disagree with this point?

To rdecredico:

I agree that "modern chess at high levels" requires that you must have an excellant memory in order just to be competitive, but they would not have reached that level without an extraordinary level of talent to match.  You must have talent to succeed at any profession.  Talent comes first; memory supports, but does not replace, talent.  Computers have their "talent" uploaded by their programmers, as well as their opening books.  But even these machines will play TNs because they evaluate positions on their merits and decide on a move according to their programming, not their openings book.  You can completely erase their opening book and you will not notice a severe decrease in playing strength (unless you are a GM--I'm not).  So, while memory has it's place and importance, so does others, like calculation and judgement.  Either one I put on the same level as memory--they are important, but they only support talent, they do not replace it.  And if you have the talent to reach the top 1% of chess players in the world, you will need healthy doses of memory, calculation, judgement, planning, and homework just to remain there for a little while.  But without talent, you will not get there.  I know dozens of players who think that because they can spit out the first twenty moves of a Ruy or KID that they are master class.  But they've never broken 1600.  Talent rules.

Forget memory.  Except for possibly Maroczy, it's more important to be alive. Without that, memory means nothing.

So basicly, memory is the most important aspect in chess, cause without it you won't remember the way to the club.

Good point

Although, I'd say being alive is even more important, if you aren't alive you can't play chess.

So it seems memory isn't the most important at all, being a living human being is.

Yes, well, someone without a brain will fail at mental functions.  I'll agree with that. 

But we are assuming that each individual brain is working properly here--no brain, no chess.  When you speak of red-herring arguements, look at yourself, too.  As Fischer, "I know many players who work hard and have a will to win, but they don't have the talent to be a great player."  As I said before, memory will only get you so far--you must have talent.  A parrot reciting "E=mc2" will not understand Einsteinian physics.  You can recite from memory all day, but it will not help in understanding what is said.  Or played.  In your arguement, a tape recorder is as intelligent as the person who operated it.  Sorry, that doesn't cut it with me.  Without the intelligence (talent) to place those memories in proper context, all you have are visions of the past.  You must be able to see the future in order to be competetive at the highest levels, and memory has little to do with that. 

Without memory every day is a new experience.

What was this thread about, I forgot ?

Actually, you have a much higher rating than I, so you must have a much better memory. . . yet you apparently missed the point of my original posting although you remembered it precisely.

OK, so now you are going to absurd lengths to prove a point that is minor, by comparison.

Study's have shown that dogs, for instance, remember things for @5-10 minutes.  That's it.  Your reference to muscle memory is not valid; there are no synapses in muscles, just nerve cells, that transmit data to the brain.  Since molecules have no central nervous system, and you brought up bullsh*t, your comparison of a chemical reaction to a functioning brain is bullsh*t.  Your entire arguement consists of, "Without a memory, we are nothing and have nothing."  Red herring, again.  Without life, you don't have anything.  So memory IS NOT the most important thing for anything; life is.  And amobea do not memorize, they react to the chemical stimuli of their environment.  You want to go absurd, there is your refutation.  But to succeed at ANYTHING, you must have talent.  As I have stated repeatedly here, memory has a part, but only a part.  There is no single criteria of "one-size-fits-all" here.  "Survival of the fittest" belongs to those with the ability (talent) to survive, not the rote memorization of the surroundings.  And one final point: language is not memory, it is understanding the noises made.  To learn another language, one must understand the words.  Speak to me in English and I will understand.  Speak to me in Navajo and I don't understand.  And every language course will tell you to understand the language you are studying, and that memory aids in the ability to understand.

A dog will recognize a family member whom it had not seen for many months.

To rdecredico

But conscious human memory is EXACTLY what we are talking about here.  I am not aware of animals playing chess (except for batgirl's publication of the crab), nor molecules playing chess, nor individual muscles.  We are talking about humans.

You are entirely focused on your thesis statement--we are only memory.  It has validity, but not an over-riding one.  Sultan-Kahn was illiterate and became GM strength by understanding the relationship between pieces and pawns.  No memorization execpt individual games.  He had incredible talent and no "book" knowledge of chess.  So how do you explain that?  H.N.Pillsbury had an incredible memory, but he never gained the title.  Capablanca won the championship of Cuba at age 12 without ever having read a chess book.  If you want to argue chess, argue chess.

But again I see you talking about "muscle memory" as if my muscles study every night.  It is a reaction to external stimuli, nothing else.  It is the same for genetic memory--a reaction to external stimuli.  The lattice-work structure of chrystalline materials is not due to memory, but chemistry.  Stop thinking that inert materials have human characteristics.  If you want to project human characteristics on inert materials, be my guest, but don't be offended if the rest of us do not.

I picture Morphy as Leonardo Da Vinci. For his time, he was extremely good. But if he was up against some of the people nowadays, he may still be considered a "grandmaster", but I doubt he would beat someone like Kasparov, Fischer or Anand.

I think a modern day Joe Average GM is better than Morphy.

I think what would be interesting is to see if Morphy could out analyze Joe Average GM. I don't think the modern game would appeal all that much to Morphy.

Well, apparently he didn't even bother to read most of the limited chess literature that was available in his day, so it is hard to see him spending his days memorizing lines in the Slav and analyzing with Rybka.