I have red some chess books and my rating went up, not down...
Morphy was an overrated CAVEMAN PATZER
Sort:
Morphy is not so easy to judge, he beat great masters Paulsen, Loewenthal, Harrwitz, Barnes and Anderssen. Yes, he made blunders like any masters and GMs but his overall quality is was pretty good, he has 84% winning ratio. In the Paulsen vs. Morphy, Paul improve on move 8... Qh4 ? and his brilliant move 8...Qf6 ! gives black the advantage. Morphy's blindfold incredible skill , playing blindfold against five masters in England, 2 wins, 2 draws and 1 lost. Morphy was no patzer but had GM strength, no IM or GM have the ability to play against five strong masters with good results like Morphy.
Morphy's romantic style, which was the regular style during the era, was what he used. He doesn't care too much about his opponent, just goes straight in for the attack. He is good at what he does, which is sacing and mating.
Boyangzhao wrote:
Morphy's romantic style, which was the regular style during the era, was what he used. He doesn't care too much about his opponent, just goes straight in for the attack. He is good at what he does, which is sacing and mating.
I wish I were good at mating.
Jan 17, 2017
0
#46
Boyangzhao escribió:
Morphy's romantic style, which was the regular style during the era, was what he used. He doesn't care too much about his opponent, just goes straight in for the attack. He is good at what he does, which is sacing and mating.
Every decent 2200 USCF player can find those combinations.
Jan 17, 2017
0
#47
yureesystem escribió:
Morphy is not so easy to judge, he beat great masters Paulsen, Loewenthal, Harrwitz, Barnes and Anderssen. Yes, he made blunders like any masters and GMs but his overall quality is was pretty good, he has 84% winning ratio. In the Paulsen vs. Morphy, Paul improve on move 8... Qh4 ? and his brilliant move 8...Qf6 ! gives black the advantage. Morphy's blindfold incredible skill , playing blindfold against five masters in England, 2 wins, 2 draws and 1 lost. Morphy was no patzer but had GM strength, no IM or GM have the ability to play against five strong masters with good results like Morphy.
Patzer may have been too much but he certainly isnt the god everyone praises.
His blinfold skills were good, but he sucked at chess anyways!
BronsteinPawn, I would agree that Steinitz and Lasker was much better player than Morphy. I will also agree that Janowski was under appreciated, he was incredible GM and his calculation was superb.
Jan 17, 2017
0
#49
yureesystem escribió:
BronsteinPawn, I would agree that Steinitz and Lasker was much better player than Morphy. I will also agree that Janowski was under appreciated, he was incredible GM and his calculation was superb.
See, Morphy was obviously good, but he was not a chess god.
Cool to see someone agree with me, maybe we will be all able to agree on this and live like BROTHERS 
Jan 17, 2017
0
#50
Morphy would have destroyed Steinitz in a match but Lasker could have given him a game.
Jan 17, 2017
0
#51
urk escribió:
Morphy would have destroyed Steinitz in a match but Lasker could have given him a game.
What makes you believe that?
Janowski and Tarrasch would of crush Morphy in a match, look at Janowski's games in London 1899 and Tarrasch had better understanding of chess than Morphy, sorry to burster your bubble Morphy fans; Morphy positional skills was limited and endgame lacking, Steinitz would crush Morphy, look what he did to Chigorin.
Jan 17, 2017
0
#53
Morphy had a huge plus score against Anderssen, who had a plus score against Steinitz.
Morphy and Steinitz both played Bird, and Bird said that Morphy was far better.
Computer analysis shows that Steinitz blundered a lot more than Morphy.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that Steinitz could have held his own with Morphy. There would have been a lot of Steinitz resignations.
Morphy and Steinitz both played Bird, and Bird said that Morphy was far better.
Computer analysis shows that Steinitz blundered a lot more than Morphy.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that Steinitz could have held his own with Morphy. There would have been a lot of Steinitz resignations.
urk wrote:
Morphy had a huge plus score against Anderssen, who had a plus score against Steinitz.
Morphy and Steinitz both played Bird, and Bird said that Morphy was far better.
Computer analysis shows that Steinitz blundered a lot more than Morphy.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that Steinitz could have held his own with Morphy. There would have been a lot of Steinitz resignations.
Morphy and Steinitz both played Bird, and Bird said that Morphy was far better.
Computer analysis shows that Steinitz blundered a lot more than Morphy.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that Steinitz could have held his own with Morphy. There would have been a lot of Steinitz resignations.
Steinitz tended to play a lot of experimental moves in his tournaments.
Jan 17, 2017
0
#56
As far as I know Morphy declined a rematch against Anderssen.
Why should we trust Bird?
Steinitz was blundery to the end of his career in his matches against Lasker, but I never saw too many blunders in the games when he was younger.
Jan 17, 2017
0
#57
urk escribió:
Janowsky and Tarrasch also would have been annihilated by Morphy.
What makes you think that?
Jan 17, 2017
0
#58
You know who Steinitz once lost a tournament game to?
Charles Maurian!!
HAHAHAHA
Charles Maurian!!
HAHAHAHA
Jan 17, 2017
0
#59
Janowski was a tactical beast, his games were simply fantastic. I put him in higher regard than Morphy.
See, my theory is right, American media portrayed Morphy as a god and brainwashed manny innocent guys like @urk.
What? That is complete trash. Lol.