Sometimes people have bad games irrespective of how brilliant they are; why should Morphy be any different?
I agree. For anyone who has read "my 60 memorable games" recall Walther-Fischer. Fischer was busted in about 17 moves, and he was lucky to draw. (for those that haven't read it, READ IT!!)
This game was played in london in July 1958.
1859 perhaps?! if morphy was playing in 1959 no wonder that game sux, he would have been dead for almost 100 years! now victor korchnoi on the other hand could have been the medium through which morphy played, i think he did some spiritual experiment to channel the ghost of morphy...
Heh... ya, he must have just made a typing error. Look at the first post. The game clearly says 1858.
oh yea...my bad!
Korchnoi was conducting a CC via seance with the spirit of Maroczy (died 1951). I remember Korchnoi saying the opponent's game was very good and sound, though old fashioned.
I don't remember any result but does that make a difference? Lol.
Sorry yes that should be 1858 not 1958.
Morphy like any champion could not win every game.
Also Barnes was a top english player at the time.
As for the rating i dont think 2700,the strenght of the other players would have been low by todays standards.
But morphy shone out of a average group of chess players.
If morphy was a player today with computer databases and stronger players to play,would he still be as good? who knows.
Professor Elo calculated the 2700 historical rating. Perhaps some of the posters here don't understand his methods or what a rating means? It doesn't represent objective strength that spans many decades and allows one to compare Morphy with Kasparov. It is a measurement of relative dominance over his peers.
Jeff Sonas has done the same thing on his site. Not Elo ratings but Chessmetric numbers.
You can read about Thomas Wilson Barnes HERE.
Chessmetrics ranks Barnes #9 in the world in 1860 with a rating of 2489.
This particular game was given in Shibut's book as Game 174 and in Maroczy's book as Game 114.
When Morphy first arrived in England, he played Barnes a series of 26 games (Morphy 19, Barnes 7). During the first ten games, they alternated wins. This surprising occurrence led many spectators to believe that Morphy's reputation had been greatly overstated.
Morphy considered Samuel Standidge Boden his strongest English opponent.
Morphy had just arrived in England the third week of June after an arduous steamer ride and was probably feeling the effects of the journey as well as the discomfiture of being alone in a strange land away from home and unsure of what to expect - not to mention under the pressure of having to prove himself to masters, the strength of whom he had almost never met OTB. Then Barnes brings out an opening Morphy may have never seen before, or possibly seen but discarded. I don't find the loss surprising. Rather, I find his resilience and fortitude to come back and win the series convincingly quite amazing.
Thanks batgirl!
so what if he lost...he'd still destroy most of us.
Because Morphy is one of the most overrated players ever. He never played anyone half decent.
Anderssen and Harrwitz both were decent indeed.
Both very good for the time, and Anderssen is one of the greats.
Professor Elo calculated the 2700 historical rating. Perhaps some of the posters here don't understand his methods or what a rating means? It doesn't represent objective strength that spans many decades and allows one to compare Morphy with Kasparov. It is a measurement of relative dominance over his peers.
Jeff Sonas has done the same thing on his site. Not Elo ratings but Chessmetric numbers.
I know some of you will find this hard to believe, but the ancient Greeks had numbers and used them quite frequently!
Of course Morphy has a rating, and it's possible to calculate it. A rating is just an indicator of how strong the player is within their population. Morphy's 2680 wouldn't compare to a 2680 of today, but they would be at an equal placement within the populations of all Chess players during their time period.
Of course Morphy has a rating, and it's possible to calculate it.
I think it's possible to assign a number relative to other players in his time and juxtapose it againt players not of his time, but I think any rating "calculation" will be quite flawed, due to several factors we can get into if you wish, and quite debatable, unlike ratings today which are pretty definitive, at least in comparing contemporaries.
Of course Morphy has a rating, and it's possible to calculate it.
I think it's possible to assign a number relative to other players in his time and juxtapose it againt players not of his time, but I think any rating "calculation" will be quite flawed, due to several factors we can get into if you wish, and quite debatable, unlike ratings today which are pretty definitive, at least in comparing contemporaries.
well said.
Where the heck did you get Morphs rating from? That must be fake, and that leads me to believe the game may be fake also?
Wrong. Thomas Wilson Barnes was well known for using strange moves to confuse his opponents. This game was actually played, and you can find analysis of this online. His rating during this time was calculated after his death.
Exactly! I've been arguing this over and over again, I'd say that Morphy doesn't qualify for the Esteemed Four best players (Carlsen, Fischer, Capablanca etc.) as his competition at the time was quite bad
... the book "Baroque Chess" (I forget the name of the author). ...
Baroque Chess Openings by Wincor
This game was played in london in July 1958.
In the book Morphy's Games (by P.Sargeant pub by Dover)it is on page 239 under the chapter heading "casual games".
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1266586
Wow. worst morphy game EVUR! i'm thinking this was one of those games where he played blindfolded.=P