Paul Morphy the greatest chess player A.K.A god of chess

Nobody is likely to come along and have a notable chess career playing only players of the sort Morphy faced in 1857-8.

"I think that, after making a hurried study of modern openings, and watching one or two tournaments, the champions of the last century, and indeed the century before that, would very quickly occupy the same place that they occupied when they were alive."

Powned.

I would be curious to learn the source for the given remark by Bronstein.

I don't really care whether Morphy is 2300 or 2700... I'm just amazed that he got to whatever level he did with so little study and no one better than him to learn from. I just don't understand how someone gets to 2300 strength with very little chess study and only playing 1800 - 2000 players.

3047Beast wrote:

apparently, engines tell a different story.

seems like Morphy was a much more precise player than Steinitz.

 

 

 

 

 

If I was going to bet, my bet will be on Steinitz winning the match in 1866 and definitely on 1870. Morphy did not quit playing chess, he would definitely have good chances to beat Steinitz; it might of been the greatest match. My personal opinion, if Morphy continue to play his style would of been close to Pillsbury; dynamic play with sound judgement. Morphy would develop a better piece placement and pawn structure in the Ruy Lopez, possibly found better solution to the Queen pawn opening than Chigorin. Chess might of been more advance, the Sicilian defense might of been Morphy favorite and a weapon for tournaments and matches. 

Steinitz wouldn't have won, based on what common opponents said. What Steinitz did is to make explicit the modern principles of chess strategy, but these were already implicit in the play of stronger players... He did not come up with some new way of playing chess.

I can study music theory and say Mozart did this and this and this in his great compositions, but just because I can summarize and list many common elements in Mozart's compositions doesn't mean I can compose a piano concierto to the level of a 3 year old Mozart even if I tried to mimic those principles ... It is merely me saying "this is what great musicians tend to do when composing masterpieces". Such is with Steinitz. He was great because he was great, not because he codified some general principles by which masters tend to abide. But he was no Morphy.

Chess is ultimately calculation and pattern recognition, and Morphy could outdo everyone smashingly in this category WITHOUT playing stronger players as much as others had to in order to assimilate stronger playing habits.

Chess knowledge is not chess playing strength. Knowledge of chess knowledge is not chess playing strength. It is merely a summary wish-list that only training combined with genius can attain to the highest level of mastery.

Would you rather see 5 moves ahead with all the positional and book opening and endgame knowledge ever or see 7 moves ahead with little such knowledge? This is playing strength and geometrical mastery is why masters beat booked-up experts, super-GM's beat booked-up GM's in their openings, and why Carlsen can win against everyone with less emphasis on opening prep.

It's in the January edition of 1905. In Public Domain (since it was published before 1923): https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Lasker%27s_Chess_Magazine/Volume_1

"Paul Morphy was the greatest chess player that ever lived. Every student of the game, who has delved into the stories of the past, realizes that no one ever was so far superior to the players of his time, or ever defeated his opponents with such ease . . ." 

This was Chigorin against Steinitz, in the very first game of their WC rematch:

This kind of play makes me think that Morphy would've made quick work of Steinitz—as, in my opinion, Morphy was an even more devastating attacker than Chigorin was.

The major Steinitz chess activity was in the decades AFTER 1858. The famous Steinitz world championship successes were in 1886 and later (well after the death of Anderssen).

"... The great achievement of Steinitz was the creation of the positional game school and his discovery of chess strategy laws. At the beginning of his career he played like all his opponents, in an acute attacking manner. However, later Steinitz changed his style. He began to seek the collection of small positional advantages ... He displayed surprising fortitude and ingenuity in defense. ..." - Journey to the Chess Kingdom by Yuri Averbakh and Mikhail Beilin

"... there's a powerful law of diminishing returns in chess calculation, ... The human who can see two moves ahead has an enormous advantage over the human who can see only one move. But being able to see, say, seven moves ahead, rather than six, is of miniscule value ... Mastering chess ... requires a new set of skills and traits. ... Many of these attributes are kinds of know-how, such as understanding when to change the pawn structure or what a positionally won game looks like and how to deal with it. Some are habits, like always looking for targets. Others are refined senses, like recognizing a critical middlegame moment or feeling when time is on your side and when it isn't. ..." - GM Andrew Soltis (2011)

Everyone in 1857-8.

Interesting that Steinitz could barely beat Anderssen in the old romantic style, but is able to change his manner of playing to "strategic" "modern" chess and magically increase his playing strength 500 points, but somehow a more talented genius Morphy, who more easily destroyed a younger Anderssen, wouldn't be capable of adapting his style and would wilt to these magnified masters of the same generation of him who kept playing after he retired.

I invite all of you to read the Wikipedia entry on Morphy under "Playing Style". Some quotes...

"Today many amateurs think of Morphy as a dazzling combinative player... One reason for this is chess books like to reprint his flashy games... There are games where he did do this, but it was not the basis of his chess style. In fact the masters of his day considered his style to be on the conservative side compared to the flashy older masters like La Bourdonnais and Anderssen."

"Morphy can be considered the first modern player. Some his games do not look modern because he did not need the slow positional systems that modern grandmasters use, ..."

"He could play open games almost to perfection, but could handle any sort of position, having a complete grasp of chess years ahead of his time. Morphy was a player who intuitively knew what was best and in this regard he has been likened to Jose Capablanca."

"In an era before time control was used, Morphy often took less than an hour to make all of his moves while his opponents would need perhaps 8 hours or more."

"Lowenthal and Anderssen both later remarked that he was indeed hard to beat because he knew how to defend and draw or even win games despite getting into bad positions."

And of course "Fischer ... stated further that Morphy had the talent to beat any player of any era if given time to study modern theory and ideas."

No, ridiculous, he could only beat 1857-58 players (year or rating, take your pick). Stupid masters and grandmasters' opinions born before our parents don't count.

Instructive attack. Didn't look right to me at first actually, but the anchored knight and queen work well together against various defensive tries. For example the engine suggests 21...Qc7 but white is still better.

I want to go over the early WC matches, but I haven't yet, so it was a surprise to me this is part of my black repertoire up to move 8!

I don't know where this "500 points" thing came from, but the main point to made here is that we do not know what adapting Morphy would have done because his serious chess competition was in 1857-8.

I invite you to pick out the GM quotes from the last six decades.

Who has said that? Something that HAS been noted is an apparent shortage of GMs in the last six decades, saying that Morphy would be the best for all of post-1858.

Who has said that? The question is whether or not the opinion of last-six-decade GMs counts more.

Thanks!

 

Whoops. You win.

There has been some discussion concerning how well Mr. Morphy could adapt to todays playing style. I believe some insight into this can be gained from Paul’s match with Alter. But first a little history. After arriving in England Paul was visiting the St. George Chess Club. When Mr. Staunton arrived Paul challenged him to an “off hand game”. Mr. Staunton refused. Alter then agreed to play Paul. So Alter was the first person to play against Paul in England. The results were Paul 4 and Alter 1.

Paul’s first official match (in England) was with Herr Lowenthal, after which he agreed to play a match vs Alter at the odds of a Pawn and a Move. Alter was extremely confident that he would score a decisive victory. Why? “Alter was thoroughly acquainted with the peculiar nature of the pawn & move game” “Alter had been playing for months past at those odds (P&M) with Mr. Staunton holding his own against that gentleman and he considered that if he (Mr. S.) could not beat him certainly Morphy could not” From the book “Paul Morphy the Chess Champion” published in 1859. Paul on the other hand had very little experience at playing those odds. He had played a short match vs Mr. Stanley at the odds of a P&M while in New York after the First American Chess Congress.

How did the match end? Morphy 5 Alter 0. The author of the above referenced book then speculates that “This result seriously interfered with Mr. Staunton’s fixing a date for the commencement of the match between himself and Morphy.”

This is only one of several examples of Morphy’s ability to adapt to a different style of chess.

When Morphy arrived in England on June 21 and stayed at the Lowe Hotel, owned and operated by Edward Lowe, a respected chess player himself (his claims-to-fame were winning an even match from HA Kennedy and a P&2 match from Staunton, both about a decade earlier). Morphy played Lowe a series of 6 games, winning all of them.   Morphy then played Thomas Hampton at the St. George Club where Hampton was secretary.  Morphy and Barnes played Staunton and Owen (Alter) in two consultation games at Staunton's home, winning both. Then Morphy beat Barnes in a series of 26 games, 19-7.  Morphy made himself available to all comers at the various chess club but mainly at Simpson's.  It wasn't until July 3 that Morphy ever played John Owen - Alter- in a series of 3 off-hand games, winning 2 out of 3. They later played 2 more casual games even, Morphy winning both.  In mid July Morphy engaged Lowenthal in a match, winning +9-3=2.  In August, Owen, who was critical of Morphy's successes agreed to an official match at P&move  which Morphy won +5=2.  Rev. John Owen had agreed that if he lost that match, he'd play a second one at P&2 odds, but whenthe time came, he reneged on that agreement.

“I was both surprised and gratified when I read the announcement of Paul Morphy’s arrival... I wended my way to The St. George, feeling confident that I should find Morphy there, and after waiting a short time I had the pleasure of welcoming him to England…. To the fatigues of a first voyage across the Atlantic he did not appear to be in good fighting trim as when I had last seen him in New York. On Mr. Staunton’s arrival Paul Morphy asked him if he had any objections to playing an off-hand game… Mr. Staunton declined….The well-know amateur “Alter” offered himself as a sacrifice. “Alter” however was not the first to measure skill with the young American, the Secretary of the St. George’s Mr. Hampton having already played two game with him on a previous occasion. Morphy and “Alter” untimely effected a score of “Alter” 1 and Morphy 4. His next antagonist was Mr. Barnes”

The match with Barnes appears to be the same one as referenced by Batgirl as the final score was 17-9.

The above is from pages 55 and 56 of the Book Paul Morphy the Chess Champion. This book was written by a man who presents himself as a witness to the above events, and the book was published the following year.

So yes I misstated who was first to play Paul upon his arrival in England.

It is interesting to note that different accounts of Paul’s activities in England are not consistent. Batgirl I wonder if you would be willing to list your source of information on Paul Morphy’s visit to England.

David Lawson

I don't have Lawson's bio handy, but here is a scan from Sergeant's "Morphy's Game of Chess," p.22, concerning Morphy's record vs. Barnes - the series comprised of 26 games.  Morphy also drew a blindfold game vs Barnes (one of 8 in a simul at St.George's April 20, 1859):