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

Yureesystem,

How did that match with Morphy turn out for Anderssen? As I recall Anderssen won 2 lost 7 and 2 were draws. Which openings did Anderssen use in his wins? Evans Gambit and Andersen’s Opening. Which openings did Anderssen use in the draws? Ruy Lopez and Anderssen’s Opening. How did it go when Anderssen played the Sicilian? He lost. How did it go when Anderssen played 1 d4 he lost. Morphy also won one game against the Anderssen Opening.

Most of the games in the Morphy / Anderssen match were closed. Most of the game in the Morphy / Anderssen Match were positional struggles. And most of these game were won by Morphy. Paul Morphy beat Anderssen more time in closed games than he did in open games during their 1858 match. In 1858 Morphy was a much better positional player than Anderssen.

 H_Staunton wrote: Yureesystem,

How did that match with Morphy turn out for Anderssen? As I recall Anderssen won 2 lost 7 and 2 were draws. Which openings did Anderssen use in his wins? Evans Gambit and Andersen’s Opening. Which openings did Anderssen use in the draws? Ruy Lopez and Anderssen’s Opening. How did it go when Anderssen played the Sicilian? He lost. How did it go when Anderssen played 1 d4 he lost. Morphy also won one game against the Anderssen Opening.

Most of the games in the Morphy / Anderssen match were closed. Most of the game in the Morphy / Anderssen Match were positional struggles. And most of these game were won by Morphy. Paul Morphy beat Anderssen more time in closed games than he did in open games during their 1858 match. In 1858 Morphy was a much better positional player than Anderssen. 

Its hard to believe but Morphy was much stronger tactically than Anderssen.  

@ baptistpreach, exactly where is it flaw. You can't make a statement without back it up. 16. Ne8+ wins quicker, black king only as one square to go e7 and the next move is mate. So you don't agree with my annotation, back up with analysis. I was 1.e4 player for along time and so I know the standard lines and plus I look at Anderssen other games on Sicilian. You are only judging Anderssen on this game and he did have a deep understanding in the Sicilian its obvious the way he easily handle Morphy with Anderssen opening 1.a3. You want to prove your point show it on analysis and make comments, no engine analysis anyone can do that. Let see if you have some understanding on the games discuss above and other posted, I look forward to your analysis.

 baptistpeach wrote: you call Anderssen playing a sound Sicilian variation a mistake! Be more aware of their prowess before you assume so many errors. Beside that, in general most everything I read was also incorrect. 

 Its obvious you are not 1.e4 player. What is your otb rating? I been playing 1.e4  against experts and masters, draw one very strong master 2480 uscf and beat many experts and some masters otb, not some  over rated online duffers. So prove your argument, don't just make blanket statement about opening you don't know; if you knew the Sicilian you would of show it on analysis but you don't. Let me give you a clue, Fischer beat Taimanov in the candidate match, with similar line but Taimanov played better and lost to Fischer. So you don't know what you talking about. You can't transpose to Sveshnikov variation,I  try to make it work but black just gets a bad game.

There is a reason Fischer made Morphy his emulate. One must believe their emulate's way is correct. Such that I do for Tal, or Kasparov does for Alekhine,

Telemir wrote:

My teacher was trained by Jack Collins, who had a peculiar tradition of making his students choose an emulate. A player they wanted to play like. My teacher chose Capablanca, I chose Tal, Fischer chose Morphy. It is something they all took very seriously, and it is an especial tradition among the American players.

I was writing on my phone, so my apologies for being too general, if you'd like specifics, let me try again.  After move 4... you said, "The only move is 4... Nf6 and black get a playable game." If you search an opening database of games, you'll see that there are no less than 9 solid playable options. In fact, the  win % for Black of 4... Nf6 is 34.4% and the win % of 4 ... e6 is 32.8% You can see this for yourself if you'd like here(along with the other playable options:  http://www.365chess.com/opening.php?m=8&n=46&ms=e4.c5.d4.cxd4.Nf3.Nc6.Nxd4&ns=3.3.52.94.1390.47.46

And as to your comments about "a very bad move and Black will get a bad game etc..." They are simply wrong. Use a chess engine, don't try to ask my OTB rating, because neither of us are better than computers. Fact is that at move 7. Be3 - the chess.com computer has the score at -0.03 Which means the game is even! It was 7... f5 where he went wrong, and I agree with you there.

My favorite is your insistence that you found a move Morphy missed with 16. Ne8+. That is incredibly wrong, and in fact hands Black the WIN after 16.... Qxe8   17. Qxe8 Bb4+  18. c3 Rxe8 And Black is now up a piece and pawn. 

Also, I'm only an e4 player.

yureesystem,

You are right Anderssen never did play 1.d4 vs Morphy, I had confused Morphys match with Harrwitz and Morphys match with Anderssen

baptistpreach wrote:

H_Staunton wrote: yureesystem,

You are right Anderssen never did play 1.d4 vs Morphy, I had confused Morphys match with Harrwitz and Morphys match with Anderssen.  

I look at a lot games of Staunton, very impressive. Fischer had a lot favorable things to say about Staunton. I have fondness for past masters. 

Telemir wrote: My teacher was trained by Jack Collins, who had a peculiar tradition of making his students choose an emulate. A player they wanted to play like. My teacher chose Capablanca, I chose Tal, Fischer chose Morphy. It is something they all took very seriously, and it is an especial tradition among the American players. 

What a useful advice.  When I have going up in rating, two players emulated, Morphy and Fischer, Morphy sharp play and Fischer his aggresive style but soundness. These two players help me to improve chess skills, later on I add Alekhine, Capblanca, Nimzovitch and Karpov. Tal is great pick, he is also a great writer; his first match with Botvinnik and beautiful and instructive annotation, one my favorite chess books.

If "true magic" means hobby players being able to understand the games of the world's best players, then yes, this "true magic" is over indeed. Modern chess is so much more complicated that even for strong players it's difficult to understand what's going on during let's say a Kasparov game. 

After losing to Wesley So, Kasparov said that So's play reminded him of Morphy's.

"It reminded me of games Morphy played with amateurs—I was an amateur in this game!" — Kasparov

You look at Kasparov's moves in response to So—Garry did, in fact, look like an amateur playing.

Morphy had that same effect—he dismantled his opponent's position so ruthlessly that it made all his opponents look like they didn't even know how to play chess.

Wow, that's high praise form Kasparov. Was this during the Sinquefield Cup?

best player ever

Paul Morphy still wouldn't be better than the G.O.A.T Magnus Carlsen even if he had stockfish to prepare. Face it, Magnus is, and always will be better.