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

IMO, Morphy would be a terror to face for most of today's masters, had they been born in his era.

Most players don't reach 2200+ without a lot of effort, practice, and study. A lot of losing, learning, and rising through the ranks. These days, it's done it with the help of modern theory, instructional books, and engines, too.

As far as history (or perhaps legend) has it, Morphy didn't need any of that. He would probably have considered such devotion to chess a huge waste of time, even.

For him, it was seemingly simple: just glance at the board and play strong chess.

Who needs engines or books, or databases to review, when you can simply play masterful chess through intuition alone? :P

No, fact is rather that the list is fabricated, because no GMs and IMs in their right minds would come to results like that. That is obvious to anyone who studied chess seriously, take it or leave it.

And your question about modern top players born in the 19th century is completely speculative. But from a statistical point of view, it is of course highly likely that many current top players would have been better than Morphy. Because today there are thousands of serious tournament players, while back then it was a handful.

very well said

Morphy like Fisher, Fisher like Morphy

Shimanizde wrote:

Morphy like Fisher, Fisher like Morphy

Both played little chess after climbing to the top, both went crazy afterwards.

Both likely had the intelligence-boosting version of the DAARP-32 genome, which scientists now believe contributes to enhanced cognitive abilities (in some: genius-level), but also a higher risk for developing schizophrenia.

(Google "DAARP-32 genius insanity" for some fun/nerdish research. :P )

This appears to be a commonly repeated myth. As early as the 1870s, Steinitz was indicating that he had a right to be considered world champion. This is mentioned in the recent Steinitz Move by Move book and, if I remember correctly, the Oxford Companion.

It was Staunton (not Steinitz) who refused to play a match against Morphy in 1858. His explanation was that he was working on an edition of Shakespeare (not chess pieces). He really was working on a substantial Shakespeare project, but there is reason to believe that at least a short match would have been possible.

Lawson's Morphy biography indicated that Morphy acquired a few chess books in 1853. Lawson included a report of a Maurian quote:

"... During the two years that we remained at college together, Morphy played a considerable number of games with me at odds gradually diminishing as I improved. ... Mr. Morphy had the following Chess books with him, the only ones, as far as I know that he ever possessed until the New York Chess Congress in 1857. Horwitz and Kling's Chess Studies, which he pronounced a very good and useful book for students, although not free from error; the B. Vols composing the collection of Kieseritzky's La Regence, and Staunton's Chess Tournament. ..."

I actually like Morphy, not as a god, no man is a god. I also wonder why everyone gets in such debates to begin with, I think people get too hung up on their personal opinions sometimes.

It is possible that if Morphy would have been born in our time, he could have been great, can that be proven, no. It can't be disproven either. Its totally speculative. No need to argue about it. I liked Morphy as well, He is probably my all time favorite player. However, some of the things you may read might not even be true, its through someone elses perspectives, and eyes, etc. I personally don't think he had a mental illness, unless it was Alzhiemers/dementia, later in his life. It wasn't even known of back then.

I personally think he didn't have a lot of choice in retiring from chess, because of family reasons. Family comes before other things. Especially at that time. I was in a similar situation. I personally consider my family more important than myself. Maybe some don't, or can't understand that today though. Some couldn't back then either.

Thing about Morphy was: the guy didn't spend his time studying chess. Not like today's masters do. By most accounts, Morphy rarely, if ever, worked on his chess playing. He didn't seem interested in studying it, or practicing it—not to any degree comparable to today's daily players, anyway. Nor did he really need to.

He was, by most accounts, a natural master—a player who simply understood how to play master-level chess intuitively, without any sort of training or study necessary—which is practically unheard of today.

Even his uncle, who watched Morphy learn how to play the game, attested that Morphy had never once read a single book about chess, but merely learned the rules of the game by watching his family play it, then played using his own intuition and imagination—at a staggering level. And that was only once a week—on Sundays—the only day Paul's father allowed him to play chess.

The rest of the time, Morphy pursued his studies. Chess, for Paul, was, apparently, an intermittent hobby at best. He played it one day a week, for a few hours each time, against family and friends only. This was the extent of his exposure with chess, before his uncle began pushing him to play against people outside the family. And thus began Paul's dominance over the world of chess. 

Did Morphy get outplayed sometimes? Sure. He hardly played chess very much, (relatively speaking), so of course he ran into positions that were new to him at the time. Strategic ideas that he hadn't thought of until then. But take a close look at those rare games where Morphy got outplayed—then look at the games following that. You'll see that Morphy quickly adapted—improving his play on the spot. Winning once again.

The guy was brilliant, in my opinion. To me, he's a prime example of what can happen when someone with a tremendous IQ applies his mind to chess—even if only for the briefest of times.

CrimsonKnight7 wrote:

... I personally don't think he had a mental illness, unless it was Alzhiemers/dementia, later in his life. It was even known of back then."

"I personally think he didn't have a lot of choice in retiring from chess, because of family reasons. Family comes before other things. Especially at that time. I was in a similar situation. I personally consider my family more important than myself. Maybe some don't, or can't understand that today though. Some couldn't back then either."

Morphy's paranoia was written about by the psychiatrists of his day. It was rather textbook. He believed people were out to get his money and became a recluse.

Morphy did not retire because of family. He never married. He retired to practice law. He had finished his studies early and could do nothing in his chosen profession for a year and a half and so went abroad to play chess. Morphy never considered himself a professional chess player. He considered himself to be a lawyer. In his day, professional chess players were looked down upon.

Who cares that Steinitz what Steinitz thinks or claims of himself as the champ after Morphy retired? Especially when common opponents of him and Morphy said Morphy was better. Steinitz is Tommy Gunn to Morphy's Rocky (V) Balboa.

Flashes of genius? You mean the kind that allowed Morphy to thoroughly dominate every master who was willing to play him in a manner that no one ever has or ever since? People fault Morphy for TOYING with the world's best using second rate moves against second rate players using second rate openings ... How many others can win so consistently in that manner? None. Everyone nowadays freaks out about toilets and their "preparation" being bootlegged.

The arguments against Morphy are akin to saying "That team isn't that great... the only reason they won 5 consecutive championships in complete blowout fashion is that they have a strong defense."

A player of any rating or even a non-chess-player who can see how dominant Morphy was and see that no other champ dominated like he did.

And for those who do play and think they understand the game at a higher level to judge, tell that to Bobby F-ing-ischer, who may have been a lunatic but certainly not when it comes to chess analysis, who gave Morphy the ultimate endorsement... this coming from a guy who himself couldn't break 2800 because the competition, which included several former world champions and candidates, was too weak for him.

If Magnus wins 70+% of his games against each of Karjakin, Caruana, Nakamura, Kramnik, Anand, etc., would people not think he might be the greatest?

You all make it sound like it was so easy for anyone to dominate chess masters back in those days, like those masters were merely Category 2 horsecrap, but only ONE player dominated without the tools, coaching, systematic training, or tournament playing regimens of today or, more shockingly, of his day.

I mean... come on.

BlunderLots wrote: 

Did Morphy get outplayed sometimes? Sure. He hardly played chess very much, (relatively speaking),"

"The guy was brilliant, in my opinion."

Actually, Morphy played a lot of chess during his brief chess career. He was a sensation and nearly everyone wanted to play with him. His most famous game, the Opera game, was played against two noblemen while he was busy watching "The Barber of Seville". They couldn't even leave the poor guy alone to watch his opera play!

I totally agree - Paul Morphy was undoubtedly brilliant, particularly when compared to others like Adolf Anderssen who was a chess genius in his own right in his day. Morphy had stood head and shoulders over the best of his day.

Lady, You consider being married the only type of family one may have.

What about brothers, sisters, mother, and father ? Psychoanalysts of his day, which many quite frankly weren't anything but quacks, Snake oil salesman, and charlatans. Just like today. Also going by Freud's work, is nothing but theoretical suppositions. 

CrimsonKnight7 wrote:

"Lady, You consider being married the only type of family one may have.

What about brothers, sisters, mother, and father ? Psychoanalysts of his day, which many quite frankly weren't anything but quacks, Snake oil salesman, and charlatans. Just like today. Also going by Freud's work, is nothing but theoretical suppositions."

Morphy's parental family did not depend on Morphy. Sorry, but it was Morphy's choice not to "lower" himself to being a chess professional. Chess became a stigma to which added to his illness. He was forever known as a chess player and not a lawyer. He had trouble getting cases because people remembered him as a chess player and not a lawyer. They couldn't take him seriously. This is all from his biographer, and not some internet guy imprinting his own life experiences onto his idol. As for psychiatry, no, Morphy's doctors did NOT prescribe leeches, lol!

Back then especially, if something did happen to the father, the son was expected to be the man of the house. Not that they had to totally rely on him. Some areas in America at that time did strange things medically Lady, they even do strange things today. They used to perform lobotomies on some patients, and it wasn't that long ago. So please, his personal biographer or not. Also I do not Idolize Morphy. Nor have I ever.

In this thread, the author of post #12 seemed to care about what was claimed after Morphy retired. Consequently, it seemed reasonable to try to accurately perceive what was claimed during that time.

"... [Morphy's] real abilities were hardly able to be tested. ... We do not see sustained masterpieces; rather flashes of genius. The titanic struggles of the kind we see today [Morphy] could not produce because he lacked the opposition. ... Anderssen could attack brilliantly but had an inadequate understanding of its positional basis. ..." - GM Reuben Fine

Again, in 1858, the chess world was so amazingly primitive that players still thought tournaments were a pretty neat idea.

Does good move ability necessarily equate to ability to predict how player A from one time would do against player B from another time? Has there been any GM in the last six decades who has agreed with Fischer's "ultimate endorsement"?

Doesn't sound easy to me:

"... He could combine as well as anybody, but he also knew under what circumstances combinations were possible - and in that respect he was twenty years ahead of his time. ... Morphy remains one of the giants of chess history. ..." - GM Reuben Fine

It just seems different from "ultimate endorsement".

"... Morphy became to millions ... the greatest chess master of all time. But if we examine Morphy's record and games critically, we cannot justify such extravaganza. And we are compelled to speak of it as the Morphy myth. ..." - GM Reuben Fine

CrimsonKnight7 wrote:

"Back then especially, if something did happen to the father, the son was expected to be the man of the house. Not that they had to totally rely on him. Some areas in America at that time did strange things medically Lady, they even do strange things today. They used to perform lobotomies on some patients, and it wasn't that long ago. So please, his personal biographer or not. Also I do not Idolize Morphy. Nor have I ever."

Still lots of projectionism going on, idol or not. If you want to alter historical and biographical statements to suit yourself, well, that's your business. Me? I take the biographer's statements over yours any day.

His chess moves were good... careful to quote him on anything else, even if it's chess.

Remember he also published a bust to the king's gambit... after losing to Spassky in a king's gambit. Yes he put Morphy, an American, as #1 ahead of Chigorin and Alekhine who he criticized.