As far as the articles claiming Morphy was paranoid, I don't believe them. Anyone can research what happened after the Civil War, in almost all Southern cities, and towns. Research the banks, and the scally wags. Also research medical history for yourself. Also womens rights back then, were practically non existent. Sons were expected to take over in case of family concerns. Many scammers were trying to rob everyone they could. Don't take my word for it, research it yourself.
Paul Morphy the greatest chess player A.K.A god of chess
Sort:
I'm of the persuasion that he has the makings of being the best who's ever lived. His level of natural ability has never been equalled. But it's nothing but pure speculation now. Im just glad to study his games today.
I like all the points made, including those that counter the claim.
Morphy's ability to "adapt on the spot", of course, would be more helpful in a longer match against anyone.
I think one x-factor in all this is Morphy's speed of play... Didn't he play much faster than his opponents? That could spell time trouble when out of book for any of his opponents, real and future theoretical.
Morphy's ability to "adapt on the spot", of course, would be more helpful in a longer match against anyone.
I think one x-factor in all this is Morphy's speed of play... Didn't he play much faster than his opponents? That could spell time trouble when out of book for any of his opponents, real and future theoretical.
@ BlunderLots, chess was rapidly advancing and new ideas were being innovating in the opening, and Morphy was falling behind, its not enough to be a tactical genius. Players like Paulsen, Chigorin,Pillsbury, Tarrasch Steinitz and Lasker would beat Morphy easily, their ideas were more advance than Morphy. Like I say we don't need to go to modern time to prove Morphy was lacking in skills to compete amoung his comtemporaries; opening do matter even in the mid-1800 to 1890s.
But only Paulsen was a contemporary of Morphy, not the others. And Steinitz did not formulate his ideas until after studying Morphy. Originally, Steinitz was an attacking romanticist and nicknamed the Austrian Morphy. Steinitz just missed Morphy in time, though he did get to visit the Louisianian once.
Meanwhile, Tarrasch, main proponent of the Modern school of chess, based his work on Steinitz's work. Tschigorin was a contemporary of Tarrasch, trying to reaffirm the Romantic school of chess. Pillsbury was not even born in 1857 and first made news at Hastings, 1895 when Morphy was long deceased. And Lasker a contemporary of Morphy??
BlunderLots wrote:
"... Whether he is the greatest (or could've been the greatest) is mostly a matter of personal opinion, and will always be hotly debated. ..."
By whom?
BlunderLots wrote:
"... I'm not sure if [Fine's] analysis of Morphy is completely credible. ..."
Where is there a GM who has agreed with the Fischer "ultimate endorsement" in the last six decades?
Sep 12, 2016
0
#108
yureesystem wrote:
Players like Paulsen, Chigorin,Pillsbury, Tarrasch Steinitz and Lasker would beat Morphy easily
Not sure I agree with that.
Though, a Morphy versus Chigorin match would've been a real spectacle to see!
H_Staunton wrote:
Cyrus Lakdawals in his book Fischer: Move By Move he list the results of an e-mail discussion by a number of GMs and IMs They ranked all the greats in a number of different categories.
For the Category "Strategic understanding and planning it was Morphy, Staunton, and Tarrasch. Carlson finished last, and Karpov was 3rd to last.
For the category "Intuition: it was Morphy, Capa, and Smysolw, Carlsen, was once again last and
For the category Tactical ability and combination all vision it was Anderssen, Morphy, and Alekhine, and Keres, Anand was last, Kasparov was 3rd to last.
For the category Feel for the initiative it was: Morphy, Alekhine,Keres, Karsparov, Anand, and Topalov were the bottom 3.
So according to these GMs and IMs Paul Morphy was either the best or second best in 5 of the 11 categories they looked at. ...
kindaspongey wrote:
H_Staunton wrote:
"Cyrus Lakdawals in his book Fischer: Move By Move he list the results of an e-mail discussion by a number of GMs and IMs They ranked all the greats in a number of different categories."
Here is some of what was actually written: "Fischer, the Greatest of them all? ... I don't really know what 'greatest' means, since there are so many categories. A few months ago, a group email discussion raged ... We agreed on the following categories (although I added a few) which constitute 'greatness': Creativity: Here, the greaatest may be Anderssen, Reti, ... Irrational positions: ... My candidates: Andersson, Lasker, ... Attacking ability: My candidates for greatest in this category would be Anderssen, Morphy, ..." At that point, Lakdawala continued with more categories and lists of names. I see NOTHING to indicate that Lakdawala was identifying a ranking of the greats resulting from the discussion. The next "category" was "Defence and counterattacking ability", and, after that, there was "Strategic understanding and planning".
H_Staunton wrote:
"... it was Morphy, Staunton, and Tarrasch. Carlson finished last, and Karpov was 3rd to last. ..."
The complete list was: "Morphy, Staunton, Tarrasch, Steinitz, Capablanca, Euwe, Botvinnik, Smyslov, Petrosian, Fischer, Karpov, Kramnik, Carlsen." Which seems more likely? (1) Without saying so, Lakdawala was providing a ranking from the discussion; or (2) Lakdawala was continuing to identify his own candidates in approximate chronological order?
H_Staunton wrote:
"... So according to these GMs and IMs Paul Morphy was either the best or second best in 5 of the 11 categories they looked at. ..."
I counted 13 categories, and I see nothing to indicate that Morphy's position in any of those categories was the result of a ranking from the discussion.
H_Staunton wrote:
"... Which categories did [Cyrus] add? In a few of the categories he clearly states that it is his list. Those are the categories that were added by Cyrus. ..."
The book does not say that.
H_Staunton wrote:
"... In my mind the second key is found in the first sentence of the first paragraph following the list. There Cyrus states: 'In my lists, Fischer leads in the categories' Since Cyrus speaks about his lists (more than one) it is not logical to assume that the proceeding list was one of his."
It does seem reasonable to me to assume that the proceeding listS were NOT in order of who leads. Fischer does not "lead" in the categories that you claim to have been added by Lakdawala.
H_Staunton wrote:
"The fact that Cyrus brings up the e-mail debate just before presenting the list also suggests that the list is the result of the debate. ..."
The book does not say that. It explicitly says otherwise for two of the lists and proceeds with more lists without saying they are any different.
https://www.everymanchess.com/downloadable/download/sample/sample_id/116/
@LadyMisil
Viewing Morphy's games purely on chess, he did study on the open game, especially on gambits where he excel in. Morphy handling on Ruy Lopez on black side is plain ugly, his game against Boden show Morphy lack of understanding in Ruy Lopez opening.
Underserve win by Morphy, if Boden would played positionally he would won. Fischer saying, " ...perhaps the most accurate player who ever lived." Is not true.
If Morphy is so accurate why did he lose an easy draw against Loewenthal.
Morphy lost because he was trying too hard to win in a draw position, he miss Loewenthal's move c4! winning the endgame.
@ yureesystem
And what does this have to do with your statement that Lasker and others were his contemporary? That is what I questioned. Not this.
Many wins in a chess game could be considered undeserved. Many people still believe luck isn't a factor at all. However anyone, and I mean anyone could miss something. Whether chess or not.
Morphy's comtemporaries, were masters he could of played but didn't, Steinitz and Lasker of would of been interesting match games. Too bad it didn't happen.
Teichmann70 wrote:
Morphy's genius is his natural ability to play super chess without books and study ...
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. ..."
Batgirls blog is loaded with info on Morphy. I would recommend it to posters, and members that aren't aware of it. Definitely check it out, if you haven't. Also lots of info on chess history in general, numerous games, and helpful advice for beginners. Womens history in chess as well. I really find her blog the best here concerning the history of chess.
Sep 13, 2016
0
#117
dannyhume wrote:
I am merely pointing out that someone who has played world champion chess at a dominant level in a more modern time sees nothing wrong with an assessment that acknowledges Morphy as the GOAT, and trying to contrast that with the patzers who outright deny the claim as completely baseless.
It's not baseless, I've seen his games. So have players much better than me.
Of course I can't judge Morphy's play, but his opponent's were often garbage. There's no basis to claim he's the best ever. Any 2400 with an all gambit repertoire would have appeared just as dominant (and probably more so).
Sep 13, 2016
0
#118
Hey was the goodest and the bestest I think. He played blind fold simuls when he was 9 if I remember correctly.
Binary, I have to disagree.
I think this is where the advances in opening theory cloud our judgments regarding chess skill.
I believe a modern stable 2400 player with a complete sound opening repertoire and who has memorized the entire ECO would get thoroughly routed by Morphy in a match.
I think this is where the advances in opening theory cloud our judgments regarding chess skill.
I believe a modern stable 2400 player with a complete sound opening repertoire and who has memorized the entire ECO would get thoroughly routed by Morphy in a match.
We are indebted to Louis Paulsen for his contribution on the opening theory, especially in the Sicilian defense. He use his ideas in Sicilian to deadly effect, most masters had no idea how to handle his opening innovation and he score easy wins. :) Here is one of his concept in the Sicilian, ... e5 wrongly giving credit to Boleslavsky.
Paulsen concepts in the opening would of been too much advantage and he would of beat Morphy in match, especially in the Sicilian defense. Every player should thank Paulsen for his contribution in the Sicilian defense, he innovated in all areas in the Sicilian, if you play the Dragon variation, that was Paulsen who came with those ideas. Paulsen was ahead of his time not Morphy, his ideas in the opening were very modern.