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

I didn't say what would happen if he played a 2400. I'm saying IF a 2400 went back in time, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. I'm saying it's not possible to judge Morphy as the best when his opponents weren't so bad (relatively speaking).

And I think people misunderstand when they talk about opening theory as if that's what makes people good. All of chess has advanced. Opening, middlegame, endgame, attack, defense, and all sorts of strategic concepts.

Well, I do appreciate and respect the opinions of a titled strong player (as opposed to he rest of amateurs), Rumo, but I can reverse the argument on you...

What do you know about the playing strength of an all-time great super-GM? That he can see all sorts of crazy subtle stuff that you can't, but you do understand it after it is too late? Me, too.

Anyway, I find it quite interesting that the Morphy detractors in this thread think that playing strength has very little bearing on the ability to judge another player's... uhhh... playing strength. If opinions of stronger players carry any weight, and for that reason you do not want to take my opinions seriously, then you can take those of the former world champions that BlunderLots quoted.

If you don't believe them, then I invite you to believe me, because I am quite possibly 3200 strength in theoretical discussions that can never be proven.

Dominance is dominance in any competitive field.

Regardless, I would like to hear more from other opinionated, but strong, players (not the politically correct players afraid to voice a strong opinion).

In regards to the endgame loss against Lowenthal—it's extremely unlikely that Morphy, such a calculating machine as he was, would've missed the obvious drawing line there—simply moving the king back and forth (and, if black moved to the other side of the board, simply moving the white king to c3 and shuffling it back and forth there). More likely he saw all of this right away, but didn't want the draw—and played an inferior move instead.

But why? Was it to see if he could catch Lowenthal in a mistake? Was it because Morphy didn't know any better? Or was it a throw-away out of kindness, to grant Lowenthal a minor win, in a match where Morphy was clearly dominating?

At this point in the match, Morphy was ahead a whopping 5-1. The match was for 100 pounds (a considerable amount of money, in those days). Morphy, affluent as his family was, had little need for the money, while Lowenthal's only source of income was his chess.

Whatever Morphy's reason for botching the ending (intentional, experimental, or blunder), after winning the match, Morphy, a gentleman as always, gifted Lowenthal with new furniture for his home, valued at 120 pounds—more than the sum of his winnings.

Which leads me to think that the botched endgame was a gift, too, for Lowenthal's peace of mind.

Sometimes the kind thing is to let your respected opponent win a game or two, especially if you know the outcome is already a foregone conclusion. :)

But ... but ... but if people followed this advice, these forums would be empty!

Fischer chose Morphy to emulate, as was the tradition of all students of Jack Collins, who would have his students select a player to play after. If you want to see a modern Morphy, bestowed with positional thunder, watch Fischer, it's about the closest thing you'll get.

I see what you are saying, Binary. I wonder if modern players transported to the 1850/60's times would prefer to play more quiet strategic lines against the gambit-happy romantics who (according to other authors) had just as much tactical skill as players these days.

One of my favorite games of all time is by Morphy, The one where he sac'd every single piece but the bishop, and rook, to win. I was aware of that mate many years ago, and never have I been able to match it in a game. I have played countless games. I even missed it in a TT exercise. What a player, is all I can say.

The great thing about speculating on things that can never happen is that you can never be proved wrong.

 

However there is the unfortunate corollary that you it never be shown to be right either.

 

Morphy was the best of his time, for a very short period.  But the legend of how and why that was (e.g. that he was the first player to understand the importance of rapid development) as propagated by Reti's private fantasies in his huge oversimplification of chess history (Masters of the Chessboard) is quite false.

 

Most of his flashy, combinative wins were against weak opponents outside of serious tournaments and matches and rarely against players of master class.  He generally beat those in the usual way ... by attrition, by squeezing, and often enough by finding fiendish tactical resources after being positionally outplayed.

 

@ BlunderLots: 

 

 I didn't say Morphy couldn't draw in his king and pawn endgame against Loewenthal, he was tryimg too hard to win his game against Loewenthal. Morphy did miss 53...c4, at times Morphy seem to get lazy and push wood around; you are experience tournament player, we at time push wood without really  any thought or plan, that is where a strong player gets in trouble with the weaker player, Morphy is like any human, there is time we are not into the right frame of mind to really give our best.

dannyhume wrote:

"... I find it quite interesting that the Morphy detractors in this thread think that playing strength has very little bearing on the ability to judge another player's... uhhh... playing strength."

There are lots of writings about Morphy. There have also been writings about identifying the greatest chess player of all time. You might see if you can find an example of a GM reacting to the Fischer "ultimate endorsement" by saying that we should believe it.

dannyhume wrote:

"If opinions of stronger players carry any weight, and for that reason you do not want to take my opinions seriously, then you can take those of the former world champions that BlunderLots quoted. ..."

Do you feel that BlunderLots produced an example of a sentence from the last six decades that agreed with the Fischer "ultimate endorsement"?

By the way, I understand that there is now a Morphy Move By Move book available.

Telemir wrote;

I have study many great past masters but Lasker is right in his description of Morphy; for me is Lasker was underappreciated but his keen observation is completely correct.  

 

  "In Paul Morphy the spirit of La Bourdonnais had arisen anew, only more vigorous, firmer, prouder... Morphy discovered that the brilliant move of the master is essentially conditional not on a sudden and inexplicable realisation, but on the placing of the pieces on the board. He introduced the rule: brilliant moves and deep winning manoeuvres are possible only in those positions where the opponent can be opposed with an abundance of active energy... From the very first moves Morphy aimed to disclose the internal energy located in his pieces. It was suddenly revealed that they possess far greater dynamism than the opponent's forces." ~ Emanuel Lasker.   

 

 

Morphy did a lot analysis and annotated a lot games of La Bourdonnais, that is why Morphy's style is similar to La Bourdonnais, rapid development and center control. Morphy was appalled of Staunton's games and shun Philidor's ridiculous style, La Bourdonnais playing style is correct and dynamic, it was active and he believe in piece mobility; Morphy try to emulate that style, active and mobile piece play with center control.

Kasparov does not play like Morphy. Or Morphy's influence is extremely diluted. Kasparov does not even play romantic chess. Kasparov's attacks were searing but rarely did they exhude heat or beauty. Not the way Morphy's raw simplicity and efficiency of motion did, qualities very often attributed to Fischer. The clarity of Fischer's attacks was one contribution of Morphy, his will to win was perhaps another. Morphy may have well hated draws like Fischer. Seeing that lowenthal game made me think that could be the case. Both Morphy and Fischer also had similar life routes and fates. You know what I'm talking about. Oh and by the way, the player Kasparov chose was Alekhine. He later learned from others, but Kasparov clearly has an attacking style indebted to Alekhine. His tendency towards raw calculation is an outgrowth of this.

I know quite a bit about the strenght of GMs, because I played against dozens of them, one of them a two-times world championship contender. One is a good friend of mine, and yes, we also talked once about the absurd pseudo-religious belief in the omnipotence of past masters among hobby players. Anyway, I know their strenght and I've seen my share of games from the 19th century, it's just a completely different level. Of course people say Morphy was great, and they are right, but this greatness needs to be put into perspective of his time.

Fischer's judgement? Let me see, here is another Fischer quote: "Lasker...was a coffee-house player...(he) knew nothing about openings and didn't understand positional chess." Good for Murphy that he wasn't jewish.

And then there is Fischer's insistance that all matches between Karpov and Kasparov have been fixed. Do you believe that too, because Fischer was such a strong chess player?

Valery Salov is another elite-grandmaster and Fischer think-alike who believes in these fixed matches. He also believes that Carlsen is actually a shapeshifter, belonging to the evil reptilian race that lives in earth's inner core from where it controls humanity. Should I believe that too, because it's the judgement of an elite grandmaster?

Robert Fischer was seriously mentally ill.

You are correct as to certain delusions these strong players have, however...

Is Fischer a GM of conspiracy theory verification?
Is Saloy a GM on the supernatural capabilities of humans?

I don't take either's word on matters outside their area of strength, which is chess.

Ultimately, your buddy GM is another opinion amongst the mass of GM's that do or do not think Morphy was deserving of being in the discussion for the greatest ever. These are arguments based on authority and are not absolutely infallible. Nonetheless, some weight should be given to them since it is within their area of expertise.

Things also need to be clearer regarding what people mean when they say a player "greatest of all time"... Playing strength as in his games? Talent or potential level with equal time preparation (or a month, 2 months, 6 months, 2 years, etc.)? Chess960, where memorized openings are less helpful?

I think in general, it is difficult to judge anybody in any form of competition who was so dominant because later generations take for granted and assimilate what that player did, and therefore it makes the losers from that generation seem pathetically weak. And the stronger player probably doesn't feel the need be razor accurate for every move to prove to later generations that s/he could hang with them in these discussions and theoretical rival match-ups.

If a new guy came on the scene and won 70% of his games against the majority of modern GM's and then retired after a few years, would later generations dismiss Carlsen, Kramnik, Anand, and Kasparov as part of a "weak" generation of players, brought to light by the new dominant player? That is what all of you do when you call all those players from the times of Ruy Lopez, Greco, Philidor, La Bourdannais, Staunton, Anderssen, and Morphy weak?

It is an opinion of many strong GMs besides Fischer that Lasker was a "coffee house player". Also the Russians pulled lots of shit like the kind Fischer talked about with Karpov and Kasparov, you should read some of Jamie Delarosa's posts on this very forum. Maybe you're an FM, but you're also just another patzer running his mouth about Fischer.

Wow you guys are brutal.

Also I love a "coffee house player" was the longest running world champion of all time.

FM Rumo75 wrote: Fischer's judgement? Let me see, here is another Fischer quote: "Lasker...was a coffee-house player...(he) knew nothing about openings and didn't understand positional chess." Good for Murphy that he wasn't jewish.  

That was a nice shot of Fischer. ( " Good for Murphy that he wasn't Jewish.")  Fischer is wrong of Lasker, Lasker was amazing. Your point is well articulated , just because a strong grandmaster said so, doesn't mean it is correct. There could be bias in their claim and we must judge what they say is true and not blindly believe. Fischer one my favorite player but to believe everything he said is to be a simpleton. Morphy is another of my favorite player but too many players are deluded of his abilities; he was great in a short period of time and he would of lost to his comtemporaries eventually,a master cannot avoid not playing the best players and still retain his high skill level; that is being naive.

I think we are talking about the active Morphy of 1860 rather than the long-retired shoe-fetish Morphy of 1880.