It might interest you to know that Reuben Fine (whose life was long after Morphy had died) is the source for this story, and his book contained nothing to indicate where he got the idea. It has been conjectured that Fine misremembered something that he had read.
... 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?
Do you know of any GM statement in the last six decades that disputes that Morphy's 1857-8 opposition was much weaker than that of modern players?
... It is an opinion of many strong GMs besides Fischer that Lasker was a "coffee house player". ...
"Misunderstood Genius" - title of a chapter from the 2014 book about Lasker by GM John Nunn
http://www.gambitbooks.com/pdfs/John_Nunn's_Chess_Course.pdf
The womens' shoes myth stemmed from a misreading of Regina Morphy Voiter's, "Life of Paul Morphy" in which she wrote:
Now we come to the room which Paul Morphy occupied, and which was separated from his mother’s by a narrow hall. Morphy’s room was always kept in perfect order, for he was very particular and neat, yet this room had a peculiar aspect and at once struck the visitor as such, for Morphy had a dozen or more pairs of shoes of all kinds which he insisted in keeping arranged in a semi-circle in the middle of the room, explaining with his sarcastic smile that in this way, he could at once lay his hands on the particular pair he desired to wear. In a huge porte-manteau he kept all his clothes which were at all times neatly pressed and creased.
5 minutes ago · Quote · #158
batgirl wrote:
The womens' shoes myth stemmed from a misreading of Regina Morphy Voiter's, "Life of Paul Morphy" in which she wrote:
Now we come to the room which Paul Morphy occupied, and which was separated from his mother’s by a narrow hall. Morphy’s room was always kept in perfect order, for he was very particular and neat, yet this room had a peculiar aspect and at once struck the visitor as such, for Morphy had a dozen or more pairs of shoes of all kinds which he insisted in keeping arranged in a semi-circle in the middle of the room, explaining with his sarcastic smile that in this way, he could at once lay his hands on the particular pair he desired to wear. In a huge porte-manteau he kept all his clothes which were at all times neatly pressed and creased.
Morphy's time would of been better spend preparing to beat Steinitz in a match. Too bad it did not happen. Steinitz might of been hated but he did what he love, he play chess among best players and won. :)
Yure, you evidently want to leave out numerous aspects why Morphy stopped playing. Some people just can't, or don't want to understand how family can supercede chess, or even other things in ones life. They were no different back then either, numerous evidently just couldn't understand it. You may learn this personally one day.
Steinitz was not part of Morphy's 1857-8 opposition.
Considering the result of the Morphy-Anderssen match, it would seem likely that Neil McDonald (or whoever) would agree that, as opposition to Morphy, Anderssen was not as good as Morphy in some respect.
One can ponder the difficulty of finding GM (or WC) agreement with the Fischer "ultimate endorsement" in the last six decades.
GM Raymond Keene has come back to this topic more than once. If I remember correctly, at one time, he favored Lasker. More recently, citing some computations of Nathan Divinsky, he has favored Kasparov. Around the time of Fischer's success, Euwe wrote a book about the question of Fischer being the greatest. There were chapters about Lasker, Capablanca, and Alekhine. No Morphy chapter.
You're fooling yourself. It's common opinion among titled players, and certainly GMs, that todays players are stronger than players 50 years ago... and much stronger than players of Morphy's time, including Morphy himself.
Obviously Morphy was a rare genius, but today we have rare genius too, and our geniuses work extremely hard plus have the benefit of 100s of years of knoweldge and experience from past masters. They don't make an impression like Morphy did because they don't play in tournaments full of patzers, they compete against the best.
People are all the time underestimating the game of chess without realizing it.
Here's Morphy, 12-years-old, self-taught, playing in one of his first ever documented games, against an unknown amateur.
Starting after black enters the King's Gambit Accepted, I've listed "Engine Move" in the annotations beside each move of Morphy's that matches Stockfish's top choice move.
Even as a young boy, Morphy played the entire game like a 3200-strength engine, with the exception of only a single move: move #16. There, Stockfish prefers the more subtle King to c1, rather than Morphy's aggressive exf5.
So, even at 12-years-old, back in the 1800s, after reading no chess books of any kind, and only learning how to play by watching others, (and playing only on Sundays, as restricted by his father) Morphy was, somehow, already playing like a 21st-century engine, against his dumbfounded adult opponents.
Today's players are stronger than ever, that's true. But the more I look at Morphy's games, the harder it is for me deny his exceptional talent.
Anand: "For the era in which he lived, the kind of chess he played was unbelievable."
Anderssen: "Morphy's play seemed to me like something from another world."
On the other hand we could say, yeah, he really crushed that guy who literally only used 3 pieces.
Yeah I wish I would have been that good at 12. Heck I wish I was that good at anytime in my life. He was incredible, there is no doubting that. It is too bad he didn't live in our time, and we knew it was him. Dr. Who where are you. lol.
This is basically what I'm saying. We have players today who are just as gifted as Morphy, but because there are so many players these days (some professionals, some geniuses, and some both) that they don't stand out. They might receive coaching at an early age, and people like you might say "they're not good, they just memorized a bunch of theory."
Yeah I wish I would have been that good at 12. Heck I wish I was that good at anytime in my life. He was incredible, there is no doubting that. It is too bad he didn't live in our time, and we knew it was him. Dr. Who where are you. lol.
Lol. Agreed!
When GM Bent Larsen was challenged by IM Jens Enevoldsen to prove that Morphy ever played a great game "by modern standards", GM Larsen pointed to this one:
Clearly, Morphy was a master of positional play and endgame technique as well—we just rarely saw it, because his opponents usually didn't survive that long. :P
My two favorite moves of that game: 40... Rc3! and 47... Rc5!
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?
Why on earth would Fischer's judgement of all K-K matches being fixed be any more sane than his judgement about Morphy having been stronger than anyone today? Both statements are equally chess related, and both statements are equally nuts. Almost in the league of Carlsen being a reptilian, by the way.
So Morphy came to the scene and dominated. Well, the scene was a village back then! He dominated a handful of serious chess players back then. Today we don't have a handful, today we have tens of thousands.
On the other matter, Yureesystem already explained it well, and not for the first time: Chess knowledge is only to a very small part about opening theory. The idea of Morphy just studying some lines and then being en par with grandmasters is completely ridiculous. Books have been written about pawn structures that Morphy has never seen in his life, and that need a lot of theoretical and practical learning to understand properly, not to mention on grandmaster level.