14885 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Backgammon, Yatzy, and more!
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Whoa, whoa, whoa.
First of all, anyone who knows anything about chess knows that a blunder is one move.
Does it spoil the rest of the game?
And the attack was nowhere near GM level.
I have better combinations than that!
Simply 16... Kxg7 17. Nh5+ Kg8 18. Qh6, 1-0, or 16... Re8 17. Qh6 followed by Ng5.
So why don't you explain why the planning is correct?
Of course Morphy has a 2600+ elo equivalent to that of a modern chess grandmaster.
let's remember that Morphy lived not so long ago (1837-1884) and lived well after his chess career was over. He defeated Anderssen in 1858 (+7=2-2). Was Anderssen 2300 elo ? I think that Anderssen was far stronger than a modern 2300 elo player.
In 1870, Anderssen won the strong Baden Baden tournament while Steinitz came second. Steinitz was 34 and later become officially world champion from 1886 to 1894. He became world champion only two years after Morphy's death. Some considered Steinitz to be the unofficial world champion when he defeated Anderssen in a match in 1866. Steinitz was born in 1836 and died in 1900. Anderssen was born in 1818 and died in 1879.
By setting this historical perspective, I want to show that if Morphy had kept on playing chess, he could have played against Steinitz.
I found that link posted by batgirl in which William Henry Bird who had played against both players (Morphy and Steinitz) talk about them: http://www.edochess.ca/batgirl/BirdTalk.html
Bird says that he did well against Steinitz while he was crushed by Morphy. Let's quote him :
"I trotted Steinitz the closest heat he ever contested. He beat me 8 to 7, with 6 draws. This was in '67. In '58 Morphy beat me 10 to 1, with 1 draw. Steinitz claims that he is a better player than ever Morphy was, but I think my record with each is a fair test of the strength of the two. Steinitz claims that when I played with Morphy I was out of practice, but I cannot explain away my crushing defeat by that great player in any such way. I never played better chess in my life than when he beat me. Morphy had more science than Steinitz - more imagination. His career was very short, though very brilliant, and, whether or not he could have held first honors as long as Steinitz, is a matter of some doubt; but Morphy never met his match. He [Morphy] was never compelled to play his best game. His resources were never fully tested."
So unless we consider Steinitz, a world champion, to be a 2300 elo player, It's seems clear to me that Morphy is a 2600+ elo player.
In another link provided by batgirl (Steinitz meeting Morphy http://www.edochess.ca/batgirl/Steinitz_on_Morphy.html), Steinitz talks about the match vs Anderssen :
"Who gave you the hardest fight that you have ever had?"
"Anderssen in 1866 in London. That was the first of my victories, and, I think, the hardest."
It's the same Anderssen that Morphy had easily defeated only a few years ago.
---deleted for copyright infringement---
Copyright infringment or censorship ? The image was from a magazine published in the 1964 in which Fischer wrote an article about his ten favorite players. I don't really understand where the copyright infringment stems from.
The quote from Fischer has also be erased. Is there a copy infringment on what he said ?
who wins between Morphy and Steinitz?
Long thread.. I don't think anyone can guess his rating but if Fischer himself looked up to him having a 2785 ELO and +125 more than Spassky who was previously the wold champion (considering it would be very difficult to get to 2800+ since most were 2600 and 2500 unlike now) then I'd say he could be as good as any of the top players today.The problem is he never had a real challenge so we can't know how far he could have pushed himself.One thing's for sure, without having people to look up to or theory, it's a lot more difficult to get better and he seemd to play a whole lot better than the people from his time. Anyone can re-invent the wheel.
What's the difference between a Super GM and a GM?
by DjonniDerevnja 2 minutes ago
Partner to practice with?
by Caro-Gambit 3 minutes ago
Who's your most favorite chess player?
by Chess_Impress 7 minutes ago
7/27/2016 - Dual Threats
by mvallejo70 7 minutes ago
Carlsen vs Kasparov vs Fischer vs Capablanca: Who would win?!
by Gondowe 13 minutes ago
Did Chess.Com just quit working on Kindle Fire?
by Walter0508 15 minutes ago
Chess.com is a joke
by bunicula 19 minutes ago
Understanding the French Defense
by RussBell 21 minutes ago
Post your best miniatures (Part 2)
by Merovwig 24 minutes ago
Need a helping hand
by ChessOath 29 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2016 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!