Paul Morphy's Rating>2638

Sort:
kindaspongey
SteamGear wrote (in #310):

... Exactly. Morphy didn't produce titanic struggles because nobody in the world was strong enough to make him struggle. ...

"... 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. ... Even if the myth has been destroyed, Morphy remains one of the giants of chess history. ..." - GM Reuben Fine

kindaspongey
SteamGear wrote (in #310):

... He traveled the world looking for someone to give him a good match, ...

As far as I can see, the good-match-searching was in New York, England, and Paris.

SteamGear

True, he certainly was (at least) twenty years ahead of his time.

Which is even more notable because, twenty-plus years later, the main reason chess players began to understand the ideas that Morphy intuitively grasped was because they studied his games.

There was pre-Morphy chess, and post-Morphy chess.

kindaspongey
SteamGear wrote (in #310):

... And then Staunton avoided him, ...

After the Staunton match refusal, Morphy went on to play Anderssen.

kindaspongey
SteamGear wrote (in #310):

... Staunton avoided him, robbing the world (and Morphy) of possibly the only player to truly test the American. ...

By 1858, Staunton's major chess competition successes were more than a decade in the past. He played two games against Loewenthal at the Birmingham tournament and lost both of them.

SteamGear
kindaspongey wrote:
SteamGear wrote:

... He traveled the world looking for someone to give him a good match, ...

As far as I can see, the good-match-searching was in New York, England, and Paris.

Which was akin to traveling the world in that era.

Keep in mind that traveling back then was time-consuming and taxing on the body. It nearly resulted in Morphy's death.

Also keep in mind that there were few (if any?) other locales that proclaimed the presence of strong chess players willing to challenge Morphy.

kindaspongey
SteamGear wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
SteamGear wrote:

... He traveled the world looking for someone to give him a good match, ...

As far as I can see, the good-match-searching was in New York, England, and Paris.

Which was akin to traveling the world in that era. ...

There was some major chess activity in Germany at the time.

kindaspongey
SteamGear wrote:

... Keep in mind that traveling back then was time-consuming and taxing on the body. ...

I do not blame Morphy for not going to Germany. I just think that the "traveled the world" thing might give some the wrong idea.

dannyhume

Nearly 3 generations post-Morphy, players who played his contemporaries were still competitive on the world scene, but some folks seem to want to imply that because Morphy played dubious moves here and there against the top masters in the world (that he still easily dominated), that this shows he was weaker than a 2300 today?   That "he was hardly tested" is hardly a detraction, and is testament to his skills, especially when his contemporaries revolutionized openings and strategy.

kindaspongey
dannyhume wrote:

Nearly 3 generations post-Morphy, players who played his contemporaries were still competitive on the world scene, ...

How did these "players" do against Morphy's "contemporaries"? How did these "players" do in the chess world, "3 generations post-Morphy"?

kindaspongey
dannyhume wrote:

[Morphy's] contemporaries revolutionized openings and strategy.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1295510

kindaspongey
dannyhume wrote:

... That "he was hardly tested" is hardly a detraction, ...

Some of what GM Reuben Fine actually wrote: "... 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. ... [Of the 55 tournament and match games, few] can by any stretch be called brilliant. ... 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'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. Morphy knew not only how to attack but also when - and that is why he won. ... Even if the myth has been destroyed, Morphy remains one of the giants of chess history. ..."

Another-Life

This discussion is still going on?

 

Anyone who is really interested in this (beyond random comments and quotes) should read this book.

https://www.amazon.com/Paul-Morphy-Perspective-Valeri-Beim/dp/1888690267

SteamGear

That was a double-blindfold game (and quite a game, too!). Morphy's play was near engine-perfect the entire game.

44.Qb7 was a thing of beauty.

dannyhume
kindaspongey wrote:
dannyhume wrote:

Nearly 3 generations post-Morphy, players who played his contemporaries were still competitive on the world scene, ...

How did these "players" do against Morphy's "contemporaries"? How did these "players" do in the chess world, "3 generations post-Morphy"?

 

You got Steinitz, the 28 year long champ (mix of official and unofficial), in his decrepit old age putting up a strong match against a young Lasker, the next guy who would rule the chess world for 3 decades. That guy, the 2nd official world chess champion, held his own into the 1930's when guys like Capablanca and Alekhine were on the decline, and Botvinnik, Keres, and Smylov on the rise (Euwe in the midst).  The same Botvinnik and Smyslov who had even records against a young Fischer who was already being colluded against.  And we all seem to agree without controversy (only haters) that Fischer was the greatest ever, and now we are 100 years past Morphy.

kindaspongey
kindaspongey wrote:
dannyhume wrote:

[Morphy's] contemporaries revolutionized openings and strategy.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1295510

SteamGear wrote: "... That was a double-blindfold game (and quite a game, too!). Morphy's play was near engine-perfect the entire game.

44.Qb7 was a thing of beauty."

The opening: 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d5

kindaspongey

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1019039

kindaspongey
dannyhume wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
dannyhume wrote:

Nearly 3 generations post-Morphy, players who played his contemporaries were still competitive on the world scene, ...

How did these "players" do against Morphy's "contemporaries"? How did these "players" do in the chess world, "3 generations post-Morphy"?

You got Steinitz, the 28 year long champ (mix of official and unofficial), in his decrepit old age putting up a strong match against a young Lasker, the next guy who would rule the chess world for 3 decades. ...

Did Morphy ever play Steinitz? After 1858, how many years went by before Steinitz was generally recognized as world champion?

SteamGear
kindaspongey wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
dannyhume wrote:

[Morphy's] contemporaries revolutionized openings and strategy.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1295510

SteamGear wrote: "... That was a double-blindfold game (and quite a game, too!). Morphy's play was near engine-perfect the entire game.

44.Qb7 was a thing of beauty."

The opening: 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d5

Yes, those were the opening moves played. The Paulsen Countergambit.

Batgirl wrote an interesting article about Paulsen and his impact on chess:  https://www.chess.com/article/view/louis-paulsen

kindaspongey
[COMMENT DELETED]