Don't you think that if Kasparov would write a book "My Great Predecessors" that he would speak highly of all of his great predecessors?
"he had no equal in the world" was true but it was a very limited chess world.
"super-genius" also true but this includes other things other than chess.
"brilliant" Most players rated 2400 or above could be considered "brilliant"
Or a game could be considered "brilliant"
I am saying just looking at his games--he did not play at the 2600 level.
... You got Steinitz, ... in his decrepit old age putting up a strong match against a young Lasker, ...
Steinitz won five, lost ten, and drew four.
From Wikipedia, entry "Wilhelm Steinitz":
The match was played in 1894, at venues in New York, Philadelphia and [[Montreal, Quebec], Canada]. The 32-year age difference between the combatants was the largest in the history of world championship play, and remains so today.[35] Steinitz had previously declared he would win without doubt, so it came as a shock when Lasker won the first game. Steinitz responded by winning the second, and was able to maintain the balance until the sixth. However, Lasker won all the games from the seventh to the 11th, and Steinitz asked for a one-week rest. When the match resumed, Steinitz looked in better shape and won the 13th and 14th games. Lasker struck back in the 15th and 16th, and Steinitz was unable to compensate for his losses in the middle of the match. Hence Lasker won with ten wins, five losses and four draws.[36][37]Some commentators thought Steinitz's habit of playing "experimental" moves in serious competition was a major factor in his downfall.[38]
Now back to dannyhume:
Anway, I am still impressed with Steinitz... I don't think Kasparov in a few years (when he is 58 like Steinitz when he lost the championship) will be able to match the top GM's who are roughly that much younger (Carlsen, Caruana, Karjakin, So, Giri, etc), and that is with all of his experience, preparation, and attempts at accuracy (doubt you will see any top player with the cojones to play "experimental" moves at that level...Maybe Kasparov will prove me wrong with an unprecedented comeback for the ages).
Did Morphy ever play Steinitz? After 1858, how many years went by before Steinitz was generally recognized as world champion?
They never played each other, however they did play several common opponents and I don't think a single one of those ever expressed an opinion that Steinitz would win in such a hypothetical match (if we value their opinions).
Not until Morphy died (1884) was Steinitz able to make his world championship official in 1886 --shows how much reverence folks back then had for Morphy's skills-- and we already have seen Fischer and Kasparov express favorable opinions. Seems like Steinitz had good claim to be the active #1 in the world starting in 1866 (quoted from Wikipedia again)...
As a result of this match victory, Steinitz was generally regarded as the world's best player.[12]
... After 1858, how many years went by before Steinitz was generally recognized as world champion?
... (quoted from Wikipedia again)...
Does Wikipedia still operate on the idea that just about anyone can step in and alter the text? Think it might be a good idea to check out "12" and see what it actually says?
http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/champion.html
"... We present a compilation of early uses of such terms as ‘world champion’ and ‘world championship’ in relation to chess. ... 1866: ... No use of any term such as ‘world championship match’ has been located. 1872: Steinitz defeated Zukertort +7 –1 =4 in London. From page 150 of the Chess Player’s Chronicle, October 1872: ‘... Mr Steinitz, ... may now be fairly pronounced the champion player of the time.’ ..."
Does it seem likely that such an 1872 statement would have been made if it had already happened that Steinitz was generally regarded as the world's best player as a result of the 1866 match? Edward Winter documented more and more recognition of Steinitz as his successes accumulated, but, as for general regard, it is perhaps worthwhile to consider this 1887 Steinitz quote: "... Of course, such literary trickeries are nothing new to me, and I have been used to it for 20 years that according to the constructions in certain journalistic quarters everybody in turn was the champion during that period, excepting myself. The only consolation I had was that most of the defeats I suffered occurred in my own absence."
Nearly 3 generations post-Morphy, players who played his contemporaries were still competitive on the world scene, ...
... You got Steinitz, ... in his decrepit old age putting up a strong match against a young Lasker, ...
Steinitz won five, lost ten, and drew four.
From Wikipedia, entry "Wilhelm Steinitz":
The match was played in 1894, at venues in New York, Philadelphia and [[Montreal, Quebec], Canada]. The 32-year age difference between the combatants was the largest in the history of world championship play, and remains so today.[35] Steinitz had previously declared he would win without doubt, so it came as a shock when Lasker won the first game. Steinitz responded by winning the second, and was able to maintain the balance until the sixth. However, Lasker won all the games from the seventh to the 11th, and Steinitz asked for a one-week rest. When the match resumed, Steinitz looked in better shape and won the 13th and 14th games. Lasker struck back in the 15th and 16th, and Steinitz was unable to compensate for his losses in the middle of the match. Hence Lasker won with ten wins, five losses and four draws.[36][37]Some commentators thought Steinitz's habit of playing "experimental" moves in serious competition was a major factor in his downfall.[38]
Now back to dannyhume:
Anway, I am still impressed with Steinitz...
You are free to be impressed, but is the whole story told by referring to Steinitz "putting up a strong match"? Anyway, is there any titled player who disputes the great change in the chess playing of Steinitz during the decades of his chess career?
"... As a young player in the early 1860s, Steinitz ... still largely played in the old combinational and direct romantic style ... Looking back on his career, Steinitz would insist that his result at Baden-Baden 1870 was a pivotal turning point in his chess development. ... From that point on, he considered that he must thoroughly review and overhaul his playing style and significantly deepen and extend his theoretical researches. ..." - IM Craig Pritchett (2011)
Did Morphy ever play Steinitz? ...
They never played each other, ...
And to what degree did their chess careers coincide?
"... Early Years ... Steinitz played in the annual Vienna Club tournaments, ... he placed third in 1859, ..." - IM Craig Pritchett (2015)
(The Morphy-Anderssen match had been near the end of 1858.)
Did Morphy ever play Steinitz? ...
... they did play several common opponents and I don't think a single one of those ever expressed an opinion that Steinitz would win in such a hypothetical match (if we value their opinions). ...
How many of them were alive and major players in 1885 when Steinitz started to expound his ideas in his chess magazine?
Don't you think that if Kasparov would write a book "My Great Predecessors" that he would speak highly of all of his great predecessors?
Kasparov doesn't throw around compliments frivolously in the text (in my opinion), if that's what you're implying—he's also quick to criticize and point out flaws (whether in analysis, or in social commentary). He points out a lot of improvements in the games that could have been made (by either Morphy, or his opponents), and he also seems to effuse praise only where praise is due.
"he had no equal in the world" was true but it was a very limited chess world.
True, but not really something to be held against Morphy. The American was quite ahead of his time, which was unfortunate him—he never found the pleasure of battling against an equal rival.
"super-genius" also true but this includes other things other than chess.
Perhaps, but Kasparov was referring to his chess abilities with this comment.
"brilliant" Most players rated 2400 or above could be considered "brilliant"
This "brilliant" term was, in this context, used to describe Morphy's brief appearance in chess history, and in the way he introduced a new, dominant style of playing to the world.
I am saying just looking at his games--he did not play at the 2600 level.
What level do you think he played at?
I find it worth noting that Kasparov said Morphy's playing: "... resembles that of a modern grandmaster."
He could have easily said that Morphy's play "resembles that of a modern International Master" or "resembles that of a modern Fide Master", or even "resembles that of a modern Candidate Master"—but he chose the word "grandmaster", specifically.
I, personally, would put Morphy at the 2500 level overall (which I consider pretty remarkable, considering the era in which he lived, and the apparently limited amount of effort he put into the game). Other Morphy fans would probably decry me, arguing that a higher Elo rating would be more appropriate—and I can see where they're coming from, too.
Morphy was never truly tested, so we didn't really get to see the qualities (and level) of his toughest play against formidable competition.
Still, I'm no Kasparov. Though, seeing Kasparov himself liken Morphy's play to that of a modern grandmaster further solidifies my own estimate.
"... 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. ... Even if the myth has been destroyed, Morphy remains one of the giants of chess history. ..." - GM Reuben Fine (Emphasis added.)
So can we at least agree that Morphy was at minimum a 2200, a 2300, or 2400 player ? Definitely a 2200 player. Most likely a 2300 play and maybe a 2400 player ? Lets do the vote !
In modern ratings 2250 when he won the US championship and 2350 when he stopped playing chess.
So Bobby Fischer thought a 2300-ish player was the greatest chess genius and talent ever?
"Lasker ... didn't understand positional chess." - another Fischer quote from around the same time as his Morphy comments.
Extended discussions of Morphy have been written in books by GM Franco, GM Beim, GM Ward, GM Marin, GM Bo Hansen, GM McDonald, Garry Kasparov (with Dmitry Plisetsky), and GM Gormally. Anyone see any of them express the view that we should accept Fischer's conclusion about Morphy? There seems to be general agreement that Morphy was, as GM Fine put it, one of the giants of chess history, but that is a long way from saying that he was better than anyone playing today.
"... 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. ..." - GM Reuben Fine
https://www.chess.com/article/view/who-was-the-best-world-chess-champion-in-history
Yet I also hear that Botvinnik said that the open games have not evolved much in over 100 years from Morphy's time to his time, is that true? Plus there is the ambiguity regarding evaluating Morphy's skill... His actual playing strength if he time-traveled to the future and, without any preparation, started playing modern GM's? His performance in a tournament where he gets only 1-2 chances against a given opponent or a long match? His potential playing strength if given the same information as modern players and a few years to prepare? Also consider that when you beat everyone easily, you may choose not to play the top couple choices of Komodo against far weaker competition... you might play a BDG for or Latvian Gambit for fun, but future analysts may simply see that your moves were not technically or objectively the best.
Yet I also hear that Botvinnik said that the open games have not evolved much in over 100 years from Morphy's time to his time, is that true? ...
I am not an authority on the writings of Botvinnik, but, in connection with this report, it seems to me to be appropriate to keep these sorts of questions in mind:
Would Botvinnik necessarily have given fair recognition to non-USSR open game progress?
What about subsequent open game progress?
What about semi-open game progress, closed game progress, ...?
"... It was due to [Morphy's] principles of development that he had, in most cases, at the outset a better development than his opponent. As soon, however, as these principles of Morphy's had become the common property of all chess players it was difficult to wrest an advantage in an open game. ... the next problem with which players were confronted ... was to discover principles upon which close positions could be dealt with. To have discovered such principles, deeper and more numerous as they were than those relating to development in open positions, is due to Steinitz. ..." - Richard Reti (1923)
... there is the ambiguity regarding evaluating Morphy's skill... His actual playing strength if he time-traveled to the future and, without any preparation, started playing modern GM's? His performance in a tournament where he gets only 1-2 chances against a given opponent or a long match? His potential playing strength if given the same information as modern players and a few years to prepare? Also consider that when you beat everyone easily, you may choose not to play the top couple choices of Komodo against far weaker competition ...
Perhaps that is why we see this sort of thing:
"... [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. ..." - GM Reuben Fine
Read the book "Morphy: A modern perspective" and you will see his slight lack of positional understanding, as well as mistakes that his opponents didn't capitalise on. He was definitely not stronger than a modern IM.
"... 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 remains one of the giants of chess history. ..." - GM Reuben Fine
Read the book "Morphy: A modern perspective" and you will see his slight lack of positional understanding, as well as mistakes that his opponents didn't capitalise on. He was definitely not stronger than a modern IM.
Now let's take this a step further... especially the word "understanding"... I am wondering what is meant by saying Morphy isn't more than x strength. To me, someone who easily beat everyone in the world shows an understanding and capability of learning that is far ahead of his time. So, yes, I can see how Morphy may lose games to modern high-level players if transported to the present without the current state of knowledge and just started playing these high-level masters cold... but what if he was paired in a long match against a modern IM? Given the homage paid to him by Fischer and even modern GM's such as Finegold, would Morphy be able to outplay these folks in long matches (not tournaments where you get one chance to spring a newly home-prepared line)?
... "... 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. ... Even if the myth has been destroyed, Morphy remains one of the giants of chess history. ..." - GM Reuben Fine
XXX
SteamGear wrote: "Kasparov did critically examine Morphy's record and games, and, from doing so, said the following things about Morphy:
'brilliant',
'super-genius',
'he had no equal in the world',
'Morphy's sound framework and his wide-ranging tactics already resemble the play of a modern grandmaster. To combat such a hurricane was simply impossible.'
— GM Garry Kasparov, My Great Predecessors, Part 1"
XXX
Notice the past tense in the last Kasparov sentence and in the "no equal" sentence. ...
XXX
XXX
SteamGear wrote: "... Yes, because Kasparov was speaking of the long-deceased Morphy.
To use the present tense when referring to Morphy's 19th-century chess exploits would be an incorrect usage of tense. ..."
XXX
Seems to me that, if he had wanted, Kasparov could have written, "He has had no equal", and "Combatting such a hurricane would be impossible". However, did Kasparov want to indicate that? Was Kasparov referring to the "next" stage in the development of chess or the last stage?
". . . [Morphy's] play was the next, more mature stage in the development of chess. ..." — GM Garry Kasparov, My Great Predecessors, Part 1
The rest of Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, etc. were still to come.