Chess - Play & Learn


FREE - In Google Play

FREE - in Win Phone Store


Paul Morphy's Rating>2638

  • #361
    ponz111 wrote:

    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.

    ponz111 wrote:

    "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.

    ponz111 wrote:

     "super-genius" also true but this includes other things other than chess.

    Perhaps, but Kasparov was referring to his chess abilities with this comment. 

    ponz111 wrote:

    "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.

    ponz111 wrote:

    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.

  • #362

    "... 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.)


Online Now