dannyhume wrote:
… [Morphy] dominated everyone, ...
In 1857-8.
Paul Morphy's Rating>2638
Sort:
@kindaspongey - The article you reference has a pretty strong disclaimer about its own accuracy, and the numbers themselves are nonetheless irreconcilable with actual game results where available.
For example, the 166-point difference listed between Jose Raul Capablanca and Emmanuel Lasker is absurd on its face, give the number of games played between them, as well as against mutual opponents, over a long span of time. The fact is the two were roughly equal from 1910 through about 1925.
The "engine accuracy" test actually fails for one very obvious reason - better opponents realize the game is lost sooner, and thus resign sooner, and human players, no matter how good, will usually take the first clear win they see, even if there is a "better" finish. The older players (especially Morphy, but also Steinitz, Lasker, and to a lesser extent Capablanca and Alekhine) had more games of consequence where opponents drew out lost positions that weren't then known to be hopeless. In those games, even a GM wouldn't bother to waste time and energy finding the fastest win, they would play the first one they see.
If Magnus Carlsen was playing you or me, do you think his move accuracy would be the same as it is against 2600+ super-GM? I seriously doubt it. And would we not play on in situations those super-GMs would resign?
Lasker, at his best, was terrifying, and he, along with Capablanca and Alekhine, had to face a much broader range of playing styles than anyone today has to prepare for. Despite this, the three of them were basically untouchable for a continuous run of nearly two decades. To suggest anyone enjoyed a clear superiority over the likes of these three simply doesn't hold up to close scrutiny.
Morphy's and Steinitz's numbers surely suffer even more severely from this same effect. Indeed, Morphy's opponents were lost as soon as he launched into tactics, but few recognized it and most played on until checkmate or very nearly. A proper analysis would treat all clear wins the same, but that was not done in this article.
dannyhume wrote (~3 hours ago): "... Morphy ... dominated their common opponents more convincingly"
kindaspongey wrote (February 12, 2018):
... How many of them were alive and major players in 1885 when Steinitz started to expound his ideas in his chess magazine?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
dannyhume wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
dannyhume wrote (~3 hours ago ago): "... Steinitz as a geriatric citizen did well against a young dominant champion Lasker …"
kindaspongey wrote (February 9, 2018):
… Steinitz won five, lost ten, and drew four.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It was close til Lasker got a nice streak in. ...
Does "did well" commnicate that Steinitz got a losing streak?
dannyhume wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
Do we know that 1908 Lasker was the same as 1894 Lasker?
So you are saying that a dominant world champion at the very start of his reign at the age 25 (the age when Morphy QUIT) can STILL IMPROVE and BE FAR BETTER at the age of 40?
We don't know what would have happened during the two decades after 1857-8 because, for the most part, Morphy chose not to be involved with the serious chess world during the two decades after 1857-8.
SmyslovFan wrote:
... When you look at the moves played and compare the quality of play of Morphy to players today, he was about 2350 strength by today's standard. Kenneth Regan did the hard work of actually analyzing his moves, and not just the known game results. ...
As yet, I have not heard of the approval of funding for DeLorean testing of KR methods.
kindaspongey wrote:
Brixed wrote:
... Morphy ... found resources in positions that many of today's masters would be hard-pressed to find. ...
Carlsen-2961 Kramnik-2868 Kasparov-2816 Fischer-2775 Anand-2759 Karpov-2698 Capablanca-2664 Tal-2636 Spassky-2619 Smyslov-2618 Botvinnik-2602 Euwe-2547 Alekhine-2547 Petrosian-2543 Lasker-2498 Morphy-2409 Steinitz-2323
https://www.chess.com/article/view/who-was-the-best-world-chess-champion-in-history
Dsmith42 wrote: "... The article you reference has a pretty strong disclaimer about its own accuracy, and ..."
Any thoughts about the disclaimers that would be appropriate for the Brixed statement?
Its ridiculous to say that Morphy was only 2340 elo, the regan papars study is so inaccurate no serious players it should not be taken seriously. Here is example of GM level game that no player of 2300 elo strength can play brilliantly.
W: Thomas W. Barnes vs. Paul Morphy London match 1858 Philidor defense; Philidor Counter gambit
Morphy destroy Barnes in this game.
Barnes was punch-drunk and I sure he took several days off after that disaster and went to a pub got wasted.
Jun 20, 2018
0
#410
yureesystem wrote:
Its ridiculous to say that Morphy was only 2340 elo, the regan papars study is so inaccurate no serious players it should not be taken seriously. Here is example of GM level game that no player of 2300 elo strength can play brilliantly.
...
Well, Kenneth Regan is an IM, and Natalia Pogonina is a fairly serious player. I guess it depends on your definition of "serious".
Jun 20, 2018
0
#411
Every single ~2350 player has played brilliancies.
Here's one:
I could post thousands of brilliancies played by national masters who never broke 2400 to prove that yureesystem is just wrong.
The game was played by FM Allan Savage against J.D.Jonsson in 1982. Savage was rated about 2350 at the time.
Tabulation wrote:
The theory is that Paul Morphy's fide rating in today’s standards, if he happened to come from the grave and played as well as he was in his prime from the 1800s, would be about 2638. While this is not world champion level, he would still be considered a strong grandmaster. This conclusion came about by looking at Morphy's match and tournament scores of his games that were not played at odds or other handicaps. Only opponents that Morphy played a substantial amount of games against, at least 12, were used in order to increase the accuracy of the conclusions. This precaution factors in the idea that chess players often have 'bad days', and with all the traveling players did back then they were often sick for the first few games in a match.
Morphy’s record against Eugene Rousseau in match play was 45/50; which would make his rating at least 358 points higher than Rousseau.
Against Louis Paulsen in tournament and match play, his record was 9.5/12; making his rating at least 226 points higher than Paulsen.
Against George Hammond in a match, Mophy scored 15/16; making his rating at least 412 points higher than Hammond.
Against John William Schulten in a match, Morphy scored 23/24; making his rating at least 457 points higher than Schulten
Against Henry Edward Bird in a match, Morphy scored 10.5/12; making his rating at least 320 points higher than Bird.
Morphy scored 14/17 in matches against Adolf Anderson; making Morphy at least 257 points higher than Anderson.
This astounding record is 117/131, 89%.
All of the players listed were strong and considered some of the best masters of their day.
It can be estimated that this lot of masters today would have an average fide rating of today’s standards of at the 'very least' 2300. So 2300+338=2638, 338 is the average amount of points Morphy scored higher than his "rivals" in the previous part of this text. It should be noted that Adolf Anderson in particular was 'estimated' to be over 2600 by Aprad Elo (the inventor of the rating system in the first place). One should also note that Aprad Elo himself believed Morphy was 2690.
On top of this evidence, it is said that Morphy often played 8 blindfold games at a time while still managing to win the great majority of the games. I asked one of my friends who is a Grandmaster, 2496 at the moment, how many blindfold games he could play while still keeping most of his strength, and he replied that he was sure he could play 3 at the same time and maybe a 4th without over exerting himself. Morphy being able to easily play twice as many blindfold games further proves that he was not just any 'weak grandmaster, strong international master level', and that he could in fact be a strong 2600 rated Grandmaster.
The idea of how much rating points Morphy was higher than his opponents was calculated by plugging in his win percentage into the chart that corresponds with elo ratings at http://www.chessville.com/Reference_Center/WinPercentageExpectancies.htm
.
.
The match and tournament results of Morphy are from
1. ^ Edo Historical Chess Ratings – Morphy, Paul
2. ^ Jeremy Spinrad, Collected results 1836–1863
3. ^ C. Sericano, I grandi matches 1850–1864
which are summarized in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Morphy .
Is that what WGM Natalia Pogonina was referring to in 2010 when she wrote this?
"That is definetely incorrect. With the rating difference of 338 (as in your formula), he would have been expected to score 88 points out of 100 against other masters. Of course, he didn't. Another approach is to actually look at the games (and it quickly becomes obvious that he was nowhere around 2638 strength)."
Of course, like everyone else, she didn't know what would have happened during the two decades after 1857-8 because, for the most part, Morphy chose not to be involved with the serious chess world during the two decades after 1857-8.
I think something that gets lost in this discussion is how much one’s playing strength can increase via a change in playing “style” when one is already-very-strong master’s playing strength...
I don’t think Steinitz could increase his rating several points by changing his “style”, when he was already the best player on earth, except Morphy. Yet many a Morphy detractor act like he suddenly went from an IM to a world champion as a Middle Ages adult because his playing style evolved and he put his “discoveries“ into words.
People confuse Steinitz’ verbal formulation of chess strategy into some insane dramatic increase in his playing strength. He was already the strongest player in the world as an “attacking” player, and he continued dominating as a more “strategic” player. That is simply the evolution of his chess understanding and skill (he is a genius and longtime world champion, no doubt), and he codified/verbalized the things he believed that strong players did, but the latter is a phenomenal academic achievement on his part, not proof that he would dominate his supreme-level contemporary who we already have proof did better against other contemporaries at a younger age.
Nimzowitsch and Reti likewise were revolutionary high-caliber players, but Nimzowitsch got crushed by the best of the best in his day, Reti wasn’t the best of the best either, and neither’s playing strength dramatically increase simply because they published their hypermodern theories.
I don’t think Steinitz could increase his rating several points by changing his “style”, when he was already the best player on earth, except Morphy. Yet many a Morphy detractor act like he suddenly went from an IM to a world champion as a Middle Ages adult because his playing style evolved and he put his “discoveries“ into words.
People confuse Steinitz’ verbal formulation of chess strategy into some insane dramatic increase in his playing strength. He was already the strongest player in the world as an “attacking” player, and he continued dominating as a more “strategic” player. That is simply the evolution of his chess understanding and skill (he is a genius and longtime world champion, no doubt), and he codified/verbalized the things he believed that strong players did, but the latter is a phenomenal academic achievement on his part, not proof that he would dominate his supreme-level contemporary who we already have proof did better against other contemporaries at a younger age.
Nimzowitsch and Reti likewise were revolutionary high-caliber players, but Nimzowitsch got crushed by the best of the best in his day, Reti wasn’t the best of the best either, and neither’s playing strength dramatically increase simply because they published their hypermodern theories.
[COMMENT DELETED]
kindaspongey wrote:
Brixed wrote:
... Morphy ... found resources in positions that many of today's masters would be hard-pressed to find. ...
Carlsen-2961 Kramnik-2868 Kasparov-2816 Fischer-2775 Anand-2759 Karpov-2698 Capablanca-2664 Tal-2636 Spassky-2619 Smyslov-2618 Botvinnik-2602 Euwe-2547 Alekhine-2547 Petrosian-2543 Lasker-2498 Morphy-2409 Steinitz-2323
https://www.chess.com/article/view/who-was-the-best-world-chess-champion-in-history
Brixed wrote: "... That CAPS diagram begs a few questions, …"
Indeed it does, but what about your assertion?
Brixed wrote (~15 minutes ago): " ... Morphy being ranked as a modern 2400 seems fair. Perhaps on the low end (if you ask Morphy fanatics)—though it's simultaneously impressive, considering Morphy's apparent ease in which he attained such a level of play. I know several IMs personally who've toiled much of their lives to attain a 2400+ level of play, making good use of all the resources available today. Morphy seemed to accomplish the same feat without much effort at all, in an era where such a level of play simply didn't exist before him. ..."
kindaspongey wrote (~1 day ago):
... "... Morphy remains one of the giants of chess history. ..." - GM Reuben Fine ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
dannyhume wrote:
... I don’t think Steinitz could increase his rating several points by changing his “style”, when he was already the best player on earth, except Morphy. ...
"... Wilhelm Steinitz, first world champion, almost single-handedly established the ground-rules for modern positional chess. ..." - IM Craig Pritchett (2011)
"... Generally considered to be the world's strongest player from around 1870 to the early 1890s, Steinitz was by far that era's most profound thinker. He approached chess in the main strategically, revolutionizing our understanding of position and approach to planning, ..." - IM Craig Pritchett (2011)
"... The analytical work of Steinitz extends over thirty years and is very valuable. In the Field, in the Tribune, in his publication International Chess Magazine and in his book Modern Chess Instructor, one may find his penetrating and profound analysis. The world did not comprehend how much Steinitz had given it ... the chess world did not understand Steinitz, neither his manner of play nor his written word which treated of his 'Modern School.' ... Now let us turn back to Steinitz and demonstrate his revolutionary achievement from his history and from his writings. ..." - Emanuel Lasker (~1925)
"... Underlying [Wilhem Steinitz’s Modern Chess Instructor] is Steinitz’s explanation – and fervent defense – of what he called the 'Modern School.' Its basic tenets: The ultimate objective of chess is to capture the opponent’s king but that should not be the primary goal. Attacks cannot defeat proper defense unless they are founded on some previously acquired positional superiority, such as better development, pawn structure or piece mobility. This was revolutionary at the time. ..." - GM Andy Soltis (2017)
https://www.chess.com/article/view/steinitz-changes-the-chess-world
dannyhume wrote:
... Nimzowitsch and Reti likewise were revolutionary high-caliber players, but Nimzowitsch got crushed by the best of the best in his day, Reti wasn’t the best of the best either, and neither’s playing strength dramatically increase simply because they published their hypermodern theories.
Do we have reason to doubt that their ideas improved their play?
dannyhume wrote:
... Steinitz ... codified/verbalized the things he believed that strong players did, but the latter is a phenomenal academic achievement on his part, not proof that he would dominate his supreme-level contemporary who we already have proof did better against other contemporaries at a younger age. ...
We don't know what would have happened during the two decades after 1857-8 because, for the most part, Morphy chose not to be involved with the serious chess world during the two decades after 1857-8.
Jun 20, 2018
0
#420
Almost every chess player agrees that Morphy was a giant of the game. Most strong players even go through a phase of trying to emulate his play. Morphy has inspired generations, including Magnus Carlsen himself, who has mémorisés several of his games.
The thread wasn't about his greatness, it was about his rating and playing strength.
One doesn't need a time machine to measure that. We can simply analyse his games.
... If Steinitz could get better at an older age, then there is no reason to believe Morphy wouldn't have either
Who is claiming that Morphy wouldn't have improved? "We don't know what would have happened during the two decades after 1857-8 because, for the most part, Morphy chose not to be involved with the serious chess world during the two decades after 1857-8."