Paul Morphy's Rating>2638

chessmaster102
arashi_star wrote:
Hammerschlag wrote:
arashi_star wrote:

his rating is at least 358 points higher than Eugene Rousseau 

at least 226 points higher than Louis Paulsen

at least 412 points higher than George Hammond

at least 457 points higher than John William Schutten

at least 320 points higher than Henry Edward Bird

and finally at least 257 points higher than Adolf Anderson..


 I'm curious as to how these numbers were determined. I think Morphy was one of the best player the game has ever seen but determining ratings for older players (before) the rating system was introduced is somewhat controversial; arguments usually start after such declaration.


I "determined" these numbers from this information...

 Eugene Rousseau - +45−5=0

Louis Paulsen - 9.5/12

George Hammond - 15/16

John William Schutten - 23/24

Henry Edward Bird - 10.5/12

Adolf Anderson 14/17

117/131 or 89%


im kinda convinced I just wanted you to show proof of your information.Smile

blake78613

Fischer's last thoughts on the subject:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EuxVOgrEig&p=4B5A320303371446&playnext=1&index=19

SMesq

Like comparing Fangio with Schumacher......it doesn't compute.

orangehonda

Take the past champions, time machine them here, take some DNA, clone them, kill the original, and let baby Morphy study chess form age 5 in the 21st century and of course he'd be GM strength... no one doubts that and it's not very interesting to talk about either... too much fiction in the setup and the conclusion is obvious (at least IMO).

People like to quote Fischer, but (again IMO) his quotes have to be taken in context as he was a very un-objective/biased individual.  His chess was great, but his reasoning and thoughts were not so good.  Not just political or anything like that... just day to day stuff, he's not someone whose quotes on any subject other than a chess variation I put much stock into.

Atos
batgirl wrote:

Steinitz was the first chess professional

Well, Atos, there were, for example,  Greco, Philidor, Deschapelles, Bourdonnais, Schlumberger, Staunton, Kieseritsky, Harrwitz- all of whom made either a substantial amount of their income, or all their income for a period of time, from chess. I would call them all chess professionals.


I haven't had time to research this exhaustively, but while it is true that some of these made some income, some of the time, from chess-related activities, I would question the designation of professionals. Kieseritsky died a pauper so if he was a chess professional it really wasn't a great financial success. La Bourdonnais "died penniless in London in 1840, having been forced to sell all of his possessions, including his clothes, to satisfy his creditors." In what sense can we talk about people who were not sure where their next meal was coming from as professionals ?

Staunton did make some income from chess but he was also engaged in literary studies, which he gave as one of his reasons for not wishing to play Morphy at that particular time. (He was contracted to publish a work on Shakespeare in the same time-frame.)

Greco was allegedly described by Botvinnik as "the first chess professional" but Botvinnik was not a 'professional' historian. From what little is known about Greco, he seems to have made an income by teaching chess to aristocratic families rather than by playing as such. Also, of course, Greco and Philidor were not Morphy's contemporaries, the period we were discussing was the mid-19th century.

Atos
tonydal wrote:

If say a lawyer goes bankrupt, weren't they still a professional lawyer until they crashed and burned?


I guess so, but if they never made any significant amount of money from law profession to begin with then I think not. Just because someone did not happen to have another reasonable source of income, and once in a while made a few dimes from chess, does not make them chess professionals unless one is really prepared to stretch the concept. 

batgirl

Atos, here's the original post to which I responded: "There were no chess professionals in Morphy's time, they all made their living in other ways. Steinitz was the first chess professional, and not terribly successful financially."

 

"Greco and Philidor were not Morphy's contemporaries, the period we were discussing was the mid-19th century."

I was responding to: "Steinitz was the first chess professional"
Of course Staunton and Harrwitz were professionals in Morphy's time. There's no other way to view them. 

"Kieseritsky died a pauper so if he was a chess professional it really wasn't a great financial success. La Bourdonnais "died penniless in London in 1840, having been forced to sell all of his possessions, including his clothes, to satisfy his creditors." In what sense can we talk about people who were not sure where their next meal was coming from as professionals ?"

Steinitz lived a financially precarious life (remember: "Fame I have, now I need the money") and died broke too. I guess the same holds true for him.

 

Actually, the idea that a chess professional (which, btw, isn't limited to professional chess players, but chess authors and chess teachers are chess professional too) dies broke doesn't mean he wasn't successful in his time. Many, like Bourdonnais, Kieseritsky and even Steinitz died after suffering an illness and they didn't have insurance or retirement plans back then.


orangehonda
notlesu wrote:
orangehonda wrote:

Take the past champions, time machine them here, take some DNA, clone them, kill the original, and let baby Morphy study chess form age 5 in the 21st century and of course he'd be GM strength... no one doubts that and it's not very interesting to talk about either... too much fiction in the setup and the conclusion is obvious (at least IMO).

People like to quote Fischer, but (again IMO) his quotes have to be taken in context as he was a very un-objective/biased individual.  His chess was great, but his reasoning and thoughts were not so good.  Not just political or anything like that... just day to day stuff, he's not someone whose quotes on any subject other than a chess variation I put much stock into.


 Fischer's statements on chess were objective---most of the time. When he talked chess, people sat up and listened. After losing a king's gambit to Spassky in Mar del Plata 1960 (their first game)---Fischer wrote an article---A Bust to the King's Gambit. 

Since that article, the King's Gambit has disappeared  almost entirely from Grand Master play. After this article, no player, including Spassky, who played Fischer over 40 times, ever tried the King's Gambit again against Fischer despite the fact Fischer never won a tournament game against it! Just goes to show how mighty Fischer's pen was!

When Fischer claimed the Russians were cheating---everybody knew it but only Fischer had the balls to say it. Everybody knew it but only Fischer said it. Shortly thereafter FIDE chamged the rules and candidates had to face each other---mano a mano. This change in rules allowed Fischer to run up +17 =3 -1 against three of the strongest players in the world in the 71' candidates.

When Fischer said I can spot any woman in the world a knight and still kick her derrière---no one challenged him. No one said, I'll take that challenge for a $1,000 or $5,000 dollars---or for any amount. Complete silence. Were women afraid to step up---apparently so.

When Fischer said if Morphy were playing today---He could take any man alive in a set match. I didnt hear Botvinnik say--- Thats Hogwash! I didnt hear Petrosian say it, I didnt hear Spassky say it, I didnt hear Larsen say it---I didnt hear anyone dispute it. 

I could go on and on and on---but I feel like I'm kicking a dead horse...


He was intelligent.  He was one of the best players ever, and arguably the very best.  And of course not everything he said was crazy or wrong, but I do disagree with some of his chess statements.

Beating any woman alive at knight odds was incorrect.  I think there were a few master level women at least, and knight odds to a master is more than enough to beat a world champ.

As for Morphy beating anyone alive in match play (did he really say that?).  Perhaps it was so obviously wrong, that no one needed to say anything.

But anyway, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree about this.

orangehonda

"Kaufman has written that Kasparov could give pawn and move odds to a low grandmaster (2500 FIDE rating) and be slightly favored, and would have even chances at knight odds against a player with a FIDE rating of 2115"

So at their best, a world champ would hope for beating an expert at knight odds in match play.  It's speculative on both sides for sure, it's never been done... but I seriously doubt any 2200+ player having much trouble with knight odds vs a world champ.  The better you are, the more material is worth... a master giving knight odds to a class B player is no comparison.  Giving a master knight odds has got to be something like 800 rating points.

Also I did a bit of googling and found that Fischer specifically talked about beating Nona Gaprindashvili giving knight odds, but then backed down when they were willing to set up the match.  She was stronger than master, smart move on Bobby's part.

Oh, and less than a minute into that radio interview posted in this thread (post 83) Fischer comments on how past world champs (from the 19th century) wouldn't do well today against any top player because they would "have bad openings" part of his bit on how opening theory killed chess.  Maybe the quote you're thinking of is when Fischer said Morphy was the greatest?  I don't remember annoying about Morphy being able to win any match.

Please don't just believe this stuff simply on the defense that "well I never heard of anyone saying otherwise"

orangehonda

Here's some wiki stuff I found also
----------------------------------------------------------

In an interview with Ralph Ginzburg published in the January 1962 issue of Harper's Magazine, future World Champion Bobby Fischer was quoted as saying that he could successfully give knight odds to any woman in the world:[50][51][52]

They're all weak, all women. They're stupid compared to men. They shouldn't play chess, you know. They're like beginners. They lose every single game against a man. There isn't a woman player in the world I can't give knight-odds to and still beat.

Fischer later claimed that Ginzburg had distorted what he had said.[53]There is no doubt that Fischer would have failed at such an endeavor.[54] World Champion Emanuel Lasker had failed at such an endeavor in 1894, losing a match at knight odds to Jackson Showalter's wife; he scored two wins and five losses.[55]

In 2001, London businessman Terence Chapman, a master-level player, played a match against former world champion Garry Kasparov with Kasparov giving odds of two pawns in each game (the pawns to be removed being different each time); Kasparov won the match by two games to one, with one draw
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you're still not convinced, like I said before, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

orangehonda

I forgot this well known quote by the way... (how could I forget!?)

"Fischer is Fischer, but a knight is a knight!"  - Tal

Atos

The reason Spassky never played King's Gambit against Fischer after Mar Del Plata was that Fischer never again played 1. ...e5 against him. I think we might agree that playing the King's Gambit against the Sicilian would be a bit of a challenge.

rooperi
orangehonda wrote:

I forgot this well known quote by the way... (how could I forget!?)

"Fischer is Fischer, but a knight is a knight!"  - Tal


I always had it as: Fischer is Fischer, but a horse is as horse.

Atos
rooperi wrote:
orangehonda wrote:

I forgot this well known quote by the way... (how could I forget!?)

"Fischer is Fischer, but a knight is a knight!"  - Tal


I always had it as: Fischer is Fischer, but a horse is as horse.


Would be the same word in Russian.

rooperi
Atos wrote:
rooperi wrote:
orangehonda wrote:

I forgot this well known quote by the way... (how could I forget!?)

"Fischer is Fischer, but a knight is a knight!"  - Tal


I always had it as: Fischer is Fischer, but a horse is as horse.


Would be the same word in Russian.


Ah!

JG27Pyth
notlesu wrote:
orangehonda wrote:

Here's some wiki stuff I found also
----------------------------------------------------------

In an interview with Ralph Ginzburg published in the January 1962 issue of Harper's Magazine, future World Champion Bobby Fischer was quoted as saying that he could successfully give knight odds to any woman in the world:[50][51][52]

They're all weak, all women. They're stupid compared to men. They shouldn't play chess, you know. They're like beginners. They lose every single game against a man. There isn't a woman player in the world I can't give knight-odds to and still beat.

Fischer later claimed that Ginzburg had distorted what he had said.[53]There is no doubt that Fischer would have failed at such an endeavor.[54] World Champion Emanuel Lasker had failed at such an endeavor in 1894, losing a match at knight odds to Jackson Showalter's wife; he scored two wins and five losses.[55]

In 2001, London businessman Terence Chapman, a master-level player, played a match against former world champion Garry Kasparov with Kasparov giving odds of two pawns in each game (the pawns to be removed being different each time); Kasparov won the match by two games to one, with one draw
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you're still not convinced, like I said before, we'll just have to agree to disagree.


 Orangehonda, You believe the Fischer statement--- "They're all weak, all women. They're stupid compared to men. They shouldn't play chess, you know. They're like beginners. They lose every single game against a man. There isn't a woman player in the world I can't give knight-odds to and still beat."--- was taken out of context???  Man, you got to be the most gullible guy on this site!!!!!!

Orangehonda, You believe --- Lasker lost a match, at knight odds, to Jackson Showalter's wife; he scored two wins and five losses    Man, you got to be the most gullible guy on theis site!!!!!

Orangehonda, you're becoming very annoying. you keep throwing crap around hoping something is going to stick. I dont want to waste my time on Showalter 's wife---that is complete BS. If  some lady beat him at knight odds, its because he let some lady beat him. 

Oh yeah----What the hell does the following have to do with Fisher's statement in 62'---"In 2001, London businessman Terence Chapman, a master-level player, played a match against former world champion Garry Kasparov with Kasparov giving odds of two pawns in each game (the pawns to be removed being different each time); Kasparov won the match by two games to one, with one draw."

You know orangehonda---it would be ever so helpful to the readers if your little stories actually had a point. Any kind of point!
 


Notlesu, you need to spend some quality time with the "reasoning by analogy" concept. Just because you don't understand, doesn't mean he isn't making sense.

Atos
notlesu wrote:
Atos wrote:
tonydal wrote:

If say a lawyer goes bankrupt, weren't they still a professional lawyer until they crashed and burned?


I guess so, but if they never made any significant amount of money from law profession to begin with then I think not. Just because someone did not happen to have another reasonable source of income, and once in a while made a few dimes from chess, does not make them chess professionals unless one is really prepared to stretch the concept. 


Atos, I get the distinct impression that you think Morphy never made a significant amount of money from chess. In  Aug 1859 thru Aug 1860 he wrote a chess column for the New York Ledger. He was paid $3,000 for the column. That $80,000 in todays money---do you consider that significant?


I wasn't directly talking about Morphy. It may be that Morphy made some money from chess, but he was from a rich family so he probably wouldn't have considered that a significant amount of money. There was also the issue of him / his family/ social milieu considering chess as a kind of gambling, and feeling a disgust toward making a living from it. Between it having been practically difficult to make a regular / significant income from chess, and it having been considered unacceptable in the higher social circles, I still find it hard believe that there were really chess professionals then. 

Atos

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nona_Gaprindashvili

In 1961, aged 20, Gaprindashvili won the fourth women's Candidates Tournament, setting up a title match against Russian world champion Elisabeth Bykova. She won the match easily, with a final score of 9-2 (+7−0=4)...

If Fischer's statement was made in 1962., the World's Women's Champion would already have been Gaprindashvili, not Bykova. 

orangehonda
notlesu wrote:
orangehonda wrote:

Here's some wiki stuff I found also
----------------------------------------------------------

In an interview with Ralph Ginzburg published in the January 1962 issue of Harper's Magazine, future World Champion Bobby Fischer was quoted as saying that he could successfully give knight odds to any woman in the world:[50][51][52]

They're all weak, all women. They're stupid compared to men. They shouldn't play chess, you know. They're like beginners. They lose every single game against a man. There isn't a woman player in the world I can't give knight-odds to and still beat.

Fischer later claimed that Ginzburg had distorted what he had said.[53]There is no doubt that Fischer would have failed at such an endeavor.[54] World Champion Emanuel Lasker had failed at such an endeavor in 1894, losing a match at knight odds to Jackson Showalter's wife; he scored two wins and five losses.[55]

In 2001, London businessman Terence Chapman, a master-level player, played a match against former world champion Garry Kasparov with Kasparov giving odds of two pawns in each game (the pawns to be removed being different each time); Kasparov won the match by two games to one, with one draw
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you're still not convinced, like I said before, we'll just have to agree to disagree.


 Orangehonda, You believe the Fischer statement--- "They're all weak, all women. They're stupid compared to men. They shouldn't play chess, you know. They're like beginners. They lose every single game against a man. There isn't a woman player in the world I can't give knight-odds to and still beat."--- was taken out of context???  Man, you got to be the most gullible guy on this site!!!!!!

Orangehonda, You believe --- Lasker lost a match, at knight odds, to Jackson Showalter's wife; he scored two wins and five losses    Man, you got to be the most gullible guy on theis site!!!!!

Orangehonda, you're becoming very annoying. you keep throwing crap around hoping something is going to stick. I dont want to waste my time on Showalter 's wife---that is complete BS. If  some lady beat him at knight odds, its because he let some lady beat him. 

Oh yeah----What the hell does the following have to do with Fisher's statement in 62'---"In 2001, London businessman Terence Chapman, a master-level player, played a match against former world champion Garry Kasparov with Kasparov giving odds of two pawns in each game (the pawns to be removed being different each time); Kasparov won the match by two games to one, with one draw."

You know orangehonda---it would be ever so helpful to the readers if your little stories actually had a point. Any kind of point!
 


I guess if you didn't understand in the first place I shouldn't expect you to get it after someone spells it out either Tongue out  Not a problem, you can think whatever you want.

In fact it's so bad notlesu, it's one of those blurry lines between stupid and troll.  Although I'm willing to stay optimistic and think of you as willingly ignorant.

philidor_position

Computer analysis shows Morphy was master level. I found the analysis very convincing, and consider Morphy mostly as a hype.