@drmrboss, you’re right. That’s why I think it’s nonsense to compare…
A 2200 player @ chess.com playing only 1200 players, will give a lot of punches…but will gain little to none ratingpoints…and for that probably will never reach the magical 2700 mark.
comparing players from both eras is useless
That's what makes it fun :-) But I don't know how many threads I have read on this subject, and I have never seen anyone suggest that maybe Kasparov or Carlsen were much more talented than Morphy. But I have frequently seen things suggested like Morphy winning 10-0 against them (something he never did against opponents in his own time) all things being equal :-)
But on the whole one can't compare even two players born the same year with regards to talent. Maybe the most talented never even played chess, or won twice against his dad but thought backgammon or ornithology was more fun. But Morphy was of course an amazing talent.
Regarding the Opera House game: I have recreated it against 16xx players. They usually don’t allow the brilliant finish that Morphy played but will go down the same road for about 13 moves, which leads to the same result.
Regarding the Opera House game: I have recreated it against 16xx players. They usually don’t allow the brilliant finish that Morphy played but will go down the same road for about 13 moves, which leads to the same result.
New students picked the obvious 8.Qxb7, which is a pawn up, but worse than 8.Nc3.
And 3-4 advanced students opted for 8.Bxf7+ which is objectively best, but certainly less entertaining than Morphy's choice.
It is a pity that we can't have what we call direct confrontation between Morphy and the modern players.
But the criteria that was used to give him an ELO 2638 is trustable?
But the criteria that was used to give him an ELO 2638 is trustable?
That number was just pulled out of somebody's butt.
.. I have frequently seen things suggested like Morphy winning 10-0 against (Kasparov and Carlsen) ... (something he never did against opponents in his own time) ...
When comparing the greats of different times, modernity usually wins. Players are always learning from the past, and advancing because of it.
19th-century Morphy would certainly lose to Carlsen, who has had nearly two centuries of advancements to learn from.
Likewise, Carlsen would certainly lose to the world champion two centuries from now, for the exact same reasons.
Neither scenario, though, should tarnish the greatness of Morphy, nor Carlsen. (Or any other great player that we may compare.)
That's why I agree with those who say it's more logical (and more practical) to measure chess players by how they perform (or have performed) against their contemporaries.
There seems to be a player from every era who stands head and shoulders above the rest.
Chess, like track, has an objective measure that is stable across the years. It's not quite as accurate as a clock, but Elo ratings have been demonstrated to record the approximate strength of players regardless of when they played.
Using Intrinsic Performance Ratings (IPR), it's possible to measure how well people in the past played compared to players today. It may need as tweak, as IM Kenneth Regan pointed out, but it's pretty reliable.
Whether people like it or not, we are able to compare how players of the past performed and compare their performances to the best players today using FIDE ratings and IPR
Whether people like it or not, we are able to compare how players of the past performed and compare their performances to the best players today using FIDE ratings and IPR
I agree, with one caveat: it has to be assumed that the player was choosing moves that they considered best.
In modern times, with professional players, it can be assumed that they are generally playing the best moves they can find.
This assumption becomes less reliable as we go farther back in time. Especially when we move toward the Romantic era, where professional chess was not yet a thing, and the values of the game were different.
Aggression and spectacle were ideals in the Romantic era of chess. Back then, a player may have chosen a more dramatic move ... even if a quieter, more objectively correct move could be seen.
An unclear sacrifice, or a dubious pawn thrust, would've been applauded more than a pragmatic, engine-like move of prophylaxis. Even if the Romantic player saw the objectively better move, and identified that move as the stronger choice, they would've likely chosen the dramatic move instead - as that move would've been seen as more respectable and courageous, due to the culture of the time.
I don't think this negates the argument that today's grandmasters could outplay 19th-century Morphy. I agree with that conclusion.
But I do think any objective analysis of Morphy's moves should be taken with a grain of salt, considering the era in which he played, and the kinds of moves that would've been approved of, or condemned, by the culture.
This is also why we can point to Morphy's openings and note that he was sometimes losing, according to engine evaluations, by a pawn or more in the first few moves.
But that was also due to the era.
Losing in material or position didn't matter as much to the players of those days - as long as it allowed the possibility of crowd-pleasing, sacrificial attacks.
Precision was less of a concern. Drama was more of a priority.
These days, the values have more or less flipped.
So when we measure the older greats by today's standards of precision, their games can seem subpar.
Though if the older greats could've measured today's games by their standards, they might've frowned and considered our concern with accuracy to be a tragedy ...
Yes, let’s presume that the best players of the past played poorly by choice rather than by skill.
Yes, let’s presume that the best players of the past played poorly by choice rather than by skill.
If those players saw a chance to win more spectacularly they often took it. Everyone loves to produce a brilliancy. Also, they knew they were stronger than their opponents and their attacks were highly likely to succeed, or at least give them an advantageous position should the opponent avoid mate. Notice how in Morphy's matches the first four or five games have a relatively even score. By then Morphy has assessed his opponents' weaknesses and plays more boldly, resulting in a rout in the later stages of the match.
Use that same logic for today’s players.
Yesterday, Magnus Carlsen played 1.b3 twice against Wesley So and won both games, spectacularly.
His IPR for that match was through the roof.
Exactly lol imagine thinking that players who valued being the best over everything else playing dumb risky moves on purpose instead of the winning ones lol
There are a similar discussion about who was the best cientist ever.
Many people says that was Albert Einstain others that was Stephen Hawking.
There are also others, and I include myself among them, that say that was Newton, because he created the basis for physics.
The same happens to Morphy, he opened the roads so that we could travel today.
We acn say today:
If I saw any further, it was because I was on the shoulders of giants.
(Isaac newton)
Yes, let’s presume that the best players of the past played poorly by choice rather than by skill.
Not a choice to play "poorly", but a choice to play in a way that was more acceptable at the time.
Consider these thoughts from Morphy himself, when commenting on a La Bourdonnais match:
"... that pernicious fondness for the Sicilian Defense which was displayed during what may be called the period of close games, extending from about 1843 to some time after 1851. It was an epoch of uninteresting games and dreary analytical labors, and with the exception of the contests occurring between the great Prussian masters, afforded but comparatively few specimens of brilliant play. It should be a subject of rejoicing with every lover of the game that an age in which so much severe labor led to such unprofitable results, has passed away. There is now a visible tendency to cultivate a higher style of chess art—to substitute for the false taste which has so long prevailed a more elevated standard of excellence." - P. Morphy
Note that Morphy found games arising from the Sicilian to be "uninteresting" and "dreary analytical labors". He favored, instead, a "higher style of chess art" and an "elevated standard of excellence".
What can we conclude about what Morphy considered a "higher style" and an "elevated standard"? We can see it in his own words, as stated later in the same commentary:
"The boldness of this move, and Black's 20th, is very commendable for its daring ..." - P. Morphy
Note that Morphy applauded a move because of how bold and daring it was. That shows you the mindset of the Romantic era, and the values with which players of that time operated.
These days, chess is treated as a science. We value moves for how accurate and precise they are.
In those days, chess was seen more as an art. Moves were valued more for how thrilling and adventurous they were.
no, that's extremely doubtful. BUT, i do think that morphy might lose to any GM rated higher than 2550ish. any sort of 2600 player would beat him, but morphy would never be destroyed in a game, unless he were to play karpov, or anand, for example.
One reason that amateurs are less impressed by modern players is that the general level of tournament play has improved across the board, especially defensive technique.
Modern masters seldom produce anything comparable to Morphy's Opera game, not because they lack Morphy's talent, but simply because their opponents don't allow that sort of brilliancy nowadays. The standard of modern defensive play doesn't allow that sort of smashing win anymore.
In order to produce a brilliancy, it isn't enough to play well. Your opponent must play poorly.
+1
The opponent skill in opera house was like 1200-1300( He didn't know or didn't follow principle in developing basic pieces).
If 2700/2800 GM vs 1300 play today, you will see similar one sided punch.