No, it is certainly unfair to compare GMS and world champs that hapened to be 1 centenry and half ago, so if his rating is gonna be 2638 if tested, then his elo should be over 3000 if you put him in the current time and let him study with all of the resources. Morphy is better than carlsen, morphy created theories and stuff. He is truly a genius.
Paul Morphy's Rating>2638
Sort:
Bro the second best player at that time is 1500, he is over 2500 by that time. So if you put him currently. I'd estinmate his elo to be slightly higher than 3000, which is at the average current level of world chess engines.
Strong chess engines currently are estimated to be 3000 elo average, so I am jsut really curious if morphy played carlsen, and what would the game look like
“19th-century Morphy would certainly lose to Carlsen, who has had nearly two centuries of advancements to learn from.”
And exactly what are these advancements that are so critical?
And exactly what are these advancements that are so critical?
BlackKaweah wrote:
“19th-century Morphy would certainly lose to Carlsen, who has had nearly two centuries of advancements to learn from.”
And exactly what are these advancements that are so critical?
And exactly what are these advancements that are so critical?
Let’s see… Opening theory that would win you games in the opening against the best players from much later than Morphy, GM coaching since childhood, elite tournament series that didn’t exist 150+ years ago, engines to study with, databases, endgame theory, online play and practice against top opposition, 150+ years of chess literature and games from the greats of the past to learn from, better pay for the best players, seconds assisting with preparation, professional training for many years etc. Did I forget some?
BlackKaweah wrote:
“19th-century Morphy would certainly lose to Carlsen, who has had nearly two centuries of advancements to learn from.”
And exactly what are these advancements that are so critical?
And exactly what are these advancements that are so critical?
Off the top of my head…
Computers? The Internet? Hundreds of thousands of games to analyze?
Morphy was a remarkably strong intuitive player.
But he owes much of his success and reputation to the comparative weakness of his contemporaries. Nobody in the mid-1800s could even approach Morphy's accuracy in open positions. He was not notably successful in more closed positions.
In 1858, Morphy stood head and shoulders above his contemporaries... but that was then, and this is now.
Nowadays it takes more than just tremendous natural talent to reach the highest levels. A player with an amazing natural gift will routinely lose to a player with an amazing natural gift AND years of study, millions of Master games in his data-base, proper coaching, and so on.
What is the difference between Magnus Carlsen and the rest of the top 10 players today? Their knowledge of theory, and their preparation is pretty much at a plateau. The difference then, would be that intuitive instinct for the game. Magnus himself has said many he often relies on instinct to play. Morphy had that in spades. All he needs then, is the knowledge of theory, and preparation. Furthermore, of that all he needs is opening theory, as the middle game is often more about calculation and instinct (as most professional games enter unexplored territory after an average of say 15-17 moves), and so is the endgame for the most part. Heck, chess is a solved game with 7 pieces or less. I say this not as a professional (I'm nowhere close), but a logical observer of the chess world's dynamic.
Didn’t he say chess wastes your life as well
favela you suck a checkers bruh
brrr skibidy dob dob dob dob dobbb
the difference is the tissue of magnus is sucky i hate him he sucks im sus he not i n =9 his whipmfrom ohio
in my opinion magnus is a bif fat sigma imposter and sjould be banned
This is not the same question as "if he was born 20 years ago with the internet would he dominate today", because we really have no way to answer this question.