Paul Morphy's Rating>2638

Sort:
Tabulation

NM Omar, I'm glad you enjoyed this topic of Morphy so much. :D 

Atos
arashi_star wrote:
WilsonYiuWahWong wrote:

Proof? That is not proof. Your arbitrary numbers mean nothing. To evaluate a persons strength, you look at the games they played, not "who is better than who" and being better than the average means nothing because of the Flynn effect, where the players get stronger every generation.


 lol, incase you missed the point completley (which i think you did), I did not "evaluate" Morphy's strength, I put it into a fide rating based on results (which incase you don't know is exactley what fide does).  


Well, when when FIDE calculates someone's rating, it calculates based on their results against other players whose ratings are established, not against other players whose ratings are just about as dubious. Okay, we can discuss Morphy etc but surely you don't claim that the rating you proposed has anything to do with anything.

KillaNinja

out of curiosity.. has anyone ever asked modern day supergrandmasters on their opinion on morphy's strength..

NimzoRoy

And your opinion isn't "pretty random?" Where did you get everyone else's rating from? I'll give you a hint: they're all "guesstimates" at best and hogwash at worst.

dpnorman
[COMMENT DELETED]
dpnorman
[COMMENT DELETED]
dannyhume

I'd think that Morphy, in a first match with a modern super-GM, would get crushed initially.  

But in a second match (or maybe even in the first if it were as long as Karpov-Kasparov 1984), what would happen when he starts steering things into "unclear" territory?  

What a lot of people seem to be saying is that in "unclear" positions or where theory is limited, Morphy would still get crushed by modern GM's, implying that Morphy's genius is no different than Aronian's, Carlsen's, Karjakin's or any top 20 GM, but that Morphy would be too stupid to avoid such lines or figure out where his opponent is least comfortable (in a long match or in a second match).  It also implies that theory trumps genius in chess, kind of like saying a booked up 1300-level chess player will always destroy a 1600-level player who knows minimal theory (having attained the ranking by his own "genius"). 

Do we live in a magical time where every top 20 super-GM is a natural Morphy-like genius that coincidentally also has modern theory at his disposal?  

Tabulation
dannyhume wrote: Do we live in a magical time where every top 20 super-GM is a natural Morphy-like genius that coincidentally also has modern theory at his disposal?  

 Actually yes we do, since the chess playing population increased so much the amount of chess players who have super amounts of talent also increased. 

9ll_Elite_9ll

We all know Morphy's elo is actually 2452.

dannyhume

Losing the first several games of the match purely on theory, Morphy'd have Carlsen's style and worst chessic fears all worked out and steer the games entirely in that direction.  Morphy would then bitch-slap Carlsen with pawn's odds using the BDG as white every single game thereafter. 

Then Carlsen would whine how he didn't have enough time or databases to analyze Morphy's contemporaneous play and how Morphy had an inherent unfair advantage because he had nothing to lose from this match being the underdog and was too looney to understand the associated psychological pressures. 

Carlsen would then withdraw from the rest of the match just before Morphy took the lead.  And Morphy would think to himself "and he does this for a living?"

liftingfaces

If Morphy were alive today, he would not have gotten to the level he did, because he simply was not that into chess. What he accomplished he accomplished out of intuition and observation, not rigorous study.

That said, there is much evidence to state he had an eidetic memory, so in match play against anyone it is quite possible he could rise to their level.

THAT said, he also played to win in life, and hated nothing so much as failure. If he were to endeavor on a quest to conquer the chess world, he would have had to have studied much differently.

But Paul barely read any books on the subject, and today's SGM's are nothing if not bookish. Such a hard thing to quantify, you know?

...ryan

dannyhume

If I could crush everyone easily in chess, I'd play very inaccurately and "settle" for Morphy's dominance, rather than absolutely annihilating everyone with a perfect score.  Morphy was not way ahead of his time.  He was greater than light years, transcending time, ahead of his time.

Imagine if Kasparov won no less than 70% of his games against all of his opponents including Karpov and Kramnik, and won all of his matches as dominantly.  There'd be no debate. 

Imagine if Bobby Fischer had a 1970-1972 run x 2 and then demanded in 1975 that the only way he'd play for the FIDE championship was if Karpov was given "knight's odds".  There'd be no debate.

Morphy. No debate.  (I like Capablanca better).  

Elroch

If I was Morphy, I'd enjoy my success at chess and find something else to do.

Ben_Dubuque

I am amazed at Greco, his games are fun to watch, and look like they were played yesterday, yes he was still tactical, however he probably had a decent positional understanding, unfortunately his opponents would be rated 14-1500 today and he would have easily been a high rated GM

Elroch

My respect for Philidor has grown with time: he is often misrepresented as being too dogmatic and simplistic, but had some strategic ideas that seem rather modern. But the defense named after him is not so great.

Elroch

Yes, his contribution to endgame theory is still important.

dannyhume

He loved The Doors, hence his name. 

dannyhume

Well, maybe just one of them.

hominoid

According to gm.chesszen.com Morphy's rating is 2335. 

batgirl

Good reason to avoid gm.chesszen.com.