Its not about winning or loseing, its about ghetting your king to the otheirs ied man right notelsu?
Pre-Steinitz chess
Sort:
Bio sam engleskog jezika. To je vaše razumevanje da nedostaje.
I wonder how many people in the future will point to Kramnik allowing a mate in 1 as proof that he was really no better than the C class players of the future ? 
RealityMate wrote:
There is a difference between the game that I cited and the example that Fezzik showed: Admittedly mine doesn't show much other than that Morphy (like all of us, even Kramnik!) makes blunders, but the example Fezzik showed shows a true lack of basic endgame knowledge. The point to be made is that despite the fact that Morphy was an excellent attacker, a B player could just play 1. d4 and an exchange variation and be on a par or better with him in the endgame.
This is simply ridiculous . Most B class players will not even survive the middlegame with me, what chance would they have against a Tal or a Morphy ?! Please stop being silly.......
Nov 8, 2010
0
#67
Fezzik wrote:
Trysts, it certainly does, doesn't it!
There are plenty of examples of his endgame play that suggest he just didn't enjoy them or know what to do in them. Harrwitz was probably the best at exploiting this weakness in Morphy's game. (Take a look at Harrwitz-Morphy Paris Match, 1859 for some examples of how Harrwitz gave Morphy fits in the endgame.)
In order to reach the endgame against Morphy, his opponents had to be excellent tacticians, but once there, they had real chances.
How can someone be sooooo exceptional in calculating throughout the game, and play endgames like the one you posted!? It doesn't make sense? Later on, I will look through the "Harrwitz" match. Thank you.
Nov 8, 2010
0
#68
notlesu wrote:
Trysts, You... better brush up on your history.
I think you should brush up on your Shut the F**k up!
Morphy was Fischer' idol, and imitazio dei was required. Spassky was talented but on the lazy side I think.
Nov 8, 2010
0
#70
For the record, Malcon Shibut wrote a book, called Paul Morphy and the Evolution of Chess, that doesn't lionize Morphy, but rather tries to examine and explain his place in the development of chess.
Shibut wrote:
Morphy had the inferior side in a disproportionate number of his ending! Of his games that lasted as far as an endgame, many began with Morphy conceding odds. It was a partial victory for him just to have reached an endgame that was merely difficult. . .
Morphy's endgame play has fallen through the cracks of his popular legacy, overstuffed as it is with romantic gambits and scintillating combinations. But you cannot become world champion, de facto or otherwise, without mastering the endgame. That was no less true in 1860 than today. Every indication is that Morphy was among the best endgame players of his day, probably the best.
Nov 8, 2010
0
#71
batgirl wrote:
For the record, Malcon Shibut wrote a book, called Paul Morphy and the Evolution of Chess, that doesn't lionize Morphy, but rather tries to examine and explain his place in the development of chess.
Shibut wrote:
Morphy had the inferior side in a disproportionate number of his ending! Of his games that lasted as far as an endgame, many began with Morphy conceding odds. It was a partial victory for him just to have reached an endgame that was merely difficult. . .
Morphy's endgame play has fallen through the cracks of his popular legacy, overstuffed as it is with romantic gambits and scintillating combinations. But you cannot become world champion, de facto or otherwise, without mastering the endgame. That was no less true in 1860 than today. Every indication is that Morphy was among the best endgame players of his day, probably the best.
So would you say Morphy threw the game that Fezzik posted(post #100)?
RealityMate wrote:
notlesu wrote:
Fezzik and Trysts, You'd both better brush up on your history. There was a logical explanation as to why Morphy lost those first two games and why he came back so strongly in the next five that Harwitz literally ran away! It's in the book! Look it up.
Actually, those first two losses were reminiscent of Fischer's first two losses against Spassky. Morphy was Fischer's hero---and Fischer may have been thinking, If Morphy could spot that bozo two games and still clobber him, then I can do the same with this Russian woodshifter. Yessir, Morphy may have played a part in Fischer's dismantling of Spassky. BELIEVE IT OR NOT
Two main differences when comparing Fischer and Morphy:
1. Fischer had a better overall record than Morphy, and
2. Fischer was playing all of the top GMs, while Morphy was playing NNs and winning in 10 moves.
Your hate for the fan boy's blind love of Morphy vs NN is itself as blind as... the fanboy's love of Morphy vs NN 
.
Morphy also played all the greats of his day (except Staunton) with very convincing results. Why do you focus on Morphy's throw away games? Morphy did a blindfold exhibition in London vs 8 of Europe's best winning 6 and drawing 2 (if I remember). Sure the best of that time period weren't GMs, but they aren't these sloppy NN who lose in 20 moves either.
If I went though your database and picked out the least impressive games, would my conclusions be any less bias? etc.
Nov 8, 2010
0
#74
I took the liberty to look at several endgames Morphy was involved in, just to make it evident that one bad example doesn't define Morphy.
Morphy is playing Black
a 1650 player generally gets his lunch handed to him by a coffee house player who is nowhere near the strength of a 19th century master. Steinitz himself didn't ride rough shold over the masters of his day, but had to work hard for his victories.
RealityMate wrote:
orangehonda wrote:
Your hate for the fan boy's blind love of Morphy vs NN is itself as blind as... the fanboy's love of Morphy vs NN .
Your hate for the fan boy's blind love of Morphy vs NN is itself as blind as... the fanboy's love of Morphy vs NN .
Morphy also played all the greats of his day (except Staunton) with very convincing results. Why do you focus on Morphy's throw away games? Morphy did a blindfold exhibition in London vs 8 of Europe's best winning 6 and drawing 2 (if I remember). Sure the best of that time period weren't GMs, but they aren't these sloppy NN who lose in 20 moves either.
If I went though your database and picked out the least impressive games, would my conclusions be any less bias? etc.
Here's the difference: If you went through my database and picked out my ugliest games, I wouldn't be very happy with what I saw. However, I'm not a world champion who wouldn't know what maintaining opposition in the endgame is even if it hit him in the face (which I believe it did on several occasions).
So now Morphy is so bad he doesn't even know opposition, so that's what, like a 1000 rated player :p
BTW you don't have to read it from a book to learn things like opposition and relative piece values and the worth of two bishops... I mean, where do you think this information came from? It had to come from someone. Prodigies discover these things intuitively.
But anyway if you want to think badly of Morphy, we forum members (and lots of evidence) can't stop you (aparently ;) so I'm willing to just agree to disagree here.
So what happened? You guys got tired of arguing about Fischer, so you decided to dig up Morphy's bones? Fischer, in fact, thought Morphy was the greatest player of all time. Except himself.
Consider that when he returned from Europe the de facto champion in 1859, Morphy was barely 22 years old! Sadly, he didn't play much serious chess after that.
Trainig methods were not as good as they are today and the general level of play was lower. The body of theory that today's players enjoy and computer analysis did not exist. And anyone can have a bad day. You can speculate about why he played some substandard end games, but we'll never know. We can't ask him.
Given the resources today's players have, Morphy would certainly have been a strong GM today. If he were 150 years younger.
Nov 8, 2010
0
#78
electricpawn wrote:
So what happened? You guys got tired of arguing about Fischer, so you decided to dig up Morphy's bones? Fischer, in fact, thought Morphy was the greatest player of all time. Except himself.
Consider that when he returned from Europe the de facto champion in 1859, Morphy was barely 22 years old! Sadly, he didn't play much serious chess after that.
Trainig methods were not as good as they are today and the general level of play was lower. The body of theory that today's players enjoy and computer analysis did not exist. And anyone can have a bad day. You can speculate about why he played some substandard end games, but we'll never know. We can't ask him.
Given the resources today's players have, Morphy would certainly have been a strong GM today. If he were 150 years younger.
What Fischer ever thought, shouldn't have a bearing on civilized society, or any question for that matter, electric...pawn
RealityMate wrote:
@electricpawn: I agree, Morphy was an extremely talented player. The difference is that people are saying that if a master went back in time, he would be able to beat them.. which I believe is ridiculous.
I agree. Time travelling chess players is absolutely ludicrous.
trysts wrote:
electricpawn wrote:
So what happened? You guys got tired of arguing about Fischer, so you decided to dig up Morphy's bones? Fischer, in fact, thought Morphy was the greatest player of all time. Except himself.
Consider that when he returned from Europe the de facto champion in 1859, Morphy was barely 22 years old! Sadly, he didn't play much serious chess after that.
Trainig methods were not as good as they are today and the general level of play was lower. The body of theory that today's players enjoy and computer analysis did not exist. And anyone can have a bad day. You can speculate about why he played some substandard end games, but we'll never know. We can't ask him.
Given the resources today's players have, Morphy would certainly have been a strong GM today. If he were 150 years younger.
What Fischer ever thought, shouldn't have a bearing on civilized society, or any question for that matter, electric...pawn
I'm glad I didn't have to say it this time
Fischer's chess games = great
Fischer's anything else = I could care less
I have a girl, they call her Batgirl, and rightly so...