Trysts, You... better brush up on your history.
I think you should brush up on your Shut the F**k up!
Notlesu, who was that lady I saw you out with last night?
That was no lady---That was Tryst!!
Fischer's chess games = great
Fischer's anything else = I could care less
Hilarious!
Perhaps not, but he was better at analyzing chess games than you are try....sts. Now bring me that brany manhattan I ordered!
Fischer's chess games = great
Fischer's anything else = I could care less
Hilarious!
Perhaps not, but he was better at analyzing chess games than you are try....sts. Now bring me that brany manhattan I ordered!
Alright, here's your bloody Manhattan! Hmmm...It's actually kind of yummy
Fischer's chess games = great
Fischer's anything else = I could care less
Hilarious!
Perhaps not, but he was better at analyzing chess games than you are try....sts. Now bring me that brany manhattan I ordered!
Alright, here's your bloody Manhattan! Hmmm...It's actually kind of yummy
Not bad for an oldtimer's drink, huh?
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.
What about the fact that they lived a century apart---you forgot that.
What about Morphy had money and Fischer didnt.
What about ---Morphy had a social life---Fischer was a hermit.
We could list a million differences between Morphy and Fischer---but whats your point?
What about Morphy quit playing when he was 22?
Theres a reason why Bobby Fischer won with Kings Gambit then, and no one wins with Kings Gambit today...
Hey Trysts---good point! Lowenthal was the only player Morphy had ties with when he hit London. He was the first to offer Morphy a match. He had been a guest of the Morphy family when Paul was was 12. I'm sure Paul had a warm feelings for the man. When Morphy won the match 9-3 Lowenthal said Morphy was clearly superior in every way. When Morphy collected the 100 dollar prize---he promptly went out and bought Lowenthal 120 dollars of furniture for his new home. Trysts, you little devil you, I think you hit upon the truth!!!
Bartender, bring this little lady a bloody mary
I'm 5ft. 7, therefore, taller than you. And if I hit upon the truth, regarding you, I would have been playing "pin the tail on the jackass"
Theres a reason why Bobby Fischer won with Kings Gambit then, and no one wins with Kings Gambit today...
Spassky was the king of the kings gambit , imo. I dont think Fischer ever played it in a serious game against any of the very top GMs , Spassky did.
Fischer's "bust" was never tested in practice, as he never played 1. ...e5 against Spassky again.
Fischer's "bust" was never tested in practice, as he never played 1. ...e5 against Spassky again.
Atos, what a coincidence!
chess.com member Deltatango95 has kindly scanned and put on his blog vol.1 of the American Chess Quarterly that contains Fisher's famous so-called Bust of the King's Gambit.
Fischer's "bust" was never tested in practice, as he never played 1. ...e5 against Spassky again.
Back then, playing the King's Gambit was still fashionable among grandmasters.This article became the most famous article about an opening ever, and it had devastating affects on the King's Gambit opening.
It wasn't fashionable on top level, and the article sounds like a bit of a prank. It's similar to when Fischer said (after having played the Evans Gambit in a couple of simuls) that he "couldn't wait to play the Evans against a grandmaster"), but then played something else.
I'd rate an average master of today as being as good as or better than the strongest players from the Pre-Steintz era. Leaning towards the latter...
This thread says quite a bit... about the posters.
. . .
In a thread purportedly about the the Pre-Steinitz players, most of the recent posts have been about somebody who was active from about 1955-1972, and 1992.
There are some who have suggested that Morphy was a poor endgame player because there was no comprehensive endgame theory before Steinitz.
The only bona fide authority- by virtue of his own skill, his detailed analysis of Morphy's games and the general acceptance of his work by others who are eminently qualified to judge him- on Morphy and his endgame ability, whose words appear on this thread, Macon Shibut, catagorically praised Morphy's endgame skill as one of the best, if not the best, of his day.
Blowing off his assesment says something too.
Morphy did play quite a bit of chess after his return to the United States, mostly in Houma, Louisiana. But the folks there aren't talking.
I'm randomly curious about how a high-rated player from before Steinitz, back when the goal of chess was to sack pieces in spectacular ways (oh, and checkmate), would stack up in modern chess. It seems like it would be too easy to say that they didn't have positional chess theories, so we're just unilaterally better. Chess masters from any period are, after all, chess masters.
Or, to put it another way, if I, a USCF 1650 nobody, were to be accidentally zapped into the past, in which centuries if any would I be able to set myself up as a chess guru?
No, a 1600 would be destroyed by the chess masters of any era :) But like goldendog said, you'd likely get a nice opening.
You could also possibly develop a lot of new opening theory!
I must insist that batgirl publish a coffee table-sized book of all the great historical pieces our author has acquired and the commentary that accompanies them on here. And I'm absolutely serious, I love love love to read it. Can someone send up a batsignal please?
Where's Erik? Can we get some "sponsored by chess.com" thing going... get it rolled out in time for the holidays so my wife can buy it for me?
Fischer's chess games = great
Fischer's anything else = I could care less
Hilarious!