Steinitz vs Morphy

Mihai Marin in his in depth analysis showed that Andersenn outplayed Morphy positionaly.

But still majority picked Capa and they are proven wrong.

People need to put aside their Morphy worship and admit that Steinitz would be the favorite.

Do you have Marin's indepth analayis from "Secrets of Attacking Chess?"

I never read it, someone who has read it told me the assertion is that Morphy lost on postion but won on tactics.  This really makes no sense for the following reasons. Many people consider Anderssen, not Morphy, the superior tactician. But suppose Morphy had been slightly better in this area, everyone knows that tactics flow from posisition.  If Anderssen outplayed Morphy positionally, then how could Morphy win tactically against probabaly a better tactician, but even if a slightly worse one, at the very least a highly adept one?  This wasn't one game, it was 11 games out of which Morphy lost only 2 - while sick and against a far more seasoned player than himself.  In all those games Anderssen could only win 2 from his far superior positions??

Saying something is absolute because one analyst claims it, but ignoring most other analysts who claim something different, seems rather untenable.  However, saying something is possible because of a dissenting voice would seem more reasonable. 

It was obvious from the 2nd informal match that Morphy was better tactically.

That wasn't a match, it was 6 quick games, played in 3 hours.  It showed Morphy was faster.

He destroyed Anderssen in a King's Gambit thematic match.  That's not  evidence of "being faster".  It's not like chess.com bullet chess where one guy runs around with just a king and holds a draw down a queen because the other guy flags.

Batgirl, didn't you diss Beim's book on Morphy a few years ago?

I haven't been able to find your review of it, but I thought you considered Beim's book to be a pretty poor book, especially compared to Lawson's biography of Morphy. It would be great if you posted a link to your earlier discussion of Beim.

Contempories such as Kolisch stated that Morphy's "style" wasn't up to the standards of other masters. They blamed it in part on his youth, but they considered it a weakness. You have argued that you consider their objections to be based on nationalism rather than chess. It really seems that you will take any criticism of Morphy and turn it into a sign of a character flaw in the person making that criticism. 

In one of your articles on Morphy, you ascribed "hidden, insidious reasons" to those who point out that Morphy wasn't the greatest of all time.  (http://blog.chess.com/blog/batgirl/whats-so-great-about-paul-morphy-anyway) Those reasons aren't hidden, and aren't insidious.

It's an understanding that chess history, like the history of science or sports, shows progress over time. The best athletes today would crush the greatest athletes of the Nineteenth Century in almost every discipline. That belief isn't due to some insidious reason. It's due to the facts that chess players today can learn from the past, study far more efficiently, with better tools, and have more consistent competition to help them improve. 

Morphy was the greatest player of his generation. Philidor was the greatest player of his generation, and he played far longer than Morphy did. I wonder why someone who loves chess history as much as you do doesn't support the claim that Philidor was the greatest player of all time. And no, I don't think you have "hidden, insidious reasons" for supporting Morphy over others. 

Btw, I have read Marin's analysis.  I've also read Lars Bo Hansen's analysis of Morphy's chess, as well as Euwe's analysis. They all seem to be in line with each other. Unfortunately, I only read Marin's analysis in a library book. But I do own the books by Bo Hansen (Improve Your Chess) and Euwe (The Development of Chess Style). I'm guessing you also own the latter though.

I should point out that Euwe does consider Morphy's positional sense to be superior to Anderssen. I don't think he's right though. Marin makes a strong case for the opposite. 

Euwe argues that Steinitz wasn't as naturally brilliant as Morphy, but he possessed "tenacity and grim determination", essential characteristics  that helped him to defeat Zukertort even though he was down 4-1 in his first match. Euwe especially touted Steinitz' ability to defend against brilliant attackers. 

Searching past comments, the only refernces I find is http://www.chess.com/blog/batgirl/paul-morphy-as-chess-editor where I wrote, "Paul Morphy: A Modern Perspective by Valeri Beim - very good." and http://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-analysis/morphy-the-terrible?quote_id=15121802&page=16 where I wrote, "I had read Beim years ago and pretty much agree with his assessment of Morphy." 

I'm not sure if people deliberately misconstrue or simply see a catch-phrase to pounce upon.  What I criticized wasn't anyone's opinion (nor have I ever said Morphy was the greatest of all time - I do believe he was the greatest of HIS time. In fact my final paragraph says, "It's fruitless to argue who might have been the greatest chess player of all time. In Morphy's case, it's sufficient to say that during his brief chess frenzy, he attempted to meet the greatest players available and those he did meet, he beat on their own terms without so much as a close match." )  something to which everyone is entitled,  but rather the non-forthright manner those with some agenda use Morphy in their propoganda to push that agenda. 

Batgirl, I really don't think I misconstrued your article. You spent several paragraphs analysing the motives and cues for passion of those who criticised Morphy. I cited the article earlier, so I won't post the text here. I really didn't take your words out of context. 

Well the article is there for anyone to read and use their own mind to accept or decline the gambit.

Marin's analysis  has a strong case. He is more highly regarded as an author compare to Beim. A good position can be ruin if you commit tactical mistakes. Chess is hard.  Even if you have the better position, you can still commit tactical mistake that will ruin your position.

I've read many of your articles on Morphy, and really enjoy them, batgirl. You are opinionated and identify yourself as a "Morphy Girl". I deeply appreciate your perspective!  But your arguments have been against Steinitz and other players whose careers peaked long after Morphy retired from chess.

You may state now that Morphy was the best player of "HIS time", but elsewhere you clearly infer that you consider him better than Steinitz and others. 

Morphy was an explosion on the chess scene. He blew his opponents apart with his brilliance. But he was far from perfect. Those pointing out his flaws aren't arguing against Morphy's brilliance, they're explaining how the great players who came after Morphy studied and improved on Morphy.

Again, I think everyone should read your blogs. They are full of great information! 

Btw, I found a comment I made that seemed to suggest that Staunton would have given Morphy a good match. Staunton wasn't as strong as Anderssen. He might have been able to score more draws than Anderssen did, but I doubt he would have scored better than Anderssen. I still think a serious second match between Morphy and Anderssen would have been a great contest. 

What I've demonstrated in the past was that players who played both men, Morphy and Steinitz, and who expressed an opinion, to the man felt that Morphy was a much more difficult opponent. There can be more than objective reasons for their opinions, but still, that's what they expressed.

Myself, I'm not in the least qualified to compare two players, both miles above me, and as far as I remember I've never tried to make a case for such a match (although I may have an opinion, as valueless as it might be).... something I would consider a waste of time anyway.  In certain situations I may have pointed out some known facts in order to stir the pot, so to speak.  

There are a lot of missed matches that would have been revealing.  But the past is the past and speculation is speculation.

I think you wrote in one comment a day or two ago that Morphy might win 2 games out of 30 agaist Kasparov.  My opinion would have been that Kasparov wouldn't have lost a single game.  Training will almost always trump talent - not that Kasparov was ever lacking in talent. 

19th century chess differed from modern chess in more ways that just in theory. It was almost another game altogether in how it was approached.  One must be willing to accept pre-Lasker chess as it was and not in modern terms, just as one must be willing to accept social issue in light of the times in order to understand the times. 

Batgirl, what do you make of the contention that Morphy manufactured illnesses and was actually quite ill-mannered towards Anderssen and Staunton. He forced Anderssen to come to Paris to play him, and may actually have been the one to avoid Staunton rather than the other way around?

I was reading some of the letters that you provided by Edge and Fiske, and some of the quotes by Anderssen and Seargant. They paint quite a different picture from the hagiographies on Morphy. 

It seems to me Morphy was in his element in open and semi-open games and understood very well the role of the pieces.As a player Morphy may have been indeed more brilliant than Steinitz but the latter's contribution to chess theory is second to none.And I think that Steinitz understood closed positions and pawns(pawn stuctures) a little better than Morphy.I suspect he was better at defense too.Much as I admire the Great  Morphy,I find Steinitz equally important,though admittedly less brilliant and perhaps a tad dry.

Steinitz's book knowledge ddin't compare with Morphy's, and - where Morphy was usually content to play a book line in the opening - Steinitz was always looking for some completely original line. He understood more about the use of squares than did Morphy, and contributed a great deal more to chess theory. - Robert Fischer

Personally I think Morphy would win, it would be similar to a Fisher vs Petrosian Match IMO. Morphy understood positional chess quite well, but he didn't want to slowly break his opponent down, he wanted to rend them limb from limb, disintegrate them create art on the board. Stienitz wanted to win. Pure and simple

Morphy

Paul Morphy all the way! Even Steinitz waited till after Morphy died to declare himself world champion...🏁