Steinitz vs Morphy

I used that term not because I have some super-attatchment to Morphy, but because I had written so much about him in the past, particularly because of my Paul Morphy website... people would ask, "Aren't you the Morphy girl?"

We must not forget Steinitz is not only good positionaly/defensively, he is also a beast/genius in open positions and attacking the king. He is good at messy complicated positions(require great calculating skills).Sample attacking games.

Wow a double sacrifice that includes a queen!!

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1281928

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1132588

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1132566

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1279052

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1132565

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1075618

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1274802

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1075738

This seems to be a myth. More than once, I have seen a reference to Steinitz using an 1870s article in The Field to indicate that he had a claim to being world champion. I believe that this is mentioned in the new book about Steinitz.

Perhaps people are thinking of Morphy's score in his first two games against Anderssen and comparing it with what happened subsequently. Something somewhat similar happened in connection with Morphy's earliest games against Harrwitz and Barnes.

Morphy wins hands down. Play his games with engine kibitzing - Morphy usually picks the engine move. Morphy played his moves so quickly, the one time he took 12 minutes it was recorded by the press. Give Morphy one month to study any GM's chess style and he would contend in every era against every champion. Give him a computer to hone his analysis and he could probably be world champion even today.

I don't think that Fischer-Petrosian match was decided along stylistic lines. It's just that Fischer understood the positions more deeply. I suppose there is a sense in which one player can be more positionally attacking, but I think that's very different from what people think of when people say attacking. For instance, the first game featured Fischer having to defend against Petrosian's strong initiative, and the 8th game featured Fischer neutralizing Petrosian's attack and then fighting for the initiative. While I certainly agree Fischer was more aggressive and attacking than Petrosian, but I don't think that's what decided the match.

As far as Morphy vs Steinitz... it's quite hard to say. Some people believe defensive technique had advanced to a point where Morphy's style would make things difficult, but Morphy was more than capable of playing simple chess when the situation required it. I'm inclined to say Steinitz would win, but I admit, I'm not extremely familiar with their games, and they could very well have played quite differently against each other than they played against other players.

Perhaps the different editions of The Oxford Companion to Chess provide the best quick way to get an idea of the merits of this sort of thing. In the original edition, it was declared that Morphy engaged in devious match negotiations with both Staunton and Andersson. This was questioned in Chess Notes. Ken Whyld passionately defended the Oxford entry at the time, and yet there were a number of changes later, including the disappearance of the devious match negotiation clam.

Both Hooper and Whyld were decidedly, and blatantly, anti-Morphy, probably in an effort to elevate Howard Staunton (something that would have been easy enough to do honorably).  Such ploys, I feel, have marred their reputations irreparably. 

Batgirl, you repeatedly assign motives to those who say negative things about Morphy. 

Morphy was the greatest player of the 1850s and 1860s. He was a "brilliant comet" on the chess scene. Zukertort's chess style was somewhat similar to Morphy, but Steinitz learned how to play against that style and ended up defeating him convincingly. 

The raw stats compiled by Kenneth Regan demonstrate that Morphy played about 2350 strength while Steinitz at his best played above 2450 strength. The difference is not great, but it's sufficient to say who was better.

I had been only dimly aware of Edge's accusations before this week. I had never bothered to go to the primary sources themselves. I don't know whether Morphy was a paragon of virtue. I know that Staunton wasn't well liked by his peers. But Anderssen was well respected. If there's historical evidence supporting the claim that Morphy acted in questionable faith, then Hooper and Whyld shouldn't apologize. 

But again, you are clearly assigning motives to those who challenge Morphy's legacy, and not for the first time.

"... Both Anderssen and Morphy were fervent adherents of the Evans Gambit. ..." - GM Mihail Marin (2005)

Those with interest might want to see how many examples can be found of Morphy using the Evans in his important matches against Paulsen, Loewenthal, Harrwitz, and Anderssen.

"... Morphy became to millions ... the greatest chess master of all time. But if we examine Morphy's record and games critically, we cannot justify such extravaganza. And we are compelled to speak of it as the Morphy myth. ... [Of the 55 tournament and match games, few] can by any stretch be called brilliant. ... He could combine as well as anybody, but he also knew under what circumstances combinations were possible - and in that respect he was twenty years ahead of his time. ... [Morphy's] real abilities were hardly able to be tested. ... We do not see sustained masterpieces; rather flashes of genius. The titanic struggles of the kind we see today [Morphy] could not produce because he lacked the opposition. ... Andersson could attack brilliantly but had an inadequate understanding of its positional basis. Morphy knew not only how to attack but also when - and that is why he won. ... Even if the myth has been destroyed, Morphy remains one of the giants of chess history. ..." - GM Reuben Fine

"... I believe that a careful analysis of the following game will give us some answers about the true balance of forces between these two outstanding figures of the 19th century. [Anderssen-Morphy 1.a3 e5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e3 Be6 6.Nf3 Bd6 7.Be2 O-O 8.d4 Nxc3 9.bxc3 e4 10.Nd2 f5 11.f4 g5 12.Bc4 Bxc4 13.Nxc4 gxf4 14.exf4 Qe8 15.O-O Qc6 16.Qb3 Qd5 17.Rb1 b6 18.Qa2 c6 19.Qe2 Nd7 20.Ne3 Qe6 21.c4 Nf6 22.Rb3 Kf7 23.Bb2 Rac8 24.Kh1 Rg8 25.d5 cxd5 26.cxd5 Qd7 27.Nc4 Ke7 28.Bxf6+ Kxf6 29.Qb2+ Kf7 30.Rh3 Rg7 31.Qd4 Kg8 32.Rh6 Bf8 33.d6 Rf7 34.Rh3 Qa4 35.Rc1 Rc5 36.Rg3+ Bg7 37.h3 Kh8 38.Rxg7 Rxg7 39.Rc3 e3 40.Rxe3 Rxc4 41.Qf6 Rc1+ 42.Kh2 Qxf4+ 0-1] A fantastic struggle! And yet, it offers an entirely different picture from the officially approved one. It appears that Anderssen's positional feeling was considerably better than Morphy's, but, at least by the time the match was played, this was not sufficient compensation for the fact that his concrete handling of the game (or, to quote Neishtadt, his tactical skills) was worse than that of his brilliant opponent. ..." - GM Mihail Marin (2005)

"... Despite the great confusion and unpredictability of events, Morphy's victory was well-deserved because he was able to stay in control during the critical moments, especially between moves 38 and 40. ... My analysis of Paul Morphy's games is now complete. ... In a famous series of articles published [in] 1885, Steinitz ... stated his opinion that 'Morphy was stronger than anyone he played with, including Anderssen and Paulsen.' And that had Morphy continued playing 'he would of necessity cultivate and extend the system which has been developed since his time' ... Morphy's best games ... stand as convincing examples of 'dynamic chess.' It wasn't until Capablanca appeared that someone showed such a harmonic understanding of the coordination of the pieces at his level. ..." - GM Valeri Beim (2005)

"... [Morphy] profoundly changed the nature of chess and pointed the way for future generations of chess-players ... In My Great Predecessors, Volume 1, Kasparov quotes Botvinnik, who said a century after Morphy retired: 'To this day Morphy is an unsurpassed master of the open games. Just how great was his significance is evident from the fact that after Morphy nothing substantially new has been created in this field. Every player - from beginner to master - should in his praxis return again and again to the games of the American genius.' ... when studying Morphy's games ... I liked [the match against Daniel Harrwitz] better than that against Anderssen ... In my opinion, the first few games of this match were played on a higher level than the subsequent one against Anderssen. ... Especially in the first [Morphy] was positionally outplayed by Harrwitz and looked utterly helpless. ... [Harrwitz] won the next game too. However, then something happened. ... Morphy showed his ability to learn and adapt! ... [The next four games] were positional victories [for Morphy]. Morphy learned from Harrwitz, adapted his game and won convincingly, having raised his game to yet another level. ..." - GM Lars Bo Hansen (2009)

It is perhaps worthwhile to keep in mind that, in 1858, the chess world was so amazingly primitive that players still thought tournaments were a pretty neat idea.

Again, the devious match negotiation claim DISAPPEARED from the Oxford Companion. You can check this for yourself if you go to the trouble of consulting different editions.

Thank god Morphy never took a stance on global warming or this site would explode.

I imagine anyone using batgirl's writings as a way to demonstrate Steinitz's probable superiority, even going soo far as implying she had written something obligatory to the contrary is not relevant. It's her prerogative to write articles in her own perspective, about historical chess literature. As is due to anyone in the same vein. It's great when she does lend some historical context, but I for one do not hold that to her as if she is the main authority on either Morphy's greatness or Steinitz's contributions to Chess theory.

I truly believe Morphy would've beaten Steinitz at any time. As history shows, as even Bobby Fischer had said, he was an highly adaptable player. Maybe it was fate, but I don't think Steinitz would've been Steinitz if Morphy hadn't quit chess as early as he'd done. As vigorously as I believe the two K's wouldn't have been had Fischer decided to defend.his title in 1975. Funny how certain tragedy sparks New direction. In lieu of this running dialogue about historical context, I imagine Steinitz breathed a sigh of relief.

No one loves Steinitz :-) There are players that have supporters that never could accept that anything their idols did or said was wrong, that they ever played a bad game or bad move, or that whatever they did or said after retiring from chess was more than a sign that they were original thinkers. Sometimes this is connected to patriotism, sometimes to something else, but this sort of love for certain players is limited to a select few.

Morphy and Fischer have their very enthusiastic fans, but no one loves Steinitz. He didn't have the right looks or origin, didn't create a myth by retiring early, didn't refuse to play anyone, and is widely considered to simply have gone nuts rather than been eccentric. Many stories connected to him are interpreted negatively, and his results are usually ignored. 

Fischer's 19 in a row are considered unprecedented, but Steinitz won 25 (against opposition with much higher world ranking), Capa went eight years without losing while Steinitz went nine (both during periods when they played little), Fischer's 6-0 against Larsen is often seen as the best match result, but Steinitz scored 7-0 against a player ranked higher than Larsen. Steinitz also went 32 years winning every match he played (and that were many). But Steinitz, just like Lasker, who in many ways scored even more impressive results, just never had the same sort of enthusiastic supporters. Maybe there just isn't anything "romantic" with simply playing chess very successfully for lots of decades.

Morphy was an attacking genius. Steinitz was a bit more pragmatic with his positional ideas. I feel they are both worthy of recognition.

Komodo's domination of both humans and chess engines has been increased by the addition of "Contempt" to the Dragon. Shading the program with a preference to attack or confuse a position has made it truly demonic.

In pre-silicon days, GM's prepared for matches by putting "cooks" and novelties into "known" positions and testing their opponents' ability to solve them over the board. The most famous was Marshall waiting 10-years to unleash his still-sound gambit on Capablanca. And the Cuban dismantling it!

Fischer's match vs Spassky was not only loaded with novelties, it presented openings Fischer never played! He prefaced that with a 20-game win streak, two 6-0 matches and 5-1 wins vs Petrosian, including a 4-0 run in the last four games! How does one even imagine such results? (Such a route today would probably raise suspicion of cheating.)

With minimal preparation, Morphy wins 12-4. Fortune favors the bold.

That's not what a contempt setting does.  Its purpose is to avoid easy draws by repetition and piece trades early in the game.  

Without a high contempt factor, odds games against GM's would be problematical.  The engine - seeing itself behind from the start - would readily acquiesce to draws by repetition.

Back on topic: Steinitz wins!

The Morphy and Harrwitz match 1858: especially the first game, Harriwitz played extremely well. Morphy's Dutch defense was very hyper-modern,and Harrwitz handle it poorly in the opening.

well said....