Steinitz vs Morphy

You saying things has absolutely nothing to do with facts.

It isn't a matter of anyone understanding, it's a matter of zero substantiation. 

Focus, please. 

To what data are you referring?

I think he may be refering to something GM Finegold said in a lecture thats on youtube where modern engines really like Morphy's play, and all his combinations the moves within are among the top 5 ever single move.

I would also have to have Finegold offer some substantiation.  People just saying things doesn't quite cut it.

Which comps and give examples.... Hint I have seen some proof already, but I want to know your sources specificly

wow, this thread went downhill quickly

TheChessWatch wrote:

jetfighter13 wrote:

Which comps and give examples.... Hint I have seen some proof already, but I want to know your sOMPources specificly

Take any of Morphy's Combinations & put them through a (3000)+ ELO Comp at the Main Combination parts of the Games!! 

http://www.365chess.com/players/Paul_Morphy

OK so that's where you got the games, which engine

ah yes, the incompetent/slippery combination.

Very convincing.

except for the missing data.

Oh! You found the data then?

No?

Thought not. Shut up.

LOL!!

What's the methodology for the analysis?

What do you expect people here to say, that some 1-week old noob blowing hot air said it was so, offered no evidence, and therefore we believe it too?

checking tos to see if being full of crap is a violation.

I also play at 3000+ level when I am paired with monkey opponents. Does that make me a genius ?

Morphy was not a good player because he crushed patzers with brilliance. He was a good player because he stomped good players even if not so brilliantly.

Irontiger wrote:

TheChessWatch wrote:

The Best Compliment that can be payed to Morphy is that the latest generation of strong Chess Programs Agree with most of his Incredible Combinations! So much so that they cannot improve them!! So that must of made Morphy a (3000)+ ELO Player in some kind of way!... back in the 1800's  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Morphy

I also play at 3000+ level when I am paired with monkey opponents. Does that make me a genius ?

Morphy was not a good player because he crushed patzers with brilliance. He was a good player because he stomped good players even if not so brilliantly.

I have checked a good majority of Morphys games and he does a lot of what Super GMs do except he strikes when he is ready to instead of grinding his opponents down in an endgame

People seem to think that if Morphy had kept playing he somehow would'be been completely bewildered by Steinitz's new positional style.  He would've been up on all the latest theory if they had met in a match in the 1880s.

You know why today's super-GMs cannot do that anymore ?

Option A : Morphy was a once-in-a-millenium genius, and today's super-GMs that benefit from 200 years of theory, modern training methods, etc. cannot even get close to his tactical superiority.

Option B : Morphy met mostly patzers (let's say patzer = at best 2000 by today's standards), so that he actually had the opportunities for brilliance that modern GMs do not have.

It takes a good leap of faith to say that the correct mix of options is something more than 10% A and 90% B.

I can agree that defensive techniques have evolved as have training, but once your pieces are developed and you have an active position, attack damnit instead of slowly squeezing your opponent to death. Both are just as effective as the other its just one is quote on quote safer.

"quote on quote"?  Really?

Here ya' go kid, for future needs:  """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Forever waiting in vain for noob to show evidence of his claim.

while you whine and kick and say "i can do it myself, i don't need a mummy!!!