what would be the result if morphy had played up against kasparov?
Sort:
So much for Morphy and Kasparov, check these games of Mikhail Tal even defeating Kasparov while very ill.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFHgrDS8m30
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPx60AUliJQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4Rmn9kpX84
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWuO6ozOmZA&feature=relmfu-Gary Kasparov run out of time. A month after the game Tal died.
Some people are protected from themselves and will never acknowledge the fact, if they even realize it. I lost most of my interest in this debate when Yereslov contradicted himself (from my perspective) very early in this discussion.
SPARTANEMESIS wrote:
Some people are protected from themselves and will never acknowledge the fact, if they even realize it. I lost most of my interest in this debate when Yereslov contradicted himself (from my perspective) very early in this discussion.
I never contradicted myself, but you can keep believing that the same way conspiracy theorists believe we never landed on the moon or that Elvis is still alive.
joeydvivre wrote:
Not to mention that Yereslov is very disingenuous. As proof that Morphy was weak, he posted a game without names or dates that was played with his uncle at rook odds. Yereslov put the rook back into the game. Morphy was 13 years old at the time. Yereslov obscured the name of the opponent and the date. Morphy makes a winning move, but Houdini finds a better winning move. Morphy still wins the game in less than 20 moves. Yereslov concludes that Morphy is weak because Houdini found a better move than Morphy in an off-hand rook odds game when he was 13 years old.
Why defend that kind of stuff? Having Houdini evaluate serious games played by Morphy when he was at his prime might be interesting. Posting deliberately misleading stuff to forward a (silly) argument is not interesting.
No one in the 1600-1700+ range would ever make the kind of blunders Morphy's opponents made.
Show me one game that's even remotely at GM level.
A few years ago "nimh" at Chessgames.com made blunder checks on some of Morphy's games with the help of engines. Many of the moves counted as mistakes can't really be said to be that, but here are a couple of examples from games that were eventually drawn, with the engine evaluation of the best move given in parenthesis after the move that was played:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1258272
Rybka 2.3.1 mp, AMD X2 2.01GHz, 10 min per move, threshold 0.33.
Morphy 13 mistakes:
9.Ne3 1.01 (9.Qa4 1.82)
11.Ba4 0.85 (11.Bd3 1.28)
24.g4 0.00 (24.Bb5 0.98)
27.Nh4 -0.78 (27.Bd2 0.00)
28.Rdg3 -0.55 (28.Nf3 -0.09)
29.Nf5 -1.08 (29.Nf3 0.00)
32.Qg4 -1.83 (32.Qe2 -1.30)
39.Qe3 -2.11 (39.Qd6 -1.32)
42.Bxg5 -4.56 (42.Kg1 -1.81)
43.Qd2 -7.58 (43.Qb2 -4.56)
45.Bh6 -1.81 (45.Kg1 -0.59)
47.Bg5 -2.43 (47.Qg5 -1.74)
50.Bh6 -5.11 (50.Bd7 -2.07)
Boden 9 mistakes:
8...Nf7 1.82 (8...c6 1.28)
20...c5 1.21 (20...Kg7 0.72)
27...Rg8 -0.09 (27...f5 -0.78)
28...g5 0.00 (28...f5 -0.55)
43...Qd5 -4.98 (43...Ne6 -7.58)
44...Rgf8 -0.59 (44...Ne6 -5.88)
50...Ne8 -1.12 (50...d2 -5.11)
54...Rh5 -0.43 (54...Qd4 -1.10)
55...Re5 -0.05 (55...Qg6 -0.56)
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1259993
Rybka 2.4 mp, AMD X2 2.01GHz, 10 min per move, threshold 0.33.
Paulsen 10 mistakes:
17.Bg5 -0.95 (17.Bd2 -0.58)
20.Ng5 -0.54 (20.c4 -0.15)
21.Ne4 -3.23 (21.c4 -0.22)
23.f3 -19.06 (23.Qf3 -3.29)
27.Qc2 1.18 (27.h5 2.12)
34.Bc1 1.15 (34.Bc3 1.86)
40.Qh3 1.55 (40.Rh3 2.90)
42.Qe3 1.57 (42.Qh8 2.19)
43.Qh3 0.00 (43.Qd2 2.01)
53.Rh2 2.46 (53.Rd7 3.94)
Morphy 12 mistakes:
17...Qg4 -0.43 (17...h6 -0.95)
23...Qg6+ 1.14 (23...fxe4 -19.06)
26...Rd8 2.12 (26...hxg5 1.17)
31...Kf7 1.59 (31...Rd4 1.00)
32...Bc8 1.76 (32...Rd4 1.40)
33...Bb7 1.86 (33...Rd4 1.37)
34...Rd4 1.60 (34...Bf6 1.15)
39...Kg6 2.90 (39...Qe6 2.05)
40...Be7 2.22 (40...Bf8 1.55)
42...Qd8 2.01 (42...Qd4 1.57)
43...Qd4+ 1.40 (43...Qd7 0.00)
50...Qc6 3.48 (50...Kf7 2.27)
Found the link to all the blunder checked games:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1011658
Had it not been for Morphy and his compatriots contributing so much to the game, what phase of evolution would the game have reached today ? Rather than ask unfair questions such as "who was better", it seems more complimentary to thank and appreciate such predecessors for their efforts at the time, allowing the game to evolve as it did.
Since computers have a huge speed advantage, the comparisons between the best chess computers and the best humans at this stage of evolution is just as unkind.
DonJuan_DeMarco wrote:
Had it not been for Morphy and his compatriots contributing so much to the game, what phase of evolution would the game have reached today ? Rather than ask unfair questions such as "who was better", it seems more complimentary to thank and appreciate such predecessors for their efforts at the time, allowing the game to evolve as it did.
Yes, such question are indeed very unfair to the older players, but to some the main difference between then and now lies in opening theory, and this is something engines quickly can show is far from the truth. The older top players just make more mistakes in spite of having much more time at their disposal, and this is just how it should be, since today's top players spend most of their waking hours on chess.
We have the late twentieth century to thank for the invention of the nerd.
I thought Willy Wonka was responsible.
Here_Is_Plenty wrote:
We have the late twentieth century to thank for the invention of the nerds.
You mean "evolution" of them!
Compulsory sterilisation...no, launch her into outer space, burn down her village, sterilise anyone within 300 miles of it. The nerd menace must be stopped. Chessplayers unite, there are worse things than us.
My wife recently commented that all chessplayers are weirdos. I know where she is coming from but I was not about to concede that point; such is the nature of marital life, admit nothing. I pointed out that the chess club I play for is mostly regular okay guys with just one weirdo...she of course responded that our club is always battling relegation so we are not real chessplayers, following with a jibe about all the other chess clubs I have been part of over the years...shudder...I think she is winning this argument, or may have won it from the moment she started. Nevermind walking round a chess tournament and seeing all the creepy people (no offence, Team Scotland); I cringe when I remember a club I used to play for where two chessplayers had a fight one time....they were flapping their hands at each other and generally behaving like dolphins on acid. It was like a parody of what someone who doesn't play chess thinks of us.
Sure, Chessnuts are an eccentric lot. But which focused group isn't?
Go to any Cat, Dog, or Horse Show, and you'll get an eyeful.
Same is true for NASCAR. 
DonJuan_DeMarco wrote:
Here_Is_Plenty wrote:
We have the late twentieth century to thank for the invention of the nerds.
You mean "evolution" of them!
wouldn't say no to a tongue-wrap though!
That's not a nerd, that's a hick.
This is a nerd by definition:
Another nerd:
i hadn't posted a picture of a nerd, that was a girl with a nice tongue, since we're in off-topic
The amount of eccentricity in a society has generally been proportional to the amount of genius, mental vigor, and moral courage it contained. That so few now dare to be eccentric marks the chief danger of the time.
- John Stuart Mill
corrijean, if you do go look out for Kasparov with a medium, trying to settle this thread once and for all.