|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 251 OF 251 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Feb-15-13 | | Lambda: Morphy's very strong domination of rivals clearly inferior to those faced by any world champion neither makes him inferior or superior to the later greats of the game. It just makes him unmeasurable. If he had been born later in history, and had players like Lasker and Capablanca, or Karpov and Kasparov to aim at, we've just got no way of predicting how well he'd do, there just isn't the information available. |
 |
| Feb-15-13 | | Kaspablanca: Lambda, but i repeat my point and is that Capablanca, Lasker, Karpov, Kasparov had strong competition compared to Morphy, none of those player couldnt even give a pawn odds. |
|
| Feb-16-13 | | FadeThePublic: IMHO, is that he was the most naturally gifted player off all time. He learned everything on his own , EVERYTHING, an amazing talent. Sure he couldn't beat today's players without today's information but if he had that I believe he could be WC today as Fischer thought.
He had by far the greatest distance to the second best player of his time than anyone, a true chess genius. |
|
| Feb-16-13 | | RookFile: You could set up some crazy position from a Sicilian Defense, and have Morphy analyze with Tal or somebody. I'm sure that in such an open position, Morphy would be right there with the very best in terms of his calculation and analysis. |
|
Feb-16-13
 | | morfishine: In my view, any true chess prodigy would handle himself well in any era. A true prodigy would adapt and rise to the circumstances. There's no doubt Morphy was a prodigy: He wasn't exposed to chess before the age of 10, he had no chess books to learn from, and he was limited to only playing a few games on Sunday. Yet, by the age of 12, he was thrashing all the strong players in the area. Its noted that he played Eugene Rousseau, (a strong French player living in New Orleans at that time), approximately 50 games between the age of 12 - 14 (1849 - 1851), and won "about" 40 of them. |
|
| Feb-16-13 | | solskytz: To how many elo points is 'pawn odds' translatable?
If I play someone with black, without my f-pawn, by how much should he be weaker for me to realistically expect to score 50%? What if it's "pawn and two moves"? Or a knight? Or a queen? And does the difference in elo depend on how high my own level is? (I guess it does) |
|
| Feb-22-13 | | tzar: I have read many opinions in this page theorizising whether Morphy had strong oponents or not, whether his chess was really outstanding or the quality of games at his time was too low, about his estimated elo etc,etc. All great players in history have had admirers and detractors. Only one player has received the ABSOLUTE ADMIRATION OF EVERY SINGLE WORLD CHAMPION. This player is Paul Morphy. |
|
| Mar-22-13 | | Just Another Master: The greatest chess Talent ever imho, he could give odds to the next best player in the world and crush him. He was so much better its unbelievable, Fischer knew chess and he said that give him some time in today's world and he would be the best, cant argue with that, RIP Paul you were/are a gentleman and the greatest chess genius of all time. |
|
Apr-19-13
 | | Conrad93: Eh, Steinitz was the better player. I do not get why he is held in such high regard when other 17th and 16th century players were also dominating the competition just the same. Poor play from booth sides does not make a great player. I have seen better chess from strong 1500's. |
|
| Apr-29-13 | | Zenagg: I think it is strange to compare talents over time.
Who is to say that a 'natural' talent of the passed could or would thrive in today's variation of chess. I have trouble imaging them spending their lives studying opening theory. If we took every chess genius before 1960 and brought them forward in time... I imagine they would find chess a great hobby and make millions working outside of the chess industry. |
|
May-08-13
 | | Phony Benoni: <"Mr. Steinitz says: 'When I first met Mr. Anderssen in 1862, he spoke in the highest possible terms of Morphy. Once he described to me Morphy's manner when contemplating a deep-laid scheme in the following words, which the Professor accompanied with some mimic efforts: "Wenn der Morphy eine echte Lumperel in Sinne hat, da macht er so ein schafsgesticht."' (If Morphy has a piece of genuine rascality on his mind, he puts on such a sheepish face.)"> -- Baltimore American, March 15, 1885. http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... |
|
| May-08-13 | | thomastonk: <Phony Benoni> The original source is probably Steinitz' "International Chess Magazine", 1885, p 46. After the qoute from the "Baltimore American", the text continues there as follows: <It was comical to see the Professor, who usually sat soldier-like and erect before the table, all at once trying to assume a languid attitude and expression of face, dropping his arms at length, crossing his hands, and half closing his eyelids. Twenty years later, I saw poor Morphy for the first time, and I noticed as he spoke to me in the street that he crossed his hands in the way described.In 1866 I had another conversation with Anderssen about Morphy. The professor had much cooled down in his enthusiasm, and he did not seem to think that Morphy could always beaten him for certain. My own impression is that Anderssen, who could not play a single game blindfold, was at first overawed by Morphy's wonderful sans voir performances, and he overworked himself by calculations out of his real depth. But he subsequently found that he could hold his own against blindfold players like Blackburne, Paulsen, Suhle and Zukertort, by relying on his natural fine judgement, and then he began to doubt whether his fear was based on real grounds. The professor, at any rate, ridiculed the idea of Morphy's overwhelming superiority which some critics claimed to the extent of his being able to give material odds of Pawn and move to all of his contemporaries. Zukertort informed me that Anderssen said of one of those writers: ``Vor dem transatlantischen Meister liegt er auf allen Vieren.´´ (He lays on all fours before the transatlantic master.)> |
|
May-23-13
 | | arrigato: why cant a composite of Paul Morphy's genius be ackowledged,as,being a once in a lifetime achievement. He was so far ahead of anyone in his time including the doubting Steinitz his most frequent critic that he baffles the imagination!! It is comical to compare Morphy to current grandmasters We will never know how he would have been successful or not but to all who read this God be blessed for giving us our hero Paul Morphy!!! |
|
May-23-13
 | | brankat: It could also be said: "God be blessed for giving us the Teacher: Steinitz." |
|
| May-24-13 | | savagerules: When near his death Morphy was asked about Steinitz Morphy replied cryptically 'his gambit is not good'. Either meaning the Steinitz gambit opening itself was not good or Steinitz's play overall was not good or at least Morphy didn't respect it all that much. In any event it seemed Morphy kept studying chess in private years up till his death. |
|
| May-25-13 | | ughaibu: Can one meaningfully describe a person as near their death if they die young and unexpectedly? |
|
| May-25-13 | | Fiona Macleod: From hindsight, yes. |
|
| May-25-13 | | ughaibu: How is it meaningful from hindsight? |
|
May-25-13
| | brankat: Chess addiction can be deadly :-) |
|
| May-25-13 | | ughaibu: I'll take precautions. |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 251 OF 251 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
