|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Mar-12-05 | | SBC: <keypusher>
Thanks for th info. I did some cursory looking-around and came up with this: according to:
http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~alan... on the value of a pound in 1861
in 1861 - teachers earned about 93 pounds/year, surgeon, 343; Lawyer, 1600; policeman, 54; general laborer, 44; clergyman, 272; printer, 74; clerk, 248; farm worker, 36. The exchange rate in 1859 was 4.9 dollars= 1 pound, which would make 295 pouds = $1445.50 in 1859 dollars |
|
Aug-07-06
 | | tamar: Morphy's Misbehavin' Song (with apologies to Fats Waller) Just bums to play with,
I'm not myself,
No sign of Harrwitz
And I'm worried 'bout my health,
Ain't misbehavin'
I'll take a night out on the town.
Mom, you must believe me
I don't stay out late,
Just a walk about Paris
And I'm home about eight...
Ain't misbehavin'
I just need a little fun.
My head is spinnin'
The thread is gone,
I thought I was winnin'
Then I dropped another pawn
Ain't misbehavin'
And it won't happen again!
|
|
| May-22-07 | | jeremy24: I've read Morphy was out till 4 in the morning before his first two matches with Harrwitz courting a Ms. Charmain Shepard. He threw the first two games. |
|
| Oct-17-07 | | get Reti: It's interesting to see how Morphy, an attacking player, thought the queen's gambit, a positional opening, was so powerful that he decided to play the dutch later. |
|
| Oct-17-07 | | RookFile: Well, Morphy's insight looks pretty good today, the Dutch is all the rage, and guys like Timmerman are playing it with their backs to the wall against the world team. |
|
| Nov-01-07 | | nimh: Rybka 2.4 mp, AMD X2 2.01GHz, 10 min per move, threshold 0.33. Harrwitz 4 mistakes:
30.a4 0.05 (30.Be2 0.85)
33.Rb6 0.23 (33.Bb7 0.73)
40.Ke2 0.72 (40.d5 1.23)
50.Rg5 1.37 (50.Kf3 2.40)
Morphy 9 mistakes:
14...Kh8 0.13 (14...Rc8 -0.24)
15...Bf6 0.48 (15...Nf6 0.01)
31...Rb8 0.41 (31...Ra8 0.05)
32...Rd8 0.73 (32...Ra8 0.26)
34...Bc8 0.56 (34...h5 0.21)
36...Ra8 1.12 (36...f6 0.59)
43...Ke7 1.89 (43...Ke8 0.68)
46...Kf7 2.40 (46...Kd7 1.88)
50...Rh8 2.40 (50...Ra2+ 1.37) |
|
| Nov-01-07 | | Riverbeast: <"After the game, Harrwitz made an insolent and impertinent gesture by approaching Morphy, taking his hand and feeling his pulse! Turning to the crowd, he shouted, "Well, this is astonishing! His pulse does not beat any faster than if he had won the game!"> That's what you get for talking smack, Harrwitz. I wish Morphy had said something to him after he won all the rest of the games - but unlike me, he was a gentleman. I would have busted out a line like "Do you still have a pulse, Harrwitz?" Maybe Morphy could have been the first in recorded history to say..."Who's your daddy?" Or "What's my name?" Or "How you like me NOW?" |
|
| Nov-01-07 | | Riverbeast: I hope Morphy got his Charmain Shepard, at least. No point visiting France if you can't sample the local cuisine. |
|
| Mar-10-08 | | InspiredByMorphy: <Riverbeast> Some words are better expressed through action. |
|
| Jan-02-09 | | YJGYJ: As Harrwitz even says, this game has no Morphy Brilliance, so i give this game an official YAWN! |
|
| May-02-12 | | LoveThatJoker: Guess-the-Move Final Score:
Harrwitz vs Morphy, 1858.
YOU ARE PLAYING THE ROLE OF HARRWITZ.
Your score: 124 (par = 109)
LTJ |
|
| Nov-11-14 | | Ke2: 4... a6 is kinda mysterious. It's not like Nb5 is a threat. Why wouldn't the great Morphy just play Be7 and develop like a normal guy? |
|
| Jan-16-20 | | Carrots and Pizza: Harrwitz played excellent position chess in this game. He play was simple and he focused on little positional pluses, like posting a piece on an outpost, even the Rook meekly going to c5. He traded off Morphy's knight on c6 and left him with a bad bishop. <14.Bg3 - Very well played for it not only obviates the capture of the Bishop and the subsequent posting of the King’s Knight at f4, but also prevents the advance of the f-pawn.> That's a lot of prophylaxis. 28.Rc5! A modern kind of move! Harrwitz is playing well here. He didn't allow Morphy the positional advantages he needed to launch an attack. This just goes to show that a modern 2200 player could probably stuff Morphy's attacks just like Harrwitz did, who probably played at 2200 on his good days. |
|
| Jan-16-20 | | Boomie: <This just goes to show that a modern 2200 player could probably stuff Morphy's attacks just like Harrwitz did, who probably played at 2200 on his good days.> Chessmetrics has Harrwitz ranked #1 in the world a couple of years before this game. His results were not good after 1856 but he did play well in this game. His highest rating was 2644 in 1853. We can quibble about Chessmetrics but it's the only reference we have. Many world champions would disagree with <modern 2200 player could probably stuff Morphy's attacks>. Even Capablanca, who was hardly generous in his assessment of other players, considered himself flattered that he was compared to Morphy. http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/... |
|
| Jan-16-20 | | RookFile: You'd have to say that Harrwitz was 2400 minimum, especially after his play in this game. |
|
| Jan-16-20 | | sudoplatov: EDO has Harrwitz rated 2619 (#5) with Morphy at 2800 (#1). 2. Anderssen 2637
3. Löwenthal 2631
4. Petroff 2626
Morphy was beating some of the better players by this time. |
|
| Jan-18-20 | | Carrots and Pizza: < Riverbeast: I hope Morphy got his Charmain Shepard, at least. No point visiting France if you can't sample the local cuisine.> Anyone know what Charmain Shepard is? |
|
| Jan-18-20 | | Carrots and Pizza: < sudoplatov: EDO has Harrwitz rated 2619 (#5) with Morphy at 2800 (#1). 2. Anderssen 2637
3. Löwenthal 2631
4. Petroff 2626 >
I view early chessmetrics calculations with much skepticism because there isn't enough data to draw from. I once saw that Horwitz, who was a terribly weak player, had a rating of around 2500. If that's the case, those numbers are meaningless. Just looking closely at the games of some of these old masters with chessmetrics ratings of 2400+ reveals that they are in the 1800-2200 range. You can tell by the number of blunders or omissions and see that players rated about 1800-2000 have about the same number and rate of blunders. Also, the way these guys blew won endings reminds me of my play, which is not that good to put it nicely. Harrwitz, 2600? Grain of salt. |
|
| Jan-18-20 | | Boomie: <Carrots and Pizza: I view early chessmetrics calculations with much skepticism because there isn't enough data to draw from.> There is plenty of data if you start in the future and work back. I'm not sure if that's how Chessmetrics rates the older players. But there are lots of hints concerning Morphy's strength. For example, he dominated Anderssen 8 years before Steinitz struggled with him. That suggests that Morphy was stronger than Steinitz so his high rating seems justified. The ratings of the old timers have to mesh with the all time ratings. |
|
| Jan-19-20 | | Carrots and Pizza: <boomie: That suggests that Morphy was stronger than Steinitz so his high rating seems justified.> Sure, Morphy's rating seems justified, but not just because of what you mentioned. If you analyze his games with a modern engine, as many have done here, it proves that his play was accurate like that of a modern GM in open positions. In closed positions, he was much less noteworthy. No one wants to hear that (and I just got my new edition of Pride and Sorrow of Chess by Lawson but haven't cracked it open yet) but it is the truth. Let's talk about Harrwitz though. He played some decent games here and there, but there's no way he plays like a 2600 player. Look at Horwitz. His chessmetrics rating is around 2500 and there is absolutely no way in hell he is anywhere even close to that. Run his games through an engine analysis and you'll see that they are littered with blunders just like any 1800-2000 player. So, if Horwitz can be 2500 on chessmetrics, then that casts doubt on all early chessmetrics calculations. How can't it? <boomie>, Petrosian, when he won the world championship, was rated about 2660. He was head to head with Spassky, Tal and Botvinnik. Surely you don't think that Harrwitz played on their level do you? |
|
| Feb-02-20 | | RookFile: Actually, I find that's Morphy's play in closed positions is excellent. It just didn't happen as much as in Steinitz's games. I think a factor we are forgetting is the chess clock wasn't used in Morphy's games. Guys like Paulsen literally bored Morphy to death by taking all day to make their moves. Morphy played open games because he knew he could just blow his opponents away. He didn't want to have to take 12 hours to win a closed game. |
|
Feb-02-20
 | | beatgiant: <Carrots and Pizza>
<Run his games through an engine analysis and you'll see that they are littered with blunders just like any 1800-2000 player. So, if Horwitz can be 2500 on chessmetrics, then that casts doubt on all early chessmetrics calculations. How can't it?> Because ratings don't measure <quality of moves>, they only measure <results against other players in the same rating pool>. |
|
| Oct-20-20 | | Chesgambit: Ke7?? Horrible move |
|
| Apr-17-22 | | paulmorphy1969: Morphy and 'Harrwitz met on Sunday 5 September 1858 to make arrangements. It would be played on 4 days of the week in a café open to the public. It was agreed to play the games at the Café del la Régence.
the match started on September 7th. There is a lot of confusion about the date of this first match, many believe it is September 5th, but it was a Sunday, a day that usually no matches were played. from Harrwitz in Le Monde illustré on 23 October 1858, page 272, where it clearly reads played on 7 September 1858 Link: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/b... |
|
| Apr-18-22 | | mifralu: <paulmorphy1969> https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/b...
has < 28. ... Be6 29. a4 Bxe5 30. fxe5 > and continues
< 55. ... Rxh5 56. Kxh5 Kf5 57. g4+ Kf4 58. Kh4 1-0 > |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
Annotations by 