3...f5 in the Philidor was a 50-50 opening back then. It was a pet line of Morphy but not everyone could play like Morphy. I'd hazard a guess that 3...f5 and maybe the next move was all black knew about this opening. Theory then in a lot of openings was still at it's suck and see stage.

And as for learning from the Victorians this is not always the case. Just one instance being that trap in the QGD.

click for larger view

You're correct that the opening is indeed the theory of which I was already aware (except for 6...Bc5?! which is apparently also theory despite being a bad move that loses a pawn to 7. Nxe4!!)

I always am willing to give people of bygone eras credit - they have so much fewer resources than us, but black fell into basic tactics too.

Mr. Szabo made this Mr. Salmon (Not to be confused with the fish) look like Capablanca in as much as each of White's moves were very logical and strong (except for 11. Qxe4?, Qxc7 is better.) Don't even get me started on the Knight blunder.

I always give a nod to the loser in these games. Without them we not not see the sparklers that Morphy etc produced.

Imagine what games chess history would have given us if the players of yore were as good as today's players. No Evergreen, no Opera Game.... and all the cut and thrust miniatures.

J S Mucklow vs H Kennedy, 1851

Kieseritzky vs Anderssen, 1851

<The improvement in defensive technique which began in Steinitz's time would have drastically changed things had it taken place even a quarter century earlier.>

I remember having a discussion and what was (apparently since I myself don't think of it as such) a hot take. The take is that I believe that 1870's+ Steinitz would have beaten/was better than Paul Morphy. Take into account the 2 decades' worth of extra "Theory - if you can call some of it that" and general chess understanding such as <perfidious> said formed from Steinitz himself plus the insane performance by Steinitz in his 1876 Match against J. H. Blackburne: 7+ 0= 0- Unfortunately Steinitz semi-retired for a few years before returning in the 1880s. (Paul Morphy himself died in 1884.)

<The improvement in defensive technique which began in Steinitz' time would have drastically changed things had it taken place even a quarter century earlier.>

I recall doing an article (slightly tongue in cheek) that if the games between John Cochrane and Bonnerjee Mohishunder - https://www.chessgames.com/perl/che... had become more well known and studied than the so called hyper-modern school of the 1920's would have appeared in the 1860's.

See this game from1851 Cochrane vs Mohishunder, 1851 position after 6 moves.

click for larger view

There are dozens of 1850's games between these two that you would think were played last week between 2000+ players.

But the columnists swamped the public with brilliance from play with moves like the game in this thread. The theme of my article being Morphy's arrival set back chess 50 years.

It was only later when I read Steinitz and Alekhine undermining Morphy's games that I may have hit upon a slight grain of truth. At least a point to debate.

Steinitz was of the opinion anyone could produced the overrated skittle game brilliancies pointing to the fact there were very few when he played a good player in a match game. (if I recall he cited just two)

Instead he praised Morphy's positional sense saying everyone had put him a high pedestal for all the wrong reasons because they did not understand chess. He made a good case but upset nearly everyone. (he did not write tongue cheek, he wrote with a hammer in his hand.)

I'd disagree about anyone being able to re-produce the Morphy gems. Yes nowadays but it took Morphy to shows us how to do it. IMO there is a definite gap in a players armoury if they have not had a good dose of Morphy.

Alekhine said basically the same but he too found himself in hot water after referring to some of Morphy's brilliancies as 'cheap' and 'rattles.' adding players caught up in this style never progressed beyond a hopeless romantic. (he himself was one at one time but outgrew it - see the 'Unknown Alekhine' by Reinfeld.)