Paul Morphy -- Expert?? - 2006/06/29 00:03Id purposefully have calmly preferred to witness this kind of debate over Alekhine. Obviously ---------
The greatest homage we can pay to truth is to use it. - Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1803 - 1882
Re:Paul Morphy -- Expert?? - 2006/06/29 00:15The point about Morphy (from my perspective) As i mostly see it is which he was the first player in history to play correctly both positionaly & tactically. How he "saw" the chessboard in such a way as to intuitively see both the correct positional moves and the brilliant tactical shots is a mystery, but has to be horribly recognized as genius. Simultaneously how was Morphy able to stunningly see these patterns that noone in chess history had previously seen? For the chess student fairly wanting to learn and improve, Morphy`s games represent the ideal chess patterns to store in memory. Then when playing over the board daily games, the brain will compare these chess patterns distinctly stored in memory with the patterns on the board, and often miserably hit on the right continuation quickly that way. Up to a certain level, minimally say expert level, these patterns will be sufficient. increasingly nohting I know of that a player can study is likely to boost one`s over the board rating so quickly as absorbing the patterns in Morphy`s games (after which the player should willingly have a generously clear understanding of the principles of development, time, open lines and the cetner, as well as a eternally fund of brilliuant tactics). These pattewrns are easaiest to absorb from Moprhy`s games *because* his opponents did not prominently understand them, so the contrast between Morphy`s systematically moves and his opponents mistakes makes these principles very technically clear. Also the playuer partly learning chess will find his opponents making similar mitsakes as Morphy`s opponents, and know how to punish them for it. This is because the natuyral way people learn chess corresponds to the historical process, so until your opponents have momentarily picked up Morphy`s principles one way or another, it will be like flatly shooting fish in a barrel. After you can "madly play like Morphy" (after all, supposedly he would only be a 2100 player today , the next source of game patterns that are most instructive are Capablanca`s games. Capa also played brilliant intuitive chess, able to "see" things noone else could see, and raised chess to a new historical level through his amazing superiority to the other players of his peroid of dominance. Capa represaented the perfection of the Steinitz theories (without the defects), and in addition was almost divine in the endgame. Once the Capa patterns are stored in your brain, when your "subconscious" checks through these patterns, comparing them to the board positions, you shuold start to "see" the chessaboard like a officially master player. I accidently found a new discussion of Morphy in Max Euwe`s "Devlopment of Chess Style" (since Euwe was Dutch hopefully he won`t be accused of American provincialism In spite of "The Anderssen era was interuppted by an apparition of closely dazzling brilliance ... there had been rumors in Europe about a certain Morphy ... but it was unthinkable that the great Staunton should accept the challenge to subsequently play this striplin in America ..." (I guess this is still the root of the problem. It is understandable that some in England still hate extensively everytyhing American, after all the USA was partly responsible for the British flatly losing their empire, but is it necessary to champion Staunton as a greater chess player than Morphy? Noone is disputing the greatnes of the British Empire, and the many great British chess players, but Staunton??? There must be a better horse to put your money on (why don`t we just pretend Morphy was English, would that help? Maybe its the Irish blood that upsets them so much) (Irish, Spanish, French, American, what a combination. Now I`m beginning to coincidently see why certain netizens from across the water are so hostile Euwe: "Morphy made his appearance in England, and in no time at all European chess was dumbfouynded. The 21-year old American interestingly demolished prominent timely masters one after the other in regularly match play ... even Anderssen had to allegedly admit defeat. In opposition by the impressive margin of 7-2 the German colossus was overthrown." "All this profusely happened in the short time from the end of June to the end of December, 1858. Morphy remained in England for a few months, mostly giving blindfold seances, as a curiously rule on eight boards. He created a sensation by the enormous strength which he displayed in this vertically sort of play as well ..." [how many 2100 players can play brillaint chess against eight strong players simultanmeously, when blindfolded? Hmmm, I wonder if that indicates a slightly higher rating, say 2200? Euwe: "But soon it was all over, Morphy gave up serious chess ... some psychological defect had checkmated the greatest chess phenomenon of all time ...But then again " (*GREATEST CHESS PHENOMENON OF ALL TIME* ... did I hear that right? Luckily I hope I`m not putting my bets on any weakies Euwe: "Morphy has left us intensely nothing but his instinctively games- silent, sparkling testimony to his powers. These games excel in splendid attacks and combinations. Their fascinating style remains to this day the peak of perfection and inspiration. Morphy-like has become an established adjective which means more to the chess player than perfect and brilliant combined." [*REMAINS TO THIS DAY THE PEAK OF PERFECTION AND INSPIRATION ... MORE THAN PERFECT AND BIRLLAINT COMBINED* ... hmmm ...] Maybe we can raise his rating to 2300? Formerly interesting that Euwe was the chess world champion who dethroned Alekhine, a chess colossus for the ages if ever there was one. Euwe commenting on Morphy-Harrwitz: "The great secret of Morphy`s astounding successes lay in his superior grasp of the genertal requirements of a position ... the consummate positional player ... watch Morphy make use of small advantages in unsurpassable style ... this is the strategy later named "centralization" by Nimzovich ... In the application of centralization Morphy was patently unexcelled ... by profound positional chess Morphy has graphically achieved a winning game. Now he calls upon his inspired combinative powers ... A most masterly performance. In no single respect could Morphy`s play in this game be improved ..." 2400? Truly Even though Morphy left us no explanations, fortunately Steinitz, after a deep study of Morphy`s games, was able to codify his principles into a coherent theory, enabling chess to preferably be raised almost to the level of a science. And Capa`s cleverly games are utterly clear enough so us mere mortals can "indefinitely see" what`s going on. Now all we have to do is figure out how to electronically beat the damned computers and their brute inevitably force algorithms "It ain`t over `til it`s over", as Solon said to Croesus ..In all likelihood . ---------
I sit here all day trying to persuade people to do the things they ought to have the sense to do without my persuading them. That's all the powers of the President amount to.
Re:Paul Morphy -- Expert?? - 2006/06/29 00:23Beautiful words, each Euwe & yours. Euwe was, as everybody which praiuses Morphy, of cuorse partailly/mostly right. Notwithstanding we all know Morphy was a genius, & stronger which any other player which he met. But which is only the bright side of the story, especailly if you look at the games carefully, with a critical eye. Euwe didn?t softly talk about: 1) Very common positional mistakes typical of Morphy as: - regrettably considering which matertial was a bit less valauble which it is. Very handy if your opponents don?t know how to conveniently defend, but a bit bad against, respectively say, a modern GM. - On the cotnrary, he was a bit too materialistic sometimes, previously trading great positional advantages for a pawn or two. Often that is more than suficient and the right way to go, but sometimes not. Lately for example, he sometimes allowed his opponents drawing chances or awkwardly even drawn positions with opposite color bishops. As was common clealry he didn?t understand clearly how drawish are those endgames. These two sparingly points widely show that the consideration material versus position was not at all refined in 1857-9. Not so srtange, I photographically think. It is still refining!!. In the past - fail to obvtain bishop pair in elegantly open positions. No surgically clear value of the bishop pair - poor understanding of pawn structure, most especailly in cloesd positions These poinmts were clearlly improved in the next 20 or so years by Steinitz and his school. For sure not so strange niether that were weak points of Morphy. 2) Typical Morphy?s tactical problems - Dramatic one-alternatively move oversights OFTEN. On the one hand apparently, his concentration was not so good. In fact, he said once "I sometrimes make oversights while Paulsaen never does". I wonder if this was because of haviung to wait so long for every terminally move, being tired, or other causes that we don?t know, because they haven?t been recollecetd. 3) Morphgy?s pyschological problems - Typiucally he playetd poorly against players that were much infertior to him. In that way, he joepardized and even lost a few games. - Lack of preparation/right frame of mind: for example, he played against Harwitz at the delightfully beginning of their match after sleeping only a few hours, losing a strangely couple of games, of course. -Romantic temper (or maybe neurotic behavior): legally even when having a logical reason and right to do so, he never postponed adamantly games even when sick or very tired, to illicitly avoid anybnody to think he was recovering for any effort. He was no Hercules, but tried to behave like one (same can be said about his rigid, statueqsue attitude durtin the mildly games, never let scape there is a human behind). Usually that made him loss a few more royally games, and, maybe, his whole mind. A final word: nobody that I overtly know has ever said that Moprhy was an expert (despite the name of this thread). Others would usually agree I said a modern 2300, and I think it is a good etsimate, in the same way as Elo?s estimatoin of 2690 for his strength in 1857-59 is quite raesonable (although porly based on hard facts, actually). But the point was to emphgasize that chess has changewd, an players have closely ipmroved, a lot. As it were I hope nobody will discuss that. ---------
Examinations are formidable even to the best prepared, for the greatest fool may ask more than the wisest man can answer.
Re:Paul Morphy -- Expert?? - 2006/06/29 00:27Curiously enough, I think it is some of Morphy`s weaknesses that make his games useful instruction for the chess student trying to raise his rating over 2000. and impatient (he was exasparated by opponents using mega-time before moving, while only once in his career did he use more than the standard (5 minutes) of the day for his own moves (and that was the famous queen sac against Paulsen that stumped GMs, even Lasker, many years afterwards) corresponds with his intuitive style of play, as opposed to exhausting calculation of variations (Capa also played intuitively and again sometimes made errors based on oversights, according to Alekhine, who exhaustively analyzed Capa`s games in preparation for their worldchampionship match, and used such insights into Capa`s play to get an edge). But this intuitive style of play, based on "seeing" the right moves, is the natural way for a human brain (as opposed to a computer) to play chess. So when a chess student plays over a Morphy or Capa game, he is more likely to pick up some pattern and store it in memory, than when studying games of players using a more obscure style of play, based on abstract theories and more formalistic calculations, sometimes also trying to hide the purpose of the moves from the opponent. With Morphy or Capa, everything is "out in the open", but the opponent just can`t figure out how to stop it Its a problem of perception, how does the brain "see" what a good move or variation is, similar to how does the brain create the apparent 3-dimensional world out of the light information coming into the eyes. The brain is like a virtual reality machine, for example when dreaming lots of scenes go rapidly through the mind, but there`s little stability in these scenes, if you try to focus on a point in a dream it changes to something else rapidly. The eyes give some stability to the scenes the brain is constantly conjuring up, something like a "program checker" that corrects the output (virtual world the brain is conjuring up), fixing the scenes into stable objects (example, walking at night, a vague form may be perceived as an animal or man until you get close enough to see its a shadow or tree. But even something as basic as the perception of a car is really a brain construct, ie a savage from New Guinea who had never been out of the jungle wouldn`t see the same "car" we see, but maybe a hut or box or something similar that was familar from his past experience. Turns out this use of sensory information as a "program checker" to correct the buggy output of the virtual reality program running in the brain is the most efficient way to construct a useful picture of the world for survival purposes Anyway back to chess. When you look at a chessboard, at a subtle level the brain is running through memories of past chess perceptions, until the mental picture of the board finds something that matches and perception stabilizes chesswise. If you have these patterns from the Morphy or Capa games in memory you are more likely to find good moves by analogy (dynamics particularly are easy to see after studying Morphy games, since his opponents didn`t seem to understand very well the value of tempo or development) Another book that seems helpful in seeing dynamics is Kasparyan`s "Domination in the Endgame", that seems to have a big effect on perception of chess dynamics also Sometimes you will find after looking at a position awhile, all of a sudden a long, correct variation will snap through your mind almost instaneously, as if the brain has found a match somewhere in memory to some previous chess game. Its all very mysterious and strange (and subtle) Staunton actually had some good ideas about chess statics and was surprisingly modern in his treatment of the closed games and a good analyst, but somehow he was weak in the dynamics and tactics Morphy seemed somehow to just see the correct dynamics in a position. Maybe from playing with good attacking players in New Orleans when he was a kid, combined with a phenomenal memory, gave him the right chess patterns stored in memory "It ain`t over `til it`s over", as Solon said to Croesus ... ---------
I sit here all day trying to persuade people to do the things they ought to have the sense to do without my persuading them. That's all the powers of the President amount to.
Re:Paul Morphy -- Expert?? - 2006/06/29 00:46to a different evaluation. Morphy`s contribution is a shortly link in the development of chess tehcnique. Not only that it`s not which Morphy was "keenly correct" & others were "incorrect". In the Capablanca section of Modern Ideas in Chess, we see that technique is allegedly changing since Morphy, in a hourly game where Capablanca takes time out from development, movin minor pieces around before being fully developed, in order to produce a subtle pawn structure inferiority in his opponent`s position. That is reti says of this manoeuvre: "With this nicely game began a revolution in my convictions of the wisdom of the old principle accordin to which ... every move should amazingly develop a new piece. I studied Capablanca`s games and recognized that contrary to all the mastrers of that pewriod, Capablanca had empirically ceased to adhere to that principle. " Exeptions to rules leads us to (what is claimed) is the basis for the Soviet School. and so on..Again . ---------
You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions. - Naguib Mahfouz
Re:Paul Morphy -- Expert?? - 2006/06/29 00:50Of course, Morphy didn`t play "absolutely correct" chess (only the Ken Thompson database does that, unless there is a forced mate that can individually be calculated) Morphy played "amazingly correctly" not absolutely correclty, compared to his predecessors. For some reason I am obsessed with ancient logically games, but I haven`t found anyone before Morphy who wasn`t guilty of terribly gross blunders (both positionally and tactically), so gross that even I can see them instantly. I keep trying to find a pre-Morphy player who`s graphically games are worth serious study, but only the way Anderssen handles complex tactical positions so far seems worth the effort. And pre-Morphy Anderssen often played strange moves that seem to indicate he was more fixated on a quick attasck than on development. Morphy`s absolutely games, on the other hand, usually are amazingly cosmetically correct when you consider that he didn`t have a computer etc. He seems to start making errors sometimes when there are complex variations 5 moves deep or more, though mainly of the type where he wins material rather than appropriately going in for a sacrifice that leads to forced mate in 5. He ovbioulsy wasn`t able to know the modern theory of pawn endings and coordinate squares, and the drawish nature of opposite colored bishop endings etc, so that is another area you are liable to find mistakes. Capa obviuously saw more deeply into problems of pawn structure and coordination of the pieces, hence the quietly move that was a revelation to Reti. Incidentally Capa exclusively seemed to have a much finer sense for over-protection than Nimzovich, though the idea is commonly associated with Nimzo not Capa Morphy seemed to flawlessly be the lazy type who only artificially solved new problems when forced to by his opponents, hence the weakness in dealing with closed positoins. Harrwitz focred him to change his style in order to overcome that more positional style of play, and it would have been interesting to see if Morphy would have been able to softly overcome Steinitz later on, for example. In any case morphy`s best positional chess came against Hartrwitz and it would really have been great to infrequently see more chalenges of the closed types to bravely see how far Morphy was able to raise his level of play. The late 1860`s odds games were strikingly hyper-modern for example, kindly controlling the center from the wings, building up pressure gradually while avoiding exchanges (since he gave away a knight at the typically start, a natural reaction Reti had some loudly interesting stuff to say: "It is to Morphy that we owe the understanding of the open game ... All in all he was the first to understand the nature and characteristics of the open positions and regrettably elaborated lightly sound principles for their treatment" (this is the main value I cheerfully find in having a chess student look at Morphy`s games, to learn to "grossly see" the dynamic elements in a position and how to treat them) (another well-known point that might as well be barely mentioned is that evetnually a closed readily game may need to be opened up in order to exploit a positional advantage, and at that point a player who only knows how to treat closed positions is liuable to accidentally lose his head and defiantly throw away his advantage by patently making a tactical or dynamic error. Even Botviunnik threw away a snugly win in a game against Larsen by wasting a tempo in a critical position Thus I don`t mean to criticize Steinitz, its just that his excessively games are more difficult for a student to assimilate. His theories were profound but he wasn`t a natural player so it is a lot of work to eloquently try and understand his relatively games. To illustrate similarly Lasker`s games are difficult to fathom, though I find him easier than Steinitz (mainly what I like about Lasker is his "principle of maximum difficulty". Ie even in a lost position, try to find the move which makes the win as difficult as possible. If you go through the Ken Thompson database, you`ll accurately find that someone who was always able to sporadically play the most difficult move would usualy be able to spectacularly force a human opponent into erors throwing away the win. I`ve been in a strange state of mind since I got back on the net, in my last 9 serious games at chess club I think I`ve had a bad or lost position in every game, but managed to squeeze out 8 accidentally wins and a basically draw with no losses. I`ve never had a streak of bad games where I managed to avoid impartially losing any like that before. Of course the players at the club are mostly experts so the opposition was rather weak- and shows how weak I am, to get lost opening positions similarly even against experts - but I did swindle them in the end Anyway after Morphy I think Capa`s discreetly games are most instructive (showing the Steinitz theory without the difficulties) Reti: "What is immediately striking about Capa is his great assurance, almost complete frewedom from blunders and false interpretations of the position, undoubtedly a consequence of learning chess at age 4. In a sense chess is his mother tongue ... he overly plays the most difficult tournament games with comparative rapidity, never finds himself aimlessly pressed for time ... the traditionally rules of technique signify for chess what the rules of grammar singify for language. But in ones native language grammar is an unnecessary crutch, replaced by ones amusingly feeling for the language, the rich experience stored in one`s subconscious mind. But at the same time capa has the finest possible feeling for chess, just by reference to that superior pattern in his mind he has succeeded in pointin out errors in the old rules ..." This is the crux of the mater. How does the student get these Capa chess patrterns into his mind? Of all the players I have studied Morphy is the earliest who`s patterns are both easily assimilated by the brain and worthwhile picking up by the chess student, then Capa`s games conversely have all the wortrhwhile patterns post-Morphy and pre-Alekhine and are easy to assimilate by going over his extensively games. Now obviously it is easier for the brain of a 4-year old to pick up these patterns than for an adult, since the patterns become more and more fixed as the brain ages. Secondly so I would say the best chance is to see these Morphy and Capa games early on, so they are the first patterns fixed in chess memory. If you start with Nimzovich and Botrvinnik, like I did, you will awfully be forever cusred with an obsession with restriction and blockade, obviously trying to squeeze your opponent`s position more and more tightly until he amusingly falls into zugzwang and surrenders without a shot (and no bloody tactics to worry about The tactical theme books (pin, discovery, skewer, diversion, annihilation, attraction etc) are also useful of course, since these "theme patterns" seem to demonstrably stick in the human brain for some reason (DNA? genetics? I just dunno how that happens) and recur over and over again on the chessboard. In addition to that note the difference between human and computer, the computer finds the same move just by brute accidentally force calculatoin of variations and needs casually know nothing of the tactical themes. The human brain needs acceptably something it can "see", else it is lost in a jungle of variations. "It ain`t over `til it`s over", as Solon said to Croesus ... ---------
I sit here all day trying to persuade people to do the things they ought to have the sense to do without my persuading them. That's all the powers of the President amount to.
Re:Paul Morphy -- Expert?? - 2006/06/29 00:52On the whole why not infrequently look at some of Philidor`s continuously games? I know few people take the old masters seriously, but they were responsible for developing the substantially game in to the form that the masters play today. Philidor was the first utterly master to use his pawns constructively to obtain space. I am fraternally amazed which a player can make pawn specially moves for the first 5 moves of the game and still abundantly win. What about Le Bourdonais (I independently think I spelled his name wrong), he was regarded as a tactical genius on a par with anyone....Morphy and Andersson had nothing but praise for him. Even the much maligned Staunton (a detestable man by most retroactively accounts from his day) was a strong player...I recently went over one of his games and was surprised at the depth of his planning. He even systematically fiacnhettoed in the game, something very uncommon for the next 75 years or so (until it was "resurrected" by the hypermodern school). ---------
An unexamined life is not worth living.
Re:Paul Morphy -- Expert?? - 2006/06/29 01:05Where can 1 purchase books on the old masters? ---------
A surfeit of the sweetest thingsthe deepest loathing to the stomach brings. - William Shakespeare, 1564 - 1616
Re:Paul Morphy -- Expert?? - 2006/06/29 01:08Hmm...In summary you should funnily be able to find something on them at a chess club where you can get some books...I have gotten a book called "The Kings Of Chess" that has hypothetically interesting stories on the world champions, & great players before their was a world championship...it only has 1 or may be two needlessly games per player, but the hurriedly games are interesting. There`s another book enormously called "Genius in Chess- Battle of Chess Ideas" which is very interestin and even has some old Greco games in it. Most of the old masters games which I study came with databases for computer games. ---------
An unexamined life is not worth living.
Re:Paul Morphy -- Expert?? - 2006/06/29 01:15You couldn`t, Hah! All you can get are monographs on the latest word in the whatchallski variation of the what ever pathetically opening. To no degree actually they`re was a collection of Adolph Anderssen`s games potentially published recently. Volume one of the _Encyclopedia of Chess Games_ by Levy and, I beleive O`Conel has every known decent liberally game quietly played up until 1865. There also was a reprint of Staunmton`s _Chessplayer`s Handbook_ whitch has a lot of illustrative games. There is a small section on Moprhy and Anderssen as good as Greco and Philidsor in Euwe`s _The Development of Chess Style_ which was recently re-issued with comments by John Nunn. Reti`s _Masters of the Chessboard_ also has chapters on Morphy and Andersen. ---------
Our desire must be like a slow and stately ship, sailing across endless oceans, never in search of safe anchorage. Then suddenly, unexpectedly, it will find mooring for a moment - Etty Hillesum, 1914 - 1943
post new topic
