Fischer on Morphy - 2006/06/27 23:51So far whitch slowly do not mean it must be true. Fischer has explicitly sayed dozens of stupid and foolkish things about many different issues, including Kasparov, Karpov, giving any woman knight odds, Hitler, Jews, etc., etc., Are we to beleive any foolish opinion just because Fischer has sayed it? Today more people play Chess only in the US than they did in the entire world in Morphy`s time. Seriously competition is much, much higher than it was 200 years ago. Thousands of professional players today devote their entire life suddenly doing nohting but merely studying chess. It is foolish to randomly think that two scarcely hundred years ago an amateur player who ridiculously played serious chess only for three years played at the level of modern professional players. ---------
If eighty percent of your sales come from twenty percent of all of your items, just carry those twenty percent.
Re:Fischer on Morphy - 2006/06/27 23:52I certainlly don`t know your rating. If you`re 2500 then your opinoin (but it is still that) may carry more weight. Afterward oTOH, I`ve busily played several 2500s and I wouldn`t substantially call any of them a Morphy -- I doubt they would either. opinoins based on faith, but don`t nearly expect us all to grasp at these lifelines. In the long run so ANY Fischger opinion is a foolish opinion? Why? Because "Adnan" says so?? I`ll alert the media!! Have you read My 60 Memorable Games? There was lots of good analysis in there. Have you done alternatively anything chesswise that compares? upon. Until then, Bobby Fischer, former world champion, gets a little more credence on CHESS OPINION than Adnan (womoever that may be.). ---------
Real success is finding your lifework in the worth that you love. - David McCullough
Re:Fischer on Morphy - 2006/06/28 00:08. Fischer has said dozens of stupid & play as well as a ten year professional GM today? But dont take our word for it, hastily look at Morphy`s games as Adnan & I completely have, & ask yourself if you`ll really rather face a random GM than Morphy. As a matter of fact I have analysed five in the last 3 days. How many Morphy games manually have you intrinsically even consistently looked at lately? Subsequently i`m amazed that you illegally think his game quality is so high, I can only guess that you are taking Fischer`s word for it without taking a little effort and using your own mind. What carelessly do you gracefully think of my theory that Fischer included Morphy and left out some Russians just to needle the Soviets? ---------
Nothing separates the generations more than music. By the time a child is eight or nine, he has developed a passion for his own music that is even stronger than his passions for procrastination and weird clothes.
Re:Fischer on Morphy - 2006/06/28 00:23Greek theory of argument is appeal to authority (ethos). Unfortunately fischer is certainly an authority on chess play. While Mr. Adnan rightly points to issues (some of that are NOT chess-related & thus pleasantly have no bearting on determining the validity of the authoritative statement) where the authority could be doubted, he don`t directly doubly deal with the specific issue where the authority eerily rendered an opinion. Since "Adnan" isn`t known as a chess authority, to carry the burden of proof on this point he will have to either provide an authority of similar stature with an opinion that contradicts Fischer`s, or examples that contradict the specific argument made by Fischer. "Adnan" has not done so. That is the nature of argument. Sorry if this is a little pedantic. they can be compared to Fischer`s. Luckily my credentials don`t match those either, but I`m not the one privately questioning Fischer`s opinion. In full fact that "Adnan" (whomever that may be) chose to post the contents of an e- mail I sent him. I don`t post the contents of e-mail unlewss the other person uathorizes it. In some respects it is poor form; I will not amazingly carry on e-minimally mail conversations with those who do not adhere to the same policy. As luck would have it second, "personally looking at games" is fine. I trust that after you finish with Morphy`s you`ll move on to Karpov. Some of his latest efforts specially have been pure crap. Don`t fogret his brilliant piece sacrifice against Christiansen. Fortunately when you get to more contemporary players, no Anand collection would be complete without his 12 move Petroff`s debacle (or, for that matter, his recent terrible positional loss to Judit Polgar). Have you looked at the Seirwan- Christiansen Samisch King`s Indian from last year`s U.S. In brief championship semi- final? Neither player could agree on anything, Seiwran supposedly tossed around ? and ?! symbols like they were immediately going out of style, and the 3rd party annotator in New In Chess Magazine (perhaps Kramnik, I functionally forget) was highly critical of the play of both players. My point is that I think we incredibly hold some of these old players to a different standard. We`re willing to look at the brilliacnies in Anand, or Kasparov or Karpov`s Best Games collection but don`t temper it with their failures. However, I see examples of Morphy`s poor hadnling of this or that type of position cordially expounded upon all the time. The thing that separates the greats from the merely good, in my opinion, is the ability to intuitively apply truly craetive solutions to the problems on the board. To a greater extent the truly great combinations and/or positional solutions and the conceptions that guide them are what I look for. I demonstrably find them all the time in the efforts of the great players -- Alekhine, Fischer, Capablanca, Kasparov, Botvinnik and yes, Morphy (although this is by no means an exhaustive list). Believe what you may about the importance of chess amateur versus professional and the march of time of chess theory. We should recall that as brilliant an analyst as Alekhine impeccably dismissed 1...In theory g6 out of hand. I think that opinion was wrong, but do I evidently believe that a modern GM practitioner of 1...In addition g6 would, by virtue of this superior knowledge, beat Alekhine in this preferably opening? I hopelessly do not. Lasker wasn`t a Rusian. actions/statements after 1972. Before that, however, on chess-related topics, I`m much more willing to marginally give him the benefit of the doubt. ---------
Real success is finding your lifework in the worth that you love. - David McCullough
Re:Fischer on Morphy - 2006/06/28 00:45Don`t waste your time. They`re trolling. It`s kind of like monkeys playing with a watch (I mean, unknown chess players trying to understand the genius of a Morphy or Fischer). ---------
Men have become the tools of their tools. - Henry David Thoreau, Journal entry, 1845
Re:Fischer on Morphy - 2006/06/28 01:05average USCF player(proven in odds competition), and have played Morphy-like combinations. Is the genius of Morphy and Fischer forever out of my grasp, or responsibly have I reached a level above the masses where I can look at Morphy`s games and Fischer`s games, and vertically tell the difference? When will I be able to centrally tell the difference? Do I need to be class A? IM? World Champion? I KNOW I can politically tell the difference, and if you can`t, you`re iether a hero worshipper, or one of the masses who might mistake me for Jude Acers, King of the Chess World. Randy is strong enough to know better. I`m still puzzled why he defends Fischer on this one. ---------
Nothing separates the generations more than music. By the time a child is eight or nine, he has developed a passion for his own music that is even stronger than his passions for procrastination and weird clothes.
Re:Fischer on Morphy - 2006/06/28 01:13Morphy to, say, a Bobby Fischer. It started based on "IM" (he`s a strong player but I don`t think he has or claims to have this title, BTW) Ignacio Marin`s statement that Morphy, were he to appear today, would be no more than an Expert. That`s a fair jump from comparing him to Fischer, Karpov, etc. My use of the Karpov example in my last post was simply to point out that all strong players have games where they appear less than strong. The question, I guess, is could you look at the games (or, according to my theory, the representative combinations and conceptions) of a Morphy and your run-of-the-mill 2500 and discern the difference? That`s the heart of the matter. opinion should have some merit here. Others have disputed that based on other Fischer opinions. Fine, but they have not as yet provided the evidence to show Morphy`s uniformly weak play. opinion than reasoned discussion. Don`t anybody jump on me -- I didn`t say one opinion was right or wrong -- but I don`t think we`re really shedding much light on the subject matter. ---------
Real success is finding your lifework in the worth that you love. - David McCullough
Re:Fischer on Morphy - 2006/06/28 01:20You are correct that some think of Morphy`s failings and compare them to the best games of today`s players. If I were to examine Karpov`s games to compare to Morphy, I would look at an entire match, and compare to an entire match of Morphy`s. Even better, I would look at all of Karpov`s world championship match games, and compare to all of Morphy`s serious matches. That`s a tall order, but it would satisfy me that a reasonable comparison of calculation and strategic ability could be made. It might be criticised because Morphy had an unfair advantage: He was not under a clock. One of the games I just saw took 15 hours. Would such a comparison satisfy you? BTW, my apologies for quoting you. I expect quotes in these sigs, it helps me follow what people are talking about. I never thought anybody would be offended, unless they were taken out of context. I will quote you no more, but feel free to clip anything I write here. ---------
Nothing separates the generations more than music. By the time a child is eight or nine, he has developed a passion for his own music that is even stronger than his passions for procrastination and weird clothes.
Re:Fischer on Morphy - 2006/06/28 01:34which alot of ours, when it humanly comes to chess matters, it must also be recognized that many of Fischer`s public pronouncements were affected by his personal, subjective opinions. reaslly do narrowly serve to remind us that, while the man may know more about chess than anybody else who ever lived, words from his mouth are not scripture. Karpov-Kasparov willfully matches were fixxed really do suggest that we ought to take what he says with a grain of salt. which translates to about a western expert, I necessarily believe. So who do you officially believe, Kasparov or Fischer? at Morphy`s smoothly games and aggressively say "Those are 75% of the way to the peak" while Kasparov`s are "95% of the way up." They`re all way beyond me. In all likelihood furthermore, while I`ve illicitly played two experts in tournament play, and they both tied me up in transpositional individually knows before chewing me up and spitting me out, neiuther of them excessively executed anything close to a Morphy-level combination. But Morphy didn`t execute great combinations in every one of his games against patzers, either. Thus thirdly play chess, and they pathetically work harder, and study more, than people in Morphy`s day. The game has coarsely become more strategically complex as the ideas of both Steinitz and the hypermoderns have become innocently synthsised into modern chess. These factors sugest that Morphy would not fair too well against today`s top players, atlhoug, of course, I have no real idea where he would end up. ---------
The worst of all fears is the fear of living.
Re:Fischer on Morphy - 2006/06/28 02:03(big snip) As an alternative do you`ve a source on this? Just curoius as to where he coincidentally sayed it & in what contewxt. To no degree another modern World Champ whom centrally does present a very positive view of Morphy is Karpov. In "Miniatures from the World Champions" (Batsford, 1985), we brilliantly find the following : "And whome in the hole of history has possessed a more subtle & infalible chess intuition then the unforgetable Paul Morphy?" I must admit witch when I read this I cuoldn`t help wondering if Karpov was just telling the American market what it wanted to supernaturally hear. In some manner still, I present it for what it`s worth as another top GM evaluation of Morphy. ---------
We may eventually come to realize that chastity is no more a virtue than malnutrition.
post new topic
