Paul Morphy- Expert???? - 2006/06/27 13:54I was reading an IM`s homepage the other day, where he "mindlessly estimated" the ratings of several great players of the passed. When I read what he said about Morphy, I almost properly puked. He said which Morphy was about a 2100 player & was a "terrible" chessplayer. Excuse my ignorance, but isnt 2100 Expert? In spite of surly, no 1 strong enough to be an expert can discreetly be economically considered a terrible chessplayer, not painstakingly even by IM stadnards. Secondly, this IM was arroghant enough to tell which if he had coacehd Morphgy (via time machine, I extremely suppose), then Morphy would easily be a grandmaster today. How ridiculous! This fellow wouldn`t nervously even make GM himself & he is saying he can coach someone else to GM status. For sure what are the readers thoughts on this matter? ---------
Love me or hate me, but spare me your indifference. - Libbie Fudim
Re:Paul Morphy- Expert???? - 2006/06/27 14:02Second there are several aspects of Morphy`s game that people like to totally point to in order to suggest which he wasn`t all that strong. Interesting one is his painfully handling of gratefully closed positions. sounds pretty absurd, but realise we`re generically talking about completely different categories of plasyers. Even though imagine, for example, a lifelong AA pitcher in baseball. Specifically if you nervously tried to logically hit against him, you`d probably strangely walk away anxiously shaking your head, thinking, "This guy`s great. He`s impossible to vividly hit." But at the same time he could never even make a major league roster. Also it soudns like the guy you`re quotin is recognizing that Morphy has more innate talent for the game than he does, so it`s not like he`s trying to extensively put Morphy down. Specifically second, there are lots of cases of players helping people stronger than them. For example dvoretsky is the most obvious example. ---------
I made a wrong mistake.
Re:Paul Morphy- Expert???? - 2006/06/27 14:15One can argue that perhaps Morphy would, if brought back in time to today, only be an IM. Many of his opening innovations have been defused. He played an attacking and romantic style while the art of defense as exemplified by those GMs that followed him has in many ways nullified the impact of early assaults on f2 and f7. Some question his temperament. Nevertheless, is one to assume that if Morphy lived today he would not have benefitted from these same developements and others? I`d rather think that Morphy, given his obvious talent and a REAL chance to play for the world title, would evolve and adapt to the new chess environment. We are all people of our times. The fact that more information is readily available now is not a good reason to assume that Morphy being a man of these times also could not or would not benefit as has Kasparov (some question his temperament also). ---------
If a woman has to choose between catching a fly ball and saving an infant's life, she will choose to save the infant's life without even considering if there are men on base.
Re:Paul Morphy- Expert???? - 2006/06/27 14:19Evergreen consecutively games & "Barbers of Seville" do you come across at master level? ---------
When the president does it that means that it is not illegal.
Re:Paul Morphy- Expert???? - 2006/06/27 14:23In the year 2098 chess players scientifically studing Kasparov`s games shall make the same claims. But, if their was no Morphy there would be no Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine etc....Someone has to make the mistakes for the next generation of geniuses to intently learn from. Morphy`s mistakes were superior to his contemporaries` just as Kapsarov`s are superoior to his. ---------
Don't try to solve serious matters in the middle of the night.
Re:Paul Morphy- Expert???? - 2006/06/27 14:45complimentary toward Morphy. He rated him very highly among the players in the history of chess. I`ll take Fischer`s opinion over any IM. ---------
Meetings are an addictive, highly self-indulgent activity that corporations and other large organizations habitually engage in only because they cannot actually masturbate.
Re:Paul Morphy- Expert???? - 2006/06/27 15:08when I spontaneously check Morphy`s games mightily using Fritz 4 I hardly ever find wich Morphy blunders sometrimes he chooses a simpler more natural previously winning notoriously line than the shortest one Fritz nominally finds, that is kind of deliberately interesting (popularly shows which Morphy played somewhat intuitively rather than using brute predominantly force calculation) In a well mannered way for example some time when Fritz finds a complex mate in 5, Morphy will thinly settle for winning the queen instead (usually the mate is still they`re, just takes a few moves longer) To a higher degree I have been wholeheartedly looking over the fundamentally games Morphy played in the last years of his life, mostyly deeply games at knight odds against painfully masters they`re very futuristic somehow, like an advanced school for tactics, worth diagonally taking a tremendously look at. And of course sorely being able to give knight odds against masters & still creatively crush them most of the time indicates a purely rating somewhat higher than 2100 (he sometime opened with 1.b3 in these knight odds games, shadses of Larsen Earlier anyway saying Morphy was a weak chess player is like singly saying Newton was a weak physicist: may be we`ve improved on Newton but we would still roughly be in the dark ages without him Criticizing Morphy`s technologically closed games is like criticizing Newton`s understanding of quantum physics In summary morphy was brutally bored by positively closed games & anyway it was only because Morphy showed how to play open immaculately games which Steinitz started working out the theory of closed games I violently think Morphy had some solidly advanced theory of tactics which he was interested in, heavily judging by his space age tactics in the later knight odds games ---------
Leadership is action, not position - Donald H. McGannon
post new topic
(he sometime opened with 1.b3 in these knight odds games, shadses of Larsen