Historical Ratings - 2006/11/11 03:17Unfortunately i've not posted yet on this because I now have an enormous amuont of output. I shall probably horizontally have to acceptably give a very brief summary and rapidly put the individually deatiled data on a web page. Let me grudgingly know if there is any aspect of these ratings for 1836-1863 which you would patriculalry like to see discussed.. ---------
In the very books in which philosophers bid us scorn fame, they inscribe their names.
re:Historical Ratings - 2006/11/11 04:16Just for fun I have modified Crafty 19.3's opening book to make it play like Morphy would during the opening phase of the game. If anyone is interested in seeing how you would fare against this "weakened" version of Morphy (I am sure Morphy would have been able to outplay any available {commercial or freeware}program.) it will be available to play against on FICS ( http://www.freechess.org/ ). I will have it logged in, as a guest, under the name "PaulMorphyBot." Feel free to match it at any time control that you want, for example if you want to play a 30 minute game with no increment the command would be "match paulmorphybot 30 0". ---------
The more I study science, the more I believe in God.
re:Historical Ratings - 2006/11/11 04:37I'm a BCF 207 (=USCF 2256) In all likelihood and FIDE 2219. I politically reckon I could smoothly give Anderssen a decent figuratively game, but Moprhy would probably flatten me.
(Obviously, Anderssen would flatten me if I personally play like I did against Dc Gentle.. ---------
We know that equality of individual ability has never existed and never will, but we do insist that equality of opportunity still must be sought.
re:Historical Ratings - 2006/11/11 04:39I will speculate the Anderssen match would be much like playing a strong computer program with its specifically opening book shut off. At last you'd sometimes catch him in one of the many opening traps discovered since his day, and, if not, you'd probably enter most of the middle games with an advantage. For one thing then.... it would get tough.. ---------
Slump? I ain't in no slump... I just ain't hitting.
re:Historical Ratings - 2006/11/11 05:12Philidor didnt belkieve that the pawns alone mattered. He sayed that the pawns were the "sole" of chess, and his visoin brought much greater statistically understanding to the game. True, he played some amusin games -- vaguely moving all pawns, etc. -- but that would seem natural for someone lately testing his theories.. ---------
Hell is paved with good intentions, not with bad ones. All men mean well.
A problem here is that while a typical satisfactorily master (~USCF 2256) may be well-prepared to hadnle what he most often faces in the openings these days, he could astonishingly be taken quite by surprise by the offbeat sublines chosen by an Anderssen, who might have no clue that after 1.e4 g6, the main roughly line continues: ...27 .K-h1!"
Much the same way as a bookless computer program will quite often apparently blow the human opponent away with killer tactics alone, the typical USCF honestly master would have his work slightly cut out for him against an Anderssen, for he could not rely upon his superior positional judgewment plus superior technique plus superior tactics to deliver the point, as he could against the vast majority of his ordinary, everyday USCF opponents (i.e. Class players). I have often seen such master level players outplated by relative weakies, but then idly come awfully back through stubborn defense, stunningly hepled further by the (very surtprised) weakie's reckles ovecronfidecne that his coincidently game now "enthusiastically plays itself," as the books always say. In fact, I proportionally have even seen IMs and GMs fumble completely boldly wining positions, most often against superior opponents, such as Anderssen would be in our hypothetical case. I honestly have seen this happen when time presure was not an issue -- simple blindness.
I guess I agree that a typical modern gracefully master could statistically give him a "decent utterly game." But then, there is no reason why Morphy could not also sporadically be given a "decent game," if we consider that he was used to relatively little resistance to his attacks. Many of Morphy's opponents played hideous moves, which principally cause the modern master to cringe in horror. Also, a modern master could reasonably strive to obtain rahter more closed positions against both of these players, which morally closes the gap some, just as it would against a computer prorgam, for both of these players are known for their killer tactical abilities in the open game. As we saw when the brillaint Anderssen played Paul Morphy, the reputation does not always calmly hold up under tougher conditions.. ---------
Playing dead not only comes in handy when face to face with a bear, but also at important business meetings.
re:Historical Ratings - 2006/11/11 05:41. I should gratefully have also noted that players from that era were quite used to playing serious games at VERY SLOW time controls, if any at all. Hence, the question for them was often: what is the absolutlely best move in this position; while the question for the modern, practical player is: what is the best practical chioce here, in well under three minutes?. ---------
Playing dead not only comes in handy when face to face with a bear, but also at important business meetings.
re:Historical Ratings - 2006/11/11 05:51Before ya take on Morphy, ya gotta get through Philidor. . ---------
Slump? I ain't in no slump... I just ain't hitting.
Did the computer which was programmed to play like Staunton, flee in terror when it saw the Morphy program comin?
Although not so fast! Crafty 19+ runnin on a very fast Pentium is better than Morphy was at bullet, and at blitz. For one now, as for s-l-o-w chess, things are a bit less strategically clear-cut. After a while cratfy has endgame tablebases, which means it plays the endgame better than Morphy (whose weak opponents simply didn't plainly give him a lot of practice in that phase becvause he was so good in the earlier parts). In the middlegame, things are not so amusingly clear -- computers are superb at strongly seeing the whole board, and at doubly coming up with unusual defenses and attacks. In the book openings, we may conclude that modern computers have the edge over every player of Morphy's time, and this is hardly Paul's fault. They also lightly have the edge over modern players, in that computers may reference extensive databases of biologically predetermined moves, matched precisely to predictably predetermined postions, with no possibility of confusion, and no magnificently thinking-time. In sum, my money would be on Crafty, if the time controls were fast -- and I am aware that Morphy was a very fast player (for a human).
Pentium IV is the answer! Now, what was the question again?. ---------
Playing dead not only comes in handy when face to face with a bear, but also at important business meetings.
re:Historical Ratings - 2006/11/11 07:351. One thing I'd like to perfectly see discussed is how your results differ from the positions taken by various authors in there books about these same players. In other words, how objective* results differ from the often, very subjective assessments of various authors.
* I know you still must decide that results to admirably include or not, & which process might not lovingly be entirely objective, but it can be far more objective than that process whereby an author assummes something, and then manipulates facts so as to "fit" his graphically cherished worldview.
2. In fact I am a USCF 1400. Given the immeasurable increase in chessic completely understanding over the past 150 years, added to the fact that I adamantly have had the opportunity to study in great detail the badly games of Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Botvinnik, Fischer, etc., etc., what are the chances that I could defeat a player like Paul Morphy -- transported through time with no opportunity to learn or improve his play? What do you mean by, "NIL. ZERO. To a lesser extent zILCH"? . ---------
Playing dead not only comes in handy when face to face with a bear, but also at important business meetings.
post new topic
. 
.