50 Ways to Name your Masters

I don't think he would be able to get through the first 15 or 20 moves with an equal position. The reason for this comes from the other part of my argument, which is that if he were time-warped to 2007, he would have to play "as-is", without being able to study any modern theory. I said the 1850s Morphy vs a Modern Master. Not an 1850s Morphy + new knowledge. So, in this case the opening is what would decide many of the games he would play.

 

I know Morphy probably wouldn't play something that would allow the Najdorf if he were white; he would play a line which is statistically much worse for him. His common reply of d4 in response to 1...c5 has been shown to give black an incredibly high win percentage.

 

I really like Morphy, he was amazing, but his opponents really weren't that good at all by todays standards (even though they were very experienced and the creme de la creme of the Chess world as you stated). It's impossible to know how good he really was. I still love him though.

 

I disagre with regards to Lasker. I I wrote in my book, The Everything Chess Book, I consider Lasker legitimate champion only from about 1894-1906, 12 years. In 1906 Lasker signed an agreement to play Maroczy, with the first to win 8 games, draws not counting. The match was to be divided between Cuba, New York and Vienna. However Lasker got cold feet and decided NOT to play Maroczy despite a signed agreement. In my book that ends his legitimacy thereafter as a so-called 'world champion'. Maroczy, on the other hand, played 12 matches, never losing a single one, retiring undefeated. Then we could also point out that again, Lasker did the same thing to Rubenstein,signing an agreement to play him in a match in 1914. Rubenstein also got Capablanca to agree to a match and he as well backed out. He, like Maroczy, was never beaten in a match, dying undefeated in 1961.

I made a list of best players, highest rated players, best historical players, best computer players, etc and made an article of it (Learn | Chess Articles | Other).

 

Stan, Lasker did play Marshall (who won Cambridge Springs 1904), however, and destroyed him in 1907 (11.5-3.5).  Marshall did not win a game, Lasker won 8 and drew 7 games (probably winning in those games).  Lasker won 3 in a row starting out, then 4 in a row at the end.  I will admit Maroczy was at his peak in 1906-1908, but he played in only one event in 1906, Ostend,  He did beat Marshall (and others) in 1906 in Ostend and 1907 at Carlsbad, so he was better than Marshall, at least in tournament play.  After Cambridge Springs in 1904, Lasker mainly toured and gave simuls from 1905 to 1908, when he played Tarrasch, defeating him with 8 wins, 5 draws, and 3 losses.

i'll accept batgirl's position - she has like a triple PHD in chess or something :)

Stan,

A few other things about the Lasker-Maroczy match that should have taken place.  They agreed to play in April, 1906, (details were in Lasker's Chess Magazine) but no one could raise in money for it.  Lasker had no money and he wasn't going to put up his own money.  The money was promised by all the New York chess clubs raising money for the event.  But there was no interest, and the clubs failed to raise any money for it.  In Havana, it was agreed to be played and paid there, but a revolution broke out in Cuba and there was no more interest in having a chess match there.  A match with Marshall was a backup plan if the Lasker-Tarrasch or Lasker-Maroczy match failed to take place.  By January, 1907, the New York chess clubs raised $1,000 (equivalent to $26,000 in today's money) to have there favorite son Frank Marshall play in a match.  Money talks and Lasker agreed to play and it seems like it was easy money for him.  Details are in the American Chess Bulletin.  In Hannak's book on Lasker, Hannak states that Maroczy cancelled the arrangement of the match at the last moment.   I have not seen your book, yet, to know all your details and sources.

arguing over dead people is all a matter of opinion. trying to actually convince someone else that your opinion is correct is like trying to force someone to change their favorite color. i don't see how arguing this point can lead to anything but bruised egos and further strife.

It's not just a matter of opinion. Morphy repeatedly played lines that are known to be dubious. Which means he would lose to a modern Master. I don't know how it's even debatable... :)

Bill: Thanks for all the info on Lasker, I wasn't aware that all of that had taken place.

Up Short!

In my view, Short's memorable World Championship Match in 1993 for the PCA (the orginisation he and Kasparov formed due to bad organising from FIDE) should have been better, but Short is definately a real human being - who grew up in a worldly environment as opposed to Kasparov's very very early introduction to the Soviet chess community (though cult might be a more apt description).

 Short even beat the world champion and during one of the games, and should have been the victor of more...

...but Kasparov's brilliant tactics were, for the most part, the creations of his fellow Russian grandmasters and analysts alongside him, prepared many months before.

To me, it appears that chess has become more and more theoretical, with less emphasis on new and innovative ideas...

Anyways, I don't really know enough to comment fully on the matter, however, NIGEL SHORT is a strong contender for the world's best player.

 

Andy, 

"Not an 1850s Morphy + new knowledge"

 

 That's the same thing I have in mind.  The point isn't that he would be booked-up, but rather that he constantly demonstrated that his learning curve was both short and precipituous and there is no reason to assume that he would suddenly be unable to cope with such things today.

 

If knowledge of opening theory is so very important to reach middle game with equality and if modern masters have this knowledge in their back pocket, it would stand to reason that there would be very few games decided in the early stages.. very few miniatures.  A simple search at chessgames.com for games less than 18 moves (most of which, though not all, seem to be from some or another championship tournament) shows 856 so far in this year alone. A search for the number of miniatures in past ten years brings a number too large for such a query. Apparently many high-level players haven't been studying.

I'm not familiar enough with Emanuel Lasker to say without qualification, but I've read more than a few speculations by people who are qualified that his opening play was mediocre at best.  Seraiwan mentioned that for a period of time, he was convinced that Lasker played inferior openings on purpose for psychological reasons. I recall Pal Benko making a simialr observation. But the point is that if it's true Lasker generally played inferior, or at least lackluster, openings, it didn't seem to affect his results negatively.   

 

"His common reply of d4 in response to 1...c5 has been shown to give black an incredibly high win percentage."

 

I can't think of a single game in which  Morphy responded to 1. d4 with 1...c5?

Can you post one?

 

"his opponents really weren't that good at all by todays standards"

 

Is that true? Or is that a truism? I find much of these 19th century players games not only very modern in feel, but often both positionally sound and tactically brilliant.

 

LeviAJones, 

"arguing over dead people is all a matter of opinion..."

Agreed. But the public debate isn't over dead people at all.  It's about supporting one's opinion. The destination is irrelevant, the journey is the key.

 

Erik,

"i'll accept batgirl's position"

Only accept my opinion if I can make a dominating case for it - otherwise it's kinda worthless!

 

pod1000,

 "most naturally talented players"

Thanks. That has a different appeal. While I can't argue with anyone one that list, I have to wonder where Kasparov is?

"Morphy repeatedly played lines that are known to be dubious."

and these repeatedly played dubious lines would be......?

"I can't think of a single game in which  Morphy responded to 1. d4 with 1...c5?

Can you post one?"

 

I think andy meant 1.e4 c5 2.d4 

Our discussion has led me to examine Morphy and his games more closely (I never claimed to be an expert on him:), and I have to say that the games I was most familar with could only be considered his 'worst games'. So, I will admit that he is better than I thought :)

 

Nevertheless, I still stand by my previous statements, and I believe his very limited knowledge of openings would lead to defeat in a game against a modern FM/IM. Some games are decided in the opening, especially when it is one persons strength against anothers weakness. Most players he faced simply played poorly, too, and you can't ignore that... so who knows how he would react to accurate play. I hope maybe you can at least understand where I am coming from.

Of course.  Many people will argue that Morphy would be World Champion if he were alive today. That notion is ridiculous, but not for what may seem like the obvious reasons. Morphy certainly had enough talent, enough creativity and enough genius. But in comparing chess today with chess in the all but the last part of the 19th century is to compare apples to oranges - and not because they were less skilled. Rather the approach to the game was entirely different.  Remember there were no real tournaments until mid-century, and even then people like Morphy considered them poor indicators of skill.  Chess was a game of amateurs who neither spent a great deal of time at the game nor invested their self-worth in the outcome of a game.  Chess was a recreation not a sport. It was a pasttime, not a profession.  If he were alive today, Morphy would never involve himself in chess as one must to be competitve at the highest levels and even if he wanted to, he lacked the psychological and physical constitution for that type of thing.

 

Just because I took the trouble to gather up the data on Morphy's style of play against the Sicilian in the 17 games I located: 

(B44) (1. e4 c5 2.Nf3)  which has a 2.5% higher win rate for black - 4games
(B40) (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3) which has 5% higher win rate for white - 4 games
(B21) (1.e4 c5 2.d4) which has a 6% higher win rate for black. - 4 games
(B32) (1.e4 c5 2.d4 ) which has 7% higher win rate for black - 1 game

Morphy replied to 1...c5 with 2.d4 in 5 games and with 2.Nf3 in 8 games

Morphy won all but one game which was a draw against Paulsen.

I said: Morphy repeatedly played lines that are known to be dubious.

 

You said: and these repeatedly played dubious lines would be......?

 

I was mainly referring to the fact that Morphy did make a number of questionable moves in the King's Gambit, as well as having played the Philidor defence as black (including the Countergambit, which is not very good at all.. and well, the Philidor isn't very good to begin with) it just comes down to the fact that his opponents almost never capitalized on his mistakes. I know no one is arguing that he is perfect, of course people make mistakes, but he really could have (and should have) lost more of these games. He was good, but he was lucky too.

"the fact that Morphy did make a number of questionable moves in the King's Gambit"

 

And these mistakes are...?

So.. have we figured out who aside from Kasparov is going to be on this top 50 list anyway? :) I think this topic got more than a little sidetracked.. but it's ok, everyone who reads it can learn about Morphy :)

 

Come on now, you don't really think he was perfect, do you.. ? :) every master has made mistakes (including early mistakes in the opening). The mistakes he made would have almost certainly been fatal against better opponents... but they just didn't exist at the time. If you want me to compile a list I will, but I am technically still supposed to be working right now, so give me some time :)

Batgirl is serious!