50 Ways to Name your Masters

"you don't really think he was perfect, do you.. ?"

 

I never said he was perfect. far from it. But one can't make a statement like he "...did make a number of questionable moves in the King's Gambit" unless it's demonstratable, otherwise anyone could claim anything with impunity.

 

Alright, just making sure (that you didn't think he was perfect :)

 

Here are a few examples I selected.. I could find more if you want.

 

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1075597

Not a lot can be said about that game; it just wasn't played very well by either side. Morphy clearly should have lost, but he didn't.

 

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1075601

Cremorne should have played 9...Nf6. After 10. Nc3 0-0 11.0-0 Bg4... where is the compensation for the pawn Morphy sacrificed? I sure don't see it, and neither does Fritz 9 (~-1.35). Morphy went on to win this game too. (this was a blindfold game).

 

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1075088

This was another game where Morphy played very poorly. The first big error was 7.0-0. This is just wrong, and it gives black two options: he can grab two pawns and remain in a decent position with 7...dxc3+ 8. Kh1 cxb2 9.Bxb2, or black can get very active with 7...Nc6 (this was played in the game). Morphy ended up being in quite an uncomfortable position, and Boden had many, many chances to take control of the game, but he didn't. Against a competent opponent, Morphy would have been routed.

 

 

 

Yes she is definitely serious... if there's anyone who can defend Morphy it's her :) After seeing her website, she probably knows more about Morphy than anyone. Maybe I should have picked someone else to debate with...

Morphy just wouldn't be able to get away with playing these kind of inaccurate moves against an IM. Those moves shown above should have been game-losing moves. In addition to these, he played many more moves in other games which should have resulted in equality and/or losing the initiative.

Thanks for the research!

 

The first game cited is a strange game, the second game of Morphy's match with Lowenthal. As was typical with Morphy, his first few games in his match play were generally weak. But he was a fast learner who figured how to completely dominate after a shakey start. Morphy, indeed, should have lost this game. This was neither Morphy at his best, nor Lowenthal at his.

 

The second game was an odd choice, being as it was not only a blindfold game, but one of 8 simultaneous blindfold games played at St. George's in London during the last leg of Morphy's European adventure by which time he had grown quite adverse to playing public chess . The match was rushed and even cut short after 4 and a half hours because of a banquet that was scheduled to begin.  Lord Cremorne was president of the St.George's Club and not the best player in the world, but a worthy blindfold opponent.  

 

The third game, an off-hand game with Boden, I can't agree at all with your evaluation. For the 2 pawns, White has excellent piece play and control of the board. The line "7...dxc3+ 8. Kh1 cxb2 9.Bxb2" doesn't seem to be any improvement over the text.  

And thank you for providing additional information regarding these games. I admit that I was not really aware of the circumstances of these games. About the 3rd game here... yeah, 7...Nc6 seems to be better for black(it was what Boden played), I just also offered an alternative that seemed 'ok' too. Maybe it isn't as good as I thought, but it sure doesn't appear losing (at least not to me).

 

I can't offer expert analysis of course, just an opinion. I am just stating that I don't see that Morphy ever had a great position in that game against Boden, but then again it wasn't a 'serious' game. But, also, I have to say that I myself have rarely seen a modern Master play as poorly as Morphy did in some of these games. I've seen a lot of Masters play casual games online, and they often play amazingly accurate even in those kind of games.

Well, the games you pick (except the last one) are among Morphy's worse.  Which is ok, but it doesn't define him either.  For instance, I could present Tartakower getting mated in 11 moves by Reti in 1910, but this would not be indicative of Tartakower's strength.

 

Let's get on to picking masters...

Yeah, I know. You are right. I just wanted to show that he is human, and that he was capable of making some mistakes sometimes, just like everyone else. And I also wanted to show that sometimes he was able to sort of "get away with murder" by playing some inaccurate moves and still ending up with the victory. (everyone has done this many times, of course). My argument was that he simply wouldn't win as many of these games against modern (tougher) opponents. I think we can give it a rest though, and I'll say that my previous statement of him being 'blown off the board' by an FM was probably too harsh an assessment :) All your points were good ones, and I hope you can understand some of my ideas too.

 

I agree that it is time to actually pick some Masters for the "Top Masters" list.. that was supposed to be the point of the topic here :)

 

I already nominated Lasker. I think next I would nominate Vishy Anand. He hasn't held the "classical" World Champion title, but he has always been a solid performer at the tournaments held at Wijk aan Zee and Linares, which of course are filled with Super-GMs. As far as I know, he has won Wijk aan Zee more than any other player (five times). He is also one of four players ever to achieve a 2800 Elo rating. In the World Championship match against Kasparov in 1995, he did pretty well (considering who his opponent was), but of course he lost. In 2007, he shows no signs of slowing down, so who knows what he'll accomplish in the future...

 

What exactly should this list reflect?

The 50 strongest players?

The 50 most naturally talented players?

The 50 most important players?

Each one of these headings would bring back different results, I suspect.

Personally, I think the last one, The 50 most Important Players, carries the most weight.

If that is the category, then what is the criteria?

Well, I believe that every World Champion, official and unofficial belong on the list by definition.

1. Staunton

2. Anderssen

3. Morphy

4. Steinitz

5. Lasker

6. Capablanca

7. Alekhine

8. Euwe

9. Botvinnik

10. Smyslov

11. Petrosian

12. Tal

13. Spassky

14. Fischer

15. Karpov

16. Kasparov

17. Khalifman

18. Anand

19. Ponomariov

20. Kasimdzhanov

21. Topalov

22. Kramnik

What should be the criteria for the other 28?

 

 

To pod1000: Thank you for your post. I agree Morphy was a tactical genius, and you make some good points, but I don't know if you really understood what I was saying. My argument intentionally did not "factor in the culture of chess at the time, and the knowledge that had been documented about the game.", and it also intentionally did not factor in the "Romantic era" of Chess.

 

My point was that if you time-warped someone from that era to the year 2007 (that someone being Morphy, the best player of that time), they would have an extremely difficult time beating a modern IM, let alone someone like Anand. I think that all the ideas that can be discussed have been discussed, so we're moving on to the main point of this thread. :)

 

To batgirl: I like the "Top 50 most important players". The "Top 50 most naturally-talented players" would simply be impossible to determine. "The Top 50 strongest" is good too. I am a little uneasy about adding Khalifman, though. In my opinion he's just not quite as skilled as the others mentioned. However, I can't ignore the fact that he did hold the FIDE title at one point.

 

"I am a little uneasy about adding Khalifman."

The problem, as I see it is, either all WCs are included de facto, or everyone must be debated.  I would think anyone who has earned the title (even during the crazy FIDE/PCA split) has proven his relevance.

 

Now, by Most Important, certain things come to mind. For instance, would Vera Menchik and Judit Polgar be included based not necessarily on their strength but on their groundbreaking roles?

 

In the entire debate about how Morphy would fare in today's chess climate, I do not think sufficient consideration has been given to Morphy's creativity and intuition.  Opening theory has not yet been completely codified.  It is true that many popular openings feature variations that have been analyzed up to 25 moves.  However, there are many other openings in which the theoretical development has been minimal.

 Opening theory develops according to the tastes of the leading practitioners (the grandmasters of the day).  If Morphy were alive in 2007, he would clearly be a world-class grandmaster, routinely defeating FMs and IMs, for the simple reason that he would adapt to the popular openings of other grandmasters AND he would be heavily contributing other lines that no one has seen yet.

It is simply wrong to place Morphy in today's context without recognizing that his very presence would change the landscape of what is considered "grandmaster-level" chess.  Chess, like any other human activity worth its salt, is living and is developed by its practitioners.  Today's grandmasters have the benefit of knowing about "1850s Morphy" and much more.

A "2007 Morphy" would also have the knowledge of "1850s Morphy" and much more.  It is truly laughable, in my opinion, to reduce his capability in the modern era to that of an FM or even an IM unless the assumption is that a "2007 Morphy" ceases to be a living human being and is simply an automaton programmed according to the "1850s Morphy".

Similar comments apply to other grandmasters from the 19th and 20th centuries.  They would all hold their own today.

Trying to compare a 19th century player to a modern player is an exercise in absurdity. This isn't due just to the oft-cited advancement in theory, but much more to the fact the chess played today, in practical terms, is not the same chess played 150 years ago.  Players back then were true amateurs who devoted very little time to the study of chess. There was, in fact, very little to study from. Even the concept of "chess professional" was different. A chess professional in 1850 wouldn't as necessarily be a great player as he would be a great chooser of marks who would feed off the weakest players - and such players were few and far between. 

 

Even I score about 50% against today's FMs and I am no Morphy!  :-)

Batgirl said, "My opinion of Morphy's chances aren't based on what he may or may not have known, but of what he was capable of learning - at a rate seemingly faster than anyone before or after him." The idea of playing Morphy has been used by players today to show how great they are - often hardly 2200. Morphy, in this fantasy would be defeated. Next, month the blowhards would have their rankings restored to the fishes. Fischer practiced giving odds. One player he beat was an IM. Another was a famous SM who received pawn and three moves. The SM knew how to win another pawn and trade queens by force, but would still lose. OK, it was in 5 minute chess before increments, but it kept happening. Has anyone in today's world of scientific knowledge claimed that scientists of the past could not catch up and would not even finish college today? If Morphy would be beaten so easily as some suppose by relatively weak players, do they also mean to say that Galileo and Newtown would also be weakies now? Idols are not very scary if they are interred  in the ground or if they are stone. Alexander the Great's statue was  reported to be feared by his successors. When the stones move watch braggarts make retractions.

To think that even the FMs today could "blow Morphy off the board" is absurd. It pretty much discredits anyone who believes this.

Um, why can't we actually get a list together? I suggest the following "bubble" method:

1.) Finish Batgirl's list that started with WCs. Add any reasonable player, one per person per post, until we have 50.  "Hey, how's about Keres?"

2.) After the list is fleshed out (the initial composition is not very important; you'll see), we start making suggestions for adding one and removing one, one per person per post. "Hey, shouldn't Korchnoi be on the list instead of Khalifman? His stroger/longer high level performance in Candidates' Matches, blah blah blah..."

3.) Let a small, vigilant panel of arbiters vote on the submission, say, Batgirl, Bill Wall, and whomever else they pick. They decide if a change in the list composition will happen based on the submitted argument. I think a majority vote will be fine. Unanimity is hard to come by on *anything*. The panel's decision is final. "The panel votes 2-1 *for* Korchnoi over Khalifman. Welcome to the list, Viktor".

4.) Appeals for your submittee to supplant the same spot-holder may be made with *new* arguments only, and one at a time. Resubmissions with the same argument may only be made vs. *another* current list entry. "OK, so J. Polgar isn't 'better' than Kamsky; but is so vs. Blackburne. Here's why...".

5.) Nothing is permanent. Being voted out doesn't eliminate you from coming back on the list. Being voted in doesn't protect you from a later knockout. Only condition: No reversals - you cannot take, or have taken from you, a position on the list by a person with you whom you've already been compared to and a decision was finalized. "After an early win over Ponomariov, Fine has been voted off to make room for Reti. They will not be allowed in mutual comparison again".

6.) If we care to bother, the same process would be used in ranking list entries, though I suspect this will make for way more arguments than who might actually belong there in the first place. We tends to be passionate and stubborn about who's the "best", etc. "Karpov ranked over Fischer? Are you nuts? Fischer's obvious dominance over his contemporaries, blah blah blah...".

 Using this process, over a relatively short period of time, the strongest candidates will bubble up into the list as others sink off. And if we elect, the relative positions will settle as the cream bubbles to the top. You'll be surprised how quickly we'll reach relative equalibrium and have our list. This is why no entry or rank reversals. The list won't be "perfect", but then nothing done by committee ever is. It'll probably look and feel pretty darn good, though.

The process is also easier than all the words above might suggest. I was just trying to be explicit and accurate so the "chess lawyers" couldn't complain about the method. Honestly the method isn't important. The result, and more importantly, the discourse, *is* important. I just wanted to keep the ball rolling after Batgirl started it.

I'll contribute if this, or any other method is agreed upon.

"Fischer practiced giving odds. One player he beat was an IM. Another was a famous SM who received pawn and three moves. "

 

 

I never heard that!

Do you know if any of these odds games have been preserved?

 

For that matter, if anyone knows of any odds games, say post-1950, I would like to see them.

"I just wanted to keep the ball rolling after Batgirl started it."

 

Of course, since I started the list on this thread, I also wanted to complete it. But, as you can see, it was started back in September and generated almost zero interest. If anyone wants to continue, we'll continue.

Many odds games have been played for money without scores being kept. A player would have to be questioned or send in the information. One IM was given pawn and move by Fischer who was playing blindfold. Hikaru and Oscar Nakamura played each other blindfold blitz using a clock without a board (not for money). A less relevant aside - when the Blackout of 1965 happened, I walked over to the Marshall Chess Club where we naturally played blindfold. To get action, odds are often used. That means a selection of material odds, time odds, money odds, draw odds, mate on a specific square, move back odds, and kibitzing allowed. Some clients need to be allowed to cheat. I even played with elapsed time against progressive money odds. 5 minutes to one with even money, followed by not resetting the clock and getting 2 to 1 money in game two, etc. I won seven games in the minute. Sometimes fantasy pieces are added. I created a game with two and with three boards. The boards and sets were considered one. I would have one king against three. I had to capture two kings and mate the last one. Check was not respected by extra kings. I would be missing pieces and the opponent would have some invented piece(s) such as a monster or a  power pawn. The time would be 12 minutes to one. I played the late Mike Valvo who gave odds of queen and two rooks, but had 14 extra pawns. This was a slow game, 5 minutes each. IM Al Horowitz repeatedly gave knight odds to an expert at the Marshall without clocks (actual slow chess) and won. Scores do not exist, although sometimes other evidence does or did. A painting in Harold Fischer's chess establishment which was seen in the movie, "The Killing," showed George Treysman giving rook odds to one of his customers, The Commodore.