If you put me in the <1500 section of a tournament, I would also play Morphy-like sacrifices. But it doesn't mean I am a genius, just someone who cares about tempi.
While I agree with your general point in this thread, I think you're going a bit over-the-top. Please show the games.
If you put me in the <1500 section of a tournament, I would also play Morphy-like sacrifices. But it doesn't mean I am a genius, just someone who cares about tempi.
While I agree with your general point in this thread, I think you're going a bit over-the-top. Please show the games.
I haven't played in such a section since I belonged to it. I have no such games to present.
I can produce some blitz games from chess.com if you wish. But most people here have already experienced crushing some weaker player by an unexpected tactical sequence, and most high-rated players play long sequences of that kind - are you doubting this ? Additionally, it's not a fair comparison since those are blitz games.
I'm not doubting this. But there was much, much more to Morphy than just neat tactical sequences. At least according to Capablanca & others. If my memory serves me you're a 1900-2000 player? So I guess you know better.
Easy to compare yourself to one of the greats without presenting the evidence.
he is
true
But you have to remember morphy memorized the entire Louisiana code of laws to get a law degree
reaaly????? well
what does it have to do with chess
I'm not doubting this. But there was much, much more to Morphy than just neat tactical sequences. At least according to Capablanca & others. If my memory serves me you're a 1900-2000 player? So I guess you know better.
Well, all I can see in Morphy's games that I do not see in others' is tactical sequences which are (1) neat (ie correct) (2) long (say at least 10 moves) and (3) with spectacular material investement (say, a queen - an exchange is not enough).
I can show plenty of games, either mine or today's GM's, that feature (1) and (2). (Mine being mostly against lower-rated opponents, again) Moreover, many of those also have (4) it is the only way to keep the advantage whereas in many of Morphy's sacrifices, efficiency was clearly sacrificed to beauty.
(3) does not come without serious positional sins from the opponent beforehand, hence why it is rarer today. I am ready to step back on that point if you wish, but I don't see how it is impressive at all.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1143956 (move 47) is maybe not as impressive as Morphy's sacrifices, but it's a move I wouldn't have found or even considered with one hour of thinking, whereas Morph's sacrifices are sovable for most 2000+ players with thinking time. (Yes, it's an anecdote, it has no proof value - just to show what my point is)
i like morphy because his game is more exciting
Irontiger wrote:
"Morph's sacrifices are sovable for most 2000+ players with thinking time."
So easy to be an armchair Morphy 150 years after the man himself showed how to play those positions, not to mention that "solving" sacrifices is relatively easy when someone has considerately told you that there's a sacrifice here for you to solve.
No doubt 150 years from now some other smartass will be saying how easy Carlsen's moves are to solve.
Yes, and then chessplayers will be better than Carlsen.
You seem to have an issue with the definition of "better".
equal is not exactly what i was thinking i mean more theory of opening and endgame now than then.so carlsen could just trade queens and get a winning endgame
chessredpanda wrote:
what does it have to do with chess
It shows his memory is pretty darned good perhaps better than carlsens
morphy was never taught to play chess professionally but carlsen was doing it for 20 years.
if morphy had spent all his time on chess then he would definitely have beaten carlsen
i don't actually think that magnus really wants to play with morphy
OK. Morphy is dead. Carlsen is not. Therefore, Carlson is better. Morphy was better.
if morphy was alive
Irontiger wrote:
"The fact Morphy beat, crushed and buried all those guys in a way even Fischer at his time would not, is proof that they were strong opposition. If you put me in the 1500 section of a tournament, I would also play Morphy-like sacrifices. But it doesn't mean I am a genius, just someone who cares about tempi."
Actually, you'd just be someone who had the benefit of having studied Morphy's games and principles that he pioneered 150 years ago. If you'd been around in Morphy's time you wouldn't even have known what tempi were.
I'm not sure why you think that modern-day GMs, if they'd been born a century and a half ago, would have done any better than Morphy's contemporaries whom you dismissively compare to 1500-rated players.
My point precisely. The 150 years since Morphy have made us better players.
Unless your definition of "better" is "could have been better if born and trained the same" (in which case, you point still is not proven, and will be hard to prove or disprove), which is a weird definition, there is no possible dispute that today's GM chess is better than Morphy's.
If you reanimated Morphy's corpse today and made him play against Carlsen, I would bet on at least 100 games before we see a draw.