Like Fischer, Morphy was further ahead of his contemporaries... in the sense that there was a wider gap between the #1 and #2 players.
In the sense of "who plays better chess", it's Carlsen.
I agree, if given the tools of today I feel very confident that Morphy give Mr Carlsen all he wanted and more. But we'll never know.
today Morphy would have lost because of the book moves used, as opposed to Morphys time, when chess was not rembering openings traps ect... Morphy was surely a surgeon. and my favorite player of all time.
It isn't just because of the opening. Morphy never read Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual or studied Capablanca's games or even had the chance. Training has astronomically improved since his day. Hard to benefit from the discoveries of the Soviet School of Chess when you died before it was even established after all.
I haven't tried this myself yet, but GM Ben Finegold said in one of his St. Louis Chess Club videos... if you check many of Morphy's games with an engine he always plays the right move. From move one to the end... He also insists Morphy was the best player of all time by far....
pippychess, i can change to the same pic as you!
I haven't tried this myself yet, but GM Ben Finegold said in one of his St. Louis Chess Club videos... if you check many of Morphy's games with an engine he always plays the right move. From move one to the end... He also insists Morphy was the best player of all time by far....
Ben Finegold was smoking some serious stuff because this is not at all true, and actually just nonsense anyway (ex. Which engine? How much time?)
Well, GM Finegold usually references Houdini so that's probably the engine. Watch the video....
IIRC, Fischer made a comment about contemporary players "not being able to handle rough-and-tumble chess anymore," and stated that old players like Steinitz were far stronger.
IIRC, Fischer made a comment about contemporary players "not being able to handle rough-and-tumble chess anymore," and stated that old players like Steinitz were far stronger.
That seems like the very romanticization he'd be against. Remember when he complained about GMs treating the King's Gambit with kid gloves and how it's treated romantically instead of scientifically? Sounds like he's doing the same. The fact of the matter is the rough and tumble chess fell out of favor simply because it wasn't sound.
It's hard to play the King's Gambit for example when you'll be the one who needs defensive skills to convert your pawn down into a draw at the end, potentially even running into some tight ropes where practical losing chances are high.
Well, GM Finegold usually references Houdini so that's probably the engine. Watch the video....
Why would I bother to watch the video. Morphy lost a couple of games to Andersson. Unless Finegold is prepared to state that Andersson can beat houdini, I believe we are done here.
IIRC, Fischer made a comment about contemporary players "not being able to handle rough-and-tumble chess anymore," and stated that old players like Steinitz were far stronger.
Bobby also thought Jews were out to persecute him, women were unable to concentrate, and Karpov and Kasparov planned out every move of their championship matches together beforehand.
IIRC, Fischer made a comment about contemporary players "not being able to handle rough-and-tumble chess anymore," and stated that old players like Steinitz were far stronger.
Bobby also thought Jews were out to persecute him, women were unable to concentrate, and Karpov and Kasparov planned out every move of their championship matches together beforehand.
AND he was right, wasn't he.
IIRC, Fischer made a comment about contemporary players "not being able to handle rough-and-tumble chess anymore," and stated that old players like Steinitz were far stronger.
Bobby also thought Jews were out to persecute him, women were unable to concentrate, and Karpov and Kasparov planned out every move of their championship matches together beforehand.
AND he was right, wasn't he.
I was present at some of the Karpov-Kasparov pre-planning sessions.
I even audiotaped the session for the last game. I present it now for the first time:
Kasparov: ok, so then on the last move, I play Kc3 and you, being practically a whole rook down, resign.
Karpov: But I want to win the last game.
Kasparov : No, I want to win.
Karpov : No, I want to win.
Kasparov : No, I want to win.
Karpov : No, I want to win.
Kasparov : No, I want to win.
Karpov : No, I want to win.
Kasparov : No, I want to win.
Karpov : No, I want to win.
Kasparov : No, I want to win.
Karpov : No, I want to win.
Kasparov : No, I want to win.
Karpov : No, I want to win.
Kasparov : No, I want to win.
Karpov : No, I want to win.
Campomanes : Geez...this argument could go on FOREVOR.
IIRC, Fischer made a comment about contemporary players "not being able to handle rough-and-tumble chess anymore," and stated that old players like Steinitz were far stronger.
Bobby also thought Jews were out to persecute him, women were unable to concentrate, and Karpov and Kasparov planned out every move of their championship matches together beforehand.
AND he was right, wasn't he.
I was present at some of the Karpov-Kasparov pre-planning sessions.
I even audiotaped the session for the last game. I present it now for the first time:
Kasparov: ok, so then on the last move, I play Kc3 and you, being practically a whole rook down, resign.
Karpov: But I want to win the last game.
Kasparov : No, I want to win.
Karpov : No, I want to win.
Kasparov : No, I want to win.
Karpov : No, I want to win.
Kasparov : No, I want to win.
Karpov : No, I want to win.
Kasparov : No, I want to win.
Karpov : No, I want to win.
Kasparov : No, I want to win.
Karpov : No, I want to win.
Kasparov : No, I want to win.
Karpov : No, I want to win.
Kasparov : No, I want to win.
Karpov : No, I want to win.
Campomanes : Geez...this argument could go on FOREVOR.
Haha!!
I haven't tried this myself yet, but GM Ben Finegold said in one of his St. Louis Chess Club videos... if you check many of Morphy's games with an engine he always plays the right move. From move one to the end... He also insists Morphy was the best player of all time by far....
Ben Finegold was smoking some serious stuff because this is not at all true, and actually just nonsense anyway (ex. Which engine? How much time?)
Yes, of course Finegold is nowhere near to be right about that, it's just to look at for example this collection of blunder checked Morphy games:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1011658
He was obviously a great player in every way, but there's no way that he always played the strongest move.
Morphy is a lot agressive and is very good to sacrifice and break opponent's defence whereas Carlsen is an awesome tactician who forces his opponent to lose.Even though this two cannot be compared,I guess Morphy is a bit better.
Well, GM Finegold usually references Houdini so that's probably the engine. Watch the video....
Why would I bother to watch the video. Morphy lost a couple of games to Andersson. Unless Finegold is prepared to state that Andersson can beat houdini, I believe we are done here.
The quote I posted clearly stated in MANY of his games Morphy played the right moves. MANY being the operative word. He did not say in ALL of his games Morphy played the right moves. Many could be 20%. Or any other number for that matter. I believe the point was that Morphy was a highly accurate player, and that being the case, the belief he couldn't play today is false. Again, watch the video....
Morphy still lost several games to Andersson, so if Morphy was the best, surely Andersson can't be too far behind, probably third. Who was second? Well surely not Kasparov, it would have to be the other guy who beat Andersson; Steinitz.
So when Finegold makes his lest of greatest players of all time it would have to go
1. Morphy
2. Steinitz
3. Andersson
4. Ubik42
5. Ben Finegold
6. Kasparov
In reality of course, if Morphy were alive today he would not be in the top 50.
I was thinking that people have better things to do than comparing players which were born with a difference of 153 years. Apparently I was completely wrong.
I'm with you. How many of these threads can one forum generate?
Sorry to point out the obvious....BUT if you and Panayotis are so offput by certain threads.....why would you take the time to read them AND comment on them? *shakes head* God bless both your hearts.