"Joshua B. Lilly" wrote in message
...
I have to severely question here what is meant by "strength" if Morphy can
be tossed out there. I wonder if Morphy could even compete against a
modern
2500 player and manage to survive the opening. The answer is,
realistically, probably not.
But if you say, "well give him time to study and book up and all that",
well
then, the greatest chessplayer of all time might potentially have been a
goatherder in central Africa who never even heard of chess.

How can you say that, Joshua? Morphy beat *every single player* in the
world (who was worth playing) except Staunton, who, as everybody who knows
the history will tell you, ducked him. All the worlds best players of the
time....toppled by Morphy. Maybe he just outclassed his opponents so much
that most of his games look like they weren't even worth his time, but you
can hardly disqualify Morphy from the list because he was ahead of his time.
And saying he couldn't "even compete against a modern 2500 player and
manager to survive the opening" is just ridiculous.

Of course, this is all speculation and conjecture, but IMHO, Morphy is
definitely one of the all time greats -- definitely worthy of being in the
top five, if not the top three.

Regards,

Matt

..
I have to severely question here what is meant by "strength" if Morphy can
be tossed out there. I wonder if Morphy could even compete against a modern
2500 player and manage to survive the opening.


The opening is important, but a truly talented player can often come back
from ugly, inferior positions. Remember Steinitz, the manueverer and Lasker,
the "coffeehouse player"?


The answer is, realistically, probably not.
But if you say, "well give him time to study and book up and all that", well
then, the greatest chessplayer of all time might potentially have been a
goatherder in central Africa who never even heard of chess.


Nonsense. Anybody with any brains at all living in Central Africa would not
be in the goat-herding business, but would of course, be in the business of
mining diamonds or gold!
A "goat-herder" would need a machine-gun to fend off the hyenas, lions, and
vultures there. And shooting some of these animals is illegal, so a
high-pressure water-canon would be required, along with...but I digress. :-)


But more to the point is that a modern master, when facing old lines which
are no longer even considered because of refutations found (and often
forgotten) long ago, would be in much the same position as Morphy: on his own,
in terra incognita. This is where Morphy would trounce a typical, modern 2500
player.
I don't think a modern 2500 is all that great, apart from having memorized a
lot of *modern* openings theory -- which would do him little good against a
genius like Morphy.



"In a set match, Morphy would beat anybody alive today." -- Fischer


"I would be in a lot of trouble!" -- Defirmian, assessing his chances
against a "teleported" Alekhine

"How can you say that, Joshua?"

Uh, by looking at the openings he played? What more do you need?
Whether or not he`s one of the all-time GREATS is another matter entirely,
and I agree with that. And one of the strongest ever with relation to his
contemporaries. But in terms of actual, applicable strength, he would
simply not stack up against modern GMs. He`d get inferior or losing
positions in the opening, and all the combinational and calculation skills
in the world just don`t come into play from losing positions. He actually
thought the "modern position" (in the Evans Gambit) with Anderrsen`s d5 for
White was good. And you think this sort of play would stack up against,
say, Kramnik HOW exactly?
The opponents crushed by Morphy were strong by the standards of that time,
but your position is that chess has not advanced. I think anyone can look
at chess over the past 50 years and see clearly that it has advanced. If
Morphy could compete against modern GMs, that would mean that chess had
completely stagnated since the 1850s. Do you honestly believe that is the
case?




"Matt Nemmers" wrote in message
news:w_EGc.1635$WX.120@attbi_s51...

How can you say that, Joshua? Morphy beat *every single player* in the
world (who was worth playing) except Staunton, who, as everybody who knows
the history will tell you, ducked him. All the worlds best players of the
time....toppled by Morphy. Maybe he just outclassed his opponents so much
that most of his games look like they weren't even worth his time, but you
can hardly disqualify Morphy from the list because he was ahead of his
time.
And saying he couldn't "even compete against a modern 2500 player and
manager to survive the opening" is just ridiculous.

Of course, this is all speculation and conjecture, but IMHO, Morphy is
definitely one of the all time greats -- definitely worthy of being in the
top five, if not the top three.

Regards,

Matt

"Joshua B. Lilly" wrote in message
...
"How can you say that, Joshua?"

Uh, by looking at the openings he played? What more do you need?
Whether or not he`s one of the all-time GREATS is another matter entirely,
and I agree with that. And one of the strongest ever with relation to his
contemporaries. But in terms of actual, applicable strength, he would
simply not stack up against modern GMs. He`d get inferior or losing
positions in the opening, and all the combinational and calculation skills
in the world just don`t come into play from losing positions. He actually
thought the "modern position" (in the Evans Gambit) with Anderrsen`s d5
for
White was good. And you think this sort of play would stack up against,
say, Kramnik HOW exactly?

These are actually very good points. I have heard them before about even
quite recent players. Modern players are simply much better prepared, and
are in fact better than previous generations!

However, if we take Morphy as a player who dominated his entire generation,
then given our current resources of opening knowledge and computer training
and analysis, is it not true on the same basis as the previous paragraph,
that Morphy would also be a dominant player in the C21st?

Therefore, both these suppostions may be true! Morphy would suffer at the
hands of Kramnik, and even struggle against the top 100 players. However
given sufficient time and with modern resources, he would certainly be a
first tier grandmaster.

Cordially, Phil Innes

The opponents crushed by Morphy were strong by the standards of that time,
but your position is that chess has not advanced. I think anyone can look
at chess over the past 50 years and see clearly that it has advanced. If
Morphy could compete against modern GMs, that would mean that chess had
completely stagnated since the 1850s. Do you honestly believe that is the
case?




"Matt Nemmers" wrote in message
news:w_EGc.1635$WX.120@attbi_s51...

How can you say that, Joshua? Morphy beat *every single player* in the
world (who was worth playing) except Staunton, who, as everybody who
knows
the history will tell you, ducked him. All the worlds best players of
the
time....toppled by Morphy. Maybe he just outclassed his opponents so
much
that most of his games look like they weren't even worth his time, but
you
can hardly disqualify Morphy from the list because he was ahead of his
time.
And saying he couldn't "even compete against a modern 2500 player and
manager to survive the opening" is just ridiculous.

Of course, this is all speculation and conjecture, but IMHO, Morphy is
definitely one of the all time greats -- definitely worthy of being in
the
top five, if not the top three.

Regards,

Matt

Please do not forget that the game of chess develops over time, just like
science does. Even a mediocre scientist today would know more than Newton,
but Newton is the far greater genius!


"Chess One" wrote in message
...

"Joshua B. Lilly" wrote in message
...
"How can you say that, Joshua?"

Uh, by looking at the openings he played? What more do you need?
Whether or not he`s one of the all-time GREATS is another matter
entirely,
and I agree with that. And one of the strongest ever with relation to
his
contemporaries. But in terms of actual, applicable strength, he would
simply not stack up against modern GMs. He`d get inferior or losing
positions in the opening, and all the combinational and calculation
skills
in the world just don`t come into play from losing positions. He
actually
thought the "modern position" (in the Evans Gambit) with Anderrsen`s d5
for
White was good. And you think this sort of play would stack up against,
say, Kramnik HOW exactly?

These are actually very good points. I have heard them before about even
quite recent players. Modern players are simply much better prepared, and
are in fact better than previous generations!

However, if we take Morphy as a player who dominated his entire
generation,
then given our current resources of opening knowledge and computer
training
and analysis, is it not true on the same basis as the previous paragraph,
that Morphy would also be a dominant player in the C21st?

Therefore, both these suppostions may be true! Morphy would suffer at the
hands of Kramnik, and even struggle against the top 100 players. However
given sufficient time and with modern resources, he would certainly be a
first tier grandmaster.

Cordially, Phil Innes

The opponents crushed by Morphy were strong by the standards of that
time,
but your position is that chess has not advanced. I think anyone can
look
at chess over the past 50 years and see clearly that it has advanced.
If
Morphy could compete against modern GMs, that would mean that chess had
completely stagnated since the 1850s. Do you honestly believe that is
the
case?




"Matt Nemmers" wrote in message
news:w_EGc.1635$WX.120@attbi_s51...

How can you say that, Joshua? Morphy beat *every single player* in
the
world (who was worth playing) except Staunton, who, as everybody who
knows
the history will tell you, ducked him. All the worlds best players of
the
time....toppled by Morphy. Maybe he just outclassed his opponents so
much
that most of his games look like they weren't even worth his time, but
you
can hardly disqualify Morphy from the list because he was ahead of his
time.
And saying he couldn't "even compete against a modern 2500 player and
manager to survive the opening" is just ridiculous.

Of course, this is all speculation and conjecture, but IMHO, Morphy is
definitely one of the all time greats -- definitely worthy of being in
the
top five, if not the top three.

Regards,

Matt