What would Paul Morphy's fide rating be? • page 2/5 • General Chess Discussion • lichess.org

Paul Morphy's estimated Elo rating is 2411.

Explanation
Chess.com estimates that Paul Morphy's Elo rating peaked at 2411 during his peak years from 1857 to 1859.

Also:
Wilhelm Steinitz: 2458
Harry Pillsbury: 2554
Emanuel Lasker: 2596
José Raúl Capablanca: 2725
Mikhail Botvinnik: 2720
Mikhail Tal: 2700

Paul Morphy's estimated Elo rating is 2411. Explanation Chess.com estimates that Paul Morphy's Elo rating peaked at 2411 during his peak years from 1857 to 1859. Also: Wilhelm Steinitz: 2458 Harry Pillsbury: 2554 Emanuel Lasker: 2596 José Raúl Capablanca: 2725 Mikhail Botvinnik: 2720 Mikhail Tal: 2700

Nerwal

#12

Somewhere in the 2200-2500 range. A modern 2600 player is better at everything : openings, typical structures and manoeuvers, endgames, precise calculation and has more consistence in his play. Just look at the games. I was surprised how weak he actually was in rook endgames.

But the same could be said of Steinitz. Some of his games (even WC ones) are just atrocious.

Somewhere in the 2200-2500 range. A modern 2600 player is better at everything : openings, typical structures and manoeuvers, endgames, precise calculation and has more consistence in his play. Just look at the games. I was surprised how weak he actually was in rook endgames. But the same could be said of Steinitz. Some of his games (even WC ones) are just atrocious.

swimmerBill

#13

My opinion is that 2400 is an pretty large underestimate of how strong he was:

I noticed 2 things about Morphy's games: He played fast and ''good enough'' to beat his opponents like rented mules.

He played very fast-- almost like playing blitz vs people who played like it was postal chess.
When he played someone who was significantly stronger than his past opponents, he sometimes lost an early game. After that he adjusted his precision and basically absorbed whatever his opponent had done well. After that he crushed them.

Ratings estimates are based on backwards extrapolation or some computer evaluation of his play. They cannot account for how good he would be if he had stronger opponents with ideas he could absorb and improve. Or how good he'd be if he thought 5 minutes on each move.

As best I recall, Andersen said Morphy could give anyone (then) in the world knight odds. This is an estimate of what Andersen though his true strength potential was.
Bill

My opinion is that 2400 is an pretty large underestimate of how strong he was: I noticed 2 things about Morphy's games: He played fast and ''good enough'' to beat his opponents like rented mules. 1. He played very fast-- almost like playing blitz vs people who played like it was postal chess. 2. When he played someone who was significantly stronger than his past opponents, he sometimes lost an early game. After that he adjusted his precision and basically absorbed whatever his opponent had done well. After that he crushed them. Ratings estimates are based on backwards extrapolation or some computer evaluation of his play. They cannot account for how good he would be if he had stronger opponents with ideas he could absorb and improve. Or how good he'd be if he thought 5 minutes on each move. As best I recall, Andersen said Morphy could give anyone (then) in the world knight odds. This is an estimate of what Andersen though his true strength potential was. Bill

swimmerBill

#14

By the way, I also think Pillsbury's estimate is way too low because of his feats of blindfold chess and memory. Visualization and memory are a lot more important in today's chess than in his day.

Atharv911

#15

Morphy's Rating should be around 2300 - 2500 ig

Meerkatze

#16

@swimmerBill said in #14:

By the way, I also think Pillsbury's estimate is way too low because of his feats of blindfold chess and memory. Visualization and memory are a lot more important in today's chess than in his day.

Philidor is being routinely evaluated as 1900-ish by today's standards, but of the mere 11 games that we have of him, 7 are blindfold games, including at least one blindfold simultaneous game.

Not what you'd expect a modern-day 1900 to be doing quite so easily. It's a strange thing, comparing people over such a long stretch of time.

@swimmerBill said in #14: > By the way, I also think Pillsbury's estimate is way too low because of his feats of blindfold chess and memory. Visualization and memory are a lot more important in today's chess than in his day. Philidor is being routinely evaluated as 1900-ish by today's standards, but of the mere 11 games that we have of him, 7 are blindfold games, including at least one blindfold simultaneous game. Not what you'd expect a modern-day 1900 to be doing quite so easily. It's a strange thing, comparing people over such a long stretch of time.

swimmerBill

#17

I was also thinking that brains of players who showed mastery extremely young without study like Morphy, Reshevsky & Capablanca must be different than those who achieve it by study. Reshevsky was reputed to not know or forget opening theory but to see everything 3 moves deep. Capablanca was famous for his short and clever combinations.

I wonder:
If a player sees (almost) every tactic 3 moves deep what would be the lower bound on their performance rating just based on that and some basic knowledge of how to evaluate positions?

I was also thinking that brains of players who showed mastery extremely young without study like Morphy, Reshevsky & Capablanca must be different than those who achieve it by study. Reshevsky was reputed to not know or forget opening theory but to see everything 3 moves deep. Capablanca was famous for his short and clever combinations. I wonder: If a player sees (almost) every tactic 3 moves deep what would be the lower bound on their performance rating just based on that and some basic knowledge of how to evaluate positions?

kindaspongey edited

#18

@ajfang said in #11:

... Chess.com estimates that Paul Morphy's Elo rating peaked at ...
I fear that, until Plutonium is available in every corner drugstore, the funding will not be available to do experiments to determine the degree to which chess.com estimates accurately predict the results of time travel experiments.
@Nerwal said in #12:
... I was surprised how weak he actually was in rook endgames. ...
Back then, it was not easy to obtain a copy of Rook Endings by Levenfish and Smyslov.

@ajfang said in #11: > ... Chess.com estimates that Paul Morphy's Elo rating peaked at ... I fear that, until Plutonium is available in every corner drugstore, the funding will not be available to do experiments to determine the degree to which chess.com estimates accurately predict the results of time travel experiments. @Nerwal said in #12: > ... I was surprised how weak he actually was in rook endgames. ... Back then, it was not easy to obtain a copy of Rook Endings by Levenfish and Smyslov.

Probably ~2400

@Meerkatze said in #16:

... It's a strange thing, comparing people over such a long stretch of time.
"... before Morphy everyone was pretty tactical; the quality of play did not get too positional until Steinitz (1866-1894). Reti, Breyer, and Nimzovich were credited with discovering Hypermodern Chess around the time of WWI. Botvinnik brought in the "scientific method" in the 1930's and 40's. Petrosian and Karpov perfected "no lose" positional chess, and Kasparov started the modern "if it works, do it" method popular (and complicated) now. ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2002)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627084053/https://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman19.pdf

@Meerkatze said in #16: > ... It's a strange thing, comparing people over such a long stretch of time. "... before Morphy everyone was pretty tactical; the quality of play did not get too positional until Steinitz (1866-1894). Reti, Breyer, and Nimzovich were credited with discovering Hypermodern Chess around the time of WWI. Botvinnik brought in the "scientific method" in the 1930's and 40's. Petrosian and Karpov perfected "no lose" positional chess, and Kasparov started the modern "if it works, do it" method popular (and complicated) now. ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2002) https://web.archive.org/web/20140627084053/https://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman19.pdf