- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

What would Paul Morphy's fide rating be?

#32

@PaulC123 said in #30:

In his time [Morphy] was probably in the top 3 when he quit. ...
As far as I know, there is no dispute that he was the best in 1858, but there does not seem to be much available data about how 1858 players would do today. So far, reanimation experiments have not had successful results.

@PaulC123 said in #30: > In his time [Morphy] was probably in the top 3 when he quit. ... As far as I know, there is no dispute that he was the best in 1858, but there does not seem to be much available data about how 1858 players would do today. So far, reanimation experiments have not had successful results.
#33

@kindaspongey said in #32:

As far as I know, there is no dispute that he was the best in 1858, but there does not seem to be much available data about how 1858 players would do today. So far, reanimation experiments have not had successful results.

AND......... There is no available data about a person with his talent on..... what they would do today in modern chess. What would a Morphy who was able to train with a coach, with all the training tools, end game manuals, opening's data bases, modern chess engines? He understood the game 10-20yrs ahead of his time.... What evidence do we have he wouldn't do the same?

@kindaspongey said in #32: > As far as I know, there is no dispute that he was the best in 1858, but there does not seem to be much available data about how 1858 players would do today. So far, reanimation experiments have not had successful results. AND......... There is no available data about a person with his talent on..... what they would do today in modern chess. What would a Morphy who was able to train with a coach, with all the training tools, end game manuals, opening's data bases, modern chess engines? He understood the game 10-20yrs ahead of his time.... What evidence do we have he wouldn't do the same?
#34

@PaulC123 said in #33:

... a person with his talent on..... what they would do today in modern chess. ... Morphy ... understood the game 10-20yrs ahead of his time.... What evidence do we have he wouldn't do the same?
It seems to me that we simply do not know one way or the other. I do not see any reason to believe that being 10-20 years ahead of today's chess is a task comparable to being 10-20 years ahead of 1858 chess.
An 1885 Steinitz quote: "... the most deep laid dazzling schemes can almost always be prevented by simple moves when the position is sound in general, ... in most respects the style of our time has become almost antagonistic to that of the Morphy period. ... The indiscriminate and chiefly tactical king's side attack has been superseded by strategical maneuvers, marches and counter marches for gaining and accumulating small advantages at any point of the board, and the calculations and combinations are made subservient to the delicate shades of difference in the application of position judgment ... if the great master were alive and were to be the leading spirit of our day, as he was the superior of his own, he would of necessity cultivate and extend the system which has been developed since his time. ..."
An 1886 Steinitz quote: "... We all may learn from Morphy and Anderssen how to conduct a king’s-side attack, and perhaps I myself may not have learnt enough. But if you want to learn how to avoid such an attack, how to keep the balance of position on the whole board, or how to expose the king apparently and invite a complicated attack which cannot be sustained in the long run, you must go to the modern school for information. ..."

@PaulC123 said in #33: > ... a person with his talent on..... what they would do today in modern chess. ... Morphy ... understood the game 10-20yrs ahead of his time.... What evidence do we have he wouldn't do the same? It seems to me that we simply do not know one way or the other. I do not see any reason to believe that being 10-20 years ahead of today's chess is a task comparable to being 10-20 years ahead of 1858 chess. An 1885 Steinitz quote: "... the most deep laid dazzling schemes can almost always be prevented by simple moves when the position is sound in general, ... in most respects the style of our time has become almost antagonistic to that of the Morphy period. ... The indiscriminate and chiefly tactical king's side attack has been superseded by strategical maneuvers, marches and counter marches for gaining and accumulating small advantages at any point of the board, and the calculations and combinations are made subservient to the delicate shades of difference in the application of position judgment ... if the great master were alive and were to be the leading spirit of our day, as he was the superior of his own, he would of necessity cultivate and extend the system which has been developed since his time. ..." An 1886 Steinitz quote: "... We all may learn from Morphy and Anderssen how to conduct a king’s-side attack, and perhaps I myself may not have learnt enough. But if you want to learn how to avoid such an attack, how to keep the balance of position on the whole board, or how to expose the king apparently and invite a complicated attack which cannot be sustained in the long run, you must go to the modern school for information. ..."
#35
<Comment deleted by user>
#38

My point... Which is..."that my claim negated yours"

It's a logical fallacy to assume Chess professionals are inherently better, Our brains have not changed.... It is only the modern convection of chess tools and acquired history ... that makes the modern GM play different, and if the different play/technique is better... then I point to the "modern convection" of this era as the reason...

Then ... a lot of what we see... is due to the internal factors affecting professional chess... namely the rating system.

Opening trends are fickle at best and were different back then, (many trends of those eras still have not been refuted, nore void of new ideas. Each climatic World War saw an upheaval of society .. And like every thing else Chess was affected... After each World War a new guard came to the fore... example: After WWI.... the new guard brought hypermodetn principles into the game.... these principle where not better than classical.... Just different.

A clearer example: The King's Gambit, played regulary in that era: the Rules of chess have not changed... but the dynamics of professional chess have. The Kings Gambit. No refutation has been found by Black... yet it's not seen at the top levels.
WHY? I believe THE REAL REASON IS .. the opening has a small draw window, resulting in White either wins or loses. 46% win... 37% black wins. The dynamics of professional Chess is they play for ratings.... Back then...they did not have ratings. THEY PLAYED TO WIN. AND Win only. ANOTHER FACTOR...they played with a tactical vent.. the modern approach is to play it with a positional approach... is it better... the Moden GM would say yes. That said... I would say not surprised, they look at the professional game with a pragmatic veiw. E4 openings are tactical by the design of the game... The King's Gambit
i.e. gambiting the f pawn, the opening probably is not suited for positional play... a misnomer to think players of that era played with no positional technique... Stinitiz. Just was the best, hence he influenced the game towards more positional play. Being the best, they followed. If someone of a tactical vent (a Morphy
or a Tal, etc, defeated Stinitiz. They would have scoffed at his positional theories and followedthe tactical Victor.

To further drive the "Opening Trends" point... We are in fact still living in post WWII Bobby Fisher era chess. Opening prep, the opening choices, ... what is effecting this is the ELO system the professionals are under.

Chess would change dramatically (probably resort to a style of Morphy's era, less draws ) if it went to a prize fighter format. YOU ARE NO#1 BY WHO YOU BEAT IN A MATCH NOT BY YOUR ELO....

My point... Which is..."that my claim negated yours" It's a logical fallacy to assume Chess professionals are inherently better, Our brains have not changed.... It is only the modern convection of chess tools and acquired history ... that makes the modern GM play different, and if the different play/technique is better... then I point to the "modern convection" of this era as the reason... Then ... a lot of what we see... is due to the internal factors affecting professional chess... namely the rating system. Opening trends are fickle at best and were different back then, (many trends of those eras still have not been refuted, nore void of new ideas. Each climatic World War saw an upheaval of society .. And like every thing else Chess was affected... After each World War a new guard came to the fore... example: After WWI.... the new guard brought hypermodetn principles into the game.... these principle where not better than classical.... Just different. A clearer example: The King's Gambit, played regulary in that era: the Rules of chess have not changed... but the dynamics of professional chess have. The Kings Gambit. No refutation has been found by Black... yet it's not seen at the top levels. WHY? I believe THE REAL REASON IS .. the opening has a small draw window, resulting in White either wins or loses. 46% win... 37% black wins. The dynamics of professional Chess is they play for ratings.... Back then...they did not have ratings. THEY PLAYED TO WIN. AND Win only. ANOTHER FACTOR...they played with a tactical vent.. the modern approach is to play it with a positional approach... is it better... the Moden GM would say yes. That said... I would say not surprised, they look at the professional game with a pragmatic veiw. E4 openings are tactical by the design of the game... The King's Gambit i.e. gambiting the f pawn, the opening probably is not suited for positional play... a misnomer to think players of that era played with no positional technique... Stinitiz. Just was the best, hence he influenced the game towards more positional play. Being the best, they followed. If someone of a tactical vent (a Morphy or a Tal, etc, defeated Stinitiz. They would have scoffed at his positional theories and followedthe tactical Victor. To further drive the "Opening Trends" point... We are in fact still living in post WWII Bobby Fisher era chess. Opening prep, the opening choices, ... what is effecting this is the ELO system the professionals are under. Chess would change dramatically (probably resort to a style of Morphy's era, less draws ) if it went to a prize fighter format. YOU ARE NO#1 BY WHO YOU BEAT IN A MATCH NOT BY YOUR ELO....
#39

@Scott-B said in #1:

Choose:
a)1500-2000
b)Above 2000
c)2300-2500
d)2500 and above
Just had this question in mind
d) 2500 and above (Something like 2600+ or so?)
OBVIOUSLY!

@Scott-B said in #1: > Choose: > a)1500-2000 > b)Above 2000 > c)2300-2500 > d)2500 and above > Just had this question in mind d) 2500 and above (Something like 2600+ or so?) OBVIOUSLY!
#40

@PaulC123 said in #38:

... It is only the modern convection of chess tools and acquired history ... that makes the modern GM play different, and if the different play/technique is better... then I point to the "modern convection" of this era as the reason ...
I see no way to know how well Morphy would do in this world of different and better "play/technique".
@PaulC123 said in #38:
... After WWI.... the new guard brought hypermodetn principles into the game.... these principle where not better than classical.... Just different.
I see no way to know how well Morphy would do against what is different.
@PaulC123 said in #38:
... The Kings Gambit. No refutation has been found by Black... yet it's not seen at the top levels.
WHY? I believe THE REAL REASON IS .. the opening has a small draw window, resulting in White either wins or loses. 46% win... 37% black wins. ...
"... over the past few years, the King's Gambit has been played at the very highest level by such players as Morozevich, Short and others. As a result, it has been thoroughly tested against the very best opposition in the world, and occasionally tested to destruction. ... it is very difficult for a professional GM to continue using the opening as his main weapon. ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2003)
By the way:
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1075597
[Event "Morphy - Loewenthal"] [White "Paul Morphy"] 1 e4 e5 2 f4
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1075134
[Event "Morphy - Loewenthal"] [White "Paul Morphy"] 1 e4 e5 2 f4
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1261716
[Event "Morphy - Loewenthal"] [White "Paul Morphy"] 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1258276
[Event "Morphy - Loewenthal"] [White "Paul Morphy"] 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1055947
[Event "Morphy - Harrwitz"] [White "Paul Morphy"] 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1055938
[Event "Morphy - Harrwitz"] [White "Paul Morphy"] 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1055948
[Event "Morphy - Harrwitz"] [White "Paul Morphy"] 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1055946
[Event "Morphy - Harrwitz"] [White "Paul Morphy"] 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1019047
[Event "Anderssen - Morphy"] [White "Paul Morphy"] 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1019058
[Event "Anderssen - Morphy"] [White "Paul Morphy"] 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3
@PaulC123 said in #38:
... a misnomer to think players of that era played with no positional technique ...
"... the quality of play did not get too positional until Steinitz (1866-1894). ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2002)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627084053/https://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman19.pdf
@PaulC123 said in #38:
... If someone of a tactical vent (a Morphy
or a Tal, etc, defeated Stinitiz. They would have scoffed at his positional theories and followedthe tactical Victor. ...
"... In a way Tal had little direct influence on chess style. His was a unique talent which could not be duplicated by training. ... In his later years, Tal's style became more universal. Here he manoeuvres positionally, but Hjartarson still has to be careful, because there are tactics hidden just below the surface. ..." - GM John Nunn (1997)

@PaulC123 said in #38: > ... It is only the modern convection of chess tools and acquired history ... that makes the modern GM play different, and if the different play/technique is better... then I point to the "modern convection" of this era as the reason ... I see no way to know how well Morphy would do in this world of different and better "play/technique". @PaulC123 said in #38: > ... After WWI.... the new guard brought hypermodetn principles into the game.... these principle where not better than classical.... Just different. I see no way to know how well Morphy would do against what is different. @PaulC123 said in #38: > ... The Kings Gambit. No refutation has been found by Black... yet it's not seen at the top levels. > WHY? I believe THE REAL REASON IS .. the opening has a small draw window, resulting in White either wins or loses. 46% win... 37% black wins. ... "... over the past few years, the King's Gambit has been played at the very highest level by such players as Morozevich, Short and others. As a result, it has been thoroughly tested against the very best opposition in the world, and occasionally tested to destruction. ... it is very difficult for a professional GM to continue using the opening as his main weapon. ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2003) By the way: https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1075597 [Event "Morphy - Loewenthal"] [White "Paul Morphy"] 1 e4 e5 2 f4 https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1075134 [Event "Morphy - Loewenthal"] [White "Paul Morphy"] 1 e4 e5 2 f4 https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1261716 [Event "Morphy - Loewenthal"] [White "Paul Morphy"] 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1258276 [Event "Morphy - Loewenthal"] [White "Paul Morphy"] 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1055947 [Event "Morphy - Harrwitz"] [White "Paul Morphy"] 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1055938 [Event "Morphy - Harrwitz"] [White "Paul Morphy"] 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1055948 [Event "Morphy - Harrwitz"] [White "Paul Morphy"] 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1055946 [Event "Morphy - Harrwitz"] [White "Paul Morphy"] 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1019047 [Event "Anderssen - Morphy"] [White "Paul Morphy"] 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1019058 [Event "Anderssen - Morphy"] [White "Paul Morphy"] 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 @PaulC123 said in #38: > ... a misnomer to think players of that era played with no positional technique ... "... the quality of play did not get too positional until Steinitz (1866-1894). ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2002) https://web.archive.org/web/20140627084053/https://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman19.pdf @PaulC123 said in #38: > ... If someone of a tactical vent (a Morphy > or a Tal, etc, defeated Stinitiz. They would have scoffed at his positional theories and followedthe tactical Victor. ... "... In a way Tal had little direct influence on chess style. His was a unique talent which could not be duplicated by training. ... In his later years, Tal's style became more universal. Here he manoeuvres positionally, but Hjartarson still has to be careful, because there are tactics hidden just below the surface. ..." - GM John Nunn (1997)

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.