- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
11 Jun 11
Originally posted by greenpawn34All twenty-three of them.
"Morphy castled queenside."
Morphy never wrote down his moves during a game.
No need to, he remembered all his games.
So writing the extra 0, (in them days it was done with a feather quill)
*Cough* Steel pen. This happens to be something I know about. Middle 19th century, it would be odd for someone of Morphy's social class to still be writing with a quill. Steel pens, and copperplate script, was the fashion.
Richard
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
22 Jun 11
Originally posted by Shallow BlueIt seems from Greenpawn's blog that some people have taken this remark to be based on actual research. It wasn't - it was just a throwaway quip about how few games Morphy is know to have actually played. I should've used 42 instead of 23 - that would have made it more obvious. (And closer to the truth - he actually played 59 real games.)
All twenty-three of them.
However. Due to this misunderstanding, I have now made the effort to find the real numbers. This wasn't as much of a job as it sounds like, because Tim Krabbé has providentially put all of them, as far as known, in PGN files. There's one containing all known Morphy games including blind simul demos, odds games, and whatnot; and one containing only the serious ones. And with a PGN, it's as simple as typing Ctrl-F/o-o-o/Again.
So here are the numbers.
In all his known games, Morphy himself castled queenside twenty-seven (close!) times. Twelve were in odds games, one in a blind game. Twice he castled with check (once in the blind game!), and one time it was the last, winning move of the game. He won sixteen of these, lost five and drew one. Six were in official games, of which he lost one and won the rest.
Contrariwise, only twenty times did someone commit the long castle against Morphy. Five of these were in an odds game and also five in blind games (including one against Paulsen, also playing blind, which ended in a draw). Of these he won twelve, lost five, and drew three. Two were in official games, which he both won.
And then there's the interesting one. In a Paris blind simul, against a certain Bornemann, both players castled queenside. It didn't save Bornemann; Morphy won.
I have not bothered to break all this down between black and white. Someone even more geeky that I can do that - the PGNs are available from http://timkr.home.xs4all.nl/ChessTutor/morphy.htm .
Richard
22 Jun 11
4 edits
Good Stuff Shallow Blue - excellent.
You could have finished it with the Morphy double Q-side castling game v Bornemann.
One should never pass up an excuse to show a Morphy game. They usually
entertain and contain more than a drop of instruction. As if the case here.
Don't be too harsh on Black he made some odd looking moves when
he should perhaps have been exchanging pieces. He most likely reckoned
the more pieces he kept on board the better chance he would have v the
blindfolded player.
This was the position after 24.Be6.
Morphy was playing blindfold. 😉
Here is the full game. Quite brilliant. I like the way he postpones the
obvious moves (like taking the Queen right away) till he has got everything
out of the postion. Then he returns the Queen to wrap it up.
And remember this was blindfold along with 8 other blindfold games.
23 Jun 11
Originally posted by pdunneOk, stupid, so you disagree with what I said? Seems like you havent heard of computer engines. like I said, there are many matches where engines dont castle. I might be a weakie, but I would put you down in a fight.
It's ludicrous, and yet somehow touching, how weakies love to console themselves with this twaddle.
24 Jun 11
Originally posted by hintjulI wasn't aware that it's a theory. I thought it was a guideline, subject to being broken if the circumstances dictate.
I have seen plenty of engine vs engine games where they have not bothered to castle, completely shatters the theory you should always castle, after all, computers rule the modern game.
Here's an engine-engine game where neither one castled.
Oh yeah, the white engine was the mind of Emanuel Lasker, and the black engine was the gray matter between the ears of Wilhelm Steinitz. 🙂
- Joined
- 08 Apr 09
- Moves
- 20026
24 Jun 11
Originally posted by pdunneAlthough you might prefer laughing with lower rated players, I'd like to have your (or others) opinion on why castling is less preferable to computers than it is to humans.
It does have a certain Fischer ring to it, doesn't it? Another Fischer classic might be phrased as follows:-- "What's your rating?... 1055!?!? Gee Whiz! I didn't know they went that low!" ;-)
[hidden]User 459045[/hidden]
My idea is that castling reduces the number of possible threats. Computers have less need to castle, because they don't overlook future threats, whereas human players can miss them. This suggests that stronger player would/should castle fewer (or later) than weaker players. Is this the case?
Nevertheless, I think that the statement that was made also includes that even GM's castle more than computers. What could explain this discrepancy?