No major contribution? Don't you realize the impact it gave on the chess world? He got so many players interested among them Nigel Short (he said it made him want to be a chess player) and Yasser Seirawan and so many more. He had made significant contributions in the openings; in his comback match with Spassky he even came up with a very important theoretical novelty in the Sicilian. I'm no fan of his, or care much about him but it's just weird when somebody makes disrespectful remarks about him. Do people know enough to judge him? One thing I've learned is the best person to do such a thing is the person himself.
- Joined
- 26 May 02
- Moves
- 72546
Originally posted by flexmoreI disagree completely with this assessment, as I'm sure would the vast majority of grandmasters. Fischer made an enormous contribution to chess, especially at the professional level.
no ... i think fischer does not make such a list ...
he is famous because he was a us citizen.
he was good because he faced a huge team and won ... he won in one streak ... and then hid in the shadows.
he only had one massive streak, and did not back it up ... he made no major contribution ...
i admire what he did ... i hate what he became ... i ...[text shortened]... neither made a massive change in the way we play ... neither showed us the light.
morhpy did.
Garry Kasparov in an article in The Wall Street Journal wrote the following:-
"Despite his short stay at the top there is little to debate about the chess of Bobby Fischer. He changed the game in a way that hadn't been seen since the late 19th century. The gap between Mr. Fischer and his contemporaries was the largest ever. He single-handedly revitalized a game that had been stagnating under the control of the Communists of the Soviet sports hierarchy.
When Bobby Fischer rocketed to the top of the chess world in the early 1970s he was a fine wine in a flawed vessel. His contributions to the game, both at the board and from a commercial perspective, were nothing short of a revolution in the chess world."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005371
So he was a huge influence on Kasparov. But it's not just Kasparov who feels that way. Fischer (as a chess player) is held in the same high esteem by practically every professional player, regardless of their opinion of him as a person (overwhelmingly negative).
Fischer wasn't just the greatest player of the 60's and early 70's (he was the top rated player in the World for many years before he actually became World Champion) he also made many important contributions to opening theory (e.g. The Sicilian Najdorf).
He also worked harder than anyone in his pre-game preparation and analysis and put maximum effort into practically every game that he played. He almost always played for a win and had very few quick draws, compared to other top players.
Fischer was undoubtedly one of the greatest players, perhaps the greatest - although I personally believe that Kasparov at his peak was slightly stronger.
Originally posted by flexmore"he is famous because he was a us citizen."
no ... i think fischer does not make such a list ...
he was good because he faced a huge team and won ... he won in one streak ... and then hid in the shadows.
he only had one massive streak, and did not back it up ... he made no major contribution ...
i admire what he did ... i hate what he became ... i pity his life ...
but no ... he does not make my ...[text shortened]... ilarly with alekhine ... they both managed to beat the champ ... then hid ... ... .
morhpy did.
A couple points here-
1. Bringing the sort of chess mania to a nation where interest in the sport was completely lagging, the effects of which continue to the present day, should count as a greater contribution to the game than any theoretical novelty.
2. As a US citizen he virtually had to go it alone against opponents who were products of what has been described as "the Soviet Chess Machine", and still beat 'em all.
"he won in one streak ... and then hid in the shadows."
Does the fact that his career (at least in the chess mainstream) ended early diminish his contribution, or was it the way he did it? In either case this is even more true of Morphy, so why does he appear on your list?
"he does not make my list of great chess players.
similarly with alekhine ... they both managed to beat the champ ... then hid ..."
1. What is it about this hiding thing that bothers you so much?
2. I don't know what part of Alekhine's life you would consider him to be in hiding. What he does have in common with Fischer is that they both expressed anti-semitic beliefs. That may be reason enough in the minds of many to exclude them both, but you weren't clear about whether that is part of your thinking.
"neither made a massive change in the way we play"
I don't know what you consider "massive" here. Fischer, probably more than any other player in history, is responsible for the fact THAT so many people play the game at all. Most of us (in live play) use the time increment system some if not all of the time which Fischer not only developed and popularised, but made more technically feasible with clocks used in OTB play. While he wan't the first to suggest a "shuffle chess" system, he brought it into widespread use to address real issues plaguing the world of chess (especially at the top levels) rather than as an interesting variant.
"neither showed us the light"
"It's like this god of chess hanging over everybody's head." – Larry Christiansen (on Fischer)
- Joined
- 09 Aug 01
- Moves
- 54191
Originally posted by Skorjlets remember that back in his day, there were no chess professionals playing chess "seriously."
Morphy certainly had the talent, but from what I know of him I doubt if he had the personality to put in the kind of effort required of todays top players. It doesn't sound to me as though he took chess all that seriously. He enjoyed the game and happened to be stupendously talented at it, but it doesn't sound as though there was a time in his life when chess ...[text shortened]... I doubt he'd be motivated to put in the study that being a world champ would require today.
Originally posted by tonytiger41Agreed. It's just my impression, based on what little biographical I have read on Morphy, that he didn't look at the relationship between chess and the rest of his life quite the same way the other greats of his day did. Thus, if young Morphy fell through the hypothetical time warp and had the tools and accumulated knowledge available to todays players at his disposal, he wouldn't be inclined to take advantage of them to the extent needed to become world champion. Were the same to happen to a young Steinitz the story might be different.
lets remember that back in his day, there were no chess professionals playing chess "seriously."
- Joined
- 09 Aug 01
- Moves
- 54191
this reminds me of the boxing debates on whether dempsey was as good or better than ali. the footage of the boxing in the early 1900s looks so primative compared to today. boxing and chess have naturally evolved over time, so one can only speculate on the past greats.
Originally posted by DrumboI don't even want to talk of Ravello. He tries to stir of mischief between anyone anywhere at any time. Poor person. I man who stirs up discontent between not one person, but handfuls of people, must not be very happy with himself.
Yes rahim,I agree, it's ravello that's off-base.
Originally posted by SkorjOf course, Morphy like Capablanca, was a natural. Perhaps he - like Capablanca would not need the use of all this study. Capablanca studied little and was World Champion.
Agreed. It's just my impression, based on what little biographical I have read on Morphy, that he didn't look at the relationship between chess and the rest of his life quite the same way the other greats of his day did. Thus, if young Morphy fell through the hypothetical time warp and had the tools and accumulated knowledge available to todays players at his ...[text shortened]... ome world champion. Were the same to happen to a young Steinitz the story might be different.
Morphy thought it was an insult to be considered a professional chess player. He had an intuitive grasp of position, a remarkable memory, and was strong in all phases of the game (for the time), and was extremely quick. He was somewhat stubborn in opening phases, and rarely fianchettoed his bishops. He liked open games and was frustrated with closed positions. In some matches it took him a couple of games to hit his stride (as in the Harwitz match), but then was unbeatable. You can't do better than study his games against serious opponents. Forget the patzer games, like the Duke of Brunswick, etc., except for entertainment value. Look at his games against Andersson, Lowenthall, Harrwitz, the best players of the day. Physically, Morphy was short, frail, with fine features. Psychologically, he was unable to handle his position as the best player in the world. In that sense, he was like Fischer. No one took him seriously as a lawyer in New Orleans. Some say he had a shattering love experience while visiting Paris, but no one really knows. As someone said, Morphy was the pride and sorrow of chess. Of course, if he were suddenly to play today, he would have trouble with theory, but if he was young and had time to study, I'm sure he'd catch up quickly and be a contender. When dealing with these people, you have to separate their lives from the games. Once Steinitz, the world champion, arranged a meeting with Morphy in New Orleans through one of his friends. Morphy agreed to the meeting only one conditiion-- that they don't discuss chess. No one really knows what they talked about, but can you imagine the tension?
Originally posted by powershakerHis opening was straight forward, simple development. I don't think you personally would benefit much from it. His opponents openings were so bad some of them, that you can't except a decent opponent now days to play that move and thus the opening rep. you studied of his would be a waste.
I've thought of buying Morphy's annotated games and studying them in depth - attempting to play his opening repertroire. I wonder if it would be a good journey?
Just what I think. I actually read a article on this.Studying openings of old old GM's. Um... It was in the Chess thread 1 week ago I think. Can't remeber what the name was but it was somethign to do with chess websites.
Originally posted by RahimKYeah, I was studying one of his games yesterday, and I was thinking to myself, "No decent player would make that move like Morphy's opponent did. Any 1300 would play this move!" Etc... Etc... So, I think you're right.
His opening was straight forward, simple development. I don't think you personally would benefit much from it. His opponents openings were so bad some of them, that you can't except a decent opponent now days to play that move and thus the opening rep. you studied of his would be a waste.
Just what I think. I actually read a article on this.Studying openi ...[text shortened]... ago I think. Can't remeber what the name was but it was somethign to do with chess websites.
As I said, look at the games Morphy played against the best players of the time. Don't study the games against patzers. Yes, his moves were simple, direct, and strong, exactly the kind of thing students of the game should learn to find in a position. After the Andersson match, Andersson said that Morphy just brushed aside his subtle traps and played the best move in the position. And that simple philosophy made him the best player of the time. This criticism of not being "subtle" enough, reminds me of the Russian criticism of Fischer's play before he won the world championship. Botvinnik said that Fischer's striving for a clear position was a weakness that Petrosian, a very subtle player, would be able to capitalize on. Well, we know what happened. Again, I say, it's a good idea to study the games of Morphy, Andersson, even Staunton, Lowenthall, etc. there's a lot we can learn from the older games and players. I wouldn't, of course, trust their opening theory because a lot has been learned since then.
Originally posted by buddy2Ah, I tried doing exactly this for the people on here but they didn't appreciate it 🙁
As I said, look at the games Morphy played against the best players of the time. Don't study the games against patzers. Yes, his moves were simple, direct, and strong, exactly the kind of thing students of the game should learn to find in a position. After the Andersson match, Andersson said that Morphy just brushed aside his subtle traps and played the be ...[text shortened]... uldn't, of course, trust their opening theory because a lot has been learned since then.
I went to chessgames.com, Started with the first Morphy game and went down the list picking the ones which I though were good example where an annotate them and put them on here with some tactical puzzles. I had every intention to go through each of his hundreds of games on there. I even threw in some Kasp, Korch., Seirwan games and look what it got me.