I'm actually selling a book (two books infact) on ebay
220479149603
One has games annotated by Morphy himself.
It only has a couple of to run - remember I will post outside
Europe to RHP guys.
Here is the ebay blurb.
Learn from the World Champions. by David Levy.
And New York 1927 by Alekhine
Hardback, very good condition, Typical Pergamon size. 1979.
descriptive notation.
Levy could not fail here.
He has gathered 18 articles written by some of the greatest players in the game,
including 12 World Champions and bound them together in one volume.
Fischer (his bust to the King’s Gambit), Botvinnik (on 3 endgames),
Adolf Anderssen (The Evans Gambit), Karpov (The Closed Lopez),
Tal (The Mechanism of Analysis), Petrosian (Analysis at the board)…etc.
But these excellent articles pale when compared to Alekhine’s article
on how he was going to beat Capablanca for the World title. (and he did).
To get the full flavour of this article you will need to know the games
of the New York 1927 tournament as Alekhine pulls Capa to pieces over
these games.
So you also get for free a paperback abridged version of Alekhine’s great book by
Chess Digest. (descriptive notation, 1972)
This has all 60 games with notes by Alekhine but without all his referrals to other games.
“…it does have a tendency to lose the reader in a myriad of considerations.”
So you get this book free so you can enjoy the brilliant Alekhine article in full.
Learn From The World Champions closes with 34 games annotated in detail by Morphy,
La Bourdonnais, Staunton, Anderssen, Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Euwe,
Botvinnik, Smyslov, Tal, Petrosian, Spassky, Fischer and Karpov.
A very good book
If your Morphy ran into a Kasparov, your esteem for him would
suddenly be illuminated as; misplaced. How would the great Morphy
make it past the genius of Kramnik? Would he trick Anand?
He was great, Fischer was great, neither are the greatest.
Morphy was a Michaelangelo at the board. He was not an Einstein. He
was not an Oppenheimer. He was not a Da Vinci.
-GIN
Originally posted by greenpawn34
Robbie you are posting his games from the Sergeant book.
Dig out one of Morphy's [b]Blindfold brilliancies.
Your jaw hits the deck when you consider he produces gems like
these whilst giving a Blindfold simul.
Meanwhile here is his only known composition.
White to play and mate in 2 (P.Morphy. New York Clipper - 1856)
[fen]kbK5/pp6/1P6/8/8/8/R7/8 w - - 0 1[/fen][/b]
Originally posted by NowakowskiI would disagree about fisher. As far as I know he was statistically the best player as far as matching fritz goes, he had better match ups than the best pre-computer CC champions, playing OTB.
If your Morphy ran into a Kasparov, your esteem for him would
suddenly be illuminated as; misplaced. How would the great Morphy
make it past the genius of Kramnik? Would he trick Anand?
He was great, Fischer was great, neither are the greatest.
Morphy was a Michaelangelo at the board. He was not an Einstein. He
was not an Oppenheimer. He was not a Da Vinci.
-GIN
Originally posted by NowakowskiHi Gin
If your Morphy ran into a Kasparov, your esteem for him would
suddenly be illuminated as; misplaced. How would the great Morphy
make it past the genius of Kramnik? Would he trick Anand?
He was great, Fischer was great, neither are the greatest.
Morphy was a Michaelangelo at the board. He was not an Einstein. He
was not an Oppenheimer. He was not a Da Vinci.
-GIN
Morphy beat the best players of his era producing many
beautiful and instructive games that are still being played
over today.
How would the players you mentioned fare working with the
same chess knowledge that was available to Morphy.
These players are standing Mophy's shoulders.
Put them on an equal footing, remove their opening theory
and take them back to the 1850's.
Kapsparov would be OK. Kramnik and Anand would not even
get into Simpson's Divan to wait on the tables.
I repeat, he beat everyone there was to beat in his day.
What more could he have done to prove he was a brilliant player?
The genius of Kramnik... Kramnik a genius???
Would he trick Anand? Morphy did not do 'tricks'.
Exuma correct well done.
Originally posted by greenpawn34If I could add to this, Morphy was reduced to offering odds to his opponents just to get them to play with him, and even then he wasn't always taken up on his offer. And on the relatively rare occasions when he was, he still won.
Hi Gin
Morphy beat the best players of his era producing many
beautiful and instructive games that are still being played
over today.
How would the players you mentioned fare working with the
same chess knowledge that was available to Morphy.
These players are standing Mophy's shoulders.
Put them on an equal footing, remove their opening t ius???
Would he trick Anand? Morphy did not do 'tricks'.
Exuma correct well done.
When the world's strongest won't even take odds and sit across from you, you are the baddest man in the Valley. One can only imagine what his strength could have been with modern tools,equipment, and knowledge.
At best, it is hard comparing apples and oranges, and even harder across different environments and eras, but all the relative factors seem to weigh heavily in Morphy's favor.
Paul
Originally posted by NowakowskiKramnick, boring, stretch! yawn!, like listening to ice melt on the tundra, Anand is also equally as bland, plays like a machine. These games of Morphy are inspirational, i have yet to be inspired by a Kramnic or an Anand game. Its not a question of trickery, but of artistry and beauty. Fischer saw it, we see it, the whole world knows it, behold and be amazed as if one is standing in front of a Titian or a Carravagio, not some piece of conceptual modern art that is want to clutter the galleries masquerading in the guise of art!
If your Morphy ran into a Kasparov, your esteem for him would
suddenly be illuminated as; misplaced. How would the great Morphy
make it past the genius of Kramnik? Would he trick Anand?
He was great, Fischer was great, neither are the greatest.
Morphy was a Michaelangelo at the board. He was not an Einstein. He
was not an Oppenheimer. He was not a Da Vinci.
-GIN
Originally posted by greenpawn34The games, with the exception of one are from a rather excellent book, A first book of Morphy, written by Frisco Del Rosario. its doubly as good as even the Seargent book, because its in algebraic notation, and written in the style of Chernev, although it delves a little deeper if one wishes. If one does not own this book greenpawn dude, it cannot be truly said that we live and love! It is one of those chess books that will inspire again and again! i will look at these ebay items, for this book of yours, annotated by Morphy. is this not quite rare for he was not a particularly prolific chess writer, as others after him.
Robbie you are posting his games from the Sergeant book.
Dig out one of Morphy's [b]Blindfold brilliancies.
Your jaw hits the deck when you consider he produces gems like
these whilst giving a Blindfold simul.
Meanwhile here is his only known composition.
White to play and mate in 2 (P.Morphy. New York Clipper - 1856)
[fen]kbK5/pp6/1P6/8/8/8/R7/8 w - - 0 1[/fen][/b]
To greenpawn34:
Missed your sale, by that much, but noticed you had other books at auction-I too have books for sale; An autographed copy of Tal - Botvinnik 1960, Mikhail Tal's Best Games of Chess, Clark, and The Art of Chess Combination by Eugene Znosko-Borovsky, 1951 1st Hb.
Interested in trade/purchase/barter?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI love Kramnik's style, but I can understand why people find him boring. However, when you say Anand's play is "equally as bland", then you may be contradicting yourself, because Anand's style is the most tactical one around the current top players, and probably #3 in history of chess champions (after Tal and Kasparov).
Kramnick, boring, stretch! yawn!, like listening to ice melt on the tundra, Anand is also equally as bland, plays like a machine. These games of Morphy are inspirational, i have yet to be inspired by a Kramnic or an Anand game. Its not a question of trickery, but of artistry and beauty. Fischer saw it, we see it, the whole world knows it, behold ...[text shortened]... of conceptual modern art that is want to clutter the galleries masquerading in the guise of art!
you should realize that opening preparation was the main factor in Kasparov's loss to Kramnik, and Kramnik's loss to Anand. This, together with the fact that the overall abilities of professional chess players also have grown immensely, makes me think that Morphy would have very little chance (if any) against the well-prepared strong players of today.
Originally posted by greenpawn34I feel rather certain the chess talent present in Kasparov is on a whole
Hi Gin
Morphy beat the best players of his era producing many
beautiful and instructive games that are still being played
over today.
How would the players you mentioned fare working with the
same chess knowledge that was available to Morphy.
These players are standing Mophy's shoulders.
Put them on an equal footing, remove their opening t ...[text shortened]... ius???
Would he trick Anand? Morphy did not do 'tricks'.
Exuma correct well done.
seperate level than in Morphy. This is all nearly void anyway, as in my
mind the greatest player to ever live, has been called many times,
the greatest endings player to ever live.
Seems like a simple correlation.
-GIN
Originally posted by philidor positionYou can't compare. He isn't here today so whatever any of us says is just heresy.
I love Kramnik's style, but I can understand why people find him boring. However, when you say Anand's play is "equally as bland", then you may be contradicting yourself, because Anand's style is the most tactical one around the current top players, and probably #3 in history of chess champions (after Tal and Kasparov).
you should realize that o would have very little chance (if any) against the well-prepared strong players of today.