Originally posted by robbie carrobieI don't dislike Britney; just her music.
hey i like Britney Spears, i supported her during her troubled times and sang along 'you wanna a piece of me'! id rather watch her play chess than ol Kramnik. 😛
Hey, wait a minute! You're a clique member. You're supposed to be helping me out here.
Originally posted by CimonI think that by admitting my ignorance makes me non-ignorant.
"What we understand - we like.
What we dont understand - we fear and call names at."
Congratulations in admitting your ignorance Mr.Greenpawn.
But I'm close to the nub of the matter.
Everyone hated Steinitz because nobody really understood what he
was about. (mind you Morphy was a hard act to follow ) .
It took Lasker and Tarrasch to explain to the chess world what
a great thinker he was.
And that is what people do. If they cannot understand something
they fear it , hate it and call it names.
It's not Kramnik and Anand's fault they cannot play like the
romantics of old because defensive technique has improved 100%
since Morphy's day.
But everytime someone mentions Morphy there always seem to be
a gang of experts who chime in with the same old codswallop about
PCM not being able to beat the players of today and he is dismissed.
I very much doubt that there is anyone on this site who
understands in full the subtlies of modern top GM play.
They think they do - but they don't.
Who is worse, the romantics for clnging to and enjoying
the games of yore. Or the modern lot who sneer at players like
Morphy and yet do not understand why the top players they
boast about are top players.
I play The Beatles all day long (I'm listening to them now) are
you going to knock on my door and tell me to stop it and give
me a Britney Spears CD. 😉
All Robbie wanted to do was share a few Morphy moments.
(squeaky voice)
"...he's not as good as Kramnik......"
Change the record.
I think bobby fischer was better than him but morphy still a good player his game seem to be "WOW it is a show" in classical chess they sac a lot of piece to get strong attack but i think today this will not work because their is counter-system again favorite morphy system like evan's gambit etc...
His games are brilliant and very enjoyable & instructive to play over.
But to compare him with modern day players is silly.
This comparison is often made by people who know only a
handful of Morphy games (usually just one) and yet nothing about
the games of Morphy.
Taking off the rose tinted glasses one can see that Morphy was not
too hot in closed positions. He loved the open board and showed the
world what you can do with a fully developed chess set.
But he did come unstuck against what we call odd closed defences.
He lost to Barnes as White after 1.e4 f6.
Yes Morphy lost to this opening something his detractors never
mention because they don't know anything about Morphy's games.
They just don't know.
Closed games brought about positions that Morphy felt uneasy in.
Yes he won the majority but here was his achilles heel.
Closed positions were alien to him.
How would he fare today based on the games he left us?
He would have to learn to slow down, He was a very quick player
and some of his losses are because he moved too quick.
He had a reasonable positional sense so tacking against a weakness
and avoiding a weakness he would be OK - but so is the modern IM.
To be honest I don't think he would have made it.
You would get some interesting and brilliant games but a lot of draws.
His gift deserted him in close positions. He never displayed the
same skill in therse positions as he did in open games.
He blazed the path on what to do against weak moves and his legacy
of great games props up chess history.
But when someone put up stern and stiff restance, nowhere near as
tough as what he would face today, then Morphy was not the Morphy
we know.
So without pairing him off against Anand and saying he woud get
hammered (so would 99% of the chess players alive today).
But by looking at what he played over the board and knowing his
games and even letting him get booked up, I think he would have
struggled.
Originally posted by greenpawn34Very well said! The same can be said about your last post too.
I think that by admitting my ignorance makes me non-ignorant.
But I'm close to the nub of the matter.
Everyone hated Steinitz because nobody really understood what he
was about. (mind you Morphy was a hard act to follow ) .
It took Lasker and Tarrasch to explain to the chess world what
a great thinker he was.
And that is what people do. If nts.
(squeaky voice)
"...he's not as good as Kramnik......"
Change the record.
A final word.
Scotsman John Logie baird invented the television in the 1920's.
If he were presented with one of today's TV's he would not have a
clue how to fix or even tune it.
But were it not for John Logie Baird...?
This is the Morphy paradox. His games have inpsired 1,000's of
players to improve the game perhaps beyond even his gifted talents.
But were it not for Paul Morphy....?