19 Sep 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHe was indeed a gentleman. I once had the opportunity to borrow and read Lawson's book, "Paul Morphy: The Pride and Sorrow of Chess." A great book - Read it if you ever get a chance. (If they'd only reprint the dang thing.)
yes and he was a gentleman.
excellent thread, especially the green ones posts, full of much wisdom and truth!
19 Sep 09
Originally posted by Mad Rooki will try to track this book rook my friend and read it, thankyou for the suggestion, it is good, is it not! 🙂 the games i have posted are taken form an excellent book, a first taste of Morphy, best chess book ive read for ages, truly inspirational, all games begin with 1.e4 with the exception of one or two, and there are very few endgames, which is good for the chess noob that doesn't particularly like endgames. It is filled with wisdom from Fine and Purdy, and is easy to understand but also has some depth for the 1500-1900 rated player to absorb, once you shall read it you shall live my friend, and your hand shall automatically pick up the pawn and place it on e4, as if it were the most natural thing in the world!
He was indeed a gentleman. I once had the opportunity to borrow and read Lawson's book, "Paul Morphy: The Pride and Sorrow of Chess." A great book - Read it if you ever get a chance. (If they'd only reprint the dang thing.)
19 Sep 09
Originally posted by Goshenmy wife is in hospital my friend and i need to look after little boy and house and everything! i managed to grasp a little time to post but i was pushed - thanks for asking though! like Morphy you are also a gentleman!
You haven't moved in 1 day Robbie, whats up?
19 Sep 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf I may offer my lowely opinion...
au contrare, it was a perfectly reasonable request, you have stated that Kramanik is worthy of our consideration, where is the beauty? where is the art? if you cannot back up your assertions with substantiating eveidence, then do not make them! simply stating something does not make it so, unless of course, you are a dictator in your own dominion!
Beauty is subjective, and in the context of chess I think it manifests itself by surprising and creative moves. That being said I think all top level chess players offer just that, only with different styles. As greenpawn pointed out it's a matter of understanding what they are up to.
Take mixed martial arts, for example (UFC). When two Jui Jitsu masters go to the ground many people consider it to be a yawn-fest. All they see are two guys tangled on the ground barely changing positions. But someone like myself who understands the basics can see the (metaphorical) chess match that's taking place and we appreciate it.
I think some of the top GM's are considered boring simply because people don't understand the subtle but effective "art" behind what they're doing, myself included.
19 Sep 09
Hi Robbie I would not say my post was wisdom or the truth.
it's just an opinion.
A great game from GM McNab today v IM Greet.
http://www.chessedinburgh.co.uk/chandlerarticle.php?ChandID=368
I've been asking Colin all week 'his secret'.
He just smiles.
I'm close with the loose pieces, loose square theory.
Next time I play him I'll liquidate the centre and leave no loose
pieces. Last time I played him (about a year ago) I sacced the
shop for a check or two and a cheapo. I lost!!
He beat me in 1977 bringing to a halt an incredible run of wins.
It was my first loss in just under two years. I'm gonna get him.
Hope Mrs Robbie gets well soon.
21 Sep 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieMorphy was one of a kind. I've give a whole lot to see Morphy play Karpov or Fischer at ther peaks!😏
here are just some of Morphys more celebrated moves. it has been alleged that he was a tactician, only, yet nothing could be further from the truth. Morphy was an artist, and it comes as no surprise that many of his games contain, what chess players term, beautiful moves. here are some of them.
[pgn]1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bxb4 5. ...[text shortened]... he ending from 24...Qf8 is Retis continuation, the actual game, Morphys opponent played 24...Qg2
21 Sep 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI hope that your dearest lady will be soon back home healthy and strong.
my wife is in hospital my friend and i need to look after little boy and house and everything! i managed to grasp a little time to post but i was pushed - thanks for asking though! like Morphy you are also a gentleman!
21 Sep 09
Originally posted by Mad RookLowe, who was a veteran player when Morphy came over to London, attributed Morphy's success to his, for the time, wondrous lifestyle - "he drinks nothing stronger than coffee, he smokes nothing stronger than a cigarette and he is regularly in bed before midnight". Makes you wonder what all the other players of that era were getting up to!
Nice thread, but I still don't know why Morphy was sooooo good. Was it all that Cajun food he ate?
20 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by greenpawn34wow... this is the best Morphy post I've seen. Opens my eyes. Very objective too.
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 nd knowing his
games and even letting him get booked up, I think he would have
struggled.
Another thing to consider though is; There is no doubting his natural talent, and he was far better than others of his time. With his natural talent, he would have improved much more by playing stronger opponents regularly. You can only improve and learn so much against much weaker opposition.
Also, for what it's worth ( maybe it's worthless) I've read Morphy's moves, evaluated by rybka, had an average strength of 2200-2300 elo.
20 Jan 10
It's hard to imagine any of the pre computer champions putting up much resistance vs the modern players.
Spassky said he wished he had played Fischer in the early 60s when they were both young. Perhaps a teenage Anand vs Morphy might have been interesting, or a late 70s Kasparov dueling it out with Morphy or Capablanca.
Morphy struggled in closed games, hated the Sicilian with a passion and didnt consider chess a legitimate professional activity. It's pretty clear that he had an awe inspiring gift for the game but then again look at a world u20 chess champions and how few of them ever make it to top level chess.