Morphy today!?

How well do you think Paul Morphy would do in chess today, considering he lived in the 19th century, when chess wasn't as strategically evolved as in 20th and/or 21st century, and one of the things his chess playing style was based on was exploiting those very weaknesses in strategy and position, by that meaning declining a gambit was often considered cowardly and the chess theory was much poorer, with apsurd gambits like From's in use?

Guess he would have to change his style. He would probably freak out, seeing the future...:)

Hah! An interesting idea. I think something that's linked [at least slightly] in concept to this is what chess theory, analysis and play were like before the era of the computer [d.o.b. 1991] it seems to me that now things are so fully studied and discovered that winning a game of chess is just a contest of who can memorise more openings and successful replies! Of course this is quite a generalisation, but you see my point? Fortunately this doesn't apply to amateur/novice players like myself, we may suffer from blinding blunders but the exchange is that we can rediscover the beauty of chess in every game, is it not so?

Morphy, sad to say, would be absolutely smashed by the superb positional players of today. Chess theory has advanced way beyond his time, and it would be like playing an amateur for...say...someone like Anatoly Karpov.

Yes, quite possible. Still, we can now speculate about how much would Morphy learn from today's chess and advance in play, learning new ideas and studying a plethora of games of world champions and grandmasters. And yes, he probably wouldn't understand the way chess is looked at today.

You guys have to be kidding.  Morphy would be a chump today?  That guy was able to beat a GM-strength player without ever having played a master-strength player (at age 13).  He didn't read too many books because there weren't any.  What he did, he did on his own.  That man had more talent than anybody.  Period.  Give him 6 months to see the games and follow the advancement of theory since his day, and there is no doubt he would beat everybody.  If you would take a look at his games, including the Knight-odds games, you would see that Morphy was using hypermodern principles back in 1859!  Those who say that Morphy would be an easy point for today's masters simply don't know what they are talking about.  And one final point--Morphy basically retired at age 23.  Cut off every other master's career at the same age and they fall waaaay short of Morphy.

"A popularly held theory about Paul Morphy is that if he returned to the chess world today and played our best contemporary players, he would come out the loser. Nothing is further from the truth. In a set match, Morphy would beat anybody alive today... Morphy was perhaps the most accurate chess player who ever lived. He had complete sight of the board and never blundered, in spite of the fact that he played quite rapidly, rarely taking more than five minutes to decide a move. Perhaps his only weakness was in closed games like the Dutch Defense. But even then, he was usually victorious because of his resourcefulness."

--Bobby Fischer

Fischer obviously roots for Morphy because Morphy was the first really strong American chess player, and Bobby Fischer was American.

What you have to understand is this:

1.Opening theory- It is common sense that opening theory is stronger as it progresses. I think it was Garry Kasparov who said that if a kid were to play Capablanca today, the kid could gain an opening advantage over him simply because of the advancement of theory.

2.Middlegame - This is probably the area where Morphy would be best at, but still the GMs of today are simply stronger players! Review any of Morphy's games. Brilliant, yes. Genius, yes. His style of play, however, is not as sound today and his attacks would not work at the higher levels.

3.Endgame - I think we all can agree that Morphy would not excel here.

Morphy was a magnificent player and tactician for his time. There is no way that he could understand the sheer enormity of modern chess theory in six months, and even if he did modern Grandmasters are simply better at it! Sure his games were very interesting, and we can admire his depth for his time period, but comparing his chess ability with modern GM players is nonsense. 

As a side-note: He beat those Grandmasters because they were stuck in the same time period as he was. They had little grasp of modern principles, and should not be compared to anyone in the past few decades.

I didn't say that his attacks were unsound, but that his style of play (A sort of semi-romantic) was unsound; at least by today's standards.

"There is no doubt that for Morphy chess was an art, and for chess Morphy was a great artist. His play was captivated by freshness of thought and inexhaustible energy. He played with inspiration, without striving to penetrate into the psychology of the opponent; he played, if one can express it so, 'pure chess.' His harmonious positional understanding; the pure intuition, would have made Morphy a highly dangerous opponent even for any player of our times.'' --Vassily Smyslov

Perhaps Smyslov's comments can be dismissed out of hand by simply saying he was rooting for the American.

Here's my basic point: Daniel3, you and I are worms compared to Fischer or Smyslov. Even a master-level player such as the estimable tonydal should think twice before contradicting the opinions of the Immortals. And here we have two world chess champions who disagree with the notion that Morphy would out of his depth in competition versus modern GMs.

Consider if you will a recent example of some general relevance: Gata Kamsky. At the top of his game, he retired from competitive chess for about eight years until reemerging in 2004. The games from early in his comeback show significant relative weakness in the opening; however, his strong natural skill sustained him until he'd brought his knowledge more comprehensively up to date. Even now he is still prone to some quirkiness; but few doubt he has the chops to compete against someone like Topalov (though maybe *winning* is a longshot).

Sure, hauling Morphy into the modern chess world would present him with a steep learning curve...but can we so easily dismiss the sublime natural talent he possessed? Indeed, no lesser a light than Capablanca said of Morphy that "The magnificent American master had the most extraordinary brain that anybody has ever had for chess."

Fischer rooted for no one but Fischer.  And, he was far less opinionated that Nimzovitch or Alekhine.  However, his analysis was second to none except perhaps his own second Bill Lombardy.   Although I sometimes thought there were days he had Bill with him just to annoy the Russian Communists because Bill was a Catholic priest.

Yet, for he and Smyslov to come down on the same side of any issue is quite remarkable.  And, they both praised Morphy to the skies.

It, also, should be noted, for those who like to cherry pick quotations, that he revised his opinion of Lasker as he got older and grew to appreciate the nuances of the fairly clear, simple game Lasker played. 

By the way, Lasker's compilation of his lectures called Common Sense in Chess is still a quite relevant book.  However, you'll have to know, or learn, descriptive to read it.  Don't believe it's been revised.  That would be an insult to the Doctor of Mathematics who, interestingly, never used algebraic notation.

Given a couple of months of observation, Morphy would, probably, do quite well.  In addition to some new wrinkles he might see, he'd realize that modern masters have just as many quirks, fears and biases as those he played.  From my readings, over the 55 years I've been attempting to play, it appears he was one of the quickest studies ever.  Even Jose Raul Capablanca conceded that.  It would probably put him in good stead. 

Good for a bull session topic. But, we'll never know will we?

As a boxing fan, one gets this "what-ifitis" in waves, depending on the fighter to teleport to-and-fro into "all-time great" dream scenarios. Same with chess.

I believe that with the proper time to assimilate modern strategic and opening theory someone with the natural talent of Morphy would excel in today's chess. I think his prodigious memory would allow him to get that done in a reasonable period of time. Fischer and Smyslov's comments shed more insight upon what those in the know have to say on the matter.

Would a "crash-coursed" Morphy do well against a Karpov, a Petrosian, a Topalov? Food for thought. In boxing, styles make fights. In chess, I think one has to evolve into a universal style to handle both open and closed games with a high degree of proficiency to become a great. There are a number of those kinds of players who have ascended the ranks and become champion. Morphy certainly had the capacity to create over the board that would lend itself to the challenge.

The one great match in this vein that was missed was a Morphy-prime Steinitz clash. Had we been able to see that, a lot of our "what-ifs" regarding Morphy would be closer to resolution because facing off with the greatest positional thinker of the 19th century (IMO) would have dispelled a lot of mythology about Morphy, yea or nay. What if, Indeed!

Russ

Transport a 21 year-old Morphy to present day and, with a strong chess appetite, he would eventually reach 2600 without doubt. Perhaps 2700?

Transport a 45 year-old Morphy and...? Age does make a difference.

Look, guys. Just because Morphy was all that back in the day, doesn't mean he would be now. Smyslov and Fisher have praised him. So has pretty much anyone else. Indeed, I praise him too!

But there is no reason to suspect that just because these masters admired Morphy, their admiration would somehow "lift" him above the tremendous amounts of theory, study, analysis, programs, computers, technology, experience, furthering of the game's strategy, and even rules that would be utterly foreign to him. He may have been a "quick study" in the 18oo's, but you need to be much more than that nowadays. Opinions of the masters aren't rules. They're humans too, with preferences and tastes; not "immortals".

I am not trying to put Morphy down in any way, but, once again, comparing him to modern masters is simply rediculous; regardless of how many quotes you can come up with from the "immortals".

I think the average chess player of 1850 would adapt pretty quickly to computer chess programs. Think about it. They are designed to be intuitive. Morphy wouldn't jump on top of a chair and pull his skirt over his head at the sight of a mouse.

If chess greats like Fischer and Smyslov, who have an exceptionally keen insight into what makes for a top-notch chess mind, say Morphy would have been great in a modern context, it is hard to disagree. Unless you can cite the opinions to the contrary of other great players.

No one here has the credentials to step up to the podium with Smyslov or Fischer. I can't. Got a rating here of 1400? 1600? 2000? 2200? Not even close.

 You question such greats as Fischer and Smyslov on chess matters in spite of their chess credentials ?! And exactly what are YOUR credentials in chess that anyone should listen to you anyway ?!  Amazing

Ratings on the internet don't count for jack, so you can't count that.

Maybe if Morphy could somehow download all the information afore stated into his brain, which I highly doubt, he could have a chance. But I simply don't think that he would be able to catch up! He'd be an old man by the time he was finished comprehending everything. I don't mean that he couldn't think fast, but that the sheer COLLOSALNESS of modern chess understanding would be too much. WAY too much!

I see you didnt answer my question about what your chess credentials are that anyone should listen to you? Morphy was a genius , no amount of work makes up for that. When you start questioning such chess giants as Fischer and Smyslov I think you NEED something to back you up, you don't ?

By the way, Kasparov was the one who said that Capablanca could easily come out on the short end in a modern opening nowadays against a 14-year-old. (Because of the advancment of Opening theory.) What makes you think that Morphy, farther behind than Capablanca, could possibly stand up to greats like Kasparov, Kramnik, Karpov, Korchnoi, Fischer, Topalov, Shirov, Leko, Tal, or Ivanchuk?

I didn't question Fischer or Smyslov. You're taking this too personally. Morphy was a genius FOR HIS DAY! I said that that was their opinion of Morphy. You did to. Where we differed was that I realized it was just an opinion, while you turn quotes into religions.

"You question such greats as Fisher and Smyslov?!" Just who do you think you are, anyway? Where are your credentials? What gives you the right to question my opinions on a free site? Maybe if you stopped worshiping your "chess gods" so much you would see that I enjoy watching Morphy's games as much as you do. I, however, don't make it a point to burn insence in his memory.