Author: Lawrence S. Tamarkin
Date: 23:47:05 03/04/99
Go up one level in this thread
Here I can't resist putting my own two cents in! BIG DEAL - Morphy had a period like Tal where he totally crushed even Anderson & Lowanthall. But if you look at the careers of these fine getleman, you will find that their careers were signifcantly longer, and that their games (of which ultimately there were more of), were of very high quality, had more of the (later called hypermodern), concepts than morphy's overall, and that if there were no Morphy, these guys would have been regonized far more deservedly by the average chess player (chess book reader), today! Another comparison springs to mind, How would you like to be someone like Karpov. All your results are judged by the guy who proceeded you (who it is true was incredibly good for a relatively short period of time), & then you play really, really strong beautiful chess for the next 20 years, but your detracter's (one of which is me, as I have never liked Karpov - I'm actually surprised I'm defending him here!), often say you are an undeserving champion because of the guy before you, a guy who won't even play against any other Human under his own conditions - ANYWHERE! What a bummer!, What's that saying? - The more things change, the more... mrslug - the inkompetent chess software addict! On March 04, 1999 at 13:09:59, KarinsDad wrote: >On March 03, 1999 at 15:41:35, Will Singleton wrote: > >> >>On March 03, 1999 at 13:38:25, Charles Unruh wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Evidence enough of what? If a world championship match was anounced of only 6 >>>games NO ONE would think it was sufficient to prove anything, that's why there >>>has never in the history of all chess been a championship match that was so >>>short. Again as i said by your reasoning one could claim that after 9 rounds of >>>the kasp vs Anand match since anand was in the lead by a point that indeed that >>>should have proved to you that Anand was the better player. So all you are >>>demonstrating is an illogical bias... >> >>No need for that. By the way, do you recall the length of the match between >>Morphy and Anderssen, which proved to everyone's satisfaction that Morphy was >>the best in the world? >> >>Will > >Ah ha!!! > >Caught by your own petard on this one Will. > >Morphy beat Anderssen by a score of 8-3 (+7-2=2), 11 games (this is sometimes >mistakenly reported as 7-2, but that is the won vs. lost games). However, Morphy >was ill, so he played the games from his hotel room (due to him being leeched 4 >pints of blood). Also, the games were played in early 1859 (I think), way before >either chess clocks (so the games were slower and more decisive) or modern >statistical theory. > >All in all, Morphy decisively crushed Anderssen no matter how you slice it. He >also crushed Lowenthal, Owen (with pawn odds), and Harrwitz before Anderssen. He >established himself first (Deep Blue didn't, it only played Kasparov, Deep >Thought not counted). Staunton (egotistical smuck) wouldn't even play Morphy. > >Finally, getting back to Kasparov / Deep Blue. Kasparov has the winning edge >there +4-3=5 in the 2 matches. Everybody seems to forget that and focuses merely >on the second match (cause Deep Blue was so much stronger then, uh huh). > >KarinsDad :) :)
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.