Shockingly, stockfish 10, depth 20 thinks Mr. NN played marginally better than Morphy: White (Morphy)- 96.1% Brilliant: 0 Best: 10 Excellent: 0 Good: 3 Book: 7 Inaccuracies: 2 Mistakes: 0 Blunders *1* Black had 96.7% accuracy with 0 blunders. The move Morphy made that stockfish hates is 18. Ne4. Before that move Morphy had 99.2% accuracy!
Ok, but you are missing the point in its entirety. Or you are in denial. If you say chess is art, which it is then how can you determine if its pure art. You throw words like cap around like you are discussing last nights football game. Maybe Fischer realised in 72' that no amount of training could overcome how contrived chess would become. Morphy could either have been brilliant or its' even possible that he could have been a moron in disguise. We'll never truly know because the information has never been made available. We may not even know who he actually was. You keep calling for more of this illusory nonsense, and you don't seem to see it.
@@johnrobinson1762 bruh...thread is three years old...who you ranting about? Comments are light-hearted. No Name (without blunders) > Morphy > Stockfish
Even today not just no name literally but figuratively no noname in the chess I mean the biggest legends in the chess world don't stand a chance against Morphy he is out of this world man the goat
@@aqdjbcr Mophy would have access to modern theory. I've never understood this argument. He quit playing at like 23. If he was alive today, he'd grow up with theory and engines like everyone else and he'd be unbelievable. Even Fischer said that Morphy was probably the greatest of all time, that it was between Morphy and himself.
Well, Morphy used to sometimes give up pieces before the start of the game to increase the challenge against lesser opponents. Here, this was not done.
For the era in which he played, Morphy's games hold up amazingly well, to this day. Some of the Bobby Fisher games, by comparison, look drawish, passive, and inefficient, by comparison, for instance, an early exchange on d5 that frees Black's light-squared bishop, or an exchange on e4 that solves Black's problems developing his dark-squared bishop. Bobby was just so confident he'd win the simplified position...
I believe Morphy would have been competitive and likely the best in any era. His mind was nearly flawless. He's criticized by modern players and so-called experts, but there's no reason to believe he wouldn't dominate in Fisher's era or today if he had the same resources Fisher had and Magnus has now.
Late answer but... the Evans gambit allows you to really take control of the center in exchange for one pawn. Today it's not played at the top level anymore, but for most players it is a very respectable gambit (Kasparov played it often)
Gracias por subir estás partidas de la mayor leyenda del ajedrez reconocido por grandes maestros y campeones como Capablanca, Alekhine, Karpov y Fischer que llegó a decir que era el jugador más preciso un talento extraordinario, si hubiera existido en esta época hubiera acabado con todos incluyendo a mi 😊.. otra cosa no solo destacó en el ajedrez...me imagino en esta época lo que hubiera hecho con ordenadores y módulos
i always wonder if the losing side reason for loss is bad defense or a blunder or is it that morphy plays so "perfect" the defense has no choice BUT to make blunders move after move ?, this game was before the american civil war, i have seen games earlier than 1800s replayed digitally , what i would like to see is Benjamin Franklin playing French emperor game or games as he traveled to france to ask for french military aid during 1770s revolutionary war , im curious about Benjamins win or loss, but i read banjamin lost on purpose to gain french aid
First e4 and d4 then moves up to control e5 and d5 then pins across the diagonal and file the king and queen on pins the knight threatens forks the two rooks lonely immobile in the corners what can black do not a single piece can move it was best to forfeit his move
I agree with you on that. Weird mix of accents, the speech is to perfect, and at times I thought he sounded like Dracula. Sounds suspiciously like a computer.
Somehow he makes playing chess look so easy and simple and so elegant to boot that people start thinking that his opponents were weak and no good and thereby via the dialectic of extrapolation of comparing with today's complex and complicated patterns in today's chess theory and practice come to the conclusion that he cannot play against the modern era GMs and he will do very badly. But my heart tells me otherwise.
Modern chess is very defensive, they are afraid of the gambits and open lines because every mistake is costly. If Morphy could play today and find a way to open up the game, he would beat IMs and GMs.
Yeah I'm not sure why people say he wouldn't play well against modern GMs. His moves are based off analyzing the position on the board, and deep calculations. He always had a resource, every piece seemed to be helping every other piece - amazingly harmonious and imaginative. If you gave him time to read up on modern theory, he'd easily contend.
@@mrskinszszs I watched a lot of chess games on various chess channels and I watched chess streams a couple years ago. So even though I am not a very strong player (around 1500 on lichess) I think I developed a feel for the game and the style in which various players play. Of course today's GMs are very strong, but I have seen them make mistakes when the game goes off book and in complex tactical positions. I have seen Hikaru, who claims Morphy would be 2000 rated today, fall for a tactical trick and lose in three moves. On the other hand Morphy played 20 people blind folded and won every game while sacrificing his pieces and using the same tactics that would confuse IMs and GMs in real games even today. Players miss tactics often, even on IM and GM level, and especially when game goes off book which is something Morphy liked to do. Would Morphy crush GMs today? Probably not. But he could probably draw with every single one of them if he wanted to play that modern style because he was able to memorize a 1000 page book in his youth so if he wanted to memorize every single opening alpha zero uses, he would.
@@vitezjura good point. Morphy very rarely made mistakes, even playing blindfolded. Once people get out of the prep, it comes down to pure talent. Morphy was perhaps the most talented player ever. Fischer is in that list too - people seem to forget the mind behind the player when comparing old to new.
