I've seen the clip of Hikaru saying Morphy would be 2400ish strength by today's standards...but to quote Ben Finegold, "How many 2400's do you see playing near perfectly in an 8 man blindfold simul?" Never mind the fact that he was only 21...in freaking 1858. The man had near zero resources besides other players who he was invariably much stronger than. Morphy's inherent talent for chess is unparalleled, in my opinion. Capablanca is the only one who can compare.
Imo Morphy was definitely above 2400….and definitely a gm. But , it’s all just speculation since we can’t time travel to bring him to the modern era lol. That said…..morphy is my favorite all time.
Aprad Elo - who created the Elo rating system used in chess - rated Morphy at 2600. But what makes Morphy an epic genius is he was that good in 1850s Louisiana with no books or teachers to learn from, no tourneys to play in, and all the best players in the world in distant Europe, hundreds of points below him in strength. How'd he do it?
Arguably, the problem with modern chess players is that they may think that they are giants. Little do they know that the reason they are standing tall is that they are "standing on the shoulders of giants." We owe a lot to those who came before us. The reason we are better is that we stood on their shoulders. (Just a humble opinion. And so grateful for the delight the chess players give us---past, present, and future chess greats.)
Imagine this blindfolded and with multiple opponents! And, no IM or GM--in person or remote--that his family paid to teach him at age 5; no 24/7 internet chess games; no ChessBase and instant access to current theory and games; no plethora of actual and digital books and courses; no regular rated tournaments in his state or throughout the country, as are all available for all of the young, so-called prodigies today. Learned it all on his own with an incredible, innate, deep understanding of the game. Thanks, John, for another really nice video that always includes great history along with the instruction. I remain amazed that your wonderful channel doesn't have tons more subscribers.
Appreciation for digging into past masterpieces. Imagine if Morphy had all the cyber tools that Magnus has at his disposal? Players like Morphy and Capablanca were the computer brains of their day. Thanks, Dawg, There is so much to learn from old human games....
You are awesome to listen to talk about chess. I really love your content. I've just started relearning chess this year and its been incredibly fun for me.
Thanks for sharing.This was a really good game. Morphy's play (like always) was really strong, but his opponent's moves also seem reasonably strong: black developed his pieces and saw a lot of the threats, but couldn't stop them.
Morphy surpassed his chess contemporaries by more "Elo points" than anyone - before or since - in the history of chess. How can you, for instance, compare the military genius of Alexander with that of Patton? In my opinion, the "opera house game" is one of the most beautiful ever played.
Chess is a closed system. War isn't. So they aren't as comparable. We also have chess engines, which can analyze at a high level, but is still open to some interpretation regarding absolute best moves.
This is a unique win in the history of chess. The only game as far as I know,where a player wins by retreating one of his pieces,and his opponent resigns.!!!!
There are databases with tens of millions of games. There's almost no such thing as a unique win in the history of chess. I doubt if this was even unique in 1858. What IS unique is how much better Morphy was than his opponents.
The original genius of chess. Maybe even better than Fischer, Kasporov, or Magnus. Hard to say, but he definitely dominated in his era more than anyone before or since. Maybe you could make the argument it was because his competition wasn't as good. Chess is truly the game of kings, and it crushes the mind.....
I don't think he was better than Fischer or Kasparov or Magnus, but given all the tools we have today ... he would be easily equal. He was a genius, no question.
...and Potier wasn't just a woodpusher ! He played some pretty decent moves now and then during the game like blunting Pauls pieceplay with the pawnstructure c6 - d5. Also not castling then showed some forsight already. Poitier did not play on autopilot. Also his openingchoice was clever.." know your enemy"
Thank you! I wish you every opportunity to grow what is clearly a passion for you that benefits so many of us. When you mentioned the Time Machine to back to this event I was having the same thought. Which, of course, makes us both brilliant! :^)
So I don't have to regret not studying chess harder thinking I could have been much better. I don't have anything like the visualization required to play at this level. After 10 or so blind moves I can't remember where pieces are.
Morphy would have been as good as anyone today. The engines make it so much easier to learn and also creates some parity. I don’t think we will ever see another decade of dominance going forward
@@chessdawg I did not know that. If you did know before publishing the video, you should have said so. Given that it's an honorary title and given what a dubious organization FIDE is.
Retiring from chess because you scoured the earth for someone who could compete with you and couldn’t find anyone is literally the most GOATed move on the board. “Morphy would be IM strength today.” gtfo How many IMs are sweeping 8-man blindful simuls against the best players in the world with computer precision? IM strength if you literally like aperated 1864 Morphy into 2024 with zero access to the computer analysis and theoretical knowledge base that carries so many IMs and weak GMs today. Yes when you compare him with modern players who have the privilege of computer analysis and 200 years of theoretical achievement (by past geniuses like Morphy) at their fingertips, Morphy’s play might look unsound in comparison. But thats such an improper analysis. Its like running a sub-4-minute mile. Today, thousands of runners can do it, but before Roger Banister did it in the 1954s it was unheard of. People succeed or fail in the historical context in which they find themselves. So instead we should look at comparative dominance against players who had access to the same resources, same knowledge base, and played against the best competitors of-the-time. There were only a half-dozen players who reigned utterly unimpeachable over their competition: Lasker, Capablanca, Fischer, Kasparov…and Morphy. Magnus is nowhere near the worlds-apart dominance of these players, he is merely as Hikaru said “a little better at all aspects of the game” than his closest competitors.
Modern chess players play much better than Morphy. However, modern chess players also play much better than Morphy's opponents, who at that time didn't know how to defend properly.
Well anytime a *great* player plays multiple people while blindfolded, the competition isn’t meant to be *competitive.* It’s more of a showcase. Magnus played Harvard lawyers blindfolded. *So what?* Those guys weren’t chess players, weren’t *good* players either. As I said, It’s a showcase.
@@Ishbikes I agree 100% - your explanation is better directed to people here who believe Morphy was an absolute genius, better than Capablanca, Fischer, Kasparov and Magnus combined :)
my first comment should be of course well done. your style and evaluation is good, you should try to connect with adgad, or hiku. for not only feedback but to enhance both there content and your's , just by acknolagement, the cross content might be worth while/
I've seen the clip of Hikaru saying Morphy would be 2400ish strength by today's standards...but to quote Ben Finegold, "How many 2400's do you see playing near perfectly in an 8 man blindfold simul?" Never mind the fact that he was only 21...in freaking 1858. The man had near zero resources besides other players who he was invariably much stronger than. Morphy's inherent talent for chess is unparalleled, in my opinion. Capablanca is the only one who can compare.
Imo Morphy was definitely above 2400….and definitely a gm. But , it’s all just speculation since we can’t time travel to bring him to the modern era lol. That said…..morphy is my favorite all time.
Aprad Elo - who created the Elo rating system used in chess - rated Morphy at 2600.
But what makes Morphy an epic genius is he was that good in 1850s Louisiana with no books or teachers to learn from, no tourneys to play in, and all the best players in the world in distant Europe, hundreds of points below him in strength.
How'd he do it?
Arguably, the problem with modern chess players is that they may think that they are giants. Little do they know that the reason they are standing tall is that they are "standing on the shoulders of giants." We owe a lot to those who came before us. The reason we are better is that we stood on their shoulders. (Just a humble opinion. And so grateful for the delight the chess players give us---past, present, and future chess greats.)
Hikaru says a lot of things; and in this case he's almost certainly wrong
Hikaru is plain jealous
"Morphy was probably the greatest genius of them all" - Bobby Fischer
Imagine this blindfolded and with multiple opponents! And, no IM or GM--in person or remote--that his family paid to teach him at age 5; no 24/7 internet chess games; no ChessBase and instant access to current theory and games; no plethora of actual and digital books and courses; no regular rated tournaments in his state or throughout the country, as are all available for all of the young, so-called prodigies today. Learned it all on his own with an incredible, innate, deep understanding of the game. Thanks, John, for another really nice video that always includes great history along with the instruction. I remain amazed that your wonderful channel doesn't have tons more subscribers.
Thank you for this good coment. Nice 😅
I think he is the best chess talent who ever lived.
Most naturally raw talented for sure. How was he so much better than the 2nd best player in the world????
Morphy was truly brilliant and luckily for us his brilliance still sparkles in his tactically elegant chess games.
Appreciation for digging into past masterpieces. Imagine if Morphy had all the cyber tools that Magnus has at his disposal? Players like Morphy and Capablanca were the computer brains of their day. Thanks, Dawg, There is so much to learn from old human games....
I do love Chess dawg videos very much. Thank you
Very professional chess channel.
One of the best and my favorite.
Potier did put up a fight! Nice game!
You are awesome to listen to talk about chess. I really love your content. I've just started relearning chess this year and its been incredibly fun for me.
Thank you
Thanks for sharing.This was a really good game. Morphy's play (like always) was really strong, but his opponent's moves also seem reasonably strong: black developed his pieces and saw a lot of the threats, but couldn't stop them.
you mean they are playing this blindfolded and know where all the pieces are? thats crazy....unbelievable
not "they"! only Morphy was blindfolded. The players he played simultaneously could all see the board
Incredible game and great analysis!
Morphy surpassed his chess contemporaries by more "Elo points" than anyone - before or since - in the history of chess. How can you, for instance, compare the military genius of Alexander with that of Patton?
In my opinion, the "opera house game" is one of the most beautiful ever played.
Chess is a closed system. War isn't. So they aren't as comparable. We also have chess engines, which can analyze at a high level, but is still open to some interpretation regarding absolute best moves.
You should consider adding an eval bar to these analyses so beginners understand how severe each move is and where the loser went wrong
Morphy was a beast on another level
Great video!
This is a unique win in the history of chess. The only game as far as I know,where a player wins by retreating one of his pieces,and his opponent resigns.!!!!
There are databases with tens of millions of games. There's almost no such thing as a unique win in the history of chess. I doubt if this was even unique in 1858. What IS unique is how much better Morphy was than his opponents.
Morphy is legendary
Great video, just a suggestion, add the year to the title of the video then you will get many more views. Seeing a game from 1858 is special :)
Nasty plays
Thank you so much!
The original genius of chess. Maybe even better than Fischer, Kasporov, or Magnus. Hard to say, but he definitely dominated in his era more than anyone before or since. Maybe you could make the argument it was because his competition wasn't as good. Chess is truly the game of kings, and it crushes the mind.....
I don't think he was better than Fischer or Kasparov or Magnus, but given all the tools we have today ... he would be easily equal. He was a genius, no question.
Thanks again! Enjoyed the video!
...and Potier wasn't just a woodpusher ! He played some pretty decent moves now and then during the game like blunting Pauls pieceplay with the pawnstructure c6 - d5.
Also not castling then showed some forsight already. Poitier did not play on autopilot. Also his openingchoice was clever.." know your enemy"
Thank you! I wish you every opportunity to grow what is clearly a passion for you that benefits so many of us. When you mentioned the Time Machine to back to this event I was having the same thought. Which, of course, makes us both brilliant! :^)
Your analysis is classy! Love it.
Love the videos
So I don't have to regret not studying chess harder thinking I could have been much better. I don't have anything like the visualization required to play at this level. After 10 or so blind moves I can't remember where pieces are.
WOW, just wow!
Amazing game
One good thing about playing blindfold chess - you never spill guacamole on the chessboard! 😂
You deserve 1 million subscribers
Morphy was the best - period. Fischer is a distant second.
Cool, Nobeerlion enjoys your content.
I was thinking underpromotion to a knight with check. Rx, Rx, Rx, and finally Bxg8 and white has won.
Morphs, Fischer, Capablanca and Kasparov were the computers.
And Aljekhine
Why does Morphy look like Nicolas Cage in that picture?
10:25 wrong. Black's knight f6 to d5. White's bishop e5 to c6. Black bishop to e6. White bishop f7 to e7. From there it is now game over for black.
Wow! How do they know the opponents moves while playing blindfold?
Morphy would have been as good as anyone today. The engines make it so much easier to learn and also creates some parity. I don’t think we will ever see another decade of dominance going forward
No.
How many games in this blindfold simul?
I should have mentioned that in the video. There were 8 players and Morphy had 6 wins and two draws.
I prefer romance from the chess era
Do you play/coach
Gotta say I don't agree with the title of this video. Caruana played a miniature against Firouja recently that was very Morphy-like.
of course they cant. because they have opponents. not just victims.
I think we are just making excuses
Morphy Elo ♾️
Paul Morphy was not a GM. The Grandmaster title didn't exist in his lifetime.
FIDE retroactively gave the GM title to players from the past in 1950. Morphy is among those players.
@@chessdawg I did not know that. If you did know before publishing the video, you should have said so. Given that it's an honorary title and given what a dubious organization FIDE is.
Retiring from chess because you scoured the earth for someone who could compete with you and couldn’t find anyone is literally the most GOATed move on the board. “Morphy would be IM strength today.” gtfo How many IMs are sweeping 8-man blindful simuls against the best players in the world with computer precision? IM strength if you literally like aperated 1864 Morphy into 2024 with zero access to the computer analysis and theoretical knowledge base that carries so many IMs and weak GMs today.
Yes when you compare him with modern players who have the privilege of computer analysis and 200 years of theoretical achievement (by past geniuses like Morphy) at their fingertips, Morphy’s play might look unsound in comparison. But thats such an improper analysis. Its like running a sub-4-minute mile. Today, thousands of runners can do it, but before Roger Banister did it in the 1954s it was unheard of. People succeed or fail in the historical context in which they find themselves.
So instead we should look at comparative dominance against players who had access to the same resources, same knowledge base, and played against the best competitors of-the-time. There were only a half-dozen players who reigned utterly unimpeachable over their competition: Lasker, Capablanca, Fischer, Kasparov…and Morphy. Magnus is nowhere near the worlds-apart dominance of these players, he is merely as Hikaru said “a little better at all aspects of the game” than his closest competitors.
против Русской партии за белых есть новые идеи - партия 1 - 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Qe2 Nc6 4. d3 d5 5. h3 Nd4 6. Nd4 ed4 7. g4 de4
8. de4 Bd6 9. Bg2 O-O 10. g5 Nd7 11. f4 Nc5 12. O-O Bd7 13. e5 Be7 14. b4 Na4
15. Be4 Bb4 16. f5 Qe8 17. Qh2 Bc6 18. Bd3 a5 19. h4 b5 20. a3 Bc5 21. Bf4 Nc3
22. Re1 Qd7 23. h5 Nd5 24. Nd2 Nf4 25. Qf4 Rae8 26. f6 g6 27. hg6 hg6 28. Qh4 Bd6
29. Kf1 Re5 30. Re5 Rd8 31. Ne4 Be4 32. Be4 Re8 33. Kf2 Re5 34. Rh1 Qf5 35. Bf5 Rf5
36. Kg1 Bh2 37. Rh2 Rg5 38. Qg5 d3 39. Qh6 dc2 40. Qg7 1-0
партия 2 - 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Qe2 Nf6 4. d3 Be7 5. c4 O-O 6. h3 b6 7. g3 a5
8. Nc3 d6 9. g4 Bd7 10. Be3 a4 11. Bg2 a3 12. b3 Re8 13. O-O h6 14. Rb1 Qc8
15. Kh2 Nb4 16. Rg1 c5 17. Qd2 h5 18. g5 Nh7 19. Ne2 Ra7 20. Nh4 f6 21. g6 Ng5
22. Ng3 Nh3 23. Bh3 Bh3 24. Nh5 Bd7 25. Ng7 Kg7 26. Bh6 Kg8 27. Qe2 Be6
28. Qh5 Bd8 29. Bf8 Kf8 30. Nf5 Bf5 31. Qh8 Ke7 32. Qh7 Kf8 33. g7 Ke7 34. g8Q Bh7
35. Rg7 1-0
партия 3 - 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Qe2 Nc6 4. d3 Nd4 5. Nd4 ed4 6. a3 d6 7. h3 Be6
8. f4 Be7 9. f5 Bd7 10. g4 Bb5 11. a4 Bc6 12. Bg2 Nd7 13. O-O Nc5 14. Bd2 O-O
15. Be1 Re8 16. Nd2 Na4 17. Nf3 Bf6 18. h4 Nb2 19. g5 Be5 20. h5 Na4 21. g6 Qe7
22. Ne5 de5 23. gh7 Kh7 24. f6 gf6 25. Bh4 Nc3 26. Qd2 Qf8 27. Rf6 Bd7 28. R1f1 Be6
29. Bg5 Ne2 30. Qe2 Qg7 31. Rh6 Qh6 32. Bh6 Rg8 33. Bd2 Rg3 34. Rf3 Rg7 35. Rf6 1-0
( во всех партиях использовались шахматные программы )
Maybe modern chess players can´t play like Morphy because their opponents don´t play like Morphy´s opponents? 🤔
Modern chess players play much better than Morphy. However, modern chess players also play much better than Morphy's opponents, who at that time didn't know how to defend properly.
Well anytime a *great* player plays multiple people while blindfolded, the competition isn’t meant to be *competitive.* It’s more of a showcase. Magnus played Harvard lawyers blindfolded. *So what?* Those guys weren’t chess players, weren’t *good* players either. As I said, It’s a showcase.
@@Ishbikes I agree 100% - your explanation is better directed to people here who believe Morphy was an absolute genius, better than Capablanca, Fischer, Kasparov and Magnus combined :)
my first comment should be of course well done. your style and evaluation is good, you should try to connect with adgad, or hiku. for not only feedback but to enhance both there content and your's , just by acknolagement, the cross content might be worth while/
Morphy was the Best ever according to some Latest Chessmetrics Experts !