If you ❤ my videos do subscribe bit.ly/powerplaysubscription and do checkout the supporting options through Patreon: bit.ly/patreondanielking or through PayPal (links in the description)
Every time I see some analysis of Morphy's games vs the best players of his era, it feels like he came from another planet. How is it possible that he was so good already before he even crossed the Atlantic? Even today, and all throughout Chess history, aren't even the highest level Chess players supposed to be exposed to all kinds of strong opposition in order to develop their talent to the fullest, and to show such well rounded mastery of the game? It's amazing. Those who say he's the best player of all times because of his superiority among contemporaries, for sure have solid ground to base their opinion on. Thanks for your videos!
You should do an analysis of one of Morphy's losses! I feel like he always gets treated as this invincible player who was playing like a modern Super GM in a world of amateurs, and while he was clearly the world's strongest player at that point it'd be very interesting to get an insight into his weaknesses which are basically never analyzed.
He said he was sick after losing some games and trust me all people have good and bad days and especially back in those days tuberculosis and other infections were as devastating as common.
What makes Morphy stand out is how far above his nearest competition. There's at least 5 players in the world that are basically as good as Carlsen. Morphy stood alone and as a giant. Still great to see the loses of such a player.
@@littlehorhey5285 While I understand the point that Morphy was further ahead of his competition (for many reasons, not least the volume of players that played), there simply aren't 5 players who are "basically as good as Carlsen". He's world number one - by a significant difference and for over 10 years - for a reason
@@littlehorhey5285 Have you tried asking those five players if they are as good as Carlsen? Most of them, I'd bet, have already effectively said 'no, they're not' and certainly none of them would claim to be. So it seems your opinion is a little absurd.
Many years ago I read somewhere that, at the time of his match with Morphy, Anderssen hadn't played a serious game of chess for 8 or 9 years because he was too busy in his profession as a maths teacher. While readily conceding afterwards that Morphy was a considerably stronger player than himself, Anderssen ruefully commented (on his lack of match practice) that "You can't keep your chess in a box".
The 2 critical questions that address where to place Morphy in the History of Chess in terms of prowess... 1. Was there ever a player who was more ahead of his peers in terms of chess understanding and execution? 2. Do Morphy's & Steinitz's respective records vs. Anderssen reveal Morphy to be more than just extremely impressive? Is this evidence, in fact, the Smoking Gun that essentially proves he is clearly as great a chess player as the more obvious examples? *Kasparov, Fischer etc.* and, to me, it's always astonishing how much Morphy's games look like Alpha Zero polishing off great opponents .. like AZ, Morphy helps his pieces so they can help him ... yes .. just in the most astonishing ways ... like AZ, Morphy's capacity to calculate is absolutely critical .. yes .. but it's that capacity to look deeply into the game and divine transcendent insight into chess STRATEGY; THAT is where Alpha Zero AND Morphy, I believe, outstrip their respective competitors and *perhaps much more importantly* gift mankind insights that Transcend Chess; insights that apply to all realms of profound human endeavor ... of course, that is what the DEEP MIND team is all about ... but wasn't that Always the promise of Chess as well?
Morphy plays so simply here. Anderssen's moves looked practical, but it seemed as long as that knight was in the center of the board he couldn't unravel his pieces. Brilliant play by Paul Morphy and, as he usually does, he finishes with a precise attack. Great analysis Daniel. We hope you do more of the great Paul Morphy.
Morphy just saw the whole board so well. His vision of the geometry of the game was so advanced. Can you imagine what his peers felt like under the intensity of his precise attacks?
Hey Daniel great video once again! You should cover some games in memory of the great Yuri Averbakh who passed away the other day. He was a fantastic player back in the day.
Murphy a name that will live forever, I have no doubt he would,have defeated Steinitz as well , one of the few players that can really be called a genius !! by the way I think Harrwitz forced him to play even better, Great video thanks 👏👏
The last two game analyses reminds me of a concert I once attended. On the first half was a piano quintet by Adolphe Blanc. After intermission Schubert’s Trout Quintet. Lol. Genius in stark relief.
The lovely thing about Anderson seems to have been the respect he was held in by his peers (Morphy included). He was a good guy, a fantastic fearless tactician. Who played great attacking games against, admittedly weaker opposition. But that doesn't take away from his skills, or shouldn't. He simply came up against in Morphy, an even greater talent. One who of his time was .... Far ahead of it for sure. But Morphy, even still had his weaknesses. He was far from comfortable in closed games it seems.... Something that modern players of stuff like some Q pawn games, some lines of the Reti or English may have exploited. Even Anderson realised this tbf, and won a few games in that style against him I recall (?).... So even he wasn't a total sacrificing Ludite methinks ?! So not too harsh Danny. But they were the best of their time, with little theory or modern aids ...... Great players both. Morphy a step greater though no debate.... Regards.
Anderssen was a math professor with wife and children. He clearly regarded Morphy as the player on an other level and had no problems at all to admit it.
I remember looking in a game collection on Owen's Defence some decades ago and was surprised to see Morphy losing against it as White, iirc Owens himself was Black. Morphy was outstanding in his understanding of the Open Games, but probably did have have an Achilles heel in less open games. It's a pity Staunton avoided his challenge since both he and Morphy seemed to be well ahead of other players at the time, but with very different strengths. It would have been very interesting to see how Morphy would've dealt with 1.c4 in a match and Staunton as Black vs 1.e4, would he have played the Sicilian or something else? Was the Caro-Kann known in the 1850s?
Anderssen was amazing. He did produce the Immortal and Evergreen game. As I was discovering more things about chess many years ago I was shocked to discover how crazy good Morphy was and that he did have a match with Anderssen. I thought of those events as the most epic in early chess history. Morphy to this day is my favorite player even if my style is different. He was so much ahead of his time, it's as if he already knew how open positions should be played and how chess itself should be played. He was completely natural. It's as if some people are born to do certain things. To this day I think of him as the most talented ever and I think of his games as the most beautiful.
Concept of playing was very different back then. Modern top players they don't mess around around or hang on pawns, they develop. Hikaru is one of the best examples especially on non theoretical positions. His main goal is to develop, logical play and never hangs unnecessarily on material. Initiative is the key but also easy play. Computer evaluations lead humans astray. The position might be "even" but in practice the side that can make natural and easy moves has the advantage.
The best thing about the match between Anderssen and Morphy was that after Morphy had won they played a bunch of casual games, like the one in the video, and every game the white player played the King's Gambit. It's great to see people that just loved playing chess and weren't worried about the result so much as playing interesting chess. Especially after Staunton ducked Morphy. Also I think Morphy payed for Anderssen's trip from Germany to France so they could play.
It has been shown by some so called savants that some peoples brains are just wired differently. They may be average at many things but very dominant in some skills. Morphy is a very nice showcase for pure talent and the fact that chessgames could be preserved until now is a great gift for us and I hope for neuroscience too.
He was a genius but in general Steinitz was more brilliant player. Steinitz played novelties, was not afraid to create new ideas. Morphy just played cutting-edge opening theory of his time. This is the reason he came out on top after every opening. Morphy knew every chess book available to him by heart. Thus I believe studying games of other masters is more beneficial(for 1500+ elo) than studying Morphy. Although this does not negate the fact that he was playing like a 20th century grandmaster in the 19th century.
In my eyes, Morphy was the ultimate natural chess genius! At least a generation ahead of his time, he ruled the opposition at will. For me, the only Chessplayer comparable to him is Capablanca, who showed similar parallels at the beginning of his career. Unfortunately, World War 1 robbed him of a significant part of his strongest chess years, during which he could hardly play.
I agree Daniel the knight is better, however I have been a kings bishops gambit player for fifty years. If folks find the fun killing plans fair enough. However they often go on adventures and that brings me fun and points. Thanks Daniel and keep up the good work.
Dear GM King, in his very nice book "On the origin of good moves", IM Willy Hendriks sketeches a completely different picture of Anderssen. His well-known tactical wins are free games. In tournament play, he was much more solid, experimented with Sicilians, and beat Morphy with a reseversed Sicilians. (1. a3,e5 2 c4). It would be very nice if you could make a video on some of the reversed Sicilians that Anderssen and Morphy played, I think they are of a high standard. Thanks for your nice work.
If I'm not mistaken, there was a casual mini-match between the two legends, consisting of 6 games and both playing the King's Gambit only - and Morphy won 5:1=0.
Did younger generation of those days have the advantage of studying the older ones' games, and develop theory further? Credits have been attributed for recognizing the element of Time to Morphy, Space to Tarrasch, Position to Capablanca, Psychology to Lasker, Alekhine against opponents. This last one having nothing to do with theory, but only an opponents playing with clocks☺
From a purely opening perspective, as a "Scotch Gambit" player (avoiding learning e5 theory), this game came across as a potential worst case scenario. A nightmare. It's a seemingly worse version of common issues that arrive in that opening. I've often felt like searching for alternatives when I get positions that go wrong. However, if I EVER experienced a game like this I would never play the Scotch Gambit again! Yes, this was from the King's Gambit. However, the similarities exist. And when gambits go wrong, they get UGLY...quick! I'm glad you showed this game GM King, incredible play by Morphy, but now I'm going to have nightmares! :)
Morphy was well ahead of his time, he was an alien. I love to see his games. Although he was tactically sharp, he always looked for simplicity and played pragmatic chess. I wonder how chess would have evolved if he hadn’t quit at a young age. Danny, you said Morphy calculated everything. He was famous for playing fast, do you really think it was calculation and not just intuitive play?
There is a playlist on the channel showing quite a few games with the Rossolimo. This is one of the perks of becoming a $10 Patron. www.patreon.com/powerplaychess
Paul Morphy was a genius along with Einstein and Mozart. He was probably 2500 without no access to chess engines, databases and all the opening theory that has been developed since his death. Imagine him being 25 now and having the same advantages all modern day GMs have. He would be 3000 rated. He would win nearly every game with white!
I think we have all met " Andersons " ,the guy who has beaten all his friends because he comes up with attacks against those who understand nothing of the game.than he runs into someone who has studied,and gets his butt handed to him. Knowledge over cleverness.
If you ❤ my videos do subscribe bit.ly/powerplaysubscription and do checkout the supporting options through Patreon: bit.ly/patreondanielking or through PayPal (links in the description)
Every time I see some analysis of Morphy's games vs the best players of his era, it feels like he came from another planet.
How is it possible that he was so good already before he even crossed the Atlantic?
Even today, and all throughout Chess history, aren't even the highest level Chess players supposed to be exposed to all kinds of strong opposition in order to develop their talent to the fullest, and to show such well rounded mastery of the game?
It's amazing.
Those who say he's the best player of all times because of his superiority among contemporaries, for sure have solid ground to base their opinion on.
Thanks for your videos!
Just an out of this world, unbelievable genius.
You should do an analysis of one of Morphy's losses! I feel like he always gets treated as this invincible player who was playing like a modern Super GM in a world of amateurs, and while he was clearly the world's strongest player at that point it'd be very interesting to get an insight into his weaknesses which are basically never analyzed.
He said he was sick after losing some games and trust me all people have good and bad days and especially back in those days tuberculosis and other infections were as devastating as common.
What makes Morphy stand out is how far above his nearest competition. There's at least 5 players in the world that are basically as good as Carlsen. Morphy stood alone and as a giant. Still great to see the loses of such a player.
Game 1 of the Harrwitz match he was completely outplayed.
@@littlehorhey5285 While I understand the point that Morphy was further ahead of his competition (for many reasons, not least the volume of players that played), there simply aren't 5 players who are "basically as good as Carlsen". He's world number one - by a significant difference and for over 10 years - for a reason
@@littlehorhey5285 Have you tried asking those five players if they are as good as Carlsen? Most of them, I'd bet, have already effectively said 'no, they're not' and certainly none of them would claim to be. So it seems your opinion is a little absurd.
Many years ago I read somewhere that, at the time of his match with Morphy, Anderssen hadn't played a serious game of chess for 8 or 9 years because he was too busy in his profession as a maths teacher. While readily conceding afterwards that Morphy was a considerably stronger player than himself, Anderssen ruefully commented (on his lack of match practice) that "You can't keep your chess in a box".
Anderssen had played Harrwitz some days before playing with Morphy and won 3-1 I think
The 2 critical questions that address where to place Morphy in the History of Chess in terms of prowess...
1. Was there ever a player who was more ahead of his peers in terms of chess understanding and execution?
2. Do Morphy's & Steinitz's respective records vs. Anderssen reveal Morphy to be more than just extremely impressive? Is this evidence, in fact, the Smoking Gun that essentially proves he is clearly as great a chess player as the more obvious examples? *Kasparov, Fischer etc.*
and, to me, it's always astonishing how much Morphy's games look like Alpha Zero polishing off great opponents .. like AZ, Morphy helps his pieces so they can help him ... yes .. just in the most astonishing ways ... like AZ, Morphy's capacity to calculate is absolutely critical .. yes .. but it's that capacity to look deeply into the game and divine transcendent insight into chess STRATEGY; THAT is where Alpha Zero AND Morphy, I believe, outstrip their respective competitors and *perhaps much more importantly* gift mankind insights that Transcend Chess; insights that apply to all realms of profound human endeavor ... of course, that is what the DEEP MIND team is all about ... but wasn't that Always the promise of Chess as well?
Morphy plays so simply here. Anderssen's moves looked practical, but it seemed as long as that knight was in the center of the board he couldn't unravel his pieces. Brilliant play by Paul Morphy and, as he usually does, he finishes with a precise attack. Great analysis Daniel. We hope you do more of the great Paul Morphy.
I can imagine this game published in the newspaper with players completely rethinking the common strategy. Brilliant!!
Morphy just saw the whole board so well. His vision of the geometry of the game was so advanced. Can you imagine what his peers felt like under the intensity of his precise attacks?
Hey Daniel great video once again! You should cover some games in memory of the great Yuri Averbakh who passed away the other day. He was a fantastic player back in the day.
Murphy a name that will live forever, I have no doubt he would,have defeated Steinitz as well , one of the few players that can really be called a genius !! by the way I think Harrwitz forced him to play even better, Great video thanks 👏👏
Ya, similarly Fischer described the style of Howard Staunton as "delightfully modern."
The last two game analyses reminds me of a concert I once attended. On the first half was a piano quintet by Adolphe Blanc. After intermission Schubert’s Trout Quintet. Lol. Genius in stark relief.
Love it Daniel ty
The lovely thing about Anderson seems to have been the respect he was held in by his peers (Morphy included). He was a good guy, a fantastic fearless tactician. Who played great attacking games against, admittedly weaker opposition. But that doesn't take away from his skills, or shouldn't.
He simply came up against in Morphy, an even greater talent. One who of his time was .... Far ahead of it for sure. But Morphy, even still had his weaknesses. He was far from comfortable in closed games it seems.... Something that modern players of stuff like some Q pawn games, some lines of the Reti or English may have exploited. Even Anderson realised this tbf, and won a few games in that style against him I recall (?).... So even he wasn't a total sacrificing Ludite methinks ?!
So not too harsh Danny. But they were the best of their time, with little theory or modern aids ...... Great players both. Morphy a step greater though no debate....
Regards.
Anderssen was a math professor with wife and children. He clearly regarded Morphy as the player on an other level and had no problems at all to admit it.
I remember looking in a game collection on Owen's Defence some decades ago and was surprised to see Morphy losing against it as White, iirc Owens himself was Black.
Morphy was outstanding in his understanding of the Open Games, but probably did have have an Achilles heel in less open games.
It's a pity Staunton avoided his challenge since both he and Morphy seemed to be well ahead of other players at the time, but with very different strengths. It would have been very interesting to see how Morphy would've dealt with 1.c4 in a match and Staunton as Black vs 1.e4, would he have played the Sicilian or something else? Was the Caro-Kann known in the 1850s?
Anderssen was amazing. He did produce the Immortal and Evergreen game. As I was discovering more things about chess many years ago I was shocked to discover how crazy good Morphy was and that he did have a match with Anderssen. I thought of those events as the most epic in early chess history. Morphy to this day is my favorite player even if my style is different. He was so much ahead of his time, it's as if he already knew how open positions should be played and how chess itself should be played. He was completely natural. It's as if some people are born to do certain things. To this day I think of him as the most talented ever and I think of his games as the most beautiful.
Concept of playing was very different back then. Modern top players they don't mess around around or hang on pawns, they develop. Hikaru is one of the best examples especially on non theoretical positions. His main goal is to develop, logical play and never hangs unnecessarily on material. Initiative is the key but also easy play. Computer evaluations lead humans astray. The position might be "even" but in practice the side that can make natural and easy moves has the advantage.
The best thing about the match between Anderssen and Morphy was that after Morphy had won they played a bunch of casual games, like the one in the video, and every game the white player played the King's Gambit. It's great to see people that just loved playing chess and weren't worried about the result so much as playing interesting chess. Especially after Staunton ducked Morphy. Also I think Morphy payed for Anderssen's trip from Germany to France so they could play.
It has been shown by some so called savants that some peoples brains are just wired differently. They may be average at many things but very dominant in some skills. Morphy is a very nice showcase for pure talent and the fact that chessgames could be preserved until now is a great gift for us and I hope for neuroscience too.
Ivanchuk has been livestreaming analysis of the games of the Anderssen - Steinitz match on his twitch page in case anyone is interested.
would love it if you went over some of the GCT games Danny!
Busy with other stuff right now!
Hey Daniel if you could play him, do you think you could beat Paul Morphy?
He was a genius but in general Steinitz was more brilliant player. Steinitz played novelties, was not afraid to create new ideas. Morphy just played cutting-edge opening theory of his time. This is the reason he came out on top after every opening. Morphy knew every chess book available to him by heart. Thus I believe studying games of other masters is more beneficial(for 1500+ elo) than studying Morphy. Although this does not negate the fact that he was playing like a 20th century grandmaster in the 19th century.
Morphy was such a genius.. so far ahead of his time.
In my eyes, Morphy was the ultimate natural chess genius! At least a generation ahead of his time, he ruled the opposition at will. For me, the only Chessplayer comparable to him is Capablanca, who showed similar parallels at the beginning of his career. Unfortunately, World War 1 robbed him of a significant part of his strongest chess years, during which he could hardly play.
@Mark Lawrence youre so damn right but reading it properly might help here! ;-)
I agree Daniel the knight is better, however I have been a kings bishops gambit player for fifty years. If folks find the fun killing plans fair enough. However they often go on adventures and that brings me fun and points. Thanks Daniel and keep up the good work.
Yes, it is curious how often players like to go on adventures!
Dear GM King, in his very nice book "On the origin of good moves", IM Willy Hendriks sketeches a completely different picture of Anderssen. His well-known tactical wins are free games. In tournament play, he was much more solid, experimented with Sicilians, and beat Morphy with a reseversed Sicilians. (1. a3,e5 2 c4). It would be very nice if you could make a video on some of the reversed Sicilians that Anderssen and Morphy played, I think they are of a high standard. Thanks for your nice work.
The book is sitting on my book shelf but I haven't had a chance to read it!
@@PowerPlayChess Please do read it, the book is very nice and refutes some of the common ideas about 19-th century chess.
If I'm not mistaken, there was a casual mini-match between the two legends, consisting of 6 games and both playing the King's Gambit only - and Morphy won 5:1=0.
Morphy was playing alien chess, thanks for the extraordinary game¡
Did younger generation of those days have the advantage of studying the older ones' games, and develop theory further? Credits have been attributed for recognizing the element of Time to Morphy, Space to Tarrasch, Position to Capablanca, Psychology to Lasker, Alekhine against opponents. This last one having nothing to do with theory, but only an opponents playing with clocks☺
Another level, true
That's the reason why Soviet chess school studied Morphy's style !
From a purely opening perspective, as a "Scotch Gambit" player (avoiding learning e5 theory), this game came across as a potential worst case scenario. A nightmare. It's a seemingly worse version of common issues that arrive in that opening. I've often felt like searching for alternatives when I get positions that go wrong. However, if I EVER experienced a game like this I would never play the Scotch Gambit again! Yes, this was from the King's Gambit. However, the similarities exist. And when gambits go wrong, they get UGLY...quick!
I'm glad you showed this game GM King, incredible play by Morphy, but now I'm going to have nightmares! :)
Morphy was well ahead of his time, he was an alien. I love to see his games. Although he was tactically sharp, he always looked for simplicity and played pragmatic chess. I wonder how chess would have evolved if he hadn’t quit at a young age.
Danny, you said Morphy calculated everything. He was famous for playing fast, do you really think it was calculation and not just intuitive play?
Hello Daniel King, I would really appreciate it, if you could show some games from the Rossolimo Sicillian(e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5). Thanks!
There is a playlist on the channel showing quite a few games with the Rossolimo. This is one of the perks of becoming a $10 Patron. www.patreon.com/powerplaychess
Paul Morphy was a genius along with Einstein and Mozart. He was probably 2500 without no access to chess engines, databases and all the opening theory that has been developed since his death. Imagine him being 25 now and having the same advantages all modern day GMs have. He would be 3000 rated. He would win nearly every game with white!
I read somewhere that Morphy memorized the entire Napoleonic
Code!
I think we have all met " Andersons " ,the guy who has beaten all his friends because he comes up with attacks against those who understand nothing of the game.than he runs into someone who has studied,and gets his butt handed to him. Knowledge over cleverness.
Mozart was on a different level from Salieri. In his er and at his sport, Morphy was transcendent too.
At least I think Morphy is the greatest talent ever..