Morphy again

Date: 11 Jan 2009 08:15:14
From:
Subject: Morphy again

In researching commentary on Morphy by Nunn, I see that Edward Winter
includes this assessment on Morphy by John Nunn.

A contrasting view was expressed by John Nunn on pages 4-5 of his book
Learn Chess (London, 2000):

=91One of my pet hates is the choice of games for beginners=92 books.
There are certain standard examples that tend to be repeated in book
after book. In many beginners=92 books, you will find the game Morphy vs
Count Isouard and the Duke of Brunswick, played during a performance
of the Paris Opera in 1858. It=92s not an especially good game, as one
might expect when the strongest player of his day confronts two
duffers. Moreover, it has always seemed to me faintly incredible that
authors couldn=92t find a relevant example less than 140 years old. In
this book, every game and game extract is from the twentieth century
(indeed, only two are earlier than 1950). The style of chess played
today is quite different from that of 1858, and while some of the
differences are subtle, there is no reason why players should not be
exposed to contemporary chess thought from the beginning.=92

---
This intention of this thread is simply to assess whatever Morphy's
playing strength was at the time. As you see above, this is hardly
established by his play against 'two duffers'.

Phil Innes

Date: 16 Jan 2009 20:38:51
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Morphy again

On Jan 16, 9:45=A0am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:

> =A0 =A0Referring to his 1873 match with Wisker, when Bird had been from
> chess for six years, the OC quotes Bird as saying "Having forgotten
> familiar openings, I commenced adopting KBP for first move, and
> finding it led to highly interesting games out of the usual groove, I
> became partial to it." However, CB shows Bird playing 1.f4 well before
> 1873, four times in an 1856 match with Falkbeer, and once against
> Steinitz in 1866.
> =A0 I'm surprised he returned to it; his record with it in those early
> games was an unpromising +0 -4 =3D1. CB shows Bird playing 1.f4 a total
> of 77 times over 1856-1899, scoring +29 -37 =3D11.

In order to do this right, you have to also consider
the strength of opposition.

Suppose that Mr. Bird's opponents averaged 200
rating points better than him-- in this case, the
29-11-37 would indicate excellent results. But if
Mr. Bird's opponents were, on average, only as
good or weaker than him, then those results are
not particularly good... maybe even poor.

-- help bot

Date: 16 Jan 2009 06:45:06
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Morphy again

On Jan 15, 8:44=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 15, 6:31=A0am, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > =A0 One more thing... it was not "Bord" versus
> > Morphy, but of course "Bird". =A0 =A0And for the
> > benefit of those who may not know (Dr.
> > IMnes springs to mind), he is the guy who
> > famously opened 1. P--KB4, aka 1. f4, as
> > White.
>
> Bird did that because he was bored with opening 1. Pawn to King's
> Fourth, as ani ful no, and the nickname stuck.

Referring to his 1873 match with Wisker, when Bird had been from
chess for six years, the OC quotes Bird as saying "Having forgotten
familiar openings, I commenced adopting KBP for first move, and
finding it led to highly interesting games out of the usual groove, I
became partial to it." However, CB shows Bird playing 1.f4 well before
1873, four times in an 1856 match with Falkbeer, and once against
Steinitz in 1866.
I'm surprised he returned to it; his record with it in those early
games was an unpromising +0 -4 =3D1. CB shows Bird playing 1.f4 a total
of 77 times over 1856-1899, scoring +29 -37 =3D11.

> You should hear what
> they called Morphy behind his back =A0;(

I know that Gunsberg once called Blackburne a gonif!

Date: 15 Jan 2009 07:16:35
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Morphy again

On Jan 15, 8:44=A0am, [email protected] wrote:

> > =A0 Near the tail-end of Mr. Kasparov's analysis,
> > he seems to veer off-course with 26. ...Re8, a
> > move rejected by Rybka 2.2n, the free version,
> > as inferior to simply capturing on e1 and
> > thereby obtaining connected passed pawns
> > (Rybka considers R/hxe1 to be best) after a
> > subsequent ...Bxh2.

> Although it seems nuts to criticize Kasparov

How can it be "nuts" to criticize the loonyest
of all famous chess writers? This is the same
guy who insisted he did not touch his Knight,
then, when informed of the existence of proof
positive, told reporters that he was not aware
of what his hand was doing-- it was like in the
B-movies, a crawling thing with a mind of its
own! LOL

> there may be much in the
> current writers analysis to look at, especially in those 'unclear'
> lines.

Well, the perfect-match to computer analysis
seems a clear indication that GK relied upon
"Fritz" to figure this mess out for him; all he
did was approve of the computer's line, but
even there he may well have erred (as shown
by Rybka, Fritz's vast superior)!

> Some while ago I heard that Kasparov had 'solved' the Taimanov Fischer
> game 3, but I didn't see that he solved the critical line at all.

The line somebody /said/ was "the" critical
line? how can you know which line is "the"
critical line, unless you ask the world's best
chess player (Deep Rybka 3.99beta)?

Look, we've been all though this before: it
was shown that the obsession with the one
move -- Q-R3 -- was rather silly, for it did not
win, but merely drew with best play; this was
rather easily "solved" by today's computers.

Besides, by game three, BF was already
two points up-- the Vegas bookies had
already dispatched their thugs to collect
from anyone who had bet on MT. ; >D

> Anyway - to chose a neutral subject which has no champions in it - I
> started a Traxler thread - which is sure to be pretty contentious all
> by itself - because the interesting thing is that Alberts says that
> 'Fritz' can/t solve it - but has to be 'shoved' or 'pushed' at certain
> stages to make moves even within its own event horizon [ply-depth]

It's been years, no, decades, since I've seen
anything resembling this, but even so, it was
obvious that White should decline the Bishop
sacrifice.

What surprised me was that quickie-Rybka
displayed the variation: ...d5, ed Nxd5, and
now came the unexpected O-O! I've never
seen that one before; next came ...Qxg5,
Bxd5... sorta equal, but this was after only a
very quick glance.

> Bird did that because he was bored with opening 1. Pawn to King's
> Fourth, as ani ful no, and the nickname stuck. You should hear what
> they called Morphy behind his back =A0;(

"That guy who beats me at Rook odds"?

-- help bot

Date: 15 Jan 2009 05:44:44
From:
Subject: Re: Morphy again

On Jan 15, 6:31=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> =A0 =A0A small addendum:
>
> > > Garry Kasparov calls the previous try unclear
> > > and prefers 22.Kc1 Bf5! =A023.Be1!
> > > Qa1+ 24.Kc2 e3+ 25.Kb3 exd2 26.Rxa1 Re8 27.Ba6 dxe1Q 28.Raxe1
> > > Rxe1 29.Rxe1 Bxh2 30.Bb7 Be4 31.Bxc6 Kf7, which leaves Black with a
> > > small advantage.
>
> =A0 Although I don't have the latest and greatest
> version of Rybka nor the world's fastest multi-
> core procesors, I think it is likely that Rybka's
> rejection of GK's analysis may well prove
> correct-- or at least better than whatever Fritz
> he may have been using above.
>
> =A0 Near the tail-end of Mr. Kasparov's analysis,
> he seems to veer off-course with 26. ...Re8, a
> move rejected by Rybka 2.2n, the free version,
> as inferior to simply capturing on e1 and
> thereby obtaining connected passed pawns
> (Rybka considers R/hxe1 to be best) after a
> subsequent ...Bxh2.

Although it seems nuts to criticize Kasparov, there may be much in the
current writers analysis to look at, especially in those 'unclear'
lines.

Some while ago I heard that Kasparov had 'solved' the Taimanov Fischer
game 3, but I didn't see that he solved the critical line at all.

Anyway - to chose a neutral subject which has no champions in it - I
started a Traxler thread - which is sure to be pretty contentious all
by itself - because the interesting thing is that Alberts says that
'Fritz' can/t solve it - but has to be 'shoved' or 'pushed' at certain
stages to make moves even within its own event horizon [ply-depth]

> =A0 In GK's line, Rybka pronounces it equal--
> no advantage for either side. =A0 More efficient
> after ...Re8 was Bf3, threatening p-b5 and
> not obstructing White's own Rook (via Ba6);
> As you can see, GK's Fritz line is just a tad
> clumsy and slow by comparison.
>
> =A0 This is a small thing but hardly petty, for
> the line between a win and a draw can often
> be paper-thin. =A0 =A0In many, many games I've
> analysed with Rybka, these subtleties are
> the key to her vast superiority over the also-
> rans.
>
> =A0 One more thing... it was not "Bord" versus
> Morphy, but of course "Bird". =A0 =A0And for the
> benefit of those who may not know (Dr.
> IMnes springs to mind), he is the guy who
> famously opened 1. P--KB4, aka 1. f4, as
> White.

Bird did that because he was bored with opening 1. Pawn to King's
Fourth, as ani ful no, and the nickname stuck. You should hear what
they called Morphy behind his back ;(

PI

> =A0 -- help bot

Date: 15 Jan 2009 05:35:49
From:
Subject: Re: Morphy again

This is actually a very good effort for a chess post - and putting
aside the quick-look rybka analysis below, still raises several
interesting factors

that sure, one game is no indicator
play on both sides is very loose and risky

that the evaluating engine [Rybka] is a bit wild and variable in its
assessment

but here's something else:

and albert alberts demonstrated the machines ineptness to evaluate it
correctly in his first MAMS book - I'll give the moves, and then it
would be interesting to review 2 things

what 'fritz' [any computer engine, even Sanny's] thinks of it
&
from a database, what are actual results or white/black scores

in the dreadfully complicated

TRAXLER GAMBIT

1 e4 e5
2 Nf3 Nc6
3 Bc4 Nf6
4 Ng5 Bc5
5 Nf7 Bf2

[where alberts says (+-3.44)

as we know Tal played it in correspondence against 10,000 Pravda
readers 68/69 with commentary by M de Zeeuw in Yearbook 67 - but I
exclude that from actual encounters.

but what happens next is albert's attempt to unravel this opening - he
notes that 'right off the bat' Fritz refuses the bishop...

anyway, what does your computer think. I'll illustrate more moves if
the conversation proceeds, and also transpose this note to its on
thread 'traxler'

Phil Innes

On Jan 15, 4:03=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 11, 11:19=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > > ---
> > > This intention of this thread is simply to assess whatever Morphy's
> > > playing strength was at the time. As you see above, this is hardly
> > > established by his play against 'two duffers'.
>
> > Karsten Muller also sets about an analysis of Morphy's brilliance -
> > here below is Bord-Morphy, and to aid him he enlists comments by
> > Kasparov & others.
>
> > The critical defence in the above position is 22.Kc1! Many sources
> > claim that it is sufficient for a draw, while some believe in Morphy's
> > attack.
> > Euwe and Nunn write in The Development of Chess Style (p. 38, Batsford
> > 1997): "22.Kc1! Qa1+ leads to perpetual check. This is the best line,
> > but it means that with his pretty combination Black has thrown away
> > the win."
>
> =A0 The *theoretical* win. =A0 This game was not
> against some super-Fritz, but against a man;
> a fallible man.
>
> =A0 My own surprise was that nothing came of
> Black's very risky opening play... for White.
>
> =A0 Although I am completely unfamiliar with
> this strange opening, it seems unnatural to
> allow Black to get away with ...d5 and ...e4,
> whilst retreating one's Knights. =A0 =A0(The most
> obvious alternative was Nxe5 dxe4, =A0Qh5+,
> punishing Black for his ridiculous-looking
> ...f5 move.)
>
> > Neistadt in Uncrowned Champions: "After 22.Kc1 Morphy would have had
> > nothing better than satisfying himself with perpetual check."
>
> =A0 Well, no one has questioned the ability of one
> writer to parrot his predecessors.
>
> > Fred Reinfeld and Andrew Soltis in their book Morphy Chess
> > Masterpieces (First Collier Books Edition 1974, in descriptive
> > notation, which has been converted to algebraic): "Legend has it that
> > when an onlooker found that 22 Kc1! draws, no one would speak to him
> > for a week. The point of 22 Kc1! is that 22...Bxb4? 23 cxb4 Rxb4 is
> > not check so that White might escape with 24 Qg5! Qa3+ 25 Kd2 Rb2+ 26
> > Ke1 Rxe2+ 27 Kxe2 Qf3+ 28 Ke1 Qxh1+ 29 Qg1! and wins. So Black would
> > have to take a perpetual check with 22...Qa1+."
>
> =A0 A non sequitur. =A0 =A0The idea that in one line,
> chosen by these pretenders, White wins
> against idiotic play, in no way indicates any
> compulsion to deliver perpetual check. =A0 See
> below for a couple of alternatives.
>
> > Anatoly Karpov has produced a deep investigation of the fascinating
> > endgame after 22...a5 23.Qc2 Qa3+ 24.Qb2 axb4 25.Qxa3 bxa3 and
> > revealed many hidden White resources. His main line runs 26.Be3
>
> =A0 One suspects that AK did not utilize computer
> analysis, for he goes astray right at the very
> start.
>
> ---
>
> =A0 After Be3, Black's task is made easier by the
> fact that White's Rooks can be disconnected:
>
> =A0...Rb3 (not ...a2), =A0Kd2 =A0Rb2+, =A0Ke1 (Rooks
> are now split) ...a2, with advantage to Black
> (i.e. Morphy).
>
> ---
>
> > ...a2 27.Kc2 Ba3 28.Ra1 Rb2+ 29.Kd1 Bd7 30.Rf1 c5 31.dxc5 Ba4+ 32.Ke1 B=
b3
> > 33.Bd4! Rb1+ 34.Kd2 Rxa1 35.Rxa1 Bb2 36.Rg1 g6 37.h4 a1Q 38.Rxa1 Bxa1
> > 39.Kc1 Ba2 and he concludes "Both sides are guaranteed a draw
>
> =A0 Having wandered off the correct path, AK
> naturally comes to an unwarranted conclusion.
>
> > Garry Kasparov calls the previous try unclear
>
> =A0 One suspects that the perfect-match below
> indicates a complete reliance on "Fritz", or
> whatever strong engine GK was using. =A0 =A0I
> commend GK for, *just this once*, knowing
> his limitations.
>
> > and prefers 22.Kc1 Bf5! =A023.Be1!
>
> =A0 The fact that Black has few difficulties after
> this seems to make the application of such
> an exclamation mark appear plain silly.
>
> > Qa1+ 24.Kc2 e3+ 25.Kb3 exd2 26.Rxa1 Re8 27.Ba6 dxe1Q 28.Raxe1
> > Rxe1 29.Rxe1 Bxh2 30.Bb7 Be4 31.Bxc6 Kf7, which leaves Black with a
> > small advantage.
>
> =A0 So then, this is no better than the alternative
> tries. =A0 Granted, it more closely matches some
> computers.
>
> > So was Morphy's original rook sacrifice 17...Rxf2! sound? Kasparov
> > writes: "I raise my hat to the great chess artist, but the crude
> > 17...Bg4! was correct
>
> =A0 =A0Once again, this is just relaying computer
> analysis by "Fritz" and company.
>
> > or even, according to Euwe, the slow 17...Bf5
> > and ...Bg6". (see p. 38 of My Great Predecessors I).
>
> =A0 The fact is, we will never know if PM
> would have won this, had his opponent
> defended better.
>
> =A0 When I ran this through a very quick
> computer analysis, graphing the progress
> of the game, I was quite surprised to see
> that Mr.Morphy was "busted", then got
> ahead, then slowly squandered his edge,
> then was dead drawn, then was winning
> easily, despite his opponent having some
> significant compensation (if clumsily
> arranged) for the Queen.
>
> =A0 But my biggest surprises were the fact
> that according to quickie-Rybka, Black
> was busted in the opening, and of course
> the combination in which all the analysts
> parroted the same conclusion-- a forced
> draw. =A0 =A0As far as I can tell after a slow
> analysis, there is no such forced draw, so
> this game is no different from, say, game
> one of Spassky versus Fischer in 1972.
>
> =A0 Anyway, it's all moot, for any attempt
> to determine the /strength/ of PM must
> begin with his results, not wannabees
> taking pot-shots at a single combination
> from a single game.
>
> =A0 -- help bot

Date: 15 Jan 2009 03:31:58
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Morphy again

A small addendum:

> > Garry Kasparov calls the previous try unclear
> > and prefers 22.Kc1 Bf5! =A023.Be1!
> > Qa1+ 24.Kc2 e3+ 25.Kb3 exd2 26.Rxa1 Re8 27.Ba6 dxe1Q 28.Raxe1
> > Rxe1 29.Rxe1 Bxh2 30.Bb7 Be4 31.Bxc6 Kf7, which leaves Black with a
> > small advantage.

Although I don't have the latest and greatest
version of Rybka nor the world's fastest multi-
core procesors, I think it is likely that Rybka's
rejection of GK's analysis may well prove
correct-- or at least better than whatever Fritz
he may have been using above.

Near the tail-end of Mr. Kasparov's analysis,
he seems to veer off-course with 26. ...Re8, a
move rejected by Rybka 2.2n, the free version,
as inferior to simply capturing on e1 and
thereby obtaining connected passed pawns
(Rybka considers R/hxe1 to be best) after a
subsequent ...Bxh2.

In GK's line, Rybka pronounces it equal--
no advantage for either side. More efficient
after ...Re8 was Bf3, threatening p-b5 and
not obstructing White's own Rook (via Ba6);
As you can see, GK's Fritz line is just a tad
clumsy and slow by comparison.

This is a small thing but hardly petty, for
the line between a win and a draw can often
be paper-thin. In many, many games I've
analysed with Rybka, these subtleties are
the key to her vast superiority over the also-
rans.

One more thing... it was not "Bord" versus
Morphy, but of course "Bird". And for the
benefit of those who may not know (Dr.
IMnes springs to mind), he is the guy who
famously opened 1. P--KB4, aka 1. f4, as
White.

-- help bot

Date: 15 Jan 2009 01:03:31
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Morphy again

On Jan 11, 11:19=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> > ---
> > This intention of this thread is simply to assess whatever Morphy's
> > playing strength was at the time. As you see above, this is hardly
> > established by his play against 'two duffers'.
>
> Karsten Muller also sets about an analysis of Morphy's brilliance -
> here below is Bord-Morphy, and to aid him he enlists comments by
> Kasparov & others.
>
> The critical defence in the above position is 22.Kc1! Many sources
> claim that it is sufficient for a draw, while some believe in Morphy's
> attack.

> Euwe and Nunn write in The Development of Chess Style (p. 38, Batsford
> 1997): "22.Kc1! Qa1+ leads to perpetual check. This is the best line,
> but it means that with his pretty combination Black has thrown away
> the win."

The *theoretical* win. This game was not
against some super-Fritz, but against a man;
a fallible man.

My own surprise was that nothing came of
Black's very risky opening play... for White.

Although I am completely unfamiliar with
this strange opening, it seems unnatural to
allow Black to get away with ...d5 and ...e4,
whilst retreating one's Knights. (The most
obvious alternative was Nxe5 dxe4, Qh5+,
punishing Black for his ridiculous-looking
...f5 move.)

> Neistadt in Uncrowned Champions: "After 22.Kc1 Morphy would have had
> nothing better than satisfying himself with perpetual check."

Well, no one has questioned the ability of one
writer to parrot his predecessors.

> Fred Reinfeld and Andrew Soltis in their book Morphy Chess
> Masterpieces (First Collier Books Edition 1974, in descriptive
> notation, which has been converted to algebraic): "Legend has it that
> when an onlooker found that 22 Kc1! draws, no one would speak to him
> for a week. The point of 22 Kc1! is that 22...Bxb4? 23 cxb4 Rxb4 is
> not check so that White might escape with 24 Qg5! Qa3+ 25 Kd2 Rb2+ 26
> Ke1 Rxe2+ 27 Kxe2 Qf3+ 28 Ke1 Qxh1+ 29 Qg1! and wins. So Black would
> have to take a perpetual check with 22...Qa1+."

A non sequitur. The idea that in one line,
chosen by these pretenders, White wins
against idiotic play, in no way indicates any
compulsion to deliver perpetual check. See
below for a couple of alternatives.

> Anatoly Karpov has produced a deep investigation of the fascinating
> endgame after 22...a5 23.Qc2 Qa3+ 24.Qb2 axb4 25.Qxa3 bxa3 and
> revealed many hidden White resources. His main line runs 26.Be3

One suspects that AK did not utilize computer
analysis, for he goes astray right at the very
start.

---

After Be3, Black's task is made easier by the
fact that White's Rooks can be disconnected:

...Rb3 (not ...a2), Kd2 Rb2+, Ke1 (Rooks
are now split) ...a2, with advantage to Black
(i.e. Morphy).

---

> ...a2 27.Kc2 Ba3 28.Ra1 Rb2+ 29.Kd1 Bd7 30.Rf1 c5 31.dxc5 Ba4+ 32.Ke1 Bb3
> 33.Bd4! Rb1+ 34.Kd2 Rxa1 35.Rxa1 Bb2 36.Rg1 g6 37.h4 a1Q 38.Rxa1 Bxa1
> 39.Kc1 Ba2 and he concludes "Both sides are guaranteed a draw

Having wandered off the correct path, AK
naturally comes to an unwarranted conclusion.

> Garry Kasparov calls the previous try unclear

One suspects that the perfect-match below
indicates a complete reliance on "Fritz", or
whatever strong engine GK was using. I
commend GK for, *just this once*, knowing
his limitations.

> and prefers 22.Kc1 Bf5! 23.Be1!

The fact that Black has few difficulties after
this seems to make the application of such
an exclamation mark appear plain silly.

> Qa1+ 24.Kc2 e3+ 25.Kb3 exd2 26.Rxa1 Re8 27.Ba6 dxe1Q 28.Raxe1
> Rxe1 29.Rxe1 Bxh2 30.Bb7 Be4 31.Bxc6 Kf7, which leaves Black with a
> small advantage.

So then, this is no better than the alternative
tries. Granted, it more closely matches some
computers.

> So was Morphy's original rook sacrifice 17...Rxf2! sound? Kasparov
> writes: "I raise my hat to the great chess artist, but the crude
> 17...Bg4! was correct

Once again, this is just relaying computer
analysis by "Fritz" and company.

> or even, according to Euwe, the slow 17...Bf5
> and ...Bg6". (see p. 38 of My Great Predecessors I).

The fact is, we will never know if PM
would have won this, had his opponent
defended better.

When I ran this through a very quick
computer analysis, graphing the progress
of the game, I was quite surprised to see
that Mr.Morphy was "busted", then got
ahead, then slowly squandered his edge,
then was dead drawn, then was winning
easily, despite his opponent having some
significant compensation (if clumsily
arranged) for the Queen.

But my biggest surprises were the fact
that according to quickie-Rybka, Black
was busted in the opening, and of course
the combination in which all the analysts
parroted the same conclusion-- a forced
draw. As far as I can tell after a slow
analysis, there is no such forced draw, so
this game is no different from, say, game
one of Spassky versus Fischer in 1972.

Anyway, it's all moot, for any attempt
to determine the /strength/ of PM must
begin with his results, not wannabees
taking pot-shots at a single combination
from a single game.

-- help bot

Date: 13 Jan 2009 18:50:36
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Morphy again

On Jan 13, 5:54=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:

> > >obviously wipe the floor with Morphy's romantic open game. In 5 minute
> > >blitz, so would I!
>
> > You are assuming, of course, that Morphy stays dead. =A0Yeah, you might
> > win on time.
>
> Yes, I might, which is all I ever said. PI

That would only count as a forfeit-win. Dr.
IMnes would gain zero rating points, and no
nearly-IM blitz credits. In sum, why bother
unless the purse is subtantial?

-- help bot

Date: 13 Jan 2009 14:54:32
From:
Subject: Re: Morphy again

On Jan 13, 5:20=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 12:13:07 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
> > Capa would
> >obviously wipe the floor with Morphy's romantic open game. In 5 minute
> >blitz, so would I!
>
> You are assuming, of course, that Morphy stays dead. =A0Yeah, you might
> win on time.

Yes, I might, which is all I ever said. PI

Date: 13 Jan 2009 12:16:41
From:
Subject: Re: Morphy again

> > =A03) That the increase in skill with time is not at all linear, but
> >began to accelerate greatly at some point after 1911, perhaps with the
> >onset of the Soviet era.
>
> I think these are the two biggies.

Soviet evolution of chess was later that decade - more like the 1920s.
Nothing emerged from the SU to challenge anyone until after 1945.

> > =A0"In a set match, Morphy would beat anybody alive today.

Fischer - the player most similar to Morphy in his personal life and
attitude - is speculating. Fischer did not beat anybody alive after
1972 - he was incapable of it, and Spassky a soft target.

Phil Innes

>> I have
> >played over several hundred of Morphy's games, and am continually
> >surprised and entertained by his ingenuity ... Morphy was perhaps the
> >most accurate player who ever lived. He had complete sight of the
> >board, and =A0never blundered, in spite of the fact that he played quite
> >rapidly, rarely taking more than five minutes to decide a move." --
> >Robert J. Fischer, 1964
>
> And the Morphy literature contains a huge percentage of off-hand
> games, where presumably he wasn't working quite so hard as at
> tournament or formal matches. =A0 For what modern players have such a
> high percentage of casual games been recorded?

Date: 13 Jan 2009 14:17:30
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Morphy again

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 12:16:41 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:

>> > �3) That the increase in skill with time is not at all linear, but
>> >began to accelerate greatly at some point after 1911, perhaps with the
>> >onset of the Soviet era.

>> I think these are the two biggies.

>Soviet evolution of chess was later that decade - more like the 1920s.
>Nothing emerged from the SU to challenge anyone until after 1945.

When does Phil Innes believe Botvinnik became a contender? When did
Kotov get strong?

As Taylor said, "at some point after 1911" which would cover even the
period 1940-1960.

>> > �"In a set match, Morphy would beat anybody alive today.

>Fischer - the player most similar to Morphy in his personal life and
>attitude - is speculating. Fischer did not beat anybody alive after
>1972 - he was incapable of it, and Spassky a soft target.

Uhh, Phil, Spassky is still alive.

Date: 13 Jan 2009 12:13:07
From:
Subject: Re: Morphy again

On Jan 13, 12:47=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 13, 11:42=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > > =A0 Let's see if we can apply Nunn's assesment of Carlsbad 1911, at
> > > least indirectly, to the Morphy of 1858, the year of his triumphal
> > > European tour and match win against Anderssen. The following is not
> > > intended as any sort of rigorous analysis, let alone proof. It's just
> > > a suggestion of one possible approach, and an indicator of where it
> > > leads.
> > > =A0 Hugo S=FCchting (1874-1916), a German player, finished =3D14th-16=
th of
> > > 26 at Carlsbad 1911, with a +7 -9 =3D9 score. Dr. Elo, in "The rating=
of
> > > Chessplayers Past and Present" (1978) estimates S=FCchting's 5-year p=
eak
> > > at 2450. S=FCchting would have been about 37 in 1911, about the age w=
hen
> > > chessplayers reach their peak strength, so we are on reasonably safe
> > > ground to think that in 1911 he was at or near his peak.
> > > =A0 Nunn, on the other hand, pegs S=FCchting at only 2100, and consid=
ers
> > > that charitable. Thus S=FCchting's "Nunn rating" is at least 350 poin=
ts
> > > below his historical Elo. Let us assume, for the sake of argument,
> > > that
>
> > since we are dealing with actual data - then it must be pointed out
> > that Elo is not talking about 2450 Elo-rating. He doesn't even use his
> > own method, and indeed, is not even pretending its a measurement - he
> > says 'estimate'
>
> > Inferentially, if Elo says Morphy is 2690, then his Nunn rating would
> > be 2340 if the differential of -350 points is a constant
>
> =A0 That seems a rather dubious assumption.

I think so too, but whether it is more or less, who knows by
regressive method? There are simply insufficient benchmarks without -
as you correctly note about Nunn's commentary - sufficient surrounding
datum on other players. Elo-rating only works if there is a sufficient
pool of players.

> A span of 53 years lies
> between Morphy in 1858 and Carlsbad 1911, during which Steinitz,
> Lasker, Tarrasch, Rubinstein and others made major contributions to
> chess theory, and the general style of play changed.

Indeed - I agree again. But how major is major? To posit Morphy at
2690 doesn't allow much headroom for these improvements - and Morphy's
opponents, after all, even by the rough measure of direct subject
assessment of their games, appear very strong.

It hardly seems possible to allow Lasker only 100 points over Morphy,
but if we did then Lasker would be some whopping 2790. Leaving
unexplained years of further improvement.

I think Mike Murray made one good point in that he said some players
would simply fight their way over others of the time, and perhaps this
would be to modern master standards - at least. The question therefore
is how much over that level players performed?

What if Staunton was nor much over that - say 2250, then since he was
probably second to Morphy in the world, by comparative means Morphy
could not possibly be even 2500. Especially since they didn't play
chess together. Staunton admitted in private letters than he thought
Morphy would beat him - but this hardly qualifies this discussion
since we cannot establish any benchmarks for the time by this inter-
comparison of players.

> If nothing
> changed between 1858 and 1911,

I am not saying nothing changed. What Staunton got going in [the north
of] England was a massive surge for chess among the masses of people -
this had never happened before, nor anywhere. Evidently, that locus
moved from north of England to London, becoming superceded in 1890 by
chess activities in Paris, Berlin and Budapest. Actually a huge surge
in chess knowledge and volume of players.

> why then think anything changed between
> 1911 and 1978? At what point does the 350 cease to be a constant?
>
>
>
> > > =A0 (1) this represents the overall difference in chess skill, knowle=
dge
> > > and technique between 1911, and either 1978 (the year Elo published
> > > his historical ratings) or 1999 (the year Nunn published his
> > > analysis), and
> > > =A0 (2) chess skill increased in a more or less linear fashion over t=
hat
> > > span.
>
> > > =A0 In that case, we have chess skill growing at somewhere between 5.=
22
> > > points per year (350/67) and 3.98 points per year (350/88). Let us
> > > further assume that
>
> > As I posted yesterday [?] the current 8 year increment is 40 points
> > improvement, which concurs roughly with that 5 pts/yr.
>
> > > =A0 (3) chess skill _decreases_ at the same rate as we go back in tim=
e.
>
> > I wam not tempted to be overly linear. In fact, I suspect if a broader
> > survey of ratings were examined it would regress in fits and starts.
>
> =A0 The linearity is merely an assumption for the sake of illustration.

What it illustrates is only that one cannot make such linear
regressions! Therefore the means of determination, 'the how' or 'the
method' is not sufficient to determine aught.

> > > =A0 That would mean that in 1858, Morphy's peak year, overall chess
> > > skill was down anywhere from 561 points (3.98 x 141) to 626 points
> > > (5.22 x 120) compared to 1999 or 1978 respectively. Elo estimated
> > > Morphy's 5-year peak at 2690. Thus, by this logic, Morphy is at best
> > > about 2130, and at worst a mere 2064, i.e. low expert class today.
>
> > > =A0 This result strikes me as a tad implausible. With that rating,
>
> > But this is a simple-minded linear regression - not an idea based on
> > observing actual ratings. Thereby, the only thing likely to be
> > resolved would be to discredit pure linear regression as a means of
> > estimating Morphy's strength.
>
> =A0 That is one potential flaw in my assumptions, which as I said, I
> made only for the sake of argument and illustration, not from any
> conviction that they are valid. Other flaws might include:
>
> =A0 1) That S=FCchting's result at Carlsbad 1911 was an aberration, well
> below his usual level. In that case Nunn's 2100 estimate would be far
> too low, throwing off all calculations based on it.
> =A0 2) That Morphy was so far ahead of his contemporaries that any
> general decline as we go further in the past does not apply to him.
> =A0 3) That the increase in skill with time is not at all linear, but
> began to accelerate greatly at some point after 1911, perhaps with the
> onset of the Soviet era.
> =A0 4) That Nunn's sample is too small to base any general conclusions
> on it.

Absolutely, I have no demurrer with any of these points - with the
possible exception of #2 since if Morphy were so far ahead, then he
cannot gain enough rating points to very far supercede others. [as
well, #3 is subject to what I wrote above as consequence of a chessic
diaspora to major European capitals]

>
> > > Morphy would be unlikely to win many local club tournaments, let alon=
e
> > > rank among today's elite. I don't claim it constitutes a reductio ad
> > > absurdum of Nunn's methods, but it does give one pause.
>
> > Well, [LOL] as I predicted, you do say it, and you do present an
> > idiotic way to examine the issue.
>
> > > I leave it to
> > > the group to discuss this further.
>
> > There are two ways to get at this:
>
> > (a) one is to continue to talk of estimates of players strengths by
> > inter-comparison and some means of sensibly making retrograde
> > assessments, hopefully not combining two methods to do so. The other
> > is
>
> > (b) to let 'Fritz' have a go at actual measurement of the games,
> > rather than estimate at all.
>
> =A0 I may take a stab at (b) when time permits. In the meantime, we have
> this opinion by a top GM:

Just to be clear - there are 2 methods here, one is opinion based on
estimated regressions [which I feel is completely unsatisfactory on
all accounts] and there is actual measurement by index ['Fritz'] which
relies not on opinion at all.

> =A0 "In a set match, Morphy would beat anybody alive today. I have
> played over several hundred of Morphy's games, and am continually
> surprised and entertained by his ingenuity ... Morphy was perhaps the
> most accurate player who ever lived. He had complete sight of the
> board, and =A0never blundered, in spite of the fact that he played quite
> rapidly, rarely taking more than five minutes to decide a move." --
> Robert J. Fischer, 1964

And Sam Sloan might write the same about Fischer - in fact he has.
What Fischer does not take into account is that Morphy played fish -
and given 2.5 minutes per move against modern defensive technique,
then there will be no early decisions - indeed, would Morphy even want
to play in our world? As before, Capalanca did not, and Capa would
obviously wipe the floor with Morphy's romantic open game. In 5 minute
blitz, so would I!

Phil Innes

Date: 13 Jan 2009 14:20:52
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Morphy again

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 12:13:07 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:

> Capa would
>obviously wipe the floor with Morphy's romantic open game. In 5 minute
>blitz, so would I!

You are assuming, of course, that Morphy stays dead. Yeah, you might
win on time.

Date: 13 Jan 2009 10:36:46
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Morphy again

On Jan 13, 1:03=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 09:47:23 -0800 (PST), Taylor Kingston
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > =A02) That Morphy was so far ahead of his contemporaries that any
> >general decline as we go further in the past does not apply to him.
>
> I think a rough analog can be found in the computer games from a few
> years ago, when the programs made funny anti-positional "computer
> moves" but were still a threat to top players because of their
> calculating power. =A0
>
> > =A03) That the increase in skill with time is not at all linear, but
> >began to accelerate greatly at some point after 1911, perhaps with the
> >onset of the Soviet era.
>
> I think these are the two biggies.
>
> > =A0"In a set match, Morphy would beat anybody alive today. I have
> >played over several hundred of Morphy's games, and am continually
> >surprised and entertained by his ingenuity ... Morphy was perhaps the
> >most accurate player who ever lived. He had complete sight of the
> >board, and =A0never blundered, in spite of the fact that he played quite
> >rapidly, rarely taking more than five minutes to decide a move." --
> >Robert J. Fischer, 1964
>
> And the Morphy literature contains a huge percentage of off-hand
> games, where presumably he wasn't working quite so hard as at
> tournament or formal matches. =A0 For what modern players have such a
> high percentage of casual games been recorded?

I know that a lot of simul games by Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine,
and Fischer have been preserved; perhaps those of more modern GMs
besides. Of course, there is a natural sampling bias there, in that
upsets are very disproportionately represented. Losses by the simul-
giver are far more likely to be published, while his routine wins are
ignored.

Date: 13 Jan 2009 09:47:23
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Morphy again

On Jan 13, 11:42=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> > =A0 Let's see if we can apply Nunn's assesment of Carlsbad 1911, at
> > least indirectly, to the Morphy of 1858, the year of his triumphal
> > European tour and match win against Anderssen. The following is not
> > intended as any sort of rigorous analysis, let alone proof. It's just
> > a suggestion of one possible approach, and an indicator of where it
> > leads.
> > =A0 Hugo S=FCchting (1874-1916), a German player, finished =3D14th-16th=
of
> > 26 at Carlsbad 1911, with a +7 -9 =3D9 score. Dr. Elo, in "The rating o=
f
> > Chessplayers Past and Present" (1978) estimates S=FCchting's 5-year pea=
k
> > at 2450. S=FCchting would have been about 37 in 1911, about the age whe=
n
> > chessplayers reach their peak strength, so we are on reasonably safe
> > ground to think that in 1911 he was at or near his peak.
> > =A0 Nunn, on the other hand, pegs S=FCchting at only 2100, and consider=
s
> > that charitable. Thus S=FCchting's "Nunn rating" is at least 350 points
> > below his historical Elo. Let us assume, for the sake of argument,
> > that
>
> since we are dealing with actual data - then it must be pointed out
> that Elo is not talking about 2450 Elo-rating. He doesn't even use his
> own method, and indeed, is not even pretending its a measurement - he
> says 'estimate'
>
> Inferentially, if Elo says Morphy is 2690, then his Nunn rating would
> be 2340 if the differential of -350 points is a constant

That seems a rather dubious assumption. A span of 53 years lies
between Morphy in 1858 and Carlsbad 1911, during which Steinitz,
Lasker, Tarrasch, Rubinstein and others made major contributions to
chess theory, and the general style of play changed. If nothing
changed between 1858 and 1911, why then think anything changed between
1911 and 1978? At what point does the 350 cease to be a constant?

> > =A0 (1) this represents the overall difference in chess skill, knowledg=
e
> > and technique between 1911, and either 1978 (the year Elo published
> > his historical ratings) or 1999 (the year Nunn published his
> > analysis), and
> > =A0 (2) chess skill increased in a more or less linear fashion over tha=
t
> > span.
>
> > =A0 In that case, we have chess skill growing at somewhere between 5.22
> > points per year (350/67) and 3.98 points per year (350/88). Let us
> > further assume that
>
> As I posted yesterday [?] the current 8 year increment is 40 points
> improvement, which concurs roughly with that 5 pts/yr.
>
> > =A0 (3) chess skill _decreases_ at the same rate as we go back in time.
>
> I wam not tempted to be overly linear. In fact, I suspect if a broader
> survey of ratings were examined it would regress in fits and starts.

The linearity is merely an assumption for the sake of illustration.

> > =A0 That would mean that in 1858, Morphy's peak year, overall chess
> > skill was down anywhere from 561 points (3.98 x 141) to 626 points
> > (5.22 x 120) compared to 1999 or 1978 respectively. Elo estimated
> > Morphy's 5-year peak at 2690. Thus, by this logic, Morphy is at best
> > about 2130, and at worst a mere 2064, i.e. low expert class today.
>
> > =A0 This result strikes me as a tad implausible. With that rating,
>
> But this is a simple-minded linear regression - not an idea based on
> observing actual ratings. Thereby, the only thing likely to be
> resolved would be to discredit pure linear regression as a means of
> estimating Morphy's strength.

That is one potential flaw in my assumptions, which as I said, I
made only for the sake of argument and illustration, not from any
conviction that they are valid. Other flaws might include:

1) That S=FCchting's result at Carlsbad 1911 was an aberration, well
below his usual level. In that case Nunn's 2100 estimate would be far
too low, throwing off all calculations based on it.
2) That Morphy was so far ahead of his contemporaries that any
general decline as we go further in the past does not apply to him.
3) That the increase in skill with time is not at all linear, but
began to accelerate greatly at some point after 1911, perhaps with the
onset of the Soviet era.
4) That Nunn's sample is too small to base any general conclusions
on it.

> > Morphy would be unlikely to win many local club tournaments, let alone
> > rank among today's elite. I don't claim it constitutes a reductio ad
> > absurdum of Nunn's methods, but it does give one pause.
>
> Well, [LOL] as I predicted, you do say it, and you do present an
> idiotic way to examine the issue.
>
> > I leave it to
> > the group to discuss this further.
>
> There are two ways to get at this:
>
> (a) one is to continue to talk of estimates of players strengths by
> inter-comparison and some means of sensibly making retrograde
> assessments, hopefully not combining two methods to do so. The other
> is
>
> (b) to let 'Fritz' have a go at actual measurement of the games,
> rather than estimate at all.

I may take a stab at (b) when time permits. In the meantime, we have
this opinion by a top GM:

"In a set match, Morphy would beat anybody alive today. I have
played over several hundred of Morphy's games, and am continually
surprised and entertained by his ingenuity ... Morphy was perhaps the
most accurate 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." --
Robert J. Fischer, 1964

Date: 13 Jan 2009 10:03:27
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Morphy again

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 09:47:23 -0800 (PST), Taylor Kingston
<[email protected] > wrote:

> 2) That Morphy was so far ahead of his contemporaries that any
>general decline as we go further in the past does not apply to him.

I think a rough analog can be found in the computer games from a few
years ago, when the programs made funny anti-positional "computer
moves" but were still a threat to top players because of their
calculating power.

> 3) That the increase in skill with time is not at all linear, but
>began to accelerate greatly at some point after 1911, perhaps with the
>onset of the Soviet era.

I think these are the two biggies.

> "In a set match, Morphy would beat anybody alive today. I have
>played over several hundred of Morphy's games, and am continually
>surprised and entertained by his ingenuity ... Morphy was perhaps the
>most accurate 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." --
>Robert J. Fischer, 1964

And the Morphy literature contains a huge percentage of off-hand
games, where presumably he wasn't working quite so hard as at
tournament or formal matches. For what modern players have such a
high percentage of casual games been recorded?

Date: 13 Jan 2009 08:42:08
From:
Subject: Re: Morphy again

> =A0 Let's see if we can apply Nunn's assesment of Carlsbad 1911, at
> least indirectly, to the Morphy of 1858, the year of his triumphal
> European tour and match win against Anderssen. The following is not
> intended as any sort of rigorous analysis, let alone proof. It's just
> a suggestion of one possible approach, and an indicator of where it
> leads.
> =A0 Hugo S=FCchting (1874-1916), a German player, finished =3D14th-16th o=
f
> 26 at Carlsbad 1911, with a +7 -9 =3D9 score. Dr. Elo, in "The rating of
> Chessplayers Past and Present" (1978) estimates S=FCchting's 5-year peak
> at 2450. S=FCchting would have been about 37 in 1911, about the age when
> chessplayers reach their peak strength, so we are on reasonably safe
> ground to think that in 1911 he was at or near his peak.
> =A0 Nunn, on the other hand, pegs S=FCchting at only 2100, and considers
> that charitable. Thus S=FCchting's "Nunn rating" is at least 350 points
> below his historical Elo. Let us assume, for the sake of argument,
> that

since we are dealing with actual data - then it must be pointed out
that Elo is not talking about 2450 Elo-rating. He doesn't even use his
own method, and indeed, is not even pretending its a measurement - he
says 'estimate'

however apt Elo is, what he is estimating is not the quality of the
games themselves, such as 'Fritz' might, but the /relative/ rating of
a player compared with other's players.

the point to be clear about is if Nunn is doing the same thing as Elo
- or estimating upon a different scale?

Inferentially, if Elo says Morphy is 2690, then his Nunn rating would
be 2340 if the differential of -350 points is a constant

> =A0 (1) this represents the overall difference in chess skill, knowledge
> and technique between 1911, and either 1978 (the year Elo published
> his historical ratings) or 1999 (the year Nunn published his
> analysis), and
> =A0 (2) chess skill increased in a more or less linear fashion over that
> span.
>
> =A0 In that case, we have chess skill growing at somewhere between 5.22
> points per year (350/67) and 3.98 points per year (350/88). Let us
> further assume that

As I posted yesterday [?] the current 8 year increment is 40 points
improvement, which concurs roughly with that 5 pts/yr.

> =A0 (3) chess skill _decreases_ at the same rate as we go back in time.

I wam not tempted to be overly linear. In fact, I suspect if a broader
survey of ratings were examined it would regress in fits and starts.

> =A0 That would mean that in 1858, Morphy's peak year, overall chess
> skill was down anywhere from 561 points (3.98 x 141) to 626 points
> (5.22 x 120) compared to 1999 or 1978 respectively. Elo estimated
> Morphy's 5-year peak at 2690. Thus, by this logic, Morphy is at best
> about 2130, and at worst a mere 2064, i.e. low expert class today.
>
> =A0 This result strikes me as a tad implausible. With that rating,

But this is a simple-minded linear regression - not an idea based on
observing actual ratings. Thereby, the only thing likely to be
resolved would be to discredit pure linear regression as a means of
estimating Morphy's strength.

> Morphy would be unlikely to win many local club tournaments, let alone
> rank among today's elite. I don't claim it constitutes a reductio ad
> absurdum of Nunn's methods, but it does give one pause.

Well, [LOL] as I predicted, you do say it, and you do present an
idiotic way to examine the issue.

> I leave it to
> the group to discuss this further.

There are two ways to get at this:

(a) one is to continue to talk of estimates of players strengths by
inter-comparison and some means of sensibly making retrograde
assessments, hopefully not combining two methods to do so. The other
is

(b) to let 'Fritz' have a go at actual measurement of the games,
rather than estimate at all.

Phil Innes

Date: 13 Jan 2009 07:53:15
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Morphy again

On Jan 11, 1:11=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 08:49:06 -0800 (PST), Taylor Kingston
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Jan 11, 11:15=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> >> In researching commentary on Morphy by Nunn, I see that Edward Winter
> >> includes this assessment on Morphy by John Nunn....
> > =A0This does nothing to support your claim that "according to Nunn
> >Fritz says he was in his own time a 2300 player." In the above
> >passage, Nunn says no such thing. Where did Nunn say this, Phil? It's
> >your responsibility to prove your own claim.
>
> I went back (using Forte Agent) and reviewed the little discussion we
> had back in 2005. =A0 Rather civil and informative, possibly =A0because
> certain personalities didn't fulminate, I mean "post" to it.
>
> Anyway, the discussion was about events in 1911 -- didn't directly
> address Morphy.
>
> Phil's up to his usual stunts. =A0
>
> You challenged him on his claim that Nunn's specifically addressed a
> "retro-Fritzed" rating for Morphy. =A0He wasn't able to meet the
> challenge so he's (1) posted some other remarks Nunn made about a
> Morphy casual game and (2) some various discussions about Nunn's
> techniques from rgc*, (3) references to various articles about Morphy.
>
> Evidently, he hopes the reader will assume this potpourri answered
> your challenge, which of course it did not.

Let's see if we can apply Nunn's assesment of Carlsbad 1911, at
least indirectly, to the Morphy of 1858, the year of his triumphal
European tour and match win against Anderssen. The following is not
intended as any sort of rigorous analysis, let alone proof. It's just
a suggestion of one possible approach, and an indicator of where it
leads.
Hugo S=FCchting (1874-1916), a German player, finished =3D14th-16th of
26 at Carlsbad 1911, with a +7 -9 =3D9 score. Dr. Elo, in "The rating of
Chessplayers Past and Present" (1978) estimates S=FCchting's 5-year peak
at 2450. S=FCchting would have been about 37 in 1911, about the age when
chessplayers reach their peak strength, so we are on reasonably safe
ground to think that in 1911 he was at or near his peak.
Nunn, on the other hand, pegs S=FCchting at only 2100, and considers
that charitable. Thus S=FCchting's "Nunn rating" is at least 350 points
below his historical Elo. Let us assume, for the sake of argument,
that

(1) this represents the overall difference in chess skill, knowledge
and technique between 1911, and either 1978 (the year Elo published
his historical ratings) or 1999 (the year Nunn published his
analysis), and
(2) chess skill increased in a more or less linear fashion over that
span.

In that case, we have chess skill growing at somewhere between 5.22
points per year (350/67) and 3.98 points per year (350/88). Let us
further assume that

(3) chess skill _decreases_ at the same rate as we go back in time.

That would mean that in 1858, Morphy's peak year, overall chess
skill was down anywhere from 561 points (3.98 x 141) to 626 points
(5.22 x 120) compared to 1999 or 1978 respectively. Elo estimated
Morphy's 5-year peak at 2690. Thus, by this logic, Morphy is at best
about 2130, and at worst a mere 2064, i.e. low expert class today.

This result strikes me as a tad implausible. With that rating,
Morphy would be unlikely to win many local club tournaments, let alone
rank among today's elite. I don't claim it constitutes a reductio ad
absurdum of Nunn's methods, but it does give one pause. I leave it to
the group to discuss this further.

Date: 13 Jan 2009 09:32:20
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Morphy again

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 07:53:15 -0800 (PST), Taylor Kingston
<[email protected] > wrote:

>. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that

> (1) this represents the overall difference in chess skill, knowledge
>and technique between 1911, and either 1978 ... or 1999 ...
> (2) chess skill increased in a more or less linear fashion over that
>span.
> (3) chess skill _decreases_ at the same rate as we go back in time.

>by this logic, Morphy is at best
>about 2130, and at worst a mere 2064, i.e. low expert class today.

> This result strikes me as a tad implausible.

And La Bourdonnais probably wouldn't make it out of Class A.

I don't think your assumptions would hold, partly because playing
conditions and attitudes toward the game varied so much between the
mid-nineteenth century and 1911.

Some big differences:

(1) Clocks were not used
(2) Attitudes toward gambits and to what constituted good
sportsmanship
(3) A very high proportion of recorded games from that era were played
under relatively casual conditions.

It would be interesting to run Nunn's tests against matches such as
Morphy-Anderssen or Morphy-Harrwitz.

I suspect there's some threshold of strength one can reach pretty much
through raw talent, and it's probably pretty high, and I don't see
this changing too much over the years. It probably relates more to
calculating ability than any other factor.

Obviously, players such as Morphy, Capablanca, Sultan Khan, and
Reshevsky spent a lot of time on chess as youths, but nothing
comparable to the training, study, and disciplined approach developed
in the USSR, and in the last few decades propagated to the whole
world. The young GMs now have spent, what, five or six hours a day on
chess for years?

Date: 13 Jan 2009 01:05:23
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Morphy again

On Jan 12, 8:02=A0am, [email protected] wrote:

> something is pretty mixed up here
>
> i think its nothing to do with facts though

Maybe "those other guys" just aren't smart enough
to connect the dots. Maybe they just can't see that
Mr. Nunn's work, purportedly taking players from the
year 1911 down several pegs, can be applied with
relative ease to players of an even earlier era. Maybe
they're too wrapped up in petty pedantry and ego
tripping.

---

My beef with this sort of thing involves such
criticisms as have already been mentioned by
others, along with a couple of my own, such as...

A while back, GM Soltis was quoted here as
having written that he "very carefully checked all
the games" in his book on brilliancies, but this
was pure fabrication; he included one game in
which even I had no trouble finding the one-mover,
pawn snatches free Rook (a real toughie, that).

Now, another guy comes along -- with the same
first two initials: GM -- a fellow called Nunn, and
it is claimed that he carefully analyzed well over
three hundred games from 1911 by hand; frankly,
I don't believe it. But even if I did, why are we
looking to authority-figures to do our thinking for
us? Have we been smacked on the head
recently... or diagnosed as too stupid to think
for ourselves? Let others speak for themselves,
but as for me, I am perfectly capable of figuring
simple stuff out all by myself, thank you very
much. (Let's not forget that this is the guy who
botched the elementary job of translating old
style notation to the style everyone uses today,
then denied any culpability; why rely upon him?)

I also reject the methodology of just blunder-
checking to estimate overall chess strength,
and yet this seems to be the only part we can
reliably attribute to Fritz-- an unbiased analyst.

I reject the idea of looking for "testimonials"
to support one's personal faves, such as "Joe
Fischer said this", and "Harry Jackparov wrote
that"; these talking heads just aren't good
enough for this sort of thing. Heck, just think
about the fact that famous players often change
their minds or say different things at different
times, depending upon the occasion, or the
audience or even the interviewer.

My main beef with the opinions and percep-
tions of humans is that they are very often
strongly influenced by such things as politics
or the selective publication of "brilliancies"; in
order to get a realistic picture of a player's
chess strength, you have to look at *all* the
games, not just those. And you have to be
100% objective, not penalizing players who
made crude errors while blindly ignoring
weaknesses in other areas. Otherwise you
aren't determining strength at all, but rather,
blunder-avoidance.
Truth is, sometimes a "blunder" is the best
winning try, while the objectively-best move
leads to an easy draw against an inferior
opponent; is it fair to penalize players who
take such chances with success, while
rewarding those who quickly draw one
another, because they did not blunder while
trotting through their memorized openings
repertoire? Egads... .

-- help bot

Date: 12 Jan 2009 05:02:07
From:
Subject: Re: Morphy again

> If you have a direct answer to Taylor's
> question

Its not a question
He already knows the answer
Nothing depends on it for him

> then, please, stop all that
> acrobatics (it must hurt you), and state your
> answer. Otherwise simply admit it that you
> don't have it. Believe me, it's not that hard,
> it does not cause pain, it may be actually
> a relief. Learning to say occasionally

Take your own advice
Stop telling others what to do and think
when you make no contribution to
a topic yourself -

> "I got it all mixed up" may serve you well
> also in the future. We have a new year, so
> it is a good moment for your new year resolution.

something is pretty mixed up here

i think its nothing to do with facts though

phil innes

> Regards,
>
> =A0 =A0 Wlod

Date: 11 Jan 2009 20:50:00
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: Morphy again

On Jan 11, 10:08=A0am, [email protected] asks Taylor:
>
> 'We?'

Yes, the rgcm public. If you want to be
pedantic about it (instead of providing
**straight** answer, then as a minimum
you already have Mike and Taylor.

I was reading this thread with interest,
while I have not planned to say anything.
But since you asked me to the blackboard,
yes, I am a part of that "we" too.

If you have a direct answer to Taylor's
question then, please, stop all that
acrobatics (it must hurt you), and state your
answer. Otherwise simply admit it that you
don't have it. Believe me, it's not that hard,
it does not cause pain, it may be actually
a relief. Learning to say occasionally
"I got it all mixed up" may serve you well
also in the future. We have a new year, so
it is a good moment for your new year resolution.

Regards,

Wlod

Date: 11 Jan 2009 14:38:51
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Morphy again

Date: 11 Jan 2009 10:08:03
From:
Subject: Re: Morphy again

On Jan 11, 12:33=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 11, 12:20=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > > ---
> > > This intention of this thread is simply to assess whatever Morphy's
> > > playing strength was at the time. As you see above, this is hardly
> > > established by his play against 'two duffers'.
>
> > > Phil Innes
>
> > And finally to a forum which answer's taylor Kingston's question - it
> > seems like he actually knew what he asked me for all along!!
>
> > ---
> > Mike Murray 13 October 2005 02:49:24 [ permanent link ]
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 On 12 Oct 2005 15:28:32 -0700, "Taylor Kingston"<tkings=
ton@chittend en.com > wrote:
> > Mike Murray wrote:>> On 12 Oct 2005 13:42:52 -0700, "Larry Tapper"
> > <larry_tapper@yahoo .com>>> wrote:
>
> > You may be thinking of a puzzle book GM Nunn published in 1999. One>>>c=
hapter features an error-checking study he did of games played at >>
> > >Karlsbad 1911.
>
> > Thanks. That's exactly the source I was trying to remember.
> > Nunn's logic and conclusions were strongly criticized by IM
> > Richard>Forster in a May 1999 article at ChessCafe.com, "Jewels from
> > Carlsbad>1911." A sample quote:> "Nunn feels confident to state ...
> > that the average strength of the>tournament was a mere 2130 Elo. Now
> > some simple mathematics show that>this is quite ridiculous. If the
> > tournament's strength was 2130 then>[winner Richard] Teichmann's score
> > of 18/25 (+11) corresponds to a>performance of about 2300. You can
> > have many reservations about the Elo>system and the calculation of
> > historical ratings, but something must be>very rotten in the state of
> > Denmark if Teichmann's performance in what>was undoubtedly the best
> > tournament of his life is 270 points below his>peak five-year
> > average." (Which Elo gives as 2570 in "The Rating of>Chessplayers Past
> > and Present.")
>
> > It seems to me that Nunn was attempting, by Fritzing a set of games
> > from representative tournaments of two different eras, to do something
> > Elo ratings can't: to compare the relative strengths of two disparate
> > sets of rated players. Having done this using blunder-ratio, he then
> > expressed, in today's Elo numbers, his estimate for the ratings of
> > several of these older players.
>
> > If my understanding of this is correct, it's a mistake to criticize,
> > as you report Forster did, Nunn's estimate (given in today's Elo) of
> > Teichmann's tournament performance rating relative to a lifetime Elo
> > gleaned from play in his own era.
>
> > From one I know of Nunn's article, he didn't dispute that "several
> > fine games" were played at Carlsbad, 1911. His claimed that the ratio
> > of blunders over the whole set of games was higher than in a modern
> > high-category tournament.
>
> > For either of us to get in the middle of this by analyzing the games
> > themselves would be like a couple of cats trying to intervene in a
> > battle between two elephants.
> > Forster goes on to challenge Nunn's contention that of the 325
> > games>played at Carlsbad 1911, only two were very good. Forster
> > presents>several fine games, and shows how the ideas and techniques
> > demonstrated>in them presaged modern GM games.> The article is, alas,
> > no longer in the ChessCafe archives, but can be>found in print form in
> > the "Heroic Tales" anthology (Russell>Enterprise s, 2002).
> > Add comment
> > Ron 13 October 2005 02:57:29 [ permanent link ]
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 In article <1129156112.938851. [email protected]
> > "Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittend en.com> wrote:
> > Forster presents> several fine games, and shows how the ideas and
> > techniques demonstrated> in them presaged modern GM games.
>
> > That's sort of a misdirection, though, isn't it?
>
> > I mean, nobody doubts that today's players are standing on the
> > shoulders
> > of giants.
>
> > But blundercheck is just that - a blunder check. It's not looking at
> > complex strategic ideas. It's looking at how often you hang a piece to
> > a
> > three-mover.
>
> > -Ron
> > Add comment
> > Ron 13 October 2005 04:07:31 [ permanent link ]
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 In article <1129163628.018545. [email protected]
> > "Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittend en.com> wrote:
> > Keep in mind that Teichmann did not finish atop a bunch of stiffs.>
> > You may recognize some of the other participants, whom I give with>
> > their historical Elos: Rubinstein (2640), Schlechter (2600), Marshall>
> > (2570), Nimzovitch (2615), Vidmar (2600), Alekhine (2690), Duras>
> > (2580), Tartakower (2560), Spielmann (2560), Levenfish (2540), just
> > to> name those most famous now. That's an average of 2595. While not
> > all of> these were at their peaks in 1911, they were all certainly way
> > above> 2130, or even 2300.> However, if you accept Nunn's logic, you
> > would have to conclude that> these greats, who include a future world
> > champion (Alekhine), two> actual challengers (Schlechter, Marshall),
> > and three serious title> contenders (Rubinstein, Nimzovitch, Duras),
> > with the rest of them all> regulars in very high-level tournaments,
> > all performed *below*> Teichmann's supposed 2300 TPR. Seems just a tad
> > implausible to me.
>
> > There are a couple of different problems here, all hinging on the
> > definition of Elo.
>
> > Elo's are nothing more or less than a measure of the performance of a
> > player compared to his contemporaries. Through some hocus-pocus, we
> > can
> > guesstimate "historical" Elos for them, but:
>
> > Those numbers are fundamentally different than the rating you would
> > expect those players to achieve if they were playing against modern
> > players. The two numbers are not comparable.
>
> > Nunn's measure was simple: players who blunder at such-and-such a
> > rate
> > tend to perform as such-and-such a level in today's tournaments. I
> > think
> > it's a mistake to conflate, too much, his analysis with the entirely
> > different analysis which produces historical Elos.
>
> > -Ron
> > Add comment
> > Mike Murray 13 October 2005 04:57:31 [ permanent link ]
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 On 12 Oct 2005 17:33:48 -0700, "Taylor Kingston"<tkings=
ton@chittend en.com > wrote:
>
> > Mike, I would respectfully submit that your understanding is
> > not>correct. > ...> keep in mind that Teichmann never had another
> > result comparable>to Carlsbad 1911, either before it or after. It was
> > the only time he>ever finished so high in so prestigious an event. So
> > if he only scored>a lousy 2300 TPR there, where did his 2570
> > historical Elo come from?
>
> > And I equally respectfully suggest it's *you* who misunderstands.
>
> > Taylor, the 2300 TPR is based on Nunn's mapping (which largely depends
> > on Fritz Blundercheck performance) of Teichmann's and the other
> > competitors' ratings to *contemporary* Elo. It relates in no
> > significant way to Teichmann's 2570 historical Elo which came from his
> > performance against peers.
>
> > It's akin to a strong player looking through a few of your games
> > against various opponents with no ratings specified and guesstimating
> > your rating from the quality of the play. Not precise, but not
> > nonsense either.
>
> > If Nunn went through his analysis and ratings estimates for ALL the
> > players of Teichmann's vintage, they'd ALL get lower ratings, but,
> > their predicted performance against each other should stay the same.
> > That's all that Elo purports to measure. Since they're all long since
> > dead, of course, this is hard to verify empirically
> > I recommend that you buy "Heroic Tales" (I get royalties on it)
> > and>read Forster's article. You will enjoy it, and the book as a
> > whole.
>
> > Available new for $19.95 (discounted from $24.95) or *damaged* for
> > $9.95 from USCF/Chess Cafe. Or available brand new for $8.50 from a
> > couple of affiliated booksellers through Amazon!
>
> > And this book is published by Russell Enterprises. Hmmmm. Do you
> > get your royalties on the sales price or per unit ?
>
> > AND
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 On 13 Oct 2005 09:32:00 -0700, "Larry Tapper" <larry_ta=
pper@yahoo
> > wrote:
> > Another way to look at Nunn's study is that it measures
> > playing>strength along one dimension only, which we might call
> > "error>avoidance". This has the conspicuous merit of allowing us to
> > compare>across large time gaps. But of course error avoidance is not
> > all there>is to success at chess; so the blundercheck approach may
> > be>questionable as an indicator of anyone's _overall_ strength. It
> > ignores>important qualities such as tenacity, imagination, strategic
> > insight,>etc.
>
> > And I agree with this. I didn't mean to suggest I necessarily bought
> > into the performance rating Nunn assigned to Teichmann. I was just
> > arguing (contra Taylor) that whatever estimates Nunn came up with
> > cannot be automatically shot down by pointing to Teichmann's
> > historical Elo.
> > Even so, I think Nunn came up with a real finding there, and
> > an>interesting one too. His results suggest that surprising as it
> > may>seem, the average 2400 player of today might well be able to hold
> > his>own in an error-avoidance contest against Teichmann at his
> > peak>strength. And this does not seem so outlandish when I pause to
> > think>about it --- it would be a sign that professional standards
> > have>tightened due to competitive pressure and so on.
>
> > It seems to me contemporary players train and play much more
> > intensively than those of yesteryear, although I'm not sure how to
> > prove this.
>
> > It would be interesting to restrict a program like Fritz to the
> > opening theory available at different time periods and use this in
> > matches against contemporary players.
> > Larry T.
>
> =A0 So, Phil, we're still waiting for you to name the book/article/
> interview/whatever in which Nunn "says [Morphy] was in his own time a
> 2300 player." None of the above is relevant to that.

'We?'

What a joke 'we' are - since 'we' asked where the reference was. But
'we' actually refer to it above. Then 'we' say I haven't quoted Nunn
on it, which is true! since I have cited him on it. What shall 'we' do
next? Pretend it doesn't exist?

So let our questions of a complicated question be opened up a bit
further to what is actually useful.

a) in all these commentaries above, I like Larry Tapper's the best. He
in fact asserts nothing - instead he asks for a form of chess playing
audit or investigation to be conducted on computer.

b) I think I like that idea, but I like another computer audit idea
better - which is to simply obtain the program's assessment of the
playing strength of the games.

c) My idea takes in both Nunn's blunders, but also missed
opportunities. I note BTW that Convekta already build rating estimate
into some of their chess training CDs.

d) Of the things dismissed from this investigation have to be Elo's
own ideas, which as you read above, fo not even use his own method!
Similarly, EDO has to go too - you can't really have a margin of error
of 600 points!

e) One means of benchmarking a set of software analytical tools would
be to take high volumes of currently rated players - I suggest
Kasparov at the high ben\ch mark, who achieved a known 2850 at one
point, and then to attempt to bracket intermediary players by choosing
known games of a 2000 rated player for the low mark. The software
should be thus calibrated.

f) excluded should be match-games, and only swiss and round robins
included. [Elo is only valid where 'x' is sufficient.]

g) then the games of various historical players could be processed
through this calibrated engine, and the objective proof of the
strength of their play thus established.

Phil Innes

Date: 11 Jan 2009 09:33:27
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Morphy again

On Jan 11, 12:20=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > ---
> > This intention of this thread is simply to assess whatever Morphy's
> > playing strength was at the time. As you see above, this is hardly
> > established by his play against 'two duffers'.
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> And finally to a forum which answer's taylor Kingston's question - it
> seems like he actually knew what he asked me for all along!!
>
> ---
> Mike Murray 13 October 2005 02:49:24 [ permanent link ]
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 On 12 Oct 2005 15:28:32 -0700, "Taylor Kingston"<tkingsto=
n@chittend en.com > wrote:
> Mike Murray wrote:>> On 12 Oct 2005 13:42:52 -0700, "Larry Tapper"
> <larry_tapper@yahoo .com>>> wrote:
>
> You may be thinking of a puzzle book GM Nunn published in 1999. One>>>cha=
pter features an error-checking study he did of games played at >>
> >Karlsbad 1911.
>
> Thanks. That's exactly the source I was trying to remember.
> Nunn's logic and conclusions were strongly criticized by IM
> Richard>Forster in a May 1999 article at ChessCafe.com, "Jewels from
> Carlsbad>1911." A sample quote:> "Nunn feels confident to state ...
> that the average strength of the>tournament was a mere 2130 Elo. Now
> some simple mathematics show that>this is quite ridiculous. If the
> tournament's strength was 2130 then>[winner Richard] Teichmann's score
> of 18/25 (+11) corresponds to a>performance of about 2300. You can
> have many reservations about the Elo>system and the calculation of
> historical ratings, but something must be>very rotten in the state of
> Denmark if Teichmann's performance in what>was undoubtedly the best
> tournament of his life is 270 points below his>peak five-year
> average." (Which Elo gives as 2570 in "The Rating of>Chessplayers Past
> and Present.")
>
> It seems to me that Nunn was attempting, by Fritzing a set of games
> from representative tournaments of two different eras, to do something
> Elo ratings can't: to compare the relative strengths of two disparate
> sets of rated players. Having done this using blunder-ratio, he then
> expressed, in today's Elo numbers, his estimate for the ratings of
> several of these older players.
>
> If my understanding of this is correct, it's a mistake to criticize,
> as you report Forster did, Nunn's estimate (given in today's Elo) of
> Teichmann's tournament performance rating relative to a lifetime Elo
> gleaned from play in his own era.
>
> From one I know of Nunn's article, he didn't dispute that "several
> fine games" were played at Carlsbad, 1911. His claimed that the ratio
> of blunders over the whole set of games was higher than in a modern
> high-category tournament.
>
> For either of us to get in the middle of this by analyzing the games
> themselves would be like a couple of cats trying to intervene in a
> battle between two elephants.
> Forster goes on to challenge Nunn's contention that of the 325
> games>played at Carlsbad 1911, only two were very good. Forster
> presents>several fine games, and shows how the ideas and techniques
> demonstrated>in them presaged modern GM games.> The article is, alas,
> no longer in the ChessCafe archives, but can be>found in print form in
> the "Heroic Tales" anthology (Russell>Enterprise s, 2002).
> Add comment
> Ron 13 October 2005 02:57:29 [ permanent link ]
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 In article <1129156112.938851. [email protected]
> "Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittend en.com> wrote:
> Forster presents> several fine games, and shows how the ideas and
> techniques demonstrated> in them presaged modern GM games.
>
> That's sort of a misdirection, though, isn't it?
>
> I mean, nobody doubts that today's players are standing on the
> shoulders
> of giants.
>
> But blundercheck is just that - a blunder check. It's not looking at
> complex strategic ideas. It's looking at how often you hang a piece to
> a
> three-mover.
>
> -Ron
> Add comment
> Ron 13 October 2005 04:07:31 [ permanent link ]
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 In article <1129163628.018545. [email protected]
> "Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittend en.com> wrote:
> Keep in mind that Teichmann did not finish atop a bunch of stiffs.>
> You may recognize some of the other participants, whom I give with>
> their historical Elos: Rubinstein (2640), Schlechter (2600), Marshall>
> (2570), Nimzovitch (2615), Vidmar (2600), Alekhine (2690), Duras>
> (2580), Tartakower (2560), Spielmann (2560), Levenfish (2540), just
> to> name those most famous now. That's an average of 2595. While not
> all of> these were at their peaks in 1911, they were all certainly way
> above> 2130, or even 2300.> However, if you accept Nunn's logic, you
> would have to conclude that> these greats, who include a future world
> champion (Alekhine), two> actual challengers (Schlechter, Marshall),
> and three serious title> contenders (Rubinstein, Nimzovitch, Duras),
> with the rest of them all> regulars in very high-level tournaments,
> all performed *below*> Teichmann's supposed 2300 TPR. Seems just a tad
> implausible to me.
>
> There are a couple of different problems here, all hinging on the
> definition of Elo.
>
> Elo's are nothing more or less than a measure of the performance of a
> player compared to his contemporaries. Through some hocus-pocus, we
> can
> guesstimate "historical" Elos for them, but:
>
> Those numbers are fundamentally different than the rating you would
> expect those players to achieve if they were playing against modern
> players. The two numbers are not comparable.
>
> Nunn's measure was simple: players who blunder at such-and-such a
> rate
> tend to perform as such-and-such a level in today's tournaments. I
> think
> it's a mistake to conflate, too much, his analysis with the entirely
> different analysis which produces historical Elos.
>
> -Ron
> Add comment
> Mike Murray 13 October 2005 04:57:31 [ permanent link ]
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 On 12 Oct 2005 17:33:48 -0700, "Taylor Kingston"<tkingsto=
n@chittend en.com > wrote:
>
> Mike, I would respectfully submit that your understanding is
> not>correct. > ...> keep in mind that Teichmann never had another
> result comparable>to Carlsbad 1911, either before it or after. It was
> the only time he>ever finished so high in so prestigious an event. So
> if he only scored>a lousy 2300 TPR there, where did his 2570
> historical Elo come from?
>
> And I equally respectfully suggest it's *you* who misunderstands.
>
> Taylor, the 2300 TPR is based on Nunn's mapping (which largely depends
> on Fritz Blundercheck performance) of Teichmann's and the other
> competitors' ratings to *contemporary* Elo. It relates in no
> significant way to Teichmann's 2570 historical Elo which came from his
> performance against peers.
>
> It's akin to a strong player looking through a few of your games
> against various opponents with no ratings specified and guesstimating
> your rating from the quality of the play. Not precise, but not
> nonsense either.
>
> If Nunn went through his analysis and ratings estimates for ALL the
> players of Teichmann's vintage, they'd ALL get lower ratings, but,
> their predicted performance against each other should stay the same.
> That's all that Elo purports to measure. Since they're all long since
> dead, of course, this is hard to verify empirically
> I recommend that you buy "Heroic Tales" (I get royalties on it)
> and>read Forster's article. You will enjoy it, and the book as a
> whole.
>
> Available new for $19.95 (discounted from $24.95) or *damaged* for
> $9.95 from USCF/Chess Cafe. Or available brand new for $8.50 from a
> couple of affiliated booksellers through Amazon!
>
> And this book is published by Russell Enterprises. Hmmmm. Do you
> get your royalties on the sales price or per unit ?
>
> AND
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 On 13 Oct 2005 09:32:00 -0700, "Larry Tapper" <larry_tapp=
er@yahoo
> wrote:
> Another way to look at Nunn's study is that it measures
> playing>strength along one dimension only, which we might call
> "error>avoidance". This has the conspicuous merit of allowing us to
> compare>across large time gaps. But of course error avoidance is not
> all there>is to success at chess; so the blundercheck approach may
> be>questionable as an indicator of anyone's _overall_ strength. It
> ignores>important qualities such as tenacity, imagination, strategic
> insight,>etc.
>
> And I agree with this. I didn't mean to suggest I necessarily bought
> into the performance rating Nunn assigned to Teichmann. I was just
> arguing (contra Taylor) that whatever estimates Nunn came up with
> cannot be automatically shot down by pointing to Teichmann's
> historical Elo.
> Even so, I think Nunn came up with a real finding there, and
> an>interesting one too. His results suggest that surprising as it
> may>seem, the average 2400 player of today might well be able to hold
> his>own in an error-avoidance contest against Teichmann at his
> peak>strength. And this does not seem so outlandish when I pause to
> think>about it --- it would be a sign that professional standards
> have>tightened due to competitive pressure and so on.
>
> It seems to me contemporary players train and play much more
> intensively than those of yesteryear, although I'm not sure how to
> prove this.
>
> It would be interesting to restrict a program like Fritz to the
> opening theory available at different time periods and use this in
> matches against contemporary players.
> Larry T.

So, Phil, we're still waiting for you to name the book/article/
interview/whatever in which Nunn "says [Morphy] was in his own time a
2300 player." None of the above is relevant to that.

Date: 11 Jan 2009 09:20:36
From:
Subject: Re: Morphy again

> ---
> This intention of this thread is simply to assess whatever Morphy's
> playing strength was at the time. As you see above, this is hardly
> established by his play against 'two duffers'.
>
> Phil Innes

And finally to a forum which answer's taylor Kingston's question - it
seems like he actually knew what he asked me for all along!!

---
Mike Murray 13 October 2005 02:49:24 [ permanent link ]
On 12 Oct 2005 15:28:32 -0700, "Taylor Kingston"
<tkingston@chittend en.com > wrote:
Mike Murray wrote: >> On 12 Oct 2005 13:42:52 -0700, "Larry Tapper"
<larry_tapper@yahoo .com >>> wrote:
You may be thinking of a puzzle book GM Nunn published in 1999. One >>
>chapter features an error-checking study he did of games played at>>
>Karlsbad 1911.
Thanks. That's exactly the source I was trying to remember.
Nunn's logic and conclusions were strongly criticized by IM
Richard >Forster in a May 1999 article at ChessCafe.com, "Jewels from
Carlsbad >1911." A sample quote:> "Nunn feels confident to state ...
that the average strength of the >tournament was a mere 2130 Elo. Now
some simple mathematics show that >this is quite ridiculous. If the
tournament's strength was 2130 then >[winner Richard] Teichmann's score
of 18/25 (+11) corresponds to a >performance of about 2300. You can
have many reservations about the Elo >system and the calculation of
historical ratings, but something must be >very rotten in the state of
Denmark if Teichmann's performance in what >was undoubtedly the best
tournament of his life is 270 points below his >peak five-year
average." (Which Elo gives as 2570 in "The Rating of >Chessplayers Past
and Present.")

It seems to me that Nunn was attempting, by Fritzing a set of games
from representative tournaments of two different eras, to do something
Elo ratings can't: to compare the relative strengths of two disparate
sets of rated players. Having done this using blunder-ratio, he then
expressed, in today's Elo numbers, his estimate for the ratings of
several of these older players.

If my understanding of this is correct, it's a mistake to criticize,
as you report Forster did, Nunn's estimate (given in today's Elo) of
Teichmann's tournament performance rating relative to a lifetime Elo
gleaned from play in his own era.

From one I know of Nunn's article, he didn't dispute that "several
fine games" were played at Carlsbad, 1911. His claimed that the ratio
of blunders over the whole set of games was higher than in a modern
high-category tournament.

For either of us to get in the middle of this by analyzing the games
themselves would be like a couple of cats trying to intervene in a
battle between two elephants.
Forster goes on to challenge Nunn's contention that of the 325
games >played at Carlsbad 1911, only two were very good. Forster
presents >several fine games, and shows how the ideas and techniques
demonstrated >in them presaged modern GM games.> The article is, alas,
no longer in the ChessCafe archives, but can be >found in print form in
the "Heroic Tales" anthology (Russell >Enterprise s, 2002).
Add comment
Ron 13 October 2005 02:57:29 [ permanent link ]
In article <1129156112.938851. [email protected]
"Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittend en.com > wrote:
Forster presents > several fine games, and shows how the ideas and
techniques demonstrated > in them presaged modern GM games.

That's sort of a misdirection, though, isn't it?

I mean, nobody doubts that today's players are standing on the
shoulders
of giants.

But blundercheck is just that - a blunder check. It's not looking at
complex strategic ideas. It's looking at how often you hang a piece to
a
three-mover.

-Ron
Add comment
Ron 13 October 2005 04:07:31 [ permanent link ]
In article <1129163628.018545. [email protected]
"Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittend en.com > wrote:
Keep in mind that Teichmann did not finish atop a bunch of stiffs. >
You may recognize some of the other participants, whom I give with >
their historical Elos: Rubinstein (2640), Schlechter (2600), Marshall >
(2570), Nimzovitch (2615), Vidmar (2600), Alekhine (2690), Duras >
(2580), Tartakower (2560), Spielmann (2560), Levenfish (2540), just
to > name those most famous now. That's an average of 2595. While not
all of > these were at their peaks in 1911, they were all certainly way
above > 2130, or even 2300.> However, if you accept Nunn's logic, you
would have to conclude that > these greats, who include a future world
champion (Alekhine), two > actual challengers (Schlechter, Marshall),
and three serious title > contenders (Rubinstein, Nimzovitch, Duras),
with the rest of them all > regulars in very high-level tournaments,
all performed *below* > Teichmann's supposed 2300 TPR. Seems just a tad
implausible to me.

There are a couple of different problems here, all hinging on the
definition of Elo.

Elo's are nothing more or less than a measure of the performance of a
player compared to his contemporaries. Through some hocus-pocus, we
can
guesstimate "historical" Elos for them, but:

Those numbers are fundamentally different than the rating you would
expect those players to achieve if they were playing against modern
players. The two numbers are not comparable.

Nunn's measure was simple: players who blunder at such-and-such a
rate
tend to perform as such-and-such a level in today's tournaments. I
think
it's a mistake to conflate, too much, his analysis with the entirely
different analysis which produces historical Elos.

-Ron
Add comment
Mike Murray 13 October 2005 04:57:31 [ permanent link ]
On 12 Oct 2005 17:33:48 -0700, "Taylor Kingston"
<tkingston@chittend en.com > wrote:
Mike, I would respectfully submit that your understanding is
not >correct. > ...> keep in mind that Teichmann never had another
result comparable >to Carlsbad 1911, either before it or after. It was
the only time he >ever finished so high in so prestigious an event. So
if he only scored >a lousy 2300 TPR there, where did his 2570
historical Elo come from?

And I equally respectfully suggest it's *you* who misunderstands.

Taylor, the 2300 TPR is based on Nunn's mapping (which largely depends
on Fritz Blundercheck performance) of Teichmann's and the other
competitors' ratings to *contemporary* Elo. It relates in no
significant way to Teichmann's 2570 historical Elo which came from his
performance against peers.

It's akin to a strong player looking through a few of your games
against various opponents with no ratings specified and guesstimating
your rating from the quality of the play. Not precise, but not
nonsense either.

If Nunn went through his analysis and ratings estimates for ALL the
players of Teichmann's vintage, they'd ALL get lower ratings, but,
their predicted performance against each other should stay the same.
That's all that Elo purports to measure. Since they're all long since
dead, of course, this is hard to verify empirically
I recommend that you buy "Heroic Tales" (I get royalties on it)
and >read Forster's article. You will enjoy it, and the book as a
whole.

Available new for $19.95 (discounted from $24.95) or *damaged* for
$9.95 from USCF/Chess Cafe. Or available brand new for $8.50 from a
couple of affiliated booksellers through Amazon!

And this book is published by Russell Enterprises. Hmmmm. Do you
get your royalties on the sales price or per unit ?

AND

On 13 Oct 2005 09:32:00 -0700, "Larry Tapper" <larry_tapper@yahoo
wrote:
Another way to look at Nunn's study is that it measures
playing >strength along one dimension only, which we might call
"error >avoidance". This has the conspicuous merit of allowing us to
compare >across large time gaps. But of course error avoidance is not
all there >is to success at chess; so the blundercheck approach may
be >questionable as an indicator of anyone's _overall_ strength. It
ignores >important qualities such as tenacity, imagination, strategic
insight, >etc.

And I agree with this. I didn't mean to suggest I necessarily bought
into the performance rating Nunn assigned to Teichmann. I was just
arguing (contra Taylor) that whatever estimates Nunn came up with
cannot be automatically shot down by pointing to Teichmann's
historical Elo.
Even so, I think Nunn came up with a real finding there, and
an >interesting one too. His results suggest that surprising as it
may >seem, the average 2400 player of today might well be able to hold
his >own in an error-avoidance contest against Teichmann at his
peak >strength. And this does not seem so outlandish when I pause to
think >about it --- it would be a sign that professional standards
have >tightened due to competitive pressure and so on.

It seems to me contemporary players train and play much more
intensively than those of yesteryear, although I'm not sure how to
prove this.

It would be interesting to restrict a program like Fritz to the
opening theory available at different time periods and use this in
matches against contemporary players.
Larry T.

Date: 11 Jan 2009 09:13:25
From:
Subject: Re: Morphy again

> ---
> This intention of this thread is simply to assess whatever Morphy's
> playing strength was at the time. As you see above, this is hardly
> established by his play against 'two duffers'.
>
> Phil Innes

On Ratings generally: I see that Chessbase offer much Nunn material,
including feedback from other mathematicians art:

http://www.pocketfritz.de/newsprint.asp?newsid=2487

One interesting site I found features the comments on EDO [not a typo]
and which states:

"The Edo Historical Chess Rating system is a novel approach to the
retroactive rating of chess players over time. Ratings over the whole
period are calculated simultaneously by an iterative method (Bradley-
Terry). Similar iterative methods have been used before (by Elo, for
example, to initialize the FIDE ratings in 1970), but in a static way,
to estimate playing strengths at a particular time. The Edo system
uses the simple (but new) idea of treating a single player in
different years as separate players, and positing hypothetical drawn
self-games between the same player in consecutive years. For example,
Staunton-1845 is considered to have played a 30-game match with
Staunton-1844 with a resulting score of 15-15. This keeps each
player's rating from changing too dramatically in response to every
year's performance, which is subject to random variations. Then, an
adjustment is made to account for a known underlying distribution of
playing strengths of all chess players in general - very high or very
low ratings being inherently less likely than average ones. This
adjustment decreases the effect of anomalous scores for players with
very few game results.
The Edo system has been implemented with a data set that relies on
historically recorded match and tournament results, not on individual
games, whose selection in historical records is often biased. My main
sources were Jeremy Spinrad's collected results for 1836-1863, Jeremy
Gaige's Chess Tournament Crosstables (vols.1 & 2), and Gino di
Felice's Chess Results, 1747-1900 and Chess Results, 1901-1920, as
well as other standard texts and reliable web sites."

NOW following that discussion we get to the crux of the current
'ishoo'. I cite http://members.shaw.ca/edo1/Edo.explanation.html as
source for a few comments:-

"In fact, when Elo attempted to calculate ratings of players in
history, he did not use the Elo rating system at all! Instead, he
applied an iterative method to tournament and match results over five-
year periods to get what are essentially performance ratings for each
period and then smoothed the resulting ratings over time. "

Here seems to be the real goods on the question [beware - note
differences in EDO and Elo, and historical references by Dr. Elo,
which are NOT Elo ratings:

By far the strongest three players of the nineteenth century,
according to the Edo ratings, are Morphy, Steinitz and Lasker, in
historical order. These are the only three whose Edo ratings exceed
2750, and the next highest peak is 2709. This puts a large gap between
them and any other player of the nineteenth century.
This is perhaps no surprise, but it is interesting that Morphy comes
out so high, while some previous historical rating attempts have put
him in a somewhat less favourable light. Even considering only results
up to 1900, Chessmetrics puts Morphy's one-year peak below Lasker,
Pillsbury, Janowski, Tarrasch, Steinitz, Chigorin and Kolish, and
about equal to those of Maroczy, Neumann and Blackburne. The Edo
ratings are more in agreement with Elo, who put Morphy's peak at 2690,
second only to Lasker in the nineteenth century. The discrepancy may
partly be that Chessmetrics uses only official matches, of which
Morphy had few (62 game results are used), whereas I have used all
available information on his many less formal matches against ratable
opponents (496 games).

It is also interesting that Morphy and Steinitz come out as the
strongest of the three with Lasker trailing. It seems likely, however,
that Lasker was still improving in 1902 and may have eventually caught
up to or exceeded the others. Steinitz's fantastically high peak came
as a bit of a surprise to me initially, and despite the Edo system's
adjustment to avoid overly optimistic rating estimates based on
insufficient evidence, Steinitz's peak remains very high. I wonder if
Steinitz's developing theory, which he claims to have been working on
from the time between his 1872 and 1873 tournaments, combined with his
obviously great ability, was simply too much for other players to
handle for a while until they started to absorb his ideas. Steinitz
himself certainly held this view. Edward Winter, in Kings, Commoners
and Knaves (pp.228-229), cites a remark of Steinitz, originally
published in the Glasgow Weekly Herald and quoted in the Sept. 1899
American Chess Magazine:

The reader needs also assess that according to the EDO system, Morphy
can be rated at 2802.

I note with substantial interest Fide's recent results of all tip
players, showing [I think measuring 100 top players] the increment in
top scores over the past 8 years - and that number is about 26.

The interesting thing about it is that the 'curve' seems to be a
straight-line.

Extrapolating backwards is also interesting - not that the line should
continue to be linear.

Phil Innes

Date: 11 Jan 2009 08:59:35
From: Offramp
Subject: Re: Morphy again

On Jan 11, 4:15=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:

I imagine that if Morphy came back and saw how THAT game had become
his most well-known game, he would be very unhappy.

Date: 11 Jan 2009 08:49:06
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Morphy again

On Jan 11, 11:15=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> In researching commentary on Morphy by Nunn, I see that Edward Winter
> includes this assessment on Morphy by John Nunn.
>
> A contrasting view was expressed by John Nunn on pages 4-5 of his book
> Learn Chess (London, 2000):
>
> =91One of my pet hates is the choice of games for beginners=92 books.
> There are certain standard examples that tend to be repeated in book
> after book. In many beginners=92 books, you will find the game Morphy vs
> Count Isouard and the Duke of Brunswick, played during a performance
> of the Paris Opera in 1858. It=92s not an especially good game, as one
> might expect when the strongest player of his day confronts two
> duffers. Moreover, it has always seemed to me faintly incredible that
> authors couldn=92t find a relevant example less than 140 years old. In
> this book, every game and game extract is from the twentieth century
> (indeed, only two are earlier than 1950). The style of chess played
> today is quite different from that of 1858, and while some of the
> differences are subtle, there is no reason why players should not be
> exposed to contemporary chess thought from the beginning.=92

This does nothing to support your claim that "according to Nunn
Fritz says he was in his own time a 2300 player." In the above
passage, Nunn says no such thing. Where did Nunn say this, Phil? It's
your responsibility to prove your own claim.

Date: 13 Jan 2009 14:53:46
From:
Subject: Re: Morphy again

On Jan 13, 5:17=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 12:16:41 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
> >> > =A03) That the increase in skill with time is not at all linear, but
> >> >began to accelerate greatly at some point after 1911, perhaps with th=
e
> >> >onset of the Soviet era.
> >> I think these are the two biggies.
> >Soviet evolution of chess was later that decade - more like the 1920s.
> >Nothing emerged from the SU to challenge anyone until after 1945.
>
> When does Phil Innes believe Botvinnik became a contender? =A0When did
> Kotov get strong?
>
> As Taylor said, "at some point after 1911" which would cover even the
> period 1940-1960.

True - but kelp-bot has recently admonished readers to beware if I
mention 'vagueness', even if as in this instance is instances 49 years

Phil Innes

> >> > =A0"In a set match, Morphy would beat anybody alive today.
> >Fischer - the player most similar to Morphy in his personal life and
> >attitude - is speculating. Fischer did not beat anybody alive after
> >1972 - he was incapable of it, and Spassky a soft target.
>
> Uhh, Phil, Spassky is still alive.

Date: 11 Jan 2009 10:11:39
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Morphy again

On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 08:49:06 -0800 (PST), Taylor Kingston
<[email protected] > wrote:

>On Jan 11, 11:15�am, [email protected] wrote:
>> In researching commentary on Morphy by Nunn, I see that Edward Winter
>> includes this assessment on Morphy by John Nunn....

> This does nothing to support your claim that "according to Nunn
>Fritz says he was in his own time a 2300 player." In the above
>passage, Nunn says no such thing. Where did Nunn say this, Phil? It's
>your responsibility to prove your own claim.

I went back (using Forte Agent) and reviewed the little discussion we
had back in 2005. Rather civil and informative, possibly because
certain personalities didn't fulminate, I mean "post" to it.

Anyway, the discussion was about events in 1911 -- didn't directly
address Morphy.

Phil's up to his usual stunts.

You challenged him on his claim that Nunn's specifically addressed a
"retro-Fritzed" rating for Morphy. He wasn't able to meet the
challenge so he's (1) posted some other remarks Nunn made about a
Morphy casual game and (2) some various discussions about Nunn's
techniques from rgc*, (3) references to various articles about Morphy.

Evidently, he hopes the reader will assume this potpourri answered
your challenge, which of course it did not.

Date: 11 Jan 2009 08:44:36
From:
Subject: Re: Morphy again

> ---
> This intention of this thread is simply to assess whatever Morphy's
> playing strength was at the time. As you see above, this is hardly
> established by his play against 'two duffers'.
>
> Phil Innes

There are thousands of entries on Morphy via google: here are a few
selections:

^ Jeremy Silman's Chess Page has comments from Fischer on Morphy.
^ "[Morphy's] glorifiers went on to urge that he was the most
brilliant genius who had ever appeared. ... But if we examine Morphy's
record and games critically, we cannot justify such extravaganza. And
we are compelled to speak of it as the Morphy myth. ... Even if the
myth has been destroyed, Morphy remains one of the giants of chess
history." - Reuben Fine; see reading list.

Further reading

Paul Morphy and the Evolution of Chess Theory by Macon Shibut, Caissa
Editions 1993 ISBN 0-939433-16-8. Over 415 games comprising almost all
known Morphy games. Chapters on Morphy's place in the development of
chess theory, and reprinted articles about Morphy by Steinitz,
Alekhine, and others.

Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Chess Player's Chronicle/Paul Morphy A Sketch from the Chess World
The Chess Genius of Paul Morphy by Max Lange (translated from the
original German into English by Ernst Falkbeer), 1860. Reprinted by
Moravian Chess under the title, "Paul Morphy, a Sketch from the Chess
World." An excellent resource for the European view of Morphy as well
as for its biographical information. The English edition was reviewed
in Chess Player's Chronicle, 1859.
Grandmasters of Chess by Harold Schonberg, Lippincott, 1973. ISBN
0-397-01004-4.
World Chess Champions by Edward Winter, editor, 1981. ISBN
0-08-024094-1. Leading chess historians include Morphy as a de facto
world champion, although he never claimed the title.
Morphy's Games of Chess by Philip W. Sergeant & Fred Reinfeld, Dover,
1989. ISBN 0-486-20386-7. Features annotations collected from previous
commentators, as well as additions by Sergeant. Has all of Morphy's
match, tournament, and exhibition games, and most of his casual and
odds games. Short biography included.
Morphy Gleanings by Philip W. Sergeant, David McKay, 1932. Contributes
games not found in Sergeant's earlier work, "Morphy's Games of Chess"
and features greater biographical information as well as documentation
into the Morphy-Paulsen and the Morphy-Kolisch affairs. Later
reprinted as "The Unknown Morphy", Dover, 1973. ISBN 0-486-22952-1.
The World's Great Chess Games by Reuben Fine, Dover, 1983. ISBN
0-486-24512-8.
A First Book of Morphy by Frisco Del Rosario, Trafford, 2004. ISBN
1-4120-3906-1. Illustrates the teachings of Cecil Purdy and Reuben
Fine with 65 annotated games played by the American champion.
Algebraic notation.
Paul Morphy: A Modern Perspective by Valeri Beim, Russell Enterprises,
Inc., 2005. ISBN 1-888690-26-7. Algebraic notation.
Life of Paul Morphy in the Vieux Carr=E9 of New-Orleans and Abroad by
Regina Morphy-Voitier, 1926. Regina Morphy-Voitier, the niece of Paul
Morphy, self-published this pamphlet in New York. Its value lies in
its insight into Paul Morphy's life in the Vieux Carr=E9.
The Chess Players by Frances Parkinson Keyes, Farrar, Straus and
Cudahy; 1960. A work of historical fiction in which Morphy is the
central character.
"Paul Morphy A Historical Character". Chess Player's Chronicle Third
Series: 40. 1860.
Paul Morphy: The Pride and Sorrow of Chess by David Lawson, David
McKay, 1976. ISBN 978-0679130444.
The Genius of Paul Morphy by Chris Ward, Cadogan Books, 1997. ISBN
978-1857441376.
The Pride and the Sorrow by Matt Fullerty, 2008. A biographical
novelization of Morphy's life.

Date: 11 Jan 2009 08:19:36
From:
Subject: Re: Morphy again

> ---
> This intention of this thread is simply to assess whatever Morphy's
> playing strength was at the time. As you see above, this is hardly
> established by his play against 'two duffers'.
>
> Phil Innes

Karsten Muller also sets about an analysis of Morphy's brilliance -
here below is Bord-Morphy, and to aid him he enlists comments by
Kasparov & others.

----

The critical defence in the above position is 22.Kc1! Many sources
claim that it is sufficient for a draw, while some believe in Morphy's
attack.

Euwe and Nunn write in The Development of Chess Style (p. 38, Batsford
1997): "22.Kc1! Qa1+ leads to perpetual check. This is the best line,
but it means that with his pretty combination Black has thrown away
the win."

Neistadt in Uncrowned Champions: "After 22.Kc1 Morphy would have had
nothing better than satisfying himself with perpetual check."

Fred Reinfeld and Andrew Soltis in their book Morphy Chess
Masterpieces (First Collier Books Edition 1974, in descriptive
notation, which has been converted to algebraic): "Legend has it that
when an onlooker found that 22 Kc1! draws, no one would speak to him
for a week. The point of 22 Kc1! is that 22...Bxb4? 23 cxb4 Rxb4 is
not check so that White might escape with 24 Qg5! Qa3+ 25 Kd2 Rb2+ 26
Ke1 Rxe2+ 27 Kxe2 Qf3+ 28 Ke1 Qxh1+ 29 Qg1! and wins. So Black would
have to take a perpetual check with 22...Qa1+."

Anatoly Karpov has produced a deep investigation of the fascinating
endgame after 22...a5 23.Qc2 Qa3+ 24.Qb2 axb4 25.Qxa3 bxa3 and
revealed many hidden White resources. His main line runs 26.Be3 a2
27.Kc2 Ba3 28.Ra1 Rb2+ 29.Kd1 Bd7 30.Rf1 c5 31.dxc5 Ba4+ 32.Ke1 Bb3
33.Bd4! Rb1+ 34.Kd2 Rxa1 35.Rxa1 Bb2 36.Rg1 g6 37.h4 a1Q 38.Rxa1 Bxa1
39.Kc1 Ba2 and he concludes "Both sides are guaranteed a draw, Black
is two pawns up, but his bishops are in seclusion." This is to be
found in his work Miniatures from the World Champions (Collier Books
1985). The Soviet masters Gik and Rozenberg contributed to the
analysis.

Garry Kasparov calls the previous try unclear and prefers 22.Kc1 Bf5!
23.Be1! Qa1+ 24.Kc2 e3+ 25.Kb3 exd2 26.Rxa1 Re8 27.Ba6 dxe1Q 28.Raxe1
Rxe1 29.Rxe1 Bxh2 30.Bb7 Be4 31.Bxc6 Kf7, which leaves Black with a
small advantage.
So was Morphy's original rook sacrifice 17...Rxf2! sound? Kasparov
writes: "I raise my hat to the great chess artist, but the crude
17...Bg4! was correct, or even, according to Euwe, the slow 17...Bf5
and ...Bg6". (see p. 38 of My Great Predecessors I).