|
|
| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
coopershawk 15-May-09, 12:36 |
 "Paul Morphy and the Evolution of Chess Theory"- discussioninterest and have the book. My copy arrived today, and I will begin reading tonight. |
||
|
-zoe- 15-May-09, 14:23 |
enjoy! |
||
|
It's on the way. |
||
|
coopershawk 15-May-09, 23:31 |
Zoe and others without the book can follow any discussion about the games and participate. The first game is: Morphy v de Riviere Paris 1863 Game #361 in this collection that can be played on line. www.visi.com and the first of at least two Morphy v de Riviere 1863 games in the downloadable png collection at the bottom of the page in this link. www.supreme-chess.com Unfortunately there is no easy way to go to the correct game in either collection. This is identifiable by the last move -- 64.c8 |
||
|
Reading and studying "PM and the Evolution of CT" That would mean focusing our first discussion on the "Introduction" (pp.3-4) and the first chapter of "Part I: Analysis," which is "Paul Morphy and the Play of Our Time." (7-33). As James states above, the first game considered - and extensively analyzed - (9-15) is "Morphy-de Riviere." The second is "M-Lowenthal" [London, 1859], (16-25), and the third is "Lichtenhein-M" [New York 1857] (27-29). There follows a 5-pp supplement with commentaries and games of other players. So I'm suggesting we all read pp. 3-15, and discuss the ideas/concepts there and then the game analysis of M-dR. What do you all think of this general plan? Are there other suggestions for how to proceed? |
||
|
coopershawk 16-May-09, 15:57 |
A Plan I think we should go slow for another day or two until some people who have ordered the book receive it. But I don't see any reason not be begin now. I will post something late tomorrow. |
||
|
PM and the Evolution of Chess Theory- Shibut I received my copy for Amazon.com today. I think I placed the order 3-4 days ago, no sales tax and no shipping costs. My copy is new and the total charge was $12.12. And I thought McDonalds was the one with deals. Listed price on the book is $16.95. I think someone cut a deal. I'm not sure how we are going to approach the actual discussion of pp 3-15, but I guess our style will evolve through the chapters. First of all, I am not a fan of Shibut's writing. Of course, I'm not a fan of Fenimore Coopers ("Last of the Mohicans"), either. Fo me, I have difficulty grasping what he's saying on first read and inevitably I comment, "what in the hell is saying." And I end up having to re-reading his paragraphs. The other criticism I have, and maybe you folks do too, is his use of abreviated notations. That drives me crazy. I like to see the little "x" for captures and the "+" for check. Anyway, I'll have to work through those issues. I wouldn't say that Shibut's intent is to bash Paul Morphy, but it is quite evident he wants to "clear up" some Morphy myths and correct the reader's perspective. Anyway that's my take on the intro. I played through Morphy v de Riviere, Paris 1863. Here's a link to the game www.chessgames.com It makes it a lot easier than manually making the moves, especially with his abbreviated notations ( I don't think anyone would have a problem with the statement that this game is clearly not a "best" for either player. I assume that it was not a blitz type game and the clock was not a factor. The game occurred during the Civil War, and to what extent that Paul's interest in the game was wanning, I don't know. But I don't think we can expect a masterpiece each time the master goes to his canvas or picks up his pen. I'm looking to see further arguements by Shibut on this. On the game, itself, I was distracted by the Morphy "reknown" and was doing exactly what Shibut warned not to do. It will take a while for me to separate the "man form the position". But I did find something interesting- On 55. Qf7+ , would not 55.Qh7+ have netted de Riviere's bishop h1 for Morphy?? Anyway, these are my initial reactions. There is no way I'm going to talk this lengthy on next posts. Looking forward to see what others have to say. jc |
||
|
coopershawk 17-May-09, 23:03 |
9. h3 I usually think of this as a wasted move and don't do it because it weakens the pawns in front of the location where I am likely to castle. But as Shibut says, it seems to work in this game, and it demonstrates that we can't play chess successfully by blindly following a set of theoretical tips. One of the great things about the game is the constantly shifting blend between tactical and strategic considerations. I played through the whole game once quickly, and now I am studying it more carefully. JohnClark, I think the move you are referring to is 56. Qf7+ not 55. 56.Qh7+ would win the Bishop, but it loses the pawn on g3 with check. Morphy might have considered that pawn and the tempo more important than the bishop in this circumstance. My guess is that Morphy liked his chances to win better by not giving up the initiative. I will look at it more closely when I get that far in the game. And yes, the highly abbreviated notation is more difficult than it needs to be. OFF TOPIC: John, have you read Mark Twain's essay criticizing Cooper? It is incredibly funny. |
||
|
56.Qf7+ 56.Qh7+ Ka6 57.Qxh1 Qxb3+ 58.Kg4 I would have been very tempted to snatch balck's bishop. |
||
|
coopershawk 18-May-09, 20:57 |
Through 26. Ng1 There were a couple of moves by Morphy that left me puzzled until later when a purpose became apparent. For example: 10. Nde2 I was thinking 10.Nf3. But then after seeing his move, I understood that Morphy did not want to block the advance of the f pawn on his next move. 11.f4. 21.Nge2 This move was very counterintuitive for me. I wanted to bring more pieces closer to the King for his defense, instead of moving pieces away, and exposing him to an attack that appeared to be imminent. Then later I saw that because of 21. Nge2, white was able to play 24. g3 and drive the black Queen all the way back to her first rank, taking much of the steam out of Black's attack. Be sure to go over Shibut's analysis of move 26 and the tactical manuever available if White moves 26.Nd5 and Black tries to take the pawn with Rxe6. As I read the notes, it occurs to me that Shibut is primarily critical of the prior analysis of Soltis and the venerable Reinfeld. So far, more often than not, Shibut is defending Murphy against critical comments made in their prior analysis. |
||
|
Macon Shibut (whoever he is) and PM Here are some of my thoughts: 1. I never heard of Shibut before getting this book. Normally a chess writer's ranking and exploits are trumpeted in his book, but not here. So I googled him, and here's some of what I found - a NM (National Master), which means that he acheived the USCF rating of 2200, even if he later fell below it. Good for a chess player, only ok for a chess writer. He is also 2-time VA state champion and since '91 the editor of the VA Chess Newsletter. (A friend of mine who is a GM told me once - for whatever it's worth -never to bother reading the analyses of anyone below GM.) 2. Like jc, I have trouble with his style. I'm not bothered by his leaving out the x for capture, it's the fact his language and style seems antiquated. I would have guessed the book was written 75 years ago, not 15+. Definitely not smooth and easy to read, at least for me. [As an aside, Cooper's style is heavy and ponderous too, but he wrote almost 200 years ago. Twain's essay on Cooper's Literary Offences [thanks for bringing that up, cj!!] is the funniest and one of the most brilliant literary criticisms I've ever read - it's one I still read occasionally and chuckle over - but he basically misses the point: Twain is a realist analyzing a romanticist; Cooper isn't at all interested in the factual kind of truth Twain is, but what he sees as a much deeper spiritual truth. But that's probably more fit for another thread... ] 3. Interesting discussion between jc and cj about taking/not taking the B. I would probably take it myself, but am not at all sure it's the best move, since it gives the opposing Q so much room, and possiblities for perpetual, etc. I also agree with you, james, about PM's h3 causing me to think a long time about how that strengthens or weakens the position. I probably do it too often, according to master play. 4. As usual, Alekhine's comments are spot on. I particularly like "he clearly pictured to himself in each separate instance just what the given position required..." That's a concept I've been trying to understand for years, and don't really yet. |
||
|
coopershawk 19-May-09, 20:21 |
Finished game. Read to p.16 comments Couple of comments as a result of Chess Master 9000's analysis. a. CM has black leading by small fractions of a pawn until 46.Bh1. At that point it gives white an advantage and that advantage is steadily increased through the rest of the game. b. CM likes Black's moves at 40 and 41. Shibut gives both moves question marks. c. CM agrees with Shibut's criticism of PM's move 26.Ng1. To my mind, this was a good complex game in which PM took advantage of small positional errors by black. Those errors cummulatively led to a win in the end game. Ironbutterfly, Your GM friend is speaking from the perspective of a player much better than us. IMO Woodpushers like all of us here can learn a lot from an NM commenting on a Morphy game. Fred Reinfeld, who taught a generation of club players was not a GM, and neither is Silman, who I think of as Reinfeld's contemporary counterpart, but both are good teachers. I would not say Mr. Shibut is comparable to either Reinfeld or Silman as a teacher, but that is not really the avowed purpose of his book, so I am not critical of him on that basis. On the subject of move 56-- after playing through the game more carefully, I think it likely that Morphy did not overlook the opportunity to capture the Bishop. I suspect that he decided on the spot that he was going to be able to queen the g pawn and didn't need to waste time taking the Bishop on h1. It's interesting that in this game black's light square bishop had control of the long diagonal, a theoretically excellent strategic position; but the bishop was ultimately irrelevant to the outcome. In my experience there is a big difference between a bishop on h1 or a8 and a bishop on g2 or b7. The reduced mobility of the bishop on h1 or a8 looks like a small thing, but in practice it seems to make a big difference. The same is true for dark squared bishop on the other diagonal of course. Comments? |
||
|
coopershawk 22-May-09, 20:24 |
pp. 16-19 Shibut questions Morphy's moves 10 and 13. Chessmaster likes Shibut's choices better, but only by a very small margin, so small that the margin might go away or be reversed if I let the computer think about it longer. In any event this is another complex game that I am enjoying. |
||
|
Been tied up |
||
|
coopershawk 23-May-09, 21:08 |
pp 19-23 To me the tactical sophistication of these players is awesome. I get a different insight into the depth of their understanding when playing through the game on the computer program such as Chessmaster. Sometimes after CM thinks about a move for 60 seconds and it evaluates a move not played by Morphy or Lowenthal as then best by some small factor: BUT if you let the computer program continue to run for another 15 minutes, or maybe even an hour, CM may switch its evaluation and prefer the move actually played by Morphy or Lowenthal. Some of the middle game moves either make or defend threats that I would never see, so the motive for the move is hard to understand. That makes it a difficult game to analyze, even with help from CM and Shibut's variations. |
||
|
coopershawk 23-May-09, 21:10 |
John and others slowly. |
||
|
cascadejames is back! I just noticed that Shibut does not include the famous "Queen Sacrifice game (Paulsen v Morphy, November 3, 1857, game 6, First American Chess Congress, New York City). |
||
|
coopershawk 04-Aug-09, 21:29 |
pp 23-33 have much to add to it. Went lightly through 31-33, since they are non-Morphy games. I will take the author's point that there were other good chess players with similar ideas. Ready to begin Anderssen-Morphy Paris 1858 p.34 next. |
||
|
Can we go back to Lichtenhein-Morphy, NYC 1857? So I was wondering if we could take a look at the game, Shibut's summary of Reti's insights and Shibut's commentary? We might want to tackle "Reti's Logic Applied to Another Game", pp. 30-33. I'll post my reation in a day or so. Thanks, jc |
||
|
coopershawk 05-Aug-09, 08:58 |
John |
||
|
pp 26-30 Shibut then examines Lichtenhein v Morphy, New York 1857 (I think this was an actual tournament game at the First American Chess Congress as Morphy did meet Lichtenhein in the third section of the tournament) and discusses it in the perspective of development and tempo. I thought the discussion was well done. It includes a superior line to the Two Knights Defense/Max Lange Attack now found in the Scotch Gambit variation of the opening (p.27; white's 5th move). In the analysis, Shibult points out several times how Morphy never lost tempo in the development of his pieces where Lichtenhein did several times. Now all this is good and well. And then Shibult drops his thesis gavel pronouncing that development was very well known prior to Morphy and Morphy's acclaim to development and the use of tempo is a "sort of blind idealism" that the next two chapters will attempt to set aside AND will reexamin Morphy's chess vis-a-vis that of Adolph Anderssen and Wilhelm Steinitz! That's when I practically fell out of my chair. Our author is attempting to correct the Morphy idealism on the backs of Anderssen who lost 8-3 in 1858 to Morphy and Steinitz who never played Morphy, but barely beat Anderssen in 1866. So you can see my skepticism and what I will be watchful for. On content -"Rapid development in the open game". I never quite undestood open v closed games. www.markalowery.net is an excellent article on the two. Rule of thumb, open games/positions are usually 1.e4 e5 openings whose lines do not obstruct bishops. Queens pawns openings that obstruct bishop movement fall into the closed category. Now I get it. -Just because a line of play has an established name, does not mean it's the better play. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.e5 loses to 5.0-0! Excellent little paragraph. -The analysis on tempo through the first 14 moves of the game is very good. Well, these are my thoughts on these pages. What do you guys think? Am I totally off? Will go forward with Reti's Logic Applied to Another Game and the Anderssen and Pre-Morphy Chess. |
||
|
Shibut's book: pp. 23-33 "our modern understanding of Morphy's style derives from what Reti wrote in Modern Ideas in Chess and Masters of the Chessboard." I haven't found my copy of MIC, but Reti spends 20 pp. in MotC arguing the point about M being "the first great player to understand the nature and characteristics of the open positions and to elaborate adequate principles for their treatment." (27) Reti analyzes six of M's game in some detail to illustrate these points. Shibut's conclusion is that: "Reti decided that Morphy's 'secret' lay in a breakthrough appreciation for rapid development in the open game." Second, don't miss the fact (I did the first time around) that the material on the Lichenhein-Morphy game [NY, 1857] on pp. 27-29 is RETI's analysis, not Shibut's! Though Shibut does, inexplicably add "in pace" to the next to last paragraph on p. 27, and omits a couple of capture signs. Third, it seems to me that Shibut is guilty of just what he accuses Reti of - generalizing. Like jc, I am skeptical of some of Shibut's judgmental conclusions: he doesn't convince me that Reti and Saidy and Heisman are mistaken in their "blind idealism" in suggesting that PM advanced and focused principles of developing open positions, for example. What more are you guys thinking about this section? |
||
|
coopershawk 08-Aug-09, 22:59 |
?? again here because of issues at work. |
||
|
Bummer! Ironbutterfly: Good point on the Reti analysis! I missed it! Had it been set aside in quotation marks, I might have picked it up. And then again, I may have still needed a slap or two to see it ) |
||
|
coopershawk 28-Nov-09, 23:05 |
Anderssen-Morphy Paris 1858 10th Match Game A marathon win for Anderssen, 77 moves. Part of a match. Material was nominally even at the end of the game, but Morphy resigns after a pawn promotion for Anderssen becomes inevitable. Fascinating game, Anderssen opens with 1. a3 and plays the game as a reverse Sicilian. Anderssen controls the center and the game is initially very clogged up. Morphy never seems to have enough space to operate, even into the end game. |
||
|
coopershawk 29-Nov-09, 20:27 |
Morphy-Anderssen Paris 1858 informal game Kings Gambit in which black (Anderssen) attempts to defend his extra pawn on f4, and gets beatrn badly by Morphy in 19 moves. Interesting notes from Shibut, and a reference to a 1961 Bobby Fisher article titled "A bust of the King's Gambit." Both are very different games than our consultation game with the same opening, but they both shed some light. |
