Paul Morphy’s disputed Amazing Immortal Chess Game – Brief commentary #57 – London 1858

Paul Morphy’s disputed Amazing Immortal Chess Game – Brief commentary #57 – London 1858

Morning all I’d like to show you a very interesting
game this morning called the disputed immortal by some sources. It was played between Henry Edward Byrd and
the great American genius Paul Morphy playing black. Paul Morphy was an American chess player considered
to have been the greatest chess master of his era and an unofficial world chess champion. So, this is pre-Steinitz, it was on the boundary. Because official World Chess Champion started
at Steinitz. He was a chess prodigy and called the pride
and sorrow of chess. Because he had a brief and brilliant chess
career. But then retired from the game while still
young. Here this game is played in London 1858 and
what’s remarkable believe it or not is that it’s still being analyzed and debated today. There’s dispute which is still unclear. I assume with greater technology. The dispute will eventually be resolved. So, let’s see what this dispute is about. E4 from Henry Edward Byrd, Paul plays e5 after
Nf3 we have d6 which is the Philidor defense. D4 seemed logical and now a very aggressive
move by Paul, f5. This is considered quite dubious today with
a number of ways for white to get an advantage. Dxe, bc4 these all might be very good moves
in this position. But white played Nc3, which may fall black
into blacks plans a little bit for undermining white center. After fxe4 here white should possibly try
it the best might be Ng5. But he played Nxe4 and black now gets a good
central aggressive pawn chain after d5 driving the knight back to g3. Which isn’t it’s quite passive to go to g3. Here in fact Nxd5 might be a good move with
the idea of Qh5++. But let’s not get in to the opening theory. After Ng3, now it starts to be quite promising. White hasn’t really tested black with these
aggressive pawn moves. After e4 we see Paul he’s got a good possession
now and this Ne5 is not as venomous here. There’s the threat of Qh5 still, this is parried
now by Nf6, Bg5, Bd6 and now trying to exploit this pin on f6 with Nh5 and Paul Morphy just
castles here. Okay what doesn’t really want to take on f6
here doesn’t look at all good. He just plays now Qd2, blacks already equalized
now. Blacks actually better this aggressive pawn
chain has paid off and in fact e5 can be scrutinized with now Qe8 double attacking e5 and h5. White plays what seems to be quite weakening
move now, g4 in response. Possibly better than g4 just taking on f6,
try and minimize losses here. But ok, g4 was played and now after Nxg4,
h5 is on the mind to snatch the pawn. The f2 pawn is under fire. White plays Nxd4 and I think the strongest
move is played here not Bxg4, but the alternative Qx85. White puts the knight back on e5 and now again
the knight is undermined on e5 with Nc6. So, this pawn structure could potentially
be absolutely delightful for black if you can strengthen d5 is one at F file, fractured
pawns here. F file, f2 target looks very pleasant for
black. Be2 which does facilitate castling queenside
now. Because the Queen was stopping like costing
Queen side. After Qh3 white first resolves the situation
with Knight on e5 by taking on c6, bxc6 and now here castling Queen side is premature
because of Rxf2. Be3 and now it does look as though White’s
ready to Castle queenside and shouldn’t have to worry in theory about his King being on
c1, should he? Paul Morphy plays Rb8, surely the king is
now logically placed of the castling queenside to protect b2. So white castle’s Queen side and here we start
to see the ongoing dispute. What would you play here if I gave you 10
seconds starting from now and would you be optimistic or pessimistic in playing your
chosen move, let me ask that? Okay, okay now if you’re chosen move was something
like Bg4 because you’re positionally you want to undermine white further on the light squares
and you want to celebrate the isolated pawns, then I call you a pessimist and there’s
an upside of being a pessimist. If the opponent plays perfect chess or near-perfect
chess, one day you’re going to beat one of those opponents. Because you’re going to play so pessimistically,
but maybe getting a tiny advantage instead of trying for a big advantage, that you might
actually try and beat them after a long game. That’s the wonderful thing for pessimists
to celebrate here, if you’re chosen Bg4 or Bif5 may be good as well. You can reinforce your king with Bg6, later
on maybe put pressure on f2 slowly or h2 at some point and there’s other moves as well. Bb4 to try and provoke a weakness. Because white can only play c3. So, provoking a weakness might be useful as
well here. Be6 is an engine suggested move. So, these moves are all kind of mild in nature,
not too radical. We could call them slightly pessimistic moves,
not going for anything huge. Now if you were a huge pop optimist what would
you play here? Well the optimists might have played Paul
Morphy’s move, which was Rxf2. But this is the dispute. Because some people claim this is an absolutely
brilliant move, even against the best possible defense. Let’s see, so Rxf2. White is practically forced to take this rook. H2 is going to drop for example, you know
black has got other threats now. Ok so the rook is taken and the point here,
the rather brilliant pointer and dramatic point, can you see what Paul Morphy uncorks
in this position if I give you 10 second starting from now? Okay and it doesn’t matter if you’re not optimists
or pessimist, you should come up with this move. It’s the best move, no controversy around
it, no element of psychology. Qa3 threatening mate and if white takes, then
Bxa3 is checkmate. So white plays a good defensive move, in fact
the only defensive move. Which is reasonable here, which is c3 to protect
b2. Now Paul takes on a2 and white again plays
are very very good move in the circumstance. What is black threatening? Black is threatening principally check, Kc2,
rxb2#. There were also other little threats like
Ba3 as well. But that’s the principal threat. So white plays this move, in this position
b4. Okay the queen is attacked as well, there’s
no time for any taking on b4 here. Paul throws in a check on a1. Okay if you had thrown in a check on a3, then
Qb2 and why it’s better? Clearly better and there’s no, there’s nothing
going on here. This is giving white time to arrange the defense. So Qa1 is virtually forced, Kc2 and now Paul
plays Qa4++ and here it is false at move 22 the big raging debate, here at move 22 of
this classic game in London 1858 and I can’t think of anything else in the world apart
from maybe a classic murder that would be debated with evidence and counter evidence
to this day, hundreds of years later that this would still be discussed. It’s rather remarkable. But in the game white played Kb2, Kb2. Which intuitively doesn’t look like such a
hot idea. Because it’s in the firing line of this rook
on the B file. It doesn’t look the most prudent defense. It looks rather optimistic that the b4 pawn
is not going to be taken away with a sacrifice here. But let’s note this critical position. I don’t want to damage the flow here. Let’s see what happen in the game. Now Paul plays Bxb4. Is this the strongest? I guess it is, engines really like it. It looks absolutely logical. Cxb4, Rxb4, White’s King safety is totally
stripped away. What can white do here? You can only sacrifice the Queen if he goes
back, it’s going to be a mate in two. Note the use of this pawn here is stopping
the use of that d3 square. So white has to sacrifice the Queen and now
whites best was probably Ka2 here just marginally, but it’s all pretty dire. White played actually Kc2 and now a very energetic
move again from Paul Morphy. Can you spot it? A very nice forcing moves actually. Okay it’s the move e3, it opens up this diagonal
with very dangerous effect. Bxe3 and now check and now if white interposes
the bishop, then Qc4 is a cruncher exploiting, celebrating that pin. So just winning that piece like this for example
just taking that out. But white tried here Rd3, a lesser evil
but still terrible, check and now trying to cling on to that Rook. But unfortunately, these other Rooks loose
here. So, after check Kd1++, this other rook is
dropping off and white resigned here. Now a beautiful game, yes brilliant. Rxf2, why was that optimistic? Well let’s see. If we rewind back to this critical position
where white kind of helps black for this immortal game, Kc1, legend has it, an onlooker found
this move and no one would speak to him for a week. So, this is back in 1858, no one would speak
to him for a week. But it’s logical that the king is not willing
to be attacked so heavily here. Okay many sources have claims that it’s sufficient
for a draw, while some believe in Morphys’ attack. Max Euwe and John Nunn write in the development of chess
style that Kc1, Qa1+ leads to perpetual check. The best line they claim and with this pretty
combination black has thrown away the win, which he had earlier with this Rxf2. Because it’s an all-or-nothing this Rxf2 from
earlier. But is this really the case? Well there’s another candidate moves here. So, let’s see, other sources claim these data
in uncrowned champions after Kc1 Morphy had nothing better than satisfying himself a perpetual
check. Fred Reinfeld and Andrew Soltis in their
book Morphy chess masterpieces of 1974 indicate that bothers a line here we can look at with
Bxb4 here. Which isn’t sufficient. Because c takes rook takes, white as a remarkable
resource here. Well white can play Qg5 heading for perpetual
check territory and this gets very tricky. For example, check, sorry h6 first to leave
a square on h7. Check, Queen takes and now ready for this
perpetual check mechanism and we get a perpetual check for check. That’s just one of numerous examples why Bxb4
isn’t so clear If we go into this position. So, this improvement did much better version
should we say with the King on c1. So, if we try Queen, if we try Rxb4 rather
c takes, Bishop takes, Qc2++, here it’s just perpetual as well. So, any sacrifice on b4 doesn’t seem too hot
and that’s been analyzed by Fred Rhine field and Andrew Soltis. Okay and Anatoly Karpov believe it or not
has produced a deep investigation of the endgame in this position after a5, I’ll give you
an example. I’ll put all this PG in the description of
the video. Check and this has been trying to be improved
on this, this kind of variation here. Offering c7 trying to get this pawn mass going
here, very dangerous position white it seems. But if we end up with a situation like this,
ok black seems better. But there are numerous variations to consider
after this move a5. But this a5 move is very very interesting. Also, another very interesting move is Bf5,
which has ideas not just of e3, but also a5 as well intermingling a5 as well. The Kasparov line is in this variation after
Bf5, white plays Be1++, very forcing move. Kc2 and now check, another very forcing move. The King goes to b3. So, in this line the rook is attacking Queen,
this pawn is attacking that Queen. White plays now Kb3, after exd2, Rxa1. There’s a surprising twist here, not taking
the bishop on e1, but rather Re8. So, Kasparov has been analyzing this line
with a potential continuation ba6, black taking on e1, Rhxe1, Rook takes, Rook takes, Bxh2,
Bb7, Be4, Bxc6, Kf7, I think here is the end of the Kasparov line, where Kasparov I think
has assessed this is better for black slightly, these pass pawns. Okay so intense amount of analysis. So Karpov and Kasparov have been at this position,
there’s just an intense debate believe it or not about this Kc1 move, whether it draws
or not. I don’t think there’s anything much else in
the world to have such intense debate hundreds of years later and this is the point that
in this position this is a quite amazing aspect of chess that we can, we’ve got the perfect
evidence here. We can do the investigation, we’ve got all
the facts. But it’s difficult it seems to find a concrete
conclusion if blacks really winning from this position after Kc1. So, I’ll put all the analysis that I’ve
calculated and also from Houdini in the description of video if you want to check it out. But this is why this immortal game has been
disputed. Some will argue look we play against people,
people make mistakes, does it matter that you know white didn’t play this more accurate
stubborn defense? It was still a beautiful game to play through. Okay so on that note if we go back to the
main course of the game and go to the final position, it worked out very well. So, what do you think, should this be called,
should there be a dispute around the way Morphy Played? Should he have played in light of this Kc1,
a more modest continuation. So, the question goes back to earlier. So, where he had a great position more than
the pawns advantage from an engine point of view, but was it sacrificially potentially
put at risk when any simple move like Bg4 could be sufficient here. If it was played like this, we wouldn’t call
it maybe an immortal, it wouldn’t have been so spectacular. But it’s a slow and steady approach against
even potentially the absolute best defenses are to try and win the game. So interesting stuff, what do you think? Was Morphy right to play for brilliance with
Rxf2, optimistic or brilliant. Comments or questions on YouTube, thanks very

94 thoughts on “Paul Morphy’s disputed Amazing Immortal Chess Game – Brief commentary #57 – London 1858

  1. I feel Morphy had little choice but to play for brilliance. Once you see a line that still looks good enough for at least a draw 10 moves further in, and a lot of possible mates if you opponent missteps it is waaaay too tempting to play it.

  2. You can try and put the engine on the right side of the board and film in wide-screen. All chess commentaries on youtube are a square with black borders on the side which is very annoying.

  3. That's possibly the most disgusting thing I have ever read. What on Earth possessed you to think that it would be "great" to change Paul Morphy's style, and then to suggest that he only played against psychology!?

  4. Of course he should play for brilliance. When you knowe you have a brilliant combination in the air you should play for it, even though you are not sure its winning. Life is to short to neglect brillance. If you have a Imortalgame in your arsenal you will be remebered far long after your deaf.

  5. it matters on the motivation of the game. if u simply want to win it, you'd play like carlsen, slowly, not giving counterplay, not play Rxf2. in return if u want to create something astonishing with, with the risk to fail though, then u play Rxf2. also i think after Kc1 a5 seems to be the most promising move. black seems to be able to keep a small advantage or even build up on it (at least houdini says so) and white easily makes a wrong move.

  6. actually that "easily making a wrong move" is a major issue in chess between human players. often it doesnt matter if there is a variation over 20 moves where the opponent can keep the advantage. if all other variations lead to your advantage chances are high you'll get out of the game as a winner.

  7. Why not 2 houdinis play each other for several games in the same position. This would be prove better evidence than normal human analyzis.

  8. Like in surveys, the investigation should be at least several hundred datas to compare, and at around 1000 different datas, this would give quite accurate conclusion. More datas put into the test, the more accurate result.

  9. Paul Morphy is such a genius at chess that people are still confused about his games. Kc1 does seem like a better defense though I have to admit, but its hard to say what Morphy would've done in response to that since they didn't have computer analysis back then.

  10. Another word for "optimistic" in 19th century chess is "romantic." Morphy no doubt knew he was winning, but he often rejected the safer line that leads to a long grind in favor of the more risky line that could lead to a faster win.

  11. Also, like most games from Morphy's era, this one has flaws, sloppy moments, missed opportunities, and outdated theoretical lines. It's likely both Bird and Morphy saw the drawing lines but both may have rejected them. Playing for a draw was simply unheard of in 1858. So we need to consider the context of the game.

  12. Go for brilliance! Morphy is not just famous for winning, but for the brilliance of his sacrificial play. It's what makes his games so exciting and memorable. If he played a more subdued style, slowly grinding people into dust it's likely we wouldn't care as much. Let's face it–a rook sac to checkmate is way more fun than winning by a pawn.

  13. great calculations, no doubts about that, but let's face it: the win is mostly psychological here. Look at it from the point of view of a 19th century player: oh, great Morphy has sacrificed a whole rook and something, I must be screwed. Then the game is over. Kb2 is an excellent example: white simply lost the will to fight.

    sometimes it feels so good just to be a pessimist, play Bg4 and win slowly.

  14. Drink water before you put a mic right in front of your mouth. Your hard swallowing and dry mouth sounds are distracting from what could be an interesting video

  15. Amazing how one move can lead to millions of different variations… I wonder if all of them have been played out – each in a different parallel universe.

  16. Hey thanks for the entertaining vid KC! Complements on your narration–nice slow pace with some good dramatic pauses!

  17. Morphy played Rxf2 because he absolutely believed in it, and not because it was a risky optimistic move. This guy was a true genius. Bird, of coarse, rejects what he thinks are drawing lines, because a 19th century Alpha male wouldn't have it any other way. Only a coward would weazel his way out of a brilliant attacking display by attempting to draw.

  18. brilliant. Morphy was a chess genius. I think he may have calculated almost all variations and saw that the worst he would do with this attempt is draw, so he went for it..

  19. This or his game against Paulsen is my favorite from Morphy. I think that Bf5 line after Kc1 might give Black an advantage, but it's still tricky.

  20. What and amazing game. I would never have seen that opportunity to launch an attack on the king in that position. What a brilliant mind.

  21. Question: Should players try to make "Art" at the Chessboard.
    Or, simply do the algorithms/equations which maximize value?

    When Morphy played "RxF2" Did he think,
    "Heh, I have a 55% chance of winning, and a 45% chance of losing."
    Instead of "20% chance of winning 70% chance drawing 10% chance of losing"

    The expected value of the Modest line is greater. Does "Art" belong on a Chess board?

  22. Brilliancy games playlist:

    Join me for a game:

  23. analysis is often very interesting and instructive. The Bf5 line shows Morphy's position was won in all variations and even if he had not found it he could always draw. I love playing actively like this. 

  24. Whether it was ultimately a winning line of play or not, I think Morphy's Rxf2 had to be played. If for nothing else, just to see how far he could get with it. Like you said, we're still talking about it to this day. The outcome is hazy even with our super computing modern chess engines. He made the right move.

  25. The debate and subsequent analysis is the hallmark of brilliancy. These contributions of various approaches and styles culminating to the Kasparov line define its brilliancy !!!      

  26. it truly was amazing how far ahead in advance morphy could see all possible scenarios. my guess(and thats all it is, like an opinion) is that morphy saw the double up of his opponents rooks in the g file and just took the game in a go for broke, swing the queen to the other side in an attack till the end(perpetual check if nessacery) style of playing.

  27. II dont know if Morphy saw the King C1, but he could also have seen it and figured out that the chances for getting that answer were less then 50%. Myself I like to do wild combinations not knowing if they are certain winners. Its fun to play like a firework.

  28. so basically Morphy "Played" the game ahead in his head and if he liked the result he unleashed it in the physical world 😛

  29. According to the latest Stockfish release, which is the indisputable best attacker in the chess world, Morphy is still better in the Bf5 line. Does anyone have Komodo 7, to see how the best defender evaluates the position after Bf5 ?

  30. I feel like if white would have blocked with the light squared bishop instead of the rook, and the queen checks and white plays king B2, not king D2, like it might be perpetual at best for black..?

  31. I believe this game was the first to show a method that is still used today in that Morphy calculated out and knew that he at least had a draw in reserve before saccing the queen, and he knew that the sac would throw extreme chaos into the game which would be very difficult to refute over the board. Of course after 100 years of analyzing the game and using computer engines to help find the best possible moves we can say anything about what we would have done but in reality there is a human element to playing competitive chess, which is displayed here. And Kasparov would not have been any different over the board.

  32. Are there really any "immortal" games that were defended perfectly? I thought mistakes are what causes any game to be lost.
    It's unfair to say this game is any less immortal than any other immortal that was won due to lack of perfect defense.

  33. sack the rook, but after pawn takes rook, keep the bishop on its powerful diagonal instead of recapturing. why on earth you need to bother recapturing a mere pawn when we are after the king at this point…

  34. Pawn to e3 is promising. Forking bishop and queen. In my Analysis its pretty brutal. Using stockfish in helping, but its pretty much the killer blow.

  35. [Event "morphy disputed immortal "]
    [Site "LGLS660"]
    [Date "????.??.??"]
    [Round "-"]
    [White "Stockfish 6"]
    [Black "Stockfish 6"]
    [Result "0-1"]
    [FEN "1rb3k1/p1p3pp/2pb4/3p4/qP1Pp3/2P5/3QBB1P/2KR3R b – – 0 1"]

    1… a5 2. Rhg1 g6 3. Qc2 Qa3+ 4. Qb2 axb4 5. Qxa3 bxa3 6. Bg3 Bf8 7. Bf4 Bf5 8. Kd2 Rb2+ 9. Ke3 a2 10. h3 Rb3 11. Bg4 Bxg4 12. hxg4 Bb4 13. Ra1 Rxc3+ 14. Kf2 Rc2+ 15. Kg3 Bc3 16. Rad1 Bb2 17. Bxc7 Rc3+ 18. Kf4 Rf3+ 19. Kg5 Bc3 20. Be5 e3 21. Rc1 e2 22. Rxc3 Rxc3 23. Bd6 Rf3 24. Re1 Rf1 25. Rxe2 a1=Q 26. Re8+ Kg7 27. Re7+ Rf7 28. Be5+ Kf8 29. Rxf7+ Kxf7 30. Kf4 Qe1 31. g5 c5 32. Bb8 cxd4 33. Kg4 d3 34. Bf4 d2 35. Bxd2 Qxd2 36. Kf3 Ke6 37. Kg3 Kf5 38. Kf3 Kxg5 39. Kg3 Qe2 40. Kh3 Kf4 41. Kh4 Qh2# 0-1

  36. I like listening to kingscrusher as I think his commentary is very instructive.However the more I think that I understand this rather complex game,the more I realise how futile the whole thing is!(While contemplating ones navel, one should be aware of the sword hanging above ones own head.)

  37. I feel I get annoyed with so many chess videos on youtube using such over the top language describing chess games, every game/player is described to the be most amazing, immortal, incredible game/player ever, and though this video and game is very interesting I find the same thing about this. Why is it so surprising that a game is still discussed today? Like KC is falling over himself with shock that a game is discussed hundreds of years later When there are hundreds of other videos on this channel where the different possible moves are discussed. It's like chess players are so desperate for people to get into the game they just go way over the top when talking about the game.

  38. What are you all saying its not possible for white to have played Kb2 or are you just arguing about the mind of Morphy as he could not have expected Kb2 so what would he have played/what was the line he had in mind?

  39. The dispute is unfair how many years ago was this. if we send a super gm back in time I have no doubt they can defeat Murphy easily, but they take advantage of over 100 years of evolution. So the dispute is redundant for me due to time.

  40. How does it come that supercomputers didn't solve the chess game yet ? Did they succeed but told no one to protect the chess business ?

  41. I feel that if a win cannot be forced, which to me didn't seem to be the case in the position where Morphy played Rxf2, then as long as the move is not losing, it is not necessarily a mistake. The best argument against Rxf2 is that it is perhaps an inaccuracy but I do not believe it does much of any damage to Black's situation. As a matter of fact, I find the move to be beautiful. Overall, I do not think Rxf2 necessarily forces a win but it is fine to play. Bird's Kb2 I believe is a decisive error and it was played probably because Bird saw that Kc1 had drawing implications and he decided to avoid the draw.

  42. The way I see it if white goes Qd2 then black goes Qa1+, white has to block with Qb1, then drops a pawn with Qxc3+. Once again white has to block, with Qc2, but then drops the b4 pawn to blacks queen… and white is in real trouble.

    After looking at it further, white is up shit creek. White will waste too much time trying to unscrew his king by moving lesser pieces, and if white tries the move Qb2 then black's a4 is and other moves like Bf4 just go about hemming the white king in… Morphy knew what he was doing. ;}

  43. I saw Rxf2. I don't know why it appealed to me. It just felt right. I suppose it allows the Queen to sweep over to the Queenside.

  44. Replayable game link:
    Join me or other Youtubers for a game: – Cheers, K

  45. Morphy was clearly trying to intimidate and confuse his opponent, and it worked. The line was suspect, but Morphy knew a mistake was coming.

  46. I don't get why "people" wouldn't talk to the guy who suggested King C1? "For a week," no less! That's the funny part of he story to me.

  47. I don't think it's really an immortal game anyway – brilliant, undoubtedly, but not incredible enough to be called "immortal." Only a handful of games in chess history earn that moniker. From what I'm hearing, it sounds as if Black would have a big, possibly but not necessarily winning, advantage without the sacrifice, and a big, possibly but not necessarily winning, advantage with it. So it seems that even objectively speaking – at least as far as we can tell at the present day – it's quite unclear whether it was the best move or not. There is no firm basis for saying it was theoretically incorrect. So I don't think the brilliance of the game is really undermined. The sacrifice appears debatable but sound.

  48. God, I wish Paul gave one interview. It will haunt me my whole life why a genius of this magnitude would have walked away. Barry Sanders’s shockingly abrupt retirement is the only thing I can relate with as being slightly comparable.

  49. Probably Morphy saw that this is a draw by correct play of his opponent. And obviously he couldn't be more happy because he would either draw with black (pretty good) or win brilliantly, and since Morphy understood game theory he knew that these guys won't settle down to a draw being up so much material, nobody would. Its humiliating to be up several pieces and having no way of winning the game, only engines are that cold blooded to give all that extra stuff away and look for perpetuals, humans don't think like that. Morphy knowing that he certainly played the best move…

    After Rxf2 the game is just like every other chess game… Just a draw by correct play. Well, every other chess game is a draw by correct play and the only reason why someone won is because his opponent made a mistake, so if other games can be called immortal where an opponent made a mistake and lost why not this one which is the same thing?

    If White plays Kc1 instead of Kb2 the game would still be won by Morphy, as even Stockfish shows a slight advantage for black (due to the past pawns on the King side). So logically Morphy being a better player would have won the game…

    And lets count, white has 4 pawns 2 rooks 2 bishops and a Queen = 31 and Morphy has 7 pawns, 2 bishops, a rook and a Queen = 29. So Morphy is down 200 centipawns (2 pawns) but his King is safe and he has many protected past pawns. Technically Morphy didn't make any mistake in his attack sure he didn't go for the engine lines giving him a concrete advantage but he also didn't make any mistakes since Rxf2 is just a normal move that forces the game in this position [1r4k1/p1p3pp/2pb4/3p1b2/qP1Pp3/2P5/3QBB1P/2KR3R w q – 9 9] … After Kc1 Black is -0,4 (ever so slightly better) and as we said Morphy being the better player would have played correctly and since the game is better for black white for not being a better player wouldn't have played so perfectly and he would have still lost the game…

    The reason why this is an immortal game, is because of the use of game theory that surely grants black a win because there is no way that white can hold this drawn position with chess theory of 1858 where even chess engines of today have hard time drawing with white in this position.

  50. I think games like these are a gateway into what I call deeper chess. Deeper chess is when there are imbalances but the game is still a draw, like for example in the Traxler or here… Most of the times engines have just a few candidate moves to analyze but in special positions like these where so many moves are good and can be played, engine evaluations really jump all around the place… They say that there are more possible chess games than stars in our galaxy or atoms in the observable universe or something like that, so games like these are gateways to all those "infinite" chess games that mathematicians talk about and can't be reached if players simply play peacefully…

    Morphy wasn't a peaceful player, he liked dipping his hand and reaching into this deeper chess and their opponents simply couldn't survive the pressure!

  51. Morphy doesn't do modest , brilliant has to be the verdict. He loves forcing moves and his flair and ability to do the unexpected and recover from a mistake perhaps leans towards arrogance. I'm made up to find this channel and morphy ,he plays chess like Best plays footy .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *