Talk:Morphy number

Leonard Barden?

Bubba73 added that Leonard Barden has a Morphy Number of 3. What is the source of this? Neither the Harding nor the Kingston article appears to mention Barden. Krakatoa (talk) 04:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the Harding article - after his part, in a comment to the article by Barden. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 04:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt you, but I don't see any comments? Krakatoa (talk) 05:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it isn't in the PDF itself, but it is on the website: http://www.chesscafe.com/Tim/kibb.htm

The second "reader comment":

Leonard Barden from England - I have a Morphy number of three as I drew with Mieses in the first round of the Premier Reserves at Hastings 1948-9. The occasion is described in my Guardian article of 28 June 2008. Perhaps Tim can claim a Morphy 4 based on our book co-operation....

. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 13:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are probably some other Morphy 3s around, but they aren't famous. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 20:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Original research tag

The {{original research}} tag I just added to this article was quickly reverted. Just examining the first couple of referenced statements:

"Kasparov likely played an offhand game with Botvinnik": This is sourced to a magazine, which states "it is quite possible, even likely, that some of the Russians have played Botvinnik unofficially (especially his pupil Kasparov)". Whether the magazine is even a reliable source is questionable, but when even the reference admits that the link is speculative we should be very careful. At the very least the speculation should be reworded to indicate that it is indeed speculation.
"The idea of the Morphy Number may have originated in a June 2000 note by Tim Krabbé." This is referenced to a diary which never uses the term "Morphy number". Furthermore, the only source which does use the term "Morphy number", the magazine article, never mentions Tim Krabbé!

Given that the article consists almost in its entirety of the extrapolated text of a ChessCafe article and its followup, and that both contain significant speculation, I think this article should be re-tagged for now. In particular, the assertion that Tim Krabbé came up with the idea when the two references used to support it make no reference of each other is textbook synthesis. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 - that can be reworded. For #2, I think that one of the sources specifically says that the idea of the Morphy number may have come from Krabbe. It is the idea, if not the name. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 17:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the Harding source: "Taylor Kingston from the USA - I feel honored that Tim has written a sequel to my article. I should mention that, as far as I know, the idea of the Morphy Number originated with Dutch writer Tim Krabbé; " Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 17:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. in that case the article still needs clarified to point out who said what, rather than speculating into thin air about it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definition question

I am wholly prepared to be shot down in flames here; having spoken personally to a current GM player about the Kasparov Number, which appears to be the same or a derived concept, I thought that you had to win your game to qualify for your number? So that a player with a Kasparov number of three, say, has to have beaten a player who has beaten a player who has beaten Kasparov. Is the Morphy number different? --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Morphy Number is defined by playing only (not necessarily winning). Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 00:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kingston and Harding both define the term as Bubba73 says. I have read others writing of a "Kasparov Victory Number," which is what Anthony Bradbury is referring to. Victory numbers are significantly harder to come by, of course. I myself have a Morphy Number of 4 (I drew an Internet game against Barden, who drew Mieses, who drew Bird, who lost to Morphy at least five times). I haven't tried to figure out my Morphy Victory Number, but it would surely be at least 5, and quite possibly higher. Krakatoa (talk) 02:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Morphy Victory Number of 6: I beat Greg DeFotis, who beat Bisguier, who beat Pomar, who beat Maroczy, who beat Owen, who beat Morphy. Krakatoa (talk) 03:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How did you track that down - using ChessBase? Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 15:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

chessgames.com. ChessBase or 365chess.com also work - indeed, may work better, since they have far more games. Of course, your MVN is much better: you beat Whitaker, who beat Lasker (in a simul), who beat Bird, who beat Morphy once in their 12 known games (according to Morphy's secretary Frederick Edge, though the game itself hasn't been preserved). Krakatoa (talk) 03:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kasparov vs Christoffel 1988?

Chessgames has a game Garry Kasparov vs Martin Christoffel, 1988 http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1070298

If this game is genuine (possibly a simul game?) and it is the same Martin Christoffel then Kasparov has an MN of 4 irrespective of whether or not he played Botvinnik. IM Martin Christoffel (1922-2001) is correctly listed as MN 3 having played Mieses.

Is there any reason for doubt about the authenticity or attribution of this game from Chessgames? If not then it provides firmer evidence for a 4-status for Kasparov than an anecdotal likelihood of playing Botvinnik.Therealsleepycat (talk) 06:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chessgames.com is generally reliable. ChessBase has the game too. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 01:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kasparov is an MN4 by virtue of beating Gligorić thrice (who played Tartakower, who played Mortimer, who played Morphy), Ivkov once (same as above), and scoring 5.5/6 against Larsen (who played Ossip Bernstein, who played Mortimer, who played Morphy). Krakatoa (talk) 03:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So why are vandals reverting my change that placed Kasparov in the 4s? Cut it out! You (and you know who you are) call ME a vandal?!216.221.74.90 (talk) 03:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then Nikolić is also MN4 because he played Ivkov. BYOL (talk) 21:17, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference needed

Is this huge chunk in the lede referenced? It seems to me to be WP:OR, and rather uninteresting OR at that:

For example, if a grandmaster once played against Yasser Seirawan in the early rounds of a large tournament and then plays a simultaneous exhibition ("simul") at a regional or local chess club, each of his opponents in the simul thereby acquires a Morphy number of not less than 6: (((Seirawan's Morphy number, i.e., 4) + 1 for the GM) + 1 for the simul participant) = 6. The number of amateur players who acquire their lowest Morphy numbers in this way may therefore be approximated as (the number of GMs who have played Seirawan in this setting) x (the number of simuls a typical GM has played) x (the number of opponents at a typical GM-conducted simul); deviations from this estimate are attributable to a) the fact that different such GMs have played differing numbers of simuls, with career length making the most obvious difference, b) the fact that different simuls feature differing numbers of participants, and c) the fact that some amateurs at such a simul may have participated in one or more previous simuls versus a GM who has played Seirawan, such that their participation does not add to the total.

I think it should be excised in any case as it doesn't improve the article. "The number of amateur players ... may be therefore approximated as ..." – OK, if this is so interesting, what is the result and why is it not in the article? Quale (talk) 06:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The additions on Sept. 17, 2010 appear to be unreferenced. I think they should be removed. We can't list everyone's Morphy number. Before the Sept 17 additions, everything was referenced. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 23:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop vandalizing the verifiable facts by the revert-happy editors!!

I documented that Najdorf and Purdy played Tartakower (2), so they are both 3s. I also documented a few others that were "citation needed", e.g. Sarapu and Bogatyrchuk. So stop reverting these changes which are perfectly in accord with Wiki policies: correcting errors using proper documentation. 216.221.74.90 (talk) 03:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

additions

Any additions to this needs to have a reference. Also, we can't list the Morphy Number of everyone, so let's stick to the references and verifiable sources - in particular ones that state their Morphy number. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of #1s not complete

Doesn't everyone at Paul_Morphy#Results have a Morphy number 1? Can I add them to the list? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone there does have Morphy number 1, but I don't think they should be listed here. (A link to them would be good, though.) The reason is that I don't think they should all be listed is that the original articles about Morphy Numbers listed only ones that were important in establishing links to other players. The article can't list everyone's Morphy number, since just about all chessplayers would be listed. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How to resolve the Kasparov 4/5 conflict

This article has a longstanding problem of being self-contradictory because the original sourced claims that Kasparov has MN 5 have proved to be incorrect since he is clearly MN 4. As a result at the top of the article he is MN 5 (and has been for a long time) but further down he is in the MN 4 list.

This contradiction should be cleared up so the article does not contain a clear factual error, but i am not sure what the best way is to go about this. Options include:

replace the text about Kasparov being a 5 with text stating that he is a 4 and giving online database games as references (although I am yet to find an online database that is entirely reliable; all of them seem to have misattributions).
replace Kasparov with Anand, the current world champion, who as far as I am aware is clearly a 5, and is stated to be such in the published sources.

Any thoughts on the best way to go to fix this? Therealsleepycat (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be fixed one way or the other. At the time the article was written, the sources only had MN=5 for Kasparov. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've finally changed it now but forgot to log in. Have gone with Anand on account of him being a current top player while Kasparov, while probably still more famous, is now largely retired and therefore a less useful example of the idea as applied to current players. But if anyone wants to replace it with a correct example involving Kasparov and showing him to be MN 4 I would also be fine with that. Therealsleepycat (talk) 13:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hermann Helms

The addition of Hermann Helms, who faced numerous players of the old school, would increase the number of listed 3s or 4s greatly. Helms played in the weekly Manhattan Chess Club rapid tournaments almost to the date of his death in 1963. In doing so, he faced almost everyone of note in American chess history, including Bobby Fischer and William Lombardy. See ChessGames.com for a list of his early opponents, a list unfortunately that is far from complete. Abenr (talk) 15:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are not trying to make a complete list, that would be too large. With only a couple of exceptions, the ones in the article are from the sources. A main criteria in how the sources selected players is to list ones that were important in establishing links from one level to the next. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Blue in Morphy Group 5

I don't think it is significant that Deep Blue has Morphy number 5. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and have removed it. MN3s Bronstein, Larsen and Reshevsky played various computers so if there is a desire to cover the issue of computers with MNs it should appear under MN4. Therealsleepycat (talk) 08:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Viswanathan Anand played Bent Larsen, Anand should have a MN of 4

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?yearcomp=exactly&year=&playercomp=either&pid=11227&player=&pid2=12088&player2=&movescomp=exactly&moves=&opening=&eco=&result=

Viswanathan Anand played Bent Larsen. Anand should have a MN of 4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowman212 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boleslavsky, Kotov, Smyslov, and Szabó should have MN of 3

Boleslavsky, Kotov, Smyslov, and Szabó should have MN of 3 since they all have participated in the Groningen 1946 tournament and played there with Tartakower. BYOL (talk) 19:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Morphy number. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606163132/http://www.chesscafe.com/Tim/kibb166.htm to http://www.chesscafe.com/Tim/kibb166.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Various changes

A few comments regarding today's many edits. The edits were mostly to change the status of many players who have lower MNs than previously published here, and also to remove some other incorrect and out of date material.

There may have been reluctance over time to edit this article to fix such issues because of the issue of using published games and crosstables to substantiate category changes and this being a perceived WP:OR issue. After all if no WP:RS has published that so-and-so has a given Morphy number, then this is a synthesis not stated in such sources. But provided the sources are correct, the synthesis involved (A played B who played C who played D) is so trivial that it should be considered a "routine calculation" for the purposes of this article and hence exempt. To do otherwise prevents the article from being improved by correcting statements and examples that are clearly false, and it seems that generally other editors have accepted games and crosstables as evidence. (Care is needed because databases are not completely error-free, eg misattributions between players with the same surname will sometimes occur.)

Discussion on the British Chess Forum in 2010 (eg https://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php?t=2169&start=30) revealed many players, some of them still living now and some problematic to verify, who were MN3s not included in the list of living MN3s, mostly through Sergeant who played Mortimer. For some time to come there will be several MN3s living who will not necessarily be notable players. I therefore think it is best at this time - though maybe not in another 5-10 years - for the article to avoid claiming to list all living MN3s and just list examples, preferably notable enough to have their own page.

Earlier there was a problem with this page using Kasparov as an example of MN5 when he was actually MN4, so I changed this to Anand but he turns out to be MN4 too. As the concept is attributed (somewhat hazily) to Krabbe, I thought for now just using Krabbe's 2000 line was a good way to explain it as an example that might be relatively safe against further discoveries, but there may be better approaches. Therealsleepycat (talk) 13:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out that many of the upgrades arising from playing Smyslov (for instance) are referenced in a 2014 update article by Kingston (https://chesscafe.com/the-skittles-room/morphy-numbers-revisited/), which I have added some references to. Therealsleepycat (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability criteria for MN4, MN5

Just deleted additions that were of players who had Wikipedia pages but are not exactly "famous" on a global scale, as has been the practice in the past. The number of living MN4s who are the subject of Wikipedia pages for some reason (not even always a chess reason) will be very large and even more so for MN5s.

Wondering if there is merit in putting criteria at the head of the MN4 and MN5 sections to discourage additions of obscure players who happen to have played in Olympiads, eg restrict MN4 to GMs, IMs and very famous chess personalities, and restrict MN5 to GMs. Therealsleepycat (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction in MN1 section

The following two sentences contradict each other:

> but all of the known links for players with Morphy number 2 go through the following five players.[1][4]

> Some Irish players could go through the Rev. Dr George Salmon, who played in one of Morphy's blindfold chess simultaneous exhibitions.[6]

Since Salmon is not listen among those five, this is a clear hole in the first sentence. 69.113.166.178 (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gurevich, Yusupov, and Speelman must all have MN of 4

They all played Smyslov, who is MN3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BYOL (talk • contribs) 20:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]