Very nice post, Morphy's games are great to play over.

I can tell English is not your native language but I really appreciate that you took the trouble to write in English!  I agree that Barcza beats Fritz any day.

Thanks!

Thanks for the comments to everybody. Understand the play of Morphy - I know - it is very various at the chessplayers. Must be a grade of anybody's play, when he begins understand Morphy's very high level play. Thanks in particular to my good friends David (Dozy) and Charles (chawil) that they are following my articles, and they help me in the English expressions. Vici, vidi, veni. (Marcus Antonius) 

Csaba I appreciate your attempt to respond to my question but I am not questioning the integrity of the analysis. I find it a bit rude that you chose to justify the analysis in a long a reply as would have taken to just explain the moves. As pointed out, I am no grandmaster so the fact that I can not comprehend a move such as 8...d6 should not come as a surprise to you. If you could just explain in your own words why d6 is not an ideal move choice I would be happy to oblige. As you said "the best learning of chess-playing if you read an understand the analyzings of grandmasters", would have been a lot more useful if you accompanied it with an explanation.

I rescind my original comments, Csaba sent me a message that thoroughly explained the analysis. Thx a lot Csaba, best wishes for more great articles in the future!

Thanks Csaba, excellent choice of game. ("Save" is a better choice than "succour" in your annotation because "succour" means "give help to" but "save" means "salvage or rescue").

Take care and thanks for posting the game.

Dear 18 years old young man, royalflush1991,

I appreciate your trouble with my marks of moves. Well i reveal to you, those marks origin from a grandmaster. I remainded in the article that the game is from my Morphy book (1995). In the book the marks of this game i took over from Gedeon Barcza grandmaster, who described this game in our chess magazine which there is in the article. Barcza was 8 times Hungarian champion, and participated 8 times in the Olympic Games. He was olympic champion in Munich in 1936. After Maróczy he was the biggest schoolmaster of Hungarian chessplayers. Nobody doubt in his knowledge. The book revised Istvan Bilek grandmaster, 3 times H. ch. And he cuold defeat the Fritz program! Barcza died still in 1986. And Morphy? When he played this game wasn't computer, which was invented by Hungarian Janos Neumann. You could thank Neumann for your Fritz friend. Only a good advice from me: Botvinnik said sometimes that the best learning of chess-playing if you read and understand the analyzings of grandmasters. (if you want to approach the play of Morphy) And describe your name in your site, don't will steal anybody. The opinion an Anonymus interests nobody.

As always, a fascinating post Csaba. 

While veni vidi vici (I came, I saw, I conquered)  is widely attributed to Julius Caesar, it's less well-known that after Mark Antony's affair with Cleopatra he said, "Vidi vici veni..."

Let me preface my post by saying I am a fairly average player and would appreciate any further explanation regarding my post from more experienced players or the author.

Great post, I loved the first picture by the way! But overall, some comments left me a bit confused at times. On move 8, Black played d6 to cut off White's a3 bishop from essentially any significant role along its diagonal. You marked the move with a question mark so i went to the obviously most "authoritative" (joking) source on chess. And upon analysis, Fritz acknowledges 8...d6 as the best move in the situation. I can definetly agree with Fritz from a positional standpoint as well. White's Ba3 in my opinion was a unneccesary move that should have been replaced with Bb2 after the c3 pawn had been cleared to allow white to attack along the a1-h8 diagonal. Black's position already calls for d6 by move 8 and allowing it to be made with the added effect of subduing White's own bishop is undoubtedly a mistake.

Although you marked 10...Bxc3 with a question mark, Black's dark-squared bishop seems to serve little purpose from a5 and quite a bit of positioning would be required to actually activate the piece. Trading it away for White's knight eyeing d5 was not a big mistake in my honest opinion.

I was also a little thrown off that you denoted 15. Be2 as a great move (!). It seems to me the bishop is fairly inactive on e2 and would only hinder the effect of an eventual Rfe1. Bb3 would seem to accomplish a much more effective purpose to maintain the bishop's activity along the open b3-g8 diagonal.

My final note would be to point out the 23rd move - Qxg7+ which you marked with two exclamation points, is actually noticeably and quite significantly inferior to Qxe7 after which 24... Nxe7 25. Re1 Be6 26. Rxe6 with an easily won endgame. I do appreciate the tactical flair with which the move was played nonetheless and thank you very much for posting this article and game. 

Holy crap that guy was good.