< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
|Oct-14-13|| ||keypusher: <fkahlo>
Incidentally, Shredder seems to think that there were several terrible moves by Black in that game you posted, and a few inaccuracies by White as well, though of the sort where White, in computer parlance, is choosing between advantages of +4 and +6.
Fritz thinks there is nothing better than 9....f6, 10....Qxe4, and 11....c6? Really? Shredder prefers 10.e5 to 10.Nd5 but thinks both moves are winning. (If you're lost after nine moves, you probably haven't played that well.)
11.Bf4 is a very pretty move but of course the engine finds it immediately. Shredder prefers 12.Nc7+, winning rook and bishop, but you can't really blame Morphy (if that's who it was) choosing to win the queen instead. I doubt the later knight sacrifice was best, but it certainly didn't spoil the win.
|Oct-15-13|| ||fkahlo: <jnpope>
Sorry i just came to this page. Game is from some book my grandfather showd me. There it clearly says Morphy is white. But this is maybe a mistake because there i a lot of speculation, mainly about who was Morphys (if he is white i now understand) opponent. I cant remember who the author was. I wil go to my grandfather library and i will cite a source in the next post
|Oct-15-13|| ||thomastonk: <jnpope> Yes, Lawson's original source would be very helpful. |
Jay Whitehead's database contains this game here, and this means that he had a contemporary source. Or did I misunderstand the way he worked?
On Lawson's article in BCM 1978. The "Quarterly for Chess History", vol 5, reprintet the games. But there is also an article about games wrongly attributed to Morphy (denoted as plagiarism). Two of the such games in Lawson's collection were identified by Jay Whitehead by providing the original sources. A few others are noted to be suspicious, but not this one.
|Oct-15-13|| ||fkahlo: <keypusher>
Maybe i exaggerated a little. Sorry
9...f6 is also a verry bad move. As i remember Fritz prefers 9...d5 or 9...f5
As for 10...Qxe4 i dont know. I have a position in my head so say 10...Qd8 then white has 11.e5 and if say 11...Nc6 12.exf6 gxf6 13.Qe2+ Nce7 14.Ne5 h5 15.Ng6 Rh7 16.Rxf6 and i think its mate next move.
11...c6? you are right about that one. Better is probably 11...Qg6
As for 12.Nc7+ you are probably right but i think point was play for a mate not a material.
I will check it with Fritz when time lets me and get back to you.
|Oct-15-13|| ||jnpope: <thomastonk>
When I did my data-entry for Jay it was mostly from photocopies of material related to the German Pleiades he had gathered from periodicals he searched through in the White Collection. Sadly Jay didn't document the sources of the photocopied pages at all and typically I only had a page number from the photocopy as a reference point for my database entry (occasionally I would have the published periodical title across the top of a page). He had not gotten into the Morphy era with the material he had sent me. I have no idea what sources Jay used after the Pleiades era or if he started to document his sources.
All I can attest to is he definitely used periodical source materials for the Pleiades games.
|Oct-15-13|| ||jnpope: Going through the Whitehead database and comparing those games to games found in Walker's Chess Studies it appears he has them listed sequentially. |
Based on the large number of Staunton games before and after that number I'm guessing the source is the Illustrated London News circa 1852. Not much to go on, but it gives me a starting point for a search.
|Oct-16-13|| ||thomastonk: <jnpope> I followed a similar or the same idea. |
The key of this game in JH's database is 09559. First I took the keys 0955X: two games Kennedy vs Staunton and seven games Medley vs Staunton, all played in 1849; then I took the next ten keys 0956X: there are again many Staunton games, but all played abroad in 1852, and there are two games of Anderssen: Anderssen vs Craske, London 1851 and Lange vs Anderssen, Berlin 1852. Since the games are distributed over so many years, I assumed that another relation brought them together. All games are at odds, partly at heavy odds. However, Staunton's Companion was already published in 1849, and Wray's books are on pawn and move and pawn and two moves, respectively.
Special searches for the other games yielded no surprises, too: many of the 1852 games are in the CPC, and hence I checked the neighboring volumes, as well as "The Chess Player" and "The British Chess Review". But the hope to be successful there was in any case small, because, if the game would have been published there, it would not have been in Lawson's collection.
In "QCH" vol 6, the discussion on the Morphy games of Lawson article continued, but nothing on this one.
|Oct-16-13|| ||fkahlo: <jnpope>
Ok i menage to get some information. Author is Moritz Porges.
Im not sure about title because it is in Czech but as my grandfather told me its something like "Less known games of Paul Morphy" (he knows Czech but not perfectly)
Year of publication is 1900
|Oct-16-13|| ||jnpope: I can't seem to find any listing for a Morphy book from 1900 through the Cleveland Public Library website.|
Can you post the title in Czech?
|Oct-16-13|| ||jnpope: re: Whitehead database sources
09559 is our target game
Illustrated London News:
1853.01.01: Whitehead games 10503 and 10504
1855.01.06: Whitehead game 09585
1856.01.05: Whitehead game 09623
1857.01.03: Whitehead games 09641 and 09642
Looks like 1852 or 1854 are the best bets. I don't have an online source for the Illustrated London News 1852 or 1854, so I'll have to make a trip to the library in the future (unless someone has a source and finds it first).
But I feel strongly it will turn up in the Illustrated London News.
|Oct-16-13|| ||fkahlo: <jnpope>
Mene znamy partie z Paul Morphy
|Oct-17-13|| ||jnpope: Is that a google translation of "Less known games of Paul Morphy" or is that the actual title printed on the book?|
I'm looking for the actual title to see if I can locate a copy.
|Oct-17-13|| ||jnpope: No Morphy listing for Porges at the Library of Congress, Cleveland Public Library, or in Lawson's bibliography.|
Also no record at the National Library of the Czech Republic:
And a general internet search turns up nothing.
<fkahlo> Can you acquire a copy of this book?
|Oct-17-13|| ||redwhitechess: how about this game, Morphy vs NN also a rook odd but the writer said the notation got error or something:|
|Oct-17-13|| ||fkahlo: <jnpope>
This is an actual title. I had a book in my hands yesterday in a library at a university where my grandfather worked. But if you are thinking of me getting it out of there forget it. He does not let even me to borrow this book :)
Ia it possible that something is published and that there is no record of this? Im asking out of ignorance here
|Oct-17-13|| ||jnpope: <<fkahlo> Ia it possible that something is published and that there is no record of this? Im asking out of ignorance here>|
Very possible especially if it had a very small limited print run and was distributed locally to that region.
Would it be possible to get a photocopy or photograph of the cover of the book? I'd like to circulate it around to a few other historians (Tomasz Lissowski, Anders Thulin and Joost van Winsen) and see what they know or if they can find me a copy for sale.
|Oct-17-13|| ||waustad: It's ironic that the only thing the extra rook did for NN is prevent the king from having an escape square.|
|Oct-17-13|| ||Calli: <redwhitechess> That game is here: Morphy vs NN, 1857 but Morphy didn't play it. It's really Steinitz vs Rock, 1863|
|Oct-17-13|| ||TheFocus: Not to be confused with <Steinitz vs RockPaperScissors>.|
|Oct-18-13|| ||redwhitechess: thanks for info <Calli>.. interesting because the article from The Cambrian was dated 1891...|
|Oct-18-13|| ||jnpope: <redwhitechess>: That game was given
in Brentano's Chess Monthly, 1882.01, p465-466, as part of the 60 or so Morphy games found by Reichhelm.|
The New York Daily Graphic published it in 1885.10.04 as Steinitz-Amateur with the following heading:
"A brilliant game at odds of QR. The following remarkable game, which has been erroneously ascribed to Paul Morphy, was played by Mr. Steinitz and a well known London amateur, and appeared in the London Era on June 14, 1863.
Jay Whitehead found it twice, once as a Morphy game and once as a Steinitz game:
Game 02819 as Morphy-NN
Game 02845 as Steinitz-Rock
I recall reading an article where Reichhelm defended himself against plagiarism charges by Steinitz over a game and Reichhelm claimed that Morphy had played it before Steinitz (I'm trying to find that article now).
And the column you linked to mentions the game as being played four times by Reichhelm, Morphy, Steinitz and Paul's uncle.
|Oct-18-13|| ||TheFocus: I think i may have played it once myself, but those years are still kinda hazy. College days you know.|
|Oct-19-13|| ||jnpope: Morphy vs NN, 1857|
Looks like that game was wrongly assigned to Paul Morphy by Eugene Cook when he was sending Morphy games to Reichhlem.
I've published some bits from the International Chess Magazine when Steinitz himself was investigating that very "coincidence game."
|Jan-28-16|| ||juanhernandez: A jewel never to be lost.
Is the magic
|Feb-09-18|| ||kishore4u: Morphy|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·