< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 5 ·
|Aug-10-10|| ||Lil Swine: morphy fried his opponets liver|
|Nov-22-10|| ||Tigranny: Why did Morphy only have one rook?|
|Nov-22-10|| ||sneaky pete: <Why did Morphy only have one rook?>|
Good question! It's unfair and a shameful episode in American chess history that some people would like to forget - that's why the subject hasn't been discussed here before - but the truth is that he was too poor to afford to have two, like everyone else. The other kids often laughed at him and called him One-Rook-Morphy.
|Nov-22-10|| ||tamar: <The other kids often laughed at him and called him One-Rook-Morphy.>|
And that's the rest of the story. Good day!
|Nov-22-10|| ||MrMelad: I thought Morphy lost that rook in the famous game with Bird. Or was it Bird's pride and ambitions that got lost? I keep getting confused...|
|Nov-22-10|| ||nimh: They agreed to play a type of game which was quite novel at the time - chocolate chess. White pieces were made of white chocolate and black pieces brown chocolate. Either player was allowed to eat captured opponent's pieces.|
But it so happened that Morphy arrived at the game scene hungry and, inadvertently resigning to voices coming from stomach, munched his rook. Deep was his regret, but it was too late now. Seeing what Morphy did and some chocolate left on his face his opponent bursted into laughter.
However, this only increased Morphy's inner rage and destroyed the antagonist. Thunder-enormous was Morphy's devilish laughter that pierced the ears of the defeated one while he was running away crying.
As a prize, winner was permitted to eat all remaining pieces on board. Never ever chocolate tasted as delciious to Morphy as on that beautiful day.
|Jan-31-11|| ||KingG: Strange that in games where Black is given rook odds he chooses to walk straight into the Fried Liver Attack, or as in some other games the Muzio Gambit Accepted. I wouldn't be surprised if the opening was actually decided beforehand as a condition of Morphy giving rook odds.|
|Sep-05-11|| ||DrMAL: <nimh: But it so happened that Morphy arrived at the game scene hungry> That may also explain his choice of 4.Ng5 perhaps he was familiar with Venice. http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hans4...|
|Nov-14-12|| ||Nightsurfer: One more parallel case to this Rook odds-game here <Paul Morphy vs NN (1850)> is a Rook odds-game that has been played 60 years later, namely Nimzowitsch vs NN, 1910, though one has to concede that in Nimzowitsch vs NN, 1910 White has the extra bonus of his pawn a3 having already marched forward to a3, before the first move.|
That slight difference has a significance that one should not underestimate. On the other hand: The first moves until <3.Bc4 ...> are identical in both games.
|Oct-13-13|| ||fkahlo: Why does anyone has nothing to say about this fabulous Morphy game
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Bc4 Be7 4.Nf3 Bh4+ 5.g3 fxg3 6.O-O gxh2+ 7.Kh1 Qe7 8.Nc3 Bg3 9.d4 f6 10.Nd5! Qxe4 11.Bf4!! c6 12.Bxg3 cxd5 13.Re1 Ne7 14.Rxe4+ dxe4 15.d5!! efx3 16.d6 Nf5 17.Kxh2 Nxg3 18.Kxg3 Nc6 19.Qd5 Kd8 20.Qf7 1-0
Its not just brilliant, its subtle. I analysed it with Fritz and it seems that except incorrect opening since 7...Qe7? (it seems that with 7...d5! black has big advantage, but its still very complicated) Morphy played perfectly.
There is just a lot debate in a book about who the opponent was. And i think there was few more moves but that they are lost.|
|Oct-13-13|| ||Calli: <Why does anyone has nothing to say about this fabulous Morphy game>|
I'll say he didn't play it. As <benveniste> pointed out, this game is really Cochrane vs Mohishunder, 1854 without the QR.
|Oct-13-13|| ||tamar: All in all, a classic Mohishunder-standing.|
|Oct-13-13|| ||jnpope: <<Calli> I'll say he didn't play it.>|
Maybe. This game turns up in Shibut's Addendum pamphlet to Paul Morphy and the Evolution of Chess Theory, page A-3, game A09. He cites his source for the games in the Addendum as being Lawson's two articles in the BCM for August 1978 and September 1979. Can anyone verify this is one of Lawson's Morphy discoveries published in the BCM? And if so, did Lawson cite his source?
|Oct-14-13|| ||fkahlo: <<Calli> "I'll say he didn't play it"|
Why would you say that?
Besides it is completely Morphy quality. One not so obvious mistake 7...Qe7 And then 10.Nd5!, 11.Bf4!!, 15.d5!!.
Even Fritz does not understand completely what is going on in this game. Check it if you dont believe me.
|Oct-14-13|| ||sneaky pete: <jnpope> This is Game No.49 of the "Unknown Paul Morphy Games" in the August 1978 BCM. Lawson doesn't specify sources for each individual game. In his introduction he mentions
notebooks Maurian kept since 1853.
"Other unpublihed games were found among the papers of the 1857 Chess Congress."
For the correct score of some early games against Loewenthal his source is Staunton (1856).
"Most of the other published games were found in New Orleans newspapers of the time, the <Sunday Delta>, the <Times-Democrat> and the <Star>, but most were published by Maurian in his chess column of the New Orleans <Sunday Delta>. D.W. Fiske's column in the New York <Saturday Press> was another source."
|Oct-14-13|| ||jnpope: User <thomastonk> found this game in Cochrane's manuscript, volume 1, pdf page 52:|
It may be the case that this game was mistakenly attributed to Morphy in the original source Lawson used.
|Oct-14-13|| ||keypusher: <fkahlo> is writing about a different (alleged) Morphy game, which doesn't appear to be in the database. Anyone recognize it?|
|Oct-14-13|| ||thomastonk: <jnpope> Oh, no, this is not my merit, it's yours!|
<It may be the case that this game was mistakenly attributed to Morphy in the original source Lawson used.> Yes, this is possible, of course.
Another scenario is possible, too: the game has been played by both, Cochrane and Morphy. The position after 8.. ♘e7 has been the main line in those days, and the books (e.g., the German Handbook and Staunton's Handbook) suggested 9.d4 c6 10.♗g5. But 10.0-0 is quite natural, or moves reversed as in the games. And after the mistake 10.. exd4, there are not so many alternatives left.
|Oct-14-13|| ||jnpope: Sorry, my mistake. I'm punch drunk from Benoit's pitching last night...|
No, the game <fkahlo> posted does not appear in any of the Morphy sources at my disposal.
Can <fkahlo> cite a source?
|Oct-14-13|| ||jnpope: <<thomastonk> Oh, no, this is not my merit, it's yours!>|
Well, I'll share the credit with you. I led you to the source material, but you had the time to leaf through it.
|Oct-14-13|| ||jnpope: <Another scenario is possible, too>|
Agreed it is possible. But it would be nice to find Lawson's original source to see what was actually printed.
|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.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 5 ·