< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 12 OF 14 ·
|May-01-11|| ||keypusher: According to Google, it's the 160th anniversary of the Great Exhibition of 1851, inspiration for Staunton's international chess tournament.|
|Jul-04-11|| ||JoergWalter: Steinitz did not like "this very Mr. Staunton" at all. Morphy added a comment in his copy of the 1851 London tournament book by "Howard Staunton, the author of "The chessplayers handbook""(etc....) "and some devilish bad games"
<After writing that Staunton had ‘tortured poor Morphy’ over the possibility of a match between them, and in particular Staunton’s suppression of a key paragraph in a Morphy letter, Steinitz referred to ‘my having received similar treatment at the hands of this Mr Staunton’. |
‘This Mr Staunton was one of my first opponents in the Literary Steinitz Gambit and an editorial patient whom I had to cure … from his journalistic delusions …’
‘At that very time this Mr Staunton was again the almighty ruler of public opinion in the chess world and his performance against Morphy was remembered only by very few. In his usual manner he commenced attacking my play; a mode of warfare which, I can assure you, always left me indifferent. But finding that this did not draw sufficiently, he made during my match with Bird an assault on my private character by means of what I may call at least a combination of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi …’
‘… judging from the effect which the first shots from these journalistic batteries had on myself, I have always suspected, that Morphy’s subsequent apathy and hatred for chess, which was, I believe, not alone the first symptom but also the cause of decay of his powerful genius, must have originated from the treatment which he received from that Mr Staunton …’> Looks like Staunton was a really bad, bad boy.
|Jul-04-11|| ||BobCrisp: Looks like <Morphy> was a wuss. Chess journalism in the 19th century was a continuation of war by other means, full of mudslinging, backbiting and hardcore vituperation.|
|Jul-05-11|| ||JoergWalter: what is a "wuss"? My Webster's from 1984 does not have it.
this genre of journalism was started when? 1851?
I know, Steinitz could be very offending in his articles.
|Jul-05-11|| ||JoergWalter: Steinitz:‘ ... The enormous power of the press cannot easily be ignored in our rising pastime, and ... it must be counteracted vigorously when used for evil purposes.’|
|Jul-05-11|| ||keypusher: <JoergWalter: what is a "wuss"? My Webster's from 1984 does not have it. this genre of journalism was started when? 1851?
I know, Steinitz could be very offending in his articles.>|
<A person who is physically weak and ineffectual. Often a male person with low courage factor.>
|Jul-05-11|| ||JoergWalter: <keypusher> then I do not understand the comment <Looks like <Morphy> was a wuss.>.|
|Jul-05-11|| ||BobCrisp: I'm saying that <Morphy> was a big girl's blouse.|
|Jul-05-11|| ||JoergWalter: okay, then he is not alone. Staunton does not come across very manly.|
|Jul-06-11|| ||FSR: Staunton was an obnoxious jerk who feuded with everyone. Morphy was a gentleman and, yes, a wuss.|
|Jul-06-11|| ||HeMateMe: Are you saying *real men* can't wear heels and panties? What about Rob Halford from "Judas Priest"?|
|Jul-06-11|| ||FSR: I'm not saying he was a cross-dresser, just that he was a sensitive soul whose feelings were easily wounded.|
|Jul-06-11|| ||perfidious: Some of the great masters mentioned in recent kibitzes provide object examples of diametric opposites in their play and conduct away from the board.|
Staunton, given to much vitriol in his quill and dealings with other players, eschewed 1.e4, then practically de rigueur, for closed games.
Steinitz, as a mature grandmaster, for all the aggro in his writings, had that ultra-defensive style in many aspects.
Morphy, the soul of courtesy away from the board, was a ferocious attacker, as was Anderssen, then Rudolf Spielmann in a later generation.
|Jul-06-11|| ||JoergWalter: kind of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hide?|
|Jul-15-11|| ||James Bowman: <FSR: I'm not saying he was a cross-dresser, just that he was a sensitive soul whose feelings were easily wounded.>|
If chess is a measure of ones intellectual manhood nobody was as masculine as Mr Morphy. Nice that off the board he was rather well liked and well behaved too.
|Jan-15-12|| ||Penguincw: Quote of the Day
< "The habit of holding a Man in the hand, and moving it first to one square and then to another, in order to engage the assistance of the eye in deciding where it shall actually be placed, is not only annoying to the adversary but a practical infraction of the touch-and-move principle." >
|Feb-14-12|| ||Rook e2: I read some information about the Morphy-Staunton match, where the facts sais it's not as obvious Staunton was avoiding Morphy for example on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard... . According to statistics Morphy would probably have beaten Staunton but I don't think putting <The only blotch on this splendid record was his continual evasion of a match with visiting American master Paul Morphy in 1858. Staunton died in London in 1874> in this bio is necessary, it might be better to nuance things..|
|Feb-14-12|| ||brankat: Well said <Rook e2>!|
|Feb-14-12|| ||Rook e2: Thanks <brankat:>! chessgames.com is the only chess website I frequently visit, so I based my opinion on what is said here. But when I read the wikipedia article I discovered a whole other 'truth'. My point is, one might have another opinion based on some more information.|
|Feb-14-12|| ||brankat: <Rook e2> Howard Staunton's best years were the 1840's and very early '50s. By 1858 H.Staunton had mostly applied himself to writing, and to matters of organizational nature. For all intents and purposes he had already retired as a player. |
I think there is little doubt that P.Morphy would have one the match, but there was also no point in having the match in the first place. Besides, after Morphy himself had withdrawn from competitive chess, he declined to come back.
So "blotch" is unfair, and "continual evasion in 1858" is a gross overkill ("continual" has a connotation of a long period of time).
|Mar-03-12|| ||whiteshark: "I was sorry to lose Lewis and St. Amant, my dear friends Bolton and Sir T. Madden, and others of whom we have been deprived, but for Jaenisch I entertained a particular affection, and his loss was proportionately painful to me. He was truly an amiable and an upright man." |
~ Howard Staunton
|Apr-20-12|| ||erniecohen: I don't understand what is so controversial about the Staunton-Morphy business. From Staunton's communication, it is clear that it wasn't an issue of his having enough time to play a match; he just didn't want to play Morphy unless he was in sufficiently good playing form that he would have a chance to win, and he couldn't get himself into such form in the time that was available. Whether he might have achieved such form without his professional commitments is beside the point; his refusal to play was basically admission that he didn't think he could win.|
With this view, Staunton's behavior makes somewhat more sense, e.g. why he continued to play against other players during this time but steadfastly refused to play Morphy. I think we can agree that Staunton was a rather poor sport about the whole business, given what he wrote and the standards of fair play at that time.
|Apr-20-12|| ||King Death: <erniecohen> I agree, Staunton was sharp enough to know that he had little to no chance against Morphy and took the coward's way out. If it hadn't been needing to play himself into form, something else would have done pretty well as an excuse.|
|Apr-20-12|| ||Petrosianic: <took the coward's way out.>|
The presupposes that he had some kind of moral obligation to play in the first place. But he'd already been defeated in the first international tournament, and beaten again in his match with Von der Lasa, so it's hard to see that he had any Top Dog status that he needed to uphold.
|Apr-21-12|| ||pawn to QB4: <after Morphy himself had withdrawn from competitive chess, he declined to come back.|
So "blotch" is unfair, and "continual evasion in 1858" is a gross overkill > I'm surprised that I've never seen this point made before. I don't think anyone in 1858-60 would have considered a claim that Morphy was the best player in the world much tarnished by his not having beaten Staunton. Staunton had long since ceased to be the man to beat.
On the other hand, later on Steinitz and co wanted to play Morphy and he was retired, the question as to how he would have fared against the masters of the late 1860s being a matter for debate ever since, and so a much more serious question mark against, say, Steinitz's credentials. Morphy's reasons for not playing have, rightly, not been criticised. Staunton said he was out of practice and too engaged with his work on Shakespeare. What's wrong with that?
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 12 OF 14 ·