< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|May-10-12|| ||GrahamClayton: There was a player called Moriau who was active prior to 1903. Could this Moriau be Moreau?|
|Sep-15-12|| ||Phony Benoni: <GrahamClayton> See the links posted above by <ath>:|
The second in particular deals with the Moriau vs. Moreau question, and concludes that they are not the same person.
|Jan-03-13|| ||alexmagnus: Well, if this is really Charles Paul Narcisse Moreau, then at least he left some traces beyond his 0-26 score at Monte Carlo :)|
|Jan-03-13|| ||ketchuplover: His rivals feared his (pawn) islands :)|
|Jan-03-13|| ||FSR: Poor guy. You'd think he could have scraped a draw somewhere. I remember Marshall included one of their games in his collection of best games. He didn't mention that the Colonel had gotten skunked.|
|Jan-03-13|| ||andrewjsacks: After this tournament, he might also have been Colonel Morose.|
|Jan-03-13|| ||alexmagnus: I know how he felt when playing there... Two years ago I, a 1600-rated guy, was invited after an open tournament to play some bitz tournament. What I didn't know: I'm one of only three (of 22) participants rated below 2000... I went 1/21, with the only win being on time in a lost position against a fellow sub-2000 (in the 17th round - after that win I got congratulations as if I just beat them all :D). One IM or FM, when playing with me, kind of teased me - "well, I just attacked your bishop, so what do you do?". But despite the horrible score I feel, retrospectively, that tournament was quite fun for me to play.|
|Jan-03-13|| ||andrewjsacks: I looked at several of his games. Colonel Moreau was obviously a capable player, but just out of his league here, and maybe in bad form, and no doubt distressed and strength-weakened after losing a number of games in a row to start... A pity for him he goes down in chess history like this. C'est la vie.|
|Jan-03-13|| ||FSR: <alexmagnus> At least your tournament just took a few hours. Moreau got to play and lose almost every day for a month.|
|May-11-13|| ||thomastonk: Due to some remarks in the Biographer Bistro I came here yesterday. After reading our biography, consisting of a date of birth and only two sentences, and comparing it with the sources, I am quite desperate. |
There are a chessplayer Colonel Moreau and a French officer Moreau, and one question is whether both men are the same person. This question is considered in detail by J.Spinrad in his articles, and he suggests that the answer is in the affirmative, but he notes that this is not a proven fact. (Only btw, the current version of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charle... states with references to the same articles that Spinrad identified both men as the same.)
Our biography respects the situation in some sense by the formulation "Believed to be...". However, since Spinrad himself reports on some non-believers, I don't like this phrase. Moreover, the date of birth of the chessplayer is already that of the French officer.
The French officer did also some mathematics, but in our biography he is "an internationally respected mathematician", which is in fact a quote from the first of Spinrad's articles. I know that Spinrad is an international respected mathematician is his field, but he did not prove that Moreau was, simply because all of the mathematical sources are French!
Finally, the second sentence from our biography: "He was invited to the 1903 Monte Carlo tournament as a last-minute replacement for Mikhail Chigorin ...". This is simply wrong!
Spinrad discussed this point and proved that Moreau's participation was planned already in 1902. Moreover, Spinrad writes: "Furthermore, other sources have named Wolf, not Moreau, as the substitute for Chigorin." I can easily provide one such source: Emil Kemeny's tournament book, which appeared only a few months after the tournament as "The American Chess Weekly, Special Series No. 1" has a chapter on page 2 entitled "Tschigorin Not Permitted To Participate". There it is clearly stated with a lot of details that Wolf was admitted to play instead of Chigorin.
Whoever is responsible for the current state of this biography should pay much more attention to the facts in the future!
|May-11-13|| ||SteinitzLives: Colonel Moreau is a secret personal hero to many due to his ruthless refusal to withdraw from a tourney where he was not only out of his league, but in many ways a painfully growing embarrassment with each passing round, as he rather publicly hatched goose eggs like they were something more naturally expelled.|
I can but hope he took the losses with equal parts humor and stoic hardening of resolve. Clearly he never lost heart, and kept competing despite it all.
How many of us know players that will withdraw from a tournament at the slightest prompting, citing lame reasons when so often it is just cowardice and the fear of enduring further humiliation that causes them to quit.
To them I say: Look to Colonel Moreau and get back into that arena you lily-livered wimp! Consider the Colonel you sluggard, who harvested nothing in all seasons, yet continued to plow!
|May-12-13|| ||thomastonk: For all who enjoy myths and rumors and speculation, I have some good news. Less is known about Colonel Moreau's time after the tournament, but maybe the following quote gives a useful hint: "Aus Paris. Das Café de la Régence ist in andere Hände übergegangen und wird umgebaut. Inzwischen sind die Schachfreunde in die Taverne de l'Opera 26 übergesiedelt. -- Der Cercle Philidor tagt jetzt im Café Moreau, rue St. Denis 133."|
Source: "Deutsche Schachzeitung", July 1903, page 227. No joke.
<SteinitzLives> I know what you mean: the history is full of withdrawels of players who had bad results. But the meaning of bad results depends on the player's expectation.
Colonel Moreau must have done something special to get the opportunity to play with such masters. Or does anybody think players like Tarrasch would have accepted him without a very good reason?! Moreover, he was no fool, he was a Colonel, and so he cannot have expected any other result than this. He was there in order to play and to lose for some personal reason, and I cannot detect the special property that makes him a "silent hero" as you described it.
|May-12-13|| ||HeMateMe: Colonel Sebastian Moran
Described by Sherlock Holmes as "The second most dangerous man in London" [after Moriatry].
This name from literature reminds me of this player.
|May-12-13|| ||thomastonk: <HeMateMe> Thanks for the keyword.|
It was Sherlock Holmes himself who played in Monte Carlo 1903 under the name Colonel Moreau, at least if you believe Irwin L. Stein and his article "The Case of the Curious Colonel" in BCM, June 1966, p. 169-171 (information taken from http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...).
|May-13-13|| ||SugarDom: He's an anti-American CG kibitzer littering KR page daily...|
|May-13-13|| ||Phony Benoni: Hmm. Charles Paul Moreau. Maybe they got him mixed up with Paul Charles Morphy.|
|Feb-07-16|| ||Phony Benoni: Edward Winter has posted a picture in <Chess Notes>, #9717:|
|Feb-07-16|| ||MissScarlett: I suspect it's stretching things to claim that the Colonel was an <internationally respected mathematician>. The journal references adduced by his Wikipedia entry strike one as rather provincial.|
|Feb-07-16|| ||zanzibar: <MissS> the "adduced" construct leaves me wondering who actually is doing the adducing.|
For the record, wiki never states that Moreau was a <internationally respected mathematician>, so they aren't doing the adducing.
Your criticism must therefore be directly at the bio.
Putting that aside, I wonder what prompted the qualifier <provincial>, that you used?
There are only two journals referenced by wiki:
<Nouvelles Annales de Mathematiques>
<Archiv der Mathematik und Physik>
It appears that the French journal was second tier, but that's no shame, given it was against Liouville's 1st tier
<Journal de Mathématiques Pures et Appliquées>
Note also that the two math journals actually had a respected working relation with each other. Also, <Nouvelles Annales ...> was international in this respect - many foreign articles would be republished in it (sometimes edited - see ref at very bottom.)
As for the other journal:
<Johann August Grunert and his Archiv der Mathematik und Physik as an integrative factor of everyone’s mathematics in the middle of the nineteenth century>
On the other hand, I did find this:
<Except in a few cases, the many famous mathematicians of the nineteenth century did not publish in Grunert's Archiv. ... One of the few contributors of the journal who has remained well known today, was Oscar Xaver Schlömilch.>
Max Abraham, physicist, also published in <Archiv...>:
<Today Max Abraham is known mainly for his achievements in the field of electrodynamics and, in particular, for the successful series of textbooks associated with his name. He is, however, largely forgotten as a pioneer of a relativistic theory of gravitation [through his failed efforts].
Still, though not being journals that a mathematician at the level of a Legrendre, Laplace, Lagrange, or Louiville would use, I still don't see how these journals were exactly provincial. I'm not a historian of scientific journals of the 1800's, admittedly, but I did take a few moments to consider and research the issue.
* * * * *
For a detailed characterization of <Nouvelles Annales ...>
see section 30 from the ref wiki provided:
|Feb-08-16|| ||MissScarlett: <Your criticism must therefore be directly at the bio.>|
<Putting that aside, I wonder what prompted the qualifier <provincial>, that you used?>
Not only was he not internationally respected, he wasn't nationally respected either. I suggest the only people who knew who he was were family and friends.
|Feb-08-16|| ||zanzibar: Back to chess (well, kinda chess)...
I'm wondering about the name signature mentioned in Winter's CN #4574
<It was mentioned in A Chess Omnibus that the list of subscribers to Reinfeld’s 1935 book on Cambridge Springs, 1904 included
and here we add that our copy of Reinfeld’s book Thirty-five Nimzowitsch Games, 1904-1927 (New York, 1935) contained, handwritten, the subscriber’s name,
How to resolve the A. in the C.A.?
Doesn't seem to match anywhere in
<Charles Paul Narcisse Moreau>.
Follow the link above to see the signature, or look here:
|Sep-14-16|| ||TheFocus: +0-36.
Hard to live that one down.
I hope you eventually learned how to play.
|Feb-10-17|| ||Marcelo Bruno: How daring was he playing against all these memorable masters!|
|Mar-11-18|| ||Cibator: No-one writing about Col. Moreau seems to have mentioned that by the time he played in this tournament he was at least 65 years old - a notably more advanced age in those days than it would be regarded as now. Surely fatigue must have played a part in it all, especially towards the end?|
|Mar-11-18|| ||MissScarlett: Isn't that when fatigue usually sets in?|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·