Kolish wrote Paul 2/14/1863

Sir,
The distingushed reputation which you have aquired at chess has long excited in me an ambition - presumptuous, perhaps, but very ardent - to have the honor of encountering you at the game. You will remember that 2 years since my friends endevored to bring us together, and transmitted to you a proposal, to which you replied a promise equivalent to a formal engagement in case you should return to Europe. - a promise which was made public in the American journal 'Wilke's Spirit of the times', and which has been registered in 'La Nouvelle Regence'. On the faith of this engagement I left England when I heard of your arrival in Paris and put myself at your disposal. Knowing, however, that at the beginning of your visit certain private considerations withheld you from playing chess. I abstained from communicating my resolution. But now, Sir, that you have resumed a recreation in which you so much excell, and daily play the game with various adversaries, the time appears to have arrived when I may recall to you your former promise.

I am sure, Sir, that I shall not appeal to your courtesy in vain; and I believe you will think it reasonable that I should excercise the same liberty which you used when you first came and threw down the gauntlet to the chief players of Europe.

Justified both by your promise and by your example, I have the honor to propose to you a chess match. The conditions, if you please, shall be the same as those which were first proposed to you in the letter of the secretary of the St. George's Club - namely, that whichever of us wins the first eleven games shall be pronounced the conqueror.

Awaining your reply, I beg you to accept the assurance of my consideration, &C.

Ignatz Kolish

Moprhy replied to Kolish expressing his determination to separate himself from the chess arena and declined the request for a match. In addition he asked the 'La Regence' to publish an addition to the reply he had already sent to Kolish and the following appeared in April:

"I could have believed at the time when hearing of your successes that you are superior to other players I had encountered in Europe, but since, as you are well aware, the result of your matches with Messrs. Anderssen and Paulsen had not been favorable to you, there is now no reason why I should make an exception in your case, having decided not again to engage in such matches, an infringement of my rules which I should be obliged to extend to others, &C, &C." Paul Morphy

When Paul arrived in Paris and declined for reasons of an inferior performance against Anderssen and Paulsen from kolish, it was not one of the stipulations he had made 2 years earlier. It seems to me that if the 'renewed' challenge was again made with the acceptance of Pauls prior stipulations that Paul should have been abliged to play.

Kolish having renewed the challenge <shall be the same as those which were first proposed> would have allowed Paul simply to reply "I don't play for <Rib-eyes>" but Paul did not decline because of <Rib-Eyes> or previous stipulations regarding the terms of the match ...

Had Kolish agreed to Morphy's stipulations and just wanted the match for 'first to 11'?

OCC the broken promise appears under the Kolish bio and appears to have substance. However, the OCC's overall portrayal of Morphy is so derogitorically bias one can not place any value to it.

<tamar: The whole sequence of events-Morphy happening to be in Paris in 1867, Kolisch winning in Paris over Winawer, Steinitz and Neumann, Kolisch challenging Morphy, ..... Steinitz: " In consequence of this success he challenged Morphy, .... >

Re: the source of Tamar's Steinitz qoute:

The historian quoting a 'Steinitz rendition' of the challenge occuring in 1867 after Kolosh's victory is completly out of sync with the actual time of the events and the documentation. I think the historian quoting Steinitz has confused the entire sequence of events and question if it is indeed a Steinitz quote. It seems more like a misperception by one who had erred in their research (unaware of the dates) and then drawn the wrong conclusions and finally wrongly attributed (fabricated) them to Steinitz.

Could this be some historian forming an opinion first and then look for evidence to support it?

The first challenge was May 1861 and the 'renewed' challenge and refusal was Febuary 1863 after Morphy arrived in Paris 1862. The events did NOT occur in 1867 after kolish won the tournament.

<Tamar>, do you remember the source for the Steinitz quote?

I would invite anyone who is interested to read Steinitz tribute to Kolisch on the webpage link above and also his "Personal and General Notes" from 1889 on the same webpage that detail Kolisch participation in the 1867 Paris Tournament.

One of the intriguing points according to Steinitz is that Morphy, Paulsen, and Anderssen were expected to play right up to opening day. There was a deadline for entry fee, but it was waived because of the hope that one or all of those players might join at the last minute.

Steinitz from Personal and General Notes 1889:

Ok, Steinitz published his version of events in the International Chess Magazine after Kolish's death and two years after the event was to have transpired.

However, it still seems a bit strange, to me anyway, that there does not appear to be any documentation at the time, 1867, when it is claimed to have occured. Lawson, writing about Kolish and his challenges in 1861 and 1863, which are very well documented, mentions nothing about a third challenge from Kolish.

He does cover this period of Morphy's stay in France at this time while conceeding that very little is known about it. But what was known is that Morphy was not playing chess at all, not even with Riviere.

If Steinitz were alive today I would think nothing of asking, very politely and stressing I am not doubting your word, but where was the third kolish challenge published and where is Mr. Morphy's reply. Especially when the previous reply does not seem to fit well with the situation in 1867, too much time had passed to not acknowledge the growth of an active players strength especially to one who had just come out ahead of Steinitz in a world class tournament.

So here is my guesswork:-)

I note that Steinitz uses the words "it is said", with reference to Morphy's reason for declining a challenge in 1867. That implies either there was no written correspondence, or that Steinitz didn't have access to it.

You mention the lack of documentation. That troubles me too. I am not certain anyone at the tournament knew how to contact Morphy, or that Morphy would hear of a challenge through others. --It would be helpful to know where Morphy stayed during his visit, does Lawson say?

I believe there was no formal challenge, but Kolisch may have given the impression to Steinitz and others at the tournament that he was going to make his claim as a challenger again, and may have believed by saying it that Morphy would hear of it.

<Tamar I am not certain anyone at the tournament knew how to contact Morphy>

Lawson p288

"He lost his taste for chess entirely,and Neumann told us in 1867 that he never could prevail upon Morphy to play a game. They frequently met at Riviere's house and Morphy would occasionally condesend to look at some variations when the Paris Congress book was being prepared for press."

I assume this to be the same Neuman as the one who played the Paris Turnament although I am not at all familiar with the player. But also that other close friends of Morphy's also played in the tournament (Rousseau and Riviere).

There is sufficient evidence that a challenge could have been conveyed to Morphy. Although, I think that if any of his close friends were approched about a challenge they would simply reply "Morphy will not play chess anymore."

<"It is said"> very noteworthy, and a good point.

Much of the 'world champion' claim has been discussed on the Wilhelm Steinitz page so this appeared to be the same argument (given for an 1866 event) reoccuring again for 1867 event which, apparently, was not published until 1889.

I had previously thought that the Steinitz quote was two years after the tournament, which would place it at a time when Steinitz was not contributing to the International Chess Magazine. I rechecked the date of the article and found that it was twelve years after the tournament.

I guess that it is instances such as this that makes chess history such an intresting subject.

More Fodder from the Chess Monthly, May 1889:

"We should hardly be justified in soiling the pages of the present number of the Chess Monthly with an allusion to the spleeny and dyspeptic maniac who is raving in the International, were it not notorious that Kolisch despised him even more than we do -- and Mr. Steinitz knows it.

Another reason we do not follow the advice of friends to treat Quasimodo with silent comtempt is, he is not so charitable himself to expect it from those he constantly maligns. Did he hold out his other cheek when Blackburne gave him a smack on the right, both here and at Pursell's and during the Paris Tournament at the hotel. He did not take the chatisement meekly; but tried to retaliate with his cane, which Blackburne broke in twain and threw into the fire; and did not he attempt, in his impotent rage, like a fish-fag, to spit in to his adversary's face, just as he is now doing in the International ..."

I assume that this is regarding the Kolisch article.

In 1859, after Morphy had left Paris, Kolisch narrowly beat Harrwitz (who took sick and abandonned the match, of course) and drew against Riviere. He seemed to hold his own in individual games against all the strong players he encountered and, using this as leverage, tried to negotiate a formal match, via Napoleon Marache, with Morphy in the Spring of 1861. Morphy was still at the height of his fame but retired from chess.

It should also be noted that Louisiana had seceeded from the Union on December 20, 1860, that Fort Sumter was attacked on April 12, 1861 and that in almost exacly one more year, Arpil 24, 1862, New Orleans would fall into Union hands.

Morphy dismissed the challenge but left open the possiblity of a future match in an informal, private setting and without stakes.

In December 1862, Morphy arrived in Paris, escaping the ramifications of the Union occupancy of New Orleans. While there, he played some informal games mostly in private homes of people such as Riviere and Doazon, but he seemed more interested in socializing with the Murat, D'Angely, Colbert and Tremoille ladies.

He seemed also in contact with Gustav Neumann, though it seems they never contested any games. (However, it seems odd to me that in 1867, Neumann specifically states that he couldn't prevail on Morphy to play a game with him - as if they had played before at some other time?) Kolisch was in Paris but it doesn't seem that he ever met with Morphy socialy nor OTB. However Kolisch noted that Morphy had been playing chess in Paris and took that as a foot-in-the-door to assert he had come out of retirement and referred to Morphy's promise to play if he were ever in Europe and had several weeks free.

But Morphy declined the match with Kolisch, citing that the "exception" he had originally considered granting Kolisch was based on his successes at that time but that since then, Kolisch lost matches to players to whom Morphy felt he himself was clearly superior, relinquishing any right to such an exception.

The failure, if there was one, was Kolisch's inability to read between the lines and not Morphy breaking any so-called promise - which was for all intents and purposes, a dismissal rather than a promise.

In 1867 when Morphy returned to Paris. Morphy played no chess though he is said to have looked at some positions from the tournament that had just been played there (won by Kolisch). Steintiz claimed that Kolisch used his victory to once again to (rightfully) challenge Morphy and Morphy declined. Since no one other than Steinitz ever mentioned this 1867 challenge, it might well be that Steinitz was confusing Kolisch's 1863 challenge... or it's possible that the challenge was so informal that only a few insiders, and no press, even knew about it, but, if that were the case, surely Neumann would have mentioned it. At any rate, it seems that Morphy, (outside the fact that he was retired) who was in Paris because his mother felt he needed a change in scenery, was in no emotional shape for a greuling match in 1867.

One more oddity: Steinitz wrote, "Morphy was bound to accept the defi (Kolisch's 1867 challenge) or to abdicate any claims to the championship." What is odd is that Morphy, as far as I know, never laid claim to any championship. Perhaps that was another Steinitzian slip?

When Morphy issued his so-called challenge to the world to play at Pawn and move, I see this as less of a challenge and more of a delimiter. It's not as if he were asking people to play him at Pawn and move, but rather that anyone who could prove by his record he was entitled to play Morphy would again have to prove it by beating him at odds. I've wondered what happened to this Pawn and move thing in all these Kolisch negotiations.

According to Soltis, the master who had the Indian Sign on Botvinnik, apparently, was a modestly successful Soviet IM by the name of Ilya Kan:

Kan vs Botvinnik, 1929

Kan vs Botvinnik, 1930

Though on closer inspection it's erroneous; Botvinnik dominated Kan over time and those two wins were long before Botvinnik's prime.