< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 274 OF 274 ·
|Aug-09-18|| ||ughaibu: Morfishine: sure.|
|Aug-10-18|| ||Atking: <JPi> is French and on Wikipedia (French page) it is written about Paul Morphy that he was anti-slavery. Wikipedia is certainly not an absolute reference but still consistent. For the second point, you must wait for his answer yet I understand the contraction between "having slaves as servants" and being against this practice.|
|Aug-10-18|| ||Boomie: <Atking: <JPi> is French and on Wikipedia (French page) it is written about Paul Morphy that he was anti-slavery.>|
Everything which has been confirmed about Morphy can be found here: http://www.edochess.ca/batgirl/inde...
As I recall, Morphy was against secession. But I haven't seen anything concerning his views on slavery.
New Orleans was unique in its acceptance of different races and languages. There were French, Spanish, Portugese, English, Acadians (Cajuns), Creoles, vaious Native Americans and whoever else moved there. Morphy's mother was French Creole and his father was Spanish, Portugese, and Irish. New Orleans had a complex relationship to race and ancestry.
|Aug-11-18|| ||Atking: Wonderful site! Thanks <Boomie>|
|Aug-14-18|| ||keypusher: <boomie>
You and I had a conversation about Morphy's supposed challenge to the world at pawn-and-move (I copied my last post below) but it looks like I was unaware of an important source:
<Edge, in his long dispatch of January 5 1859, to the New York Herald, was the first to announce that "Paul Morphy had declared that he will play no more matches with anyone unless accepting Pawn and Move from him." And perhaps he was not too presumptuous.>
Edge isn't necessarily a sold gold source either, but he's more reliable than Charles Buck writing more than 40 years after the fact.
<keypusher: < Boomie: <keypusher: Thanks for posting that, Boomie. Is my memory wrong? Did Morphy not formally offer a match to anyone in the world at those odds?> I think the article at SBC's answers your question. Or is there something missing there? Notice that Morphy tried to arrange a pawn and move match with Harrwitz but was turned down. St. Amant said that he believed Morphy could win such a match against anyone. However no leading player accepted the challenge.>
As I read those excerpts I tried to distinguish between statements made by Morphy (or clearly made on his behalf) and those made by others. He definitely challenged Harrwitz to such a match (and tried to arrange it), and offered Staunton a pawn-and-move match. Other people say that Morphy could play such a match against anyone, but don't indicate that he made such a challenge to the world at large.
My recollection had been that Morphy formally offered such a match to anyone. I went back to SBC's site and found the following:
<according to Charles Buck's Paul Morphy: His Later Life (1902, Newport, Kentucky)
shortly after reaching New Orleans Morphy issued a final challenge offering to give odds of Pawn and move to any player in the world, and receiving no response thereto, he declared his career as a chess-player finally and definitely closed, a declaration to which he held with unbroken resolution during the whole remainder of his life.>
No doubt that's what I was remembering. But as SBC notes, Buck isn't very reliable.
Thinking about this some more, it would have been difficult to make such a challenge to "the world at large," because there were very few people (namely, the leading European masters) to whom Morphy would give <only> pawn and move! SBC reports that Morphy decided in 1859 that he would play only at knight odds (or greater) against American opponents, for example.
So, while Morphy may have decided that he would not play a formal match at less than pawn-and-move, I don't see evidence that he made an actual challenge to that effect.
Following up my earlier statement about Kolisch, it appears that Kolisch tried to challenge him while he was in Paris in 1863, but Morphy replied as follows:
<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...>
Nothing about pawn-and-move; instead Morphy says he does not play matches any more.>
|Sep-10-18|| ||MissScarlett: Falkirk Herald, July 13th 1910, p.7:
<Mr Keeble also writes in "Norwich Mercury":— "Morphy’s name is nowadays often before the public, and the best masters, apparently, now agree that his play was quite sound, and that he would be still able to hold his own at the present time. Thirty or more years ago we remember the opposite was the case in this country. It was then thought that Morphy would have stood no chance against Steinitz and others. This criticism was met in a most amusing way by American writers in 'The Dubuque Chess Journal’ of 1875. Here is the quotation alluded to:-
The chess wiseacres of Europe, that can so readily show how Morphy could have been defeated, point out his errors, and prove by analysis that he would stand no chance with the champions of the day, owing to tho advance that chess science has made, put us in mind of the man who, when pistols were first introduced, bought one to destroy his enemy. ‘Hold,’ said one, ‘Where goest thou so eagerly?’ ‘To slay mine enemy, see my pistol, the new invention, with this I’ll blow his brains to everlasting scatteration.’ ‘But if,' said his friend, ‘but if he should have a pistol, too?' ‘ Oh, oh,’ said our hero, ‘I never thought of that! I’d best go home, for he miqht shoot also,’ and he cooled down and hid his weapon.”>
|Oct-18-18|| ||ckr: Edge, Buck are not the only sources of the alleged Morphy challenge but also Lawson.|
Paulsen had heard about Morphy's odds challenge from Harrisse writing back 10/2/59.
"As soon as I received your letter I commenced analyzing the pawn and move game. I have not yet finished my work. Should the result prove that in the pawn and move game the advantage is really on the side of the player who receives the odds, as it is suppose to be, I will play a match with Morphy at those odds; and should I beat him he will be obliged to play a match on even terms"
Lawson quotes more letters between Harrisse, Paulsen and Morphy where Paulsen is harassing Morphy to play an even match to no avail.
|Oct-31-18|| ||SBC: <ckr>
|Nov-02-18|| ||ckr: Thank you SBC.
Lawson had transcribed the October 2nd letter in his book but the letter Paulsen mentioned from Harrise that propelled Paulsen into a study of "pawn & move" games was not in Lawson's book. It appears the entire set of communications are just Paulsen's side where the letter from Harrisse may have shed some light on the alleged Morphy challenge.
Lawson also opines that Paulsen skewed his analysis of "pawn & move" games in order to bolster his argument that Morphy should accept an even match with him. While it seems that there is something there, that something was stated, there is also the glaring absence of reporting in the periodicals of the day such a proclamation would have generated.
Paulsen was certainly a pest as a year later he is still hounding Morphy but was Morphy so arrogant that he would have made such a challenge against the world?
|Nov-18-18|| ||MissScarlett: A Morphy game lost for over 150 years:
Remaining unknown for another seven....now submitted...so probably won't be seen for another couple...
|Nov-30-18|| ||MissScarlett: The Daily Picayune (New Orleans, LA) , June 7th 1863, p.4: |
<A Rival of Morphy's. - The New York <Courrier des Etats Unis> has the following:
A chess player has appeared in France who seems destined to throw the renowned Paul Morphy completely in the shade. This gentleman, whose name is Ladislaus Macuzki, has given a public exhibition of his skill in a cafe of the Rue Imperiale in Lyons. With his back turned to the chess board, he has played with and beaten ten good players at one and the same time; without apparent effort, and while appearing only to be engaged in making and smoking cigarettes, he heard the announcement of each move of his adversaries, and instantly answered by calling out his own move, passing without effort from one player to another. A Lyons journal says every chess player is acquainted with the great problem of Euler, which consists in moving the knight on each of the sixty-four squares of the board without resting twice on the same square. Euler solved this problem in two ways; in the first and best the knight on arriving at the sixty-fourth square was in a position to regain its place of starting. Mr. Macuzki has discovered a frightful complication of this problem; the knight starting from one designated square is to arrive at another designated square, and the said point of arrival must in every case be of a different color from that from which it started. This problem gives rise to 2048 different solutions, according to the position of the squares for the first move and the final rest. Mr. Macuzki, the squares having been designated, will dictate, without seeing the board, the route the knight must travel, and will accomplish the feat without difficulty in two or three minutes.>
<Courrier des Etats Unis>: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courr...
|Nov-30-18|| ||Boomie: <Ladislaus Macuzki>|
Interesting. However since there is no hits on an internet wide search for Ladislaus Macuzki, I suspect this is a hoax. Perhaps the Picayune was trying to nudge Morphy back into the game.
|Nov-30-18|| ||Boomie: <ckr: Paulsen was certainly a pest as a year later he is still hounding Morphy but was Morphy so arrogant that he would have made such a challenge against the world?>|
There are no indications that Morphy was arrogant. He was always reported as a kind man who respected his opponents. His odds offers were perhaps his way of retiring from the game. There were only two players who would have a chance against him at pawn and move, Anderssen and Steinitz (who was 1 year older than Morphy, btw).
|Nov-30-18|| ||zanzibar: The Picayune article is available courtesy of <davidgil49>|
So, still could be a hoax, but the article is real... (who could doubt <Missy> after all!?)
|Nov-30-18|| ||zanzibar: RE: <Courrier des Etats Unis>|
wiki gives this:
<During the American Civil War it supported the South >
But one of the editors/publishers, <Philippe Regis de Trobriand>
<... entered the Federal army as colonel of the Fifty-fifth New York Volunteers in 1861; took a conspicuous part in the battles of Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, and Gettysburg; became a brigadier-general of volunteers in January, 1864; and commanded a division in Grant's campaign against Lee. >
|Dec-01-18|| ||MissScarlett: Trobriand's departure from the paper may have been specifically occasioned by his support for the Union.|
|Dec-01-18|| ||zanzibar: <MissS> if you mean that his support somehow lead to his forced departure - I doubt that. It seems clear to me that he left due to a profound sense of patriotism, especially given his subsequent distinguished military career.|
As far as French support for the two sides...
<The Second French Empire remained officially neutral throughout the American Civil War and never recognized the Confederate States of America. The United States of America warned that recognition would mean war. France was reluctant to act without British collaboration, and the British rejected intervention.
Between 1861 and 1865, the Union blockade cut off most cotton supplies to French textile mills, causing the famine du coton (cotton famine). Mills in Alsace, Nord-Pas-de-Calais, and Normandy saw prices of cotton double by 1862 and were forced to lay off many workers. As a result, many French industrialists and politicians wished for a quick Confederate victory.>
Likely the paper voiced concerns over the impact of the blockade on French workers. It seems unlikely that a paper published in NYC would be blatantly supportive of Confederacy - but I could be mistaken in this conjecture.
|Dec-02-18|| ||MissScarlett: In March 1864, the following report appeared in multiple British papers:|
<There is a wonderful Hindoo chess-player at present in London. He plays three games blindfolded, and wins. At the same time, he plays a game of cards, and wins. During the game, a bell is touched every one or two seconds, and he gives the number of times it has been touched. A man stands behind and throws little pebbles one by one against his back; these, too, he counts; and after the games are told, he recites a poem in perfect rhyme, which he has composed during the sitting.>
The earliest example I found is the <Glasgow Saturday Post> of March 12th, although the British Newspaper Archive is hardly exhaustive. Some reports cite the presumptive original source - <Court Journal>.
But then - via newspapers.com - I found the exact same report in the <Goodhue Volunteer> (Red Wing, MN) of January 13th 1864.
Finally from, amongst others, the <Buffalo Courier> of December 18th 1863, p.2:
<SOMETHING EXTRAORDINARY. - M. D. Conway writing from London to the Boston <Commonwealth>, says:
Let me tell you of a wonderful chess player, an account of whose performances I received lately from a distinguished and learned Hindoo Pundit here, Ram Shandah Bal Chreshni. The chess player came from Madras to Bombay, where Ram Shandah saw him. He is between 45 and 50 years of age. He plays several games - three, if I remember - blindfolded, and wins them. At the same time plays a game of cards - there are 120 different cards in a Hindoo pack - and wins. At the time when these games are going on he is given orally sums of multiplication to the extent of four figures (e.g. 9397 x 8999) and gives the correct result. At the same time a sentence of about one hundred words, each word being numbered, is given to him irregularly, (35 if, 92 but, 61 pitcher, &c.,) and he gives the whole sentence. During the game a bell is touched every one or two seconds, and he gives the number of times it has been touched. A man stands behind and throws little pebbles one by one against his back; these too he counts. And after the games are over, and all these are told, he recites a poem in perfect rhyme, which he has composed during the sitting! Ram Shandah is, I assure you, an entirely credible witness, and a very clever man every way.>
|Dec-02-18|| ||Boomie: He can pat his head and rub his tummy at the same time! Unfortunately he can't remember his name.|
What does this have to do with Morphy?
|Dec-02-18|| ||mifralu: < Boomie: <Ladislaus Macuzki>|
Interesting. However since there is no hits on an internet wide search for Ladislaus Macuzki, I suspect this is a hoax. Perhaps the Picayune was trying to nudge Morphy back into the game. >
The player was real, see here:
|Dec-02-18|| ||Boomie: The search apparently choked on the spelling of "Ladislaus". Bloody computers.|
His record in CG hardly supports the enthusiastic news report.
|Dec-02-18|| ||MissScarlett: <What does this have to do with Morphy?>|
<M. D. Conway writing from London to the Boston <Commonwealth>>:
Moncure Daniel Conway
|Dec-02-18|| ||zanzibar: <<Boomie> The search apparently choked on the spelling of "Ladislaus". Bloody computers.>|
Normally Google handles this kind of stuff very well - likely because it utilizes the crowd for its adaptive data.
I suspect we're about the only people who searched on <Ladislaus>...
PS- Which is the correct spelling then, the French or English version of the Polish?
|Dec-02-18|| ||zanzibar: The Conway quote missy dug out is well worth posting here:|
<Gently, as if wafted by a zephyr, the pieces glide about the board; and presently as you are about to win the game a soft voice in your ear kindly insinuates, Mate! <You are speechless.>>
Conway's quote, apparently, is taken from Sergeant's <Morphy Gleanings>.
Moncure Daniel Conway (kibitz #3)
|Dec-02-18|| ||Boomie: <This is my favorite story about Morphy's talent. This also shows that Morphy had no hint of arrogance and was always gracious toward others.>|
Morphy thought little of his success with blindfold play, dismissing it with the remark that "It proves nothing." However, in Bretano's Chess Monthly of June 1881,Falkbeer expressed the opinion:
...that memory is the main factor of success in playing blind games. And, of Morphy's gigantic memory, I had the indubitable proof from my own observation at the time he was playing his celebrated match with Löwenthal. Both opponents had agreed to regard the games as their intellectual private property, not to be published.
I was at the time editing the Chess Column of the London Sunday Times, and anxious to reproduce them there. In order to obtain the requisite information, I had to apply to one of the contesting parties. I first went to Morphy, who received me most cordially, and declared his entire willingness to dictate to me the last partie, played the day before. I begged him to repeat the game on the board, as I would, in this manner, be better able to follow the progress of the contest. Morphy consented, and, at the 10th move of black (Löwenthal), I asked him to stop a moment, since it seemed to me that at this particular point, a better move might have been made. "Oh, you probably mean the move which you yourself made in one of your contests with Drufresne?" answered Morphy in his simple, artless way of speaking. I was startled. The partie mentioned had been played in Berlin in 1851, seven years before, and I had totally forgotten all its details. On observing this, Morphy called for a second board, and began, without the least hesitation, to repeat that game from the first to the last move without making a single mistake. I was speechless from surprise. Here was a man, whose attention was consistantly distracted by countless demands on his memory, and yet he had perfectly retained for seven years all the details of a game insignificant in itself, and, moreover, printed in a language and description unknown to him. (The game was published in the Berliner Schachzeitung of 1851!)
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 274 OF 274 ·