< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 271 OF 273 ·
|May-30-17|| ||MissScarlett: <The most interesting years for Morphy which we seem to not have any info are those years from say 1870-1876....cause the year after 1877 till his death must have just been tragic with his mental health in decline. My thinking is from the early 70's he must have been very lucid and sound of mind?>|
Let's slow this down. On what basis do you suggest that 1877 was pivotal in his mental decline?
|May-30-17|| ||SBC: <Joshka>
I'm not a historian in any sense of the word but I do have some writings by Charles A. de Maurian between the years 1875-77. It seems that the tales of Morphy's "madness" was a minor news story and de Maurian felt the need to set the record straight, or possibly just to reduce potential sensationalism:
A letter from Charles A. Maurian written by de Maurian on Dec. 5, 1875 and published in the Watertown, N.Y. "Re-Union."
Wrtten to Morphy's successor, Capt. Mckenzie on Dec. 8, 1875
de Maurian's Letter to Jean Prèti on Jan. 13 1876 and published in "La Stratégie" on February 15, 1876.
de Maurian's letter to the New York "Sun" and published on May 2, 1877
de Maurian's letter to the New York "Sun" on May 2, 1877 in response to a mention of Morphy in the April 24, 1877 issue/
an undated letter from de Maurian to an unknown recipient sometime in Morphy's waning years or after his death
|May-30-17|| ||zanzibar: <<SBC> I'm not a historian in any sense of the word ... >|
Some might disagree with this assessment!
|May-30-17|| ||Joshka: <SBC> Oh thank you so much for postings those writings. I find the letter from May 2nd to be of particular interest, as it emphasizes Paul's promises to his mother which I had never read about. |
Usually we read about top level chess players who develop mental problems/social disorders/ect. when they devote too much time to this self absorbed game. In a way, I'm wondering if Paul's problems came about due to LACK of playing and the guilt trip his family placed upon him with regards to this game!! In some ways an argument can be made that he was forcing himself to NOT play or think about chess, and this had a negative result in his persona? His family shamed him into thinking chess can and should not be considered honorable!!! Paul fell for it. I don't know...Bobby seemed to get mentally ill after he stopped playing.
For some folks playing chess KEEPS them on the up and up. oh well, thanks again for the articles!:-)
|May-30-17|| ||john barleycorn: <SBC> thank you for your post. Great read|
|Jun-07-17|| ||SBC: I think Paul's issues and his chess-playing were unrelated. But I also think it's possible that playing chess did give him a refuge of sorts. I feel it's often overlooked that chess was only one of Paul's interests, possibly not even his greatest one, and that even without chess, he had a full life.|
|Jul-04-17|| ||ColeTrane: <Joshka> has an interesting perspective about how retiring may actually cause some to decline in health. And Id tend to agree my grandfather is 97 and he still runs a business....albeit it's just signing checks, lots of deals going on. He was the prison CHECKER champion back in the day|
|Jul-04-17|| ||gars: Morphy was so good that even a grass-rooted communist like Botvinnik praised him!|
|Jul-04-17|| ||gars: Who was your Player of the Day on last May 13th? For next year I suggest Ratmir Kholmov, a very good player who deserves more attention than it has gotten in these days.|
|Jul-04-17|| ||Dirkster: The question I always ask myself is: Given that Morphy was an absolute chess genius - HOW could he have lost 25 games?!?!?|
|Jul-04-17|| ||Boomie: <zanzibar: <<SBC> I'm not a historian in any sense of the word ... >
Some might disagree with this assessment!>|
Considering that Sarah tirelessly researches her material, I wouldn't disagree with any of her statements. However she is one of the best writers on chess history out there and her love for the material is palpable.
Her Morphiana collection is the best I've seen. Everything known about Morphy is here: http://www.edochess.ca/batgirl/inde...
|Jul-04-17|| ||juan31: I strongly recommend the story of Paul Morphy by <jessicafischerqueen>|
|Jul-04-17|| ||savagerules: I wonder if some of the reason his law practice wasn't too busy after the Civil War ended was because maybe he was shunned by New Orleanians a bit because he didn't serve actively in the Confederate Army but went to France with his mother to sit out the war. Plus he had gone to New York and received honors from 'Yankees' just a few years earlier, right before the war started and that probably didn't sit well with the common folk either.|
|Jul-04-17|| ||Boomie: <savagerules: I wonder if some of the reason his law practice wasn't too busy after the Civil War ended was because maybe he was shunned by New Orleanians>|
New Orleans was and is a complicated multi-cultural city. In Morphy's day, French and Spanish Creole cultures mingled with immigrants from French and Spanish speaking areas. Acadians from Canada became the Cajun culture. An influx of Haitians in the early 19th century doubled the population of New Orleans.
With such diversity, New Orleans people would never unanimously agree on anything. Morphy opposed secession but I'm not sure why or how strongly he felt about it. I suspect that his personal charm would mitigate any animosity towards him. All accounts of him remark on his generous and pleasant personality. Anyway New Orleans was occupied by Union forces very early in the war. Whether people supported the South or not became moot.
My understanding is that his problems after the war concerned his family's property. This seemed to become an obsession for him. He wasn't as interested in starting a legal practice. He certainly didn't need the income as the Morphys were quite wealthy. In a sense, Morphy was yet another casualty of that dreadful war. Or at least his chess was.
|Jul-06-17|| ||KnightVBishop: Does anyone know if Paul Morphy ever played Theophilus Thompson, the first ever african american chess master?|
|Jul-07-17|| ||SBC: Morphy had retired from chess long before Theophilus Thompson even learned the moves.|
|Jul-22-17|| ||The Boomerang: "There's no doubt that Morphy's cognitive chess aptitude would hold up well in modern times. No doubt whatsoever."|
Pretty broad statement, would he be top 10?
Fischer supportes his fellow american by making statements such as, Morpht could beat anyone in a set match today. He had complete vision of the board.
Does that mean Fischer thought Morphy could best him too?
I love Morphy's tactics, I just think that todays top 10 would see through that, and not get into dubious positions right out of the opening.
It would be difficult for Morphy to be Morphy today in my opinion.
|Jul-22-17|| ||tamar: The only doubt I have about Morphy succeeding in modern times is his competitive spirit.|
Once his ire was raised by a poor start, or a belittling comment by an opponent, he showed the ability to raise his game much like Carlsen does when a new rival appears.
But the poor starts in matches, and his decision to not compete in tournaments after his trip to Europe also show that it would be hard for him to match the level of dedication that modern players must have to survive.
He might not want to play, in other words.
|Jul-22-17|| ||RookFile: The only thing he did was take on all comers and beat them, then offer the entire world the odds of pawn and move. He wasn't kidding, and his opponents were too scared to take him up on his offer. You're talking about a guy who gave a <simul> to 4 of the world's best players and won it.|
|Jul-22-17|| ||ughaibu: If I remember correctly, Steinitz visited Morphy and Morphy refused to play him. So the contention that Morphy took on all comers appears to be false.|
|Jul-24-17|| ||RookFile: So, Morphy offered pawn and move to the world, and Steinitz simply could have accepted the offer. Why didn't he?|
|Jul-24-17|| ||ughaibu: I'll play anyone if they accept queen odds. In fact, I'm even willing to give a simul against Kasparov, Kramnik, Carlsen and So, if they all take queen odds. |
Tell me, as I have now made my willingness to play public, why won't Kasparov, et al, accept the offer (or do you think they will?)?
After all, I'm offering the entire world queen odds, does their refusal to accept my offer indicate that they're scared?
|Jul-24-17|| ||morfishine: <ughaibu:...After all, I'm offering the entire world queen odds, does their refusal to accept my offer indicate that they're scared?> No, only that established, credentialed chess players have no time for you. |
Queen odds "against the world" are just rambling musings of someone with too much time on their hands
Find another hobby
|Jul-24-17|| ||ughaibu: Morfishine: More to the point, has my offer made it clear that Steinitz wouldn't be expected to take odds from Morphy and any refusal to do so cannot be assumed to indicate fear. After all, if he was willing to play without getting odds, why on earth would he be scared to play with odds?|
Is there any recorded incident that suggests that Steinitz was ever scared of any chess opponent?
|Jul-24-17|| ||Sally Simpson: Hi Rookfile,
"So, Morphy offered pawn and move to the world, and Steinitz simply could have accepted the offer. Why didn't he?"
I always thought he would not play again unless he gave Knight odds.
When Steinitz met Morphy...
...chess was not discussed.
Interesting to note that Steinitz thought Morphy would perhaps struggle if he took up the pieces again:
"For one first-class player then, there are twenty now, and the science has developed. Morphy would have to alter his style to suit the new conditions."
The odds Morphy offered were a bit to generous. From 1866 we have 33 games he played as White giving Charles Maurian Knight odds.
He won 9, drew 4 and lost 20.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 271 OF 273 ·