| Dec-07-04 | | Zembla: Hard to believe black, an unknown player, foresaw surviving Morphy's king hunt after his (black's) rook sac on move 23. Also hard to believe Morphy's attack petered out. |
|
| Dec-07-04 | | SBC: <Zembla>
I don't think Otho Michaelis was a total unknown. In fact he was a very strong player more accustomed to giving odds than receiving odds. [Event "rook odds"]
[Site "NYC"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "-"]
[White "Otho E. Michaelis"]
[Black "NN"]
[Result "1-0"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Bc5 3. Nxe5 Qe7 4. d4 Bb6 5. b3 d6 6. Ba3 Qd8 7. Nf3 Bg4 8.
Bd3 d5 9. O-O Nf6 10. Re1 dxe4 11. Bxe4 Bxf3 12. Bc6#
1-0
An interesting page on historical rating systems puts Michaelis (in 1861) as ranked 17th in the world by the Gliko system (right behind Kolisch) and 25th in the world by the "EDO" system.
http://members.shaw.ca/redwards1/in...
Morphy won this one: Morphy vs O (odds) Michaelis, 1859 But an odd thing is that Jerry Spinrad, who is more or less an expert on 19th century matches, claims the Chess Monthly (1860 351) gives Morphy vs Michaelis, 1859, at Rook odds, as 2-0. I don't know personally what the correct situation might be. |
|
| Dec-08-04 | | Zembla: <SBC> Thanks for all that. Very interesting. I guess I tend to assume the 19th century had only the handful of strong players I am familiar with (with Morphy pre-eminent) & all the rest were unknown "weakies". |
|
| Dec-08-04 | | SBC: <Zembla>
Well, forst let me put in the correct Michaelis/NN pgn (I forgot to set up the rook odds position) [Event "rook odds"]
[Site "NYC"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "-"]
[White "Otho E. Michaelis"]
[Black "NN"]
[Result "1-0"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/1NBQKBNR w Kkq - 0 1"]
[SetUp "1"]
--------------
r n b q k b n r
p p p p p p p p
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
♙ ♙ ♙ ♙ ♙ ♙ ♙ ♙
. ♘ ♗ ♕ ♔ ♗ ♘ ♖
white to play
--------------
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Bc5 3. Nxe5 Qe7 4. d4 Bb6 5. b3 d6 6. Ba3 Qd8 7. Nf3 Bg4 8.
Bd3 d5 9. O-O Nf6 10. Re1 dxe4 11. Bxe4 Bxf3 12. Bc6#
1-0
I just did a search on Michaelis and didn't come up with much. On Bill Wall's timeline he mentioned a Michaelis who won the Philadelphia Chess Club Championship in 1884 (the year Morphy died) But since he didn't give the first name, I can't be sure it's the same man. I think, up to even the very early 20th century, there were only a handful of really good players (maybe >100), but of these, some are remembered and some aren't. Even players like MacKenzie, Mason, Gunsberg, Buckle, Cochrane aren't given their due - and they're the famous ones! But even you noted that it took a high quality player to not only survive Morphy's attack, but also to anticipate winning against it. Morphy played superbly at a rook down, but Michaelis played equally well and the rook advantage finally made all the difference. I'm glad you commented on this game. I learned a few things as a result. |
|
| Dec-11-04 | | Zembla: <SBC> Thanks for digging up that game. I wrote down the moves & will play it over. I'm also going to try & locate a book I was given a long time ago & stored away with other possessions during a move - "The Oxford Encyclopedia of Chess". I might have the title wrong, but it's got a ton of 19th century games. |
|
| Dec-11-04 | | sneaky pete: <SBC> Sergeant, Morphy gleanings, says about Michaelis: "Otto E.Michaelis, b. in Germany, August 3, 1843; took first prize at Franklin, C.C., Philadelphia, 1884; Major, U.S. Army; d. Augusta, Me., May 11, 1890. In a letter from the U.S. War Department to N.T.Whitaker his first name is given as Otho." "M. was only about 16 when he played these two games with Morphy. He played, and lost, two others, of which the scores are missing." <Zembla> The Oxford Encyclopedia (which covers the period until 1866) only has the two Morphy games given here (first published in Maroczy's collection from 1909). |
|
| Dec-12-04 | | SBC: <sneaky pete>
When I read what you wrote about Michaelis, I remembered Morphy having played a 16 yr. old boy, but it never connected that it was Michaelis. Thanks. And thanks too for confirming that he was the very same who won the Philly Franklin CC tournament in 1884. |
|
| Dec-12-04 | | SBC: Here's an odd factoid I picked up.
Mt. Whitney, at 14,496.81 feet the highest peak on the continental US, was first climbed in 1871. Ten years later (Sept. 2, 1881), Capt. Otho Michaelis and company would be the first to spend the night on the summit. |
|
| Dec-12-04 | | HOTDOG: why did Morphy resign?Black is a piece up but Morphy's Queen is very active and Morphy can try the perpetual chess |
|
| Dec-12-04 | | crafty: 40. ♔f2 ♗g4 41. ♕g8+ ♔xf5 42. ♕f7+ ♔e5  (eval -3.89; depth 14 ply; 500M nodes) |
|
Dec-12-04
 | | tpstar: <HOTDOG> 40. Kf2 Qxc2+ 41. Kxf3 Qxf5+ and now Black plays to get Queens off through a check on d4 (42. Ke3 Qd3+ 43. Kf2 Qd4+) or h4 (42. Kg3 Qg4+ 43. Kh2 Qh4+ or again 43. Kf2 Qd4+) with a won K&P endgame. White can prolong this by keeping to the light squares as in 42. Ke2 or 42. Kg2, then 42 ... Qe4+ and now 43. Kd2 or 43. Kf2 lose to 43 ... Qd4+, while King moves to the first rank lead to 43 ... Qb1+ & 44 ... Qxa2+ (capturing with check) leaving a hopeless endgame. |
|
Dec-12-04
 | | Sneaky: Resigning shows respect for both players: If you're good enough to get Morphy in a losing position, you're good enough to finish the job. (Of course it always helps to start the game a rook up, but still...!) |
|
| Dec-12-04 | | Zembla: <sneaky pete>Thanks. I found that book. I'd forgotten it only goes up to 1866. Ancient history by chess standards, but kind of neat for browsing. I remember when I first got it, I played over all the Greco games. I enjoyed that. |
|
| Jan-28-09 | | WhiteRook48: why didn't Morphy play one more move? |
|
| Mar-13-09 | | WhiteRook48: now this is just crazy! |
|
| Aug-01-12 | | RobotMonkey: Apparently, there is an error here...
According to "The Unknown Morphy" by Philip W. Sergeant (Dover, 1973, pp.62-63, Game 34) Black's 34th move is: 34. ... K-Kt5 which would be 34. ... Kg4 here, *not* Kg5. With this correction, after Black's 39th move Sergeant's comment "... and mates in 3" makes sense (40.Kf2 Qxc2+ 41.Kf1 Qe2+ 42.Kg1 Qg2#). This is why Morphy resigned. By the way, there are two mistakes in the descriptive notation in Sergeant's book as well: 29. ... K-K5 should be K-K4 and 33. QxB is ambiguous since the Queen can take either bishop. |
|
Kibitzing
sac: 23...Rxf5
