Clearly Morphys opponent was a very very weak player - and it takes no genius to win this.

Much of Morphys demigod status is based on rubbish like this. If it was not of some historic value, I would move to have this game deleted from the database, since it does not live up to the quality standard otherwise set - but perhaps not enforced (+2200 ELO).

In around 40 serious games against the best opposition avaible at the time Morphy scored 70 %. Some of even these 'good' opponents played very badly - and this tells a lot about the general standard of chess at Morphys time.

Now a 70 % score is fine and enough to consider Morphy the best at his time - but its not staggering or a sign of a genius. For comparison one had to score at least 76 % at board one at the olympics in 1956 to become Grand Master - and that against the best opposition available THEN (Botvinnik, Gligoric etc.)

There is a huge leap in quality - as you might understand.

No, Morphy was certainly not a genius - he had in fact a very narrowminded and limited understanding of chess - compared to f.x. Steinitz.

This is especially so if we consider the definition of the term 'genius', that is given on wikipedia.

"A genius is a person who displays exceptional intellectual ability, creativity, or originality, typically to a degree that is associated with the achievement of an unprecedented leap of insight".

The fact that we have now created cars and smart phones which Leonardo da Vinci would not know how to use, let alone how they work, does not mean that Leonardo was not a genius. Similarly, it is rather obvious that Morphy would be baffled by the Chess knowledge that Super Grandmasters currently possess. But that does not diminish Morphy's genius.

The following statements from Chess World Champions (not mine or any other amateur's opinions), are given to support this position.

"Paul Morphy was a great Chess player, a genius....Morphy, I think everyone agrees, was probably the greatest genius of them all" - Bobby Fischer 'Yugoslav Press Conference' 1992.

"Morphy was a great stylist.... In his time the question of position was not properly understood, except by himself. This brought him enormous advantages, and he deserves nothing but praise. His games show that he had an outstanding playing style. ...This was his style, which as far as could be judged, was perfect!" - Capablanca, 'Mundial Chess Magazine' May 1927.

"To this day, Morphy is an unsurpassed Master of the open games. Just how great was his significance is evident from the fact that after Morphy, nothing substantially new has been created in this field" - Mikhail Botvinnik.

And finally;

First some background that brought me to this conclusion:

1) "Morphy's first published game. Played with E. Rousseau, October 28, 1849 (Chapter 2, page 23)." <source: "Paul Morphy, the Pride and Sorrow of Chess", Lawson, New York, 1976, p374>

2) "The following game with Rousseau is the first Paul Morphy game to be published and it has become a part of chess history. Ernest Morphy sent it to Kieseritzky, together with a letter, and both were published in the January 1851 issue of La Régence [...]" <source: "Paul Morphy, the Pride and Sorrow of Chess", Lawson, New York, 1976, p23>

3) Lawson's translation of Ernest Morphy's letter states: "[...] he plays three or four severe enough games every Sunday (the only day which his father allows him to play) [...]" <source: "Paul Morphy, the Pride and Sorrow of Chess", Lawson, New York, 1976, pp23-24>

Now here is the case against this being a Paul Morphy game:

1) This game is actually published in <La Régence, v1 n10, p302>, a full 14 months before the Lawson's "first published game" of Paul Morphy in the same publication no less! So was Lawson wrong? I don't think so... I think the Rousseau game is indeed the first published game of Paul Morphy. (strike one)

2) If it was a Paul Morphy game, who would have sent it to Kieseritzky? An anonymous Ernest Morphy who would send an introduction about his nephew 14 months later? Unlikey. (foul tip)

3) The heading above the game is "Parties entre les plus forts joueurs de l'époque.", which translates to "Games between the strongest players of the age." There is no way McConnell, let alone a 12 year old Morphy would have been considered the strongest players of the age. (strike two!)

4) The players are listed as "M. M....." for white and "M. N....." as black. I have found that Kieseritzky was very accurate at identifying players throughout La Régence, so there would be little reason to doubt his attribution of the game being played a monsieur "M" and monsieur "N". (foul tip!!)

5) The games is dated as being played on "7 Mars 1849". March 7, 1849, would have been a Wednesday, which would contradict the Sunday only restriction mentioned explicitly by Ernest Morphy. (stike three!!!)

Can anyone provide a 19th century source that claims this being a Paul Morphy game?

<Jgamazo>

Morphy: 2688 (#1)
McConnell: 2117 (#85)