<Would not Anderson have beaten him if given pawn and move handicap?>

That's a fair question. I don't think it's one anyone can answer for certain but it's interesting that you bring it up since Morphy had offered to play Paulsen at odds of pawn and move. Paulsen wasn't convinced that the receiver of the odds was getting much of, if any, advantage.

Paulsen wrote in a letter to Harrisse, Oct. 2, 1859:

"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 sied of the player who receives the odds, I will play a match with Morphy at these odds; and should I beat him he will be obliged to play a match on even terms..."

Then, in a letter to Morphy on October 3, 1860, Paulsen wrote:

"...allow me in reply to express the opinion that the odds of pawn and the move is a doubtful advantage [to the odds receiver]. while it invariably results in a kind of mongrel game, never advancing the cause of Chess and rarely proving interesting to the great majority of amateurs."

By this time Morphy had grown "heartedly tired" of the entire affair and any match at all with Paulsen was effectively tanked.

I think you might have overlooked the venue:

Morphy-Staunton.
match 21 games.
<Site: Heaven club>.

I think it's important to note that on this page there are quite a few people who are very knowledgeable on, and who have deep insight into, Paul Morphy.

If you look back a few pages here, you'll find that <lblai> brought up the subject of Morphy's supposed challenge to the world at Pawn & move. He wanted to see where such a challenge was documented. <lblai> is Louis Blair who has a reputation as a long-time Morphy expert, so his question wasn't so much to find an answer as it was to draw attention to the fact that there probably is no concrete answer.

What we know of this comes from Charles Buck's 1902 book, "Paul Morphy: His Later Life."

"...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."

Buck isn't known for his research and documentation, but rather for his hearsay and rumor approach. David Lawson, Morphy's biographer, gives a long list of Buck's factual errors.

<Ever thought of turning that into a Morphy Bio book?>

I think David Lawson beat me to it!

<but books gets published>

Yeah, I've noticed that too.

Really, bragging rights, movie deals and race horses don't interest me in the least.

http://www.neworleanschurches.com/s...

Though I believe there is now a chapel on-site at St. Louis Cemetery No. 1 for funerals, I don't know if that was true in Paul Morphy's time.

Of course, for all I know, the local community may have responded quite differently to Mr. Morphy's death than the international Chess community did. I wonder if his funeral was well-attended?

A bit more on the St. Louis Cathedral (established in 1720):

http://www.stlouiscathedral.org/

A rather nice short movie:

http://www.stlouiscathedral.org/urs...

Of interest to my fellow Bishops (others please disregard):

http://www.stlouiscathedral.org/bis...

The St. Louis Cathedral is located right across from Jackson Square:

http://tinyurl.com/9hsmw

The St. Louis Cemetery No. 1 is at the southwest corner of St. Louis and Basin Streets (just southwest of what is now called Louis Armstrong Park: visible on the same map, or a bit better here, with the red star indicating the cathedral and the cemetery indicated with words):

http://tinyurl.com/cqfad

Paul's home, which is now "Brennan's Restaurant" ( http://www.brennansneworleans.com/ : "B" in this map), was near the cathedral ("A" in this map), and almost on the way:

http://tinyurl.com/8fp7l

I suspect this is quite a vital, vibrant place! (Though it may have some singing the St. Louis Cemetery Blues: http://www.seeklyrics.com/lyrics/Sq... )

Ah, Paul!

(: ♗ Bishop Berkeley ♗ :)

Not Quoting anyone

I think that would have been double talk - one of Paulsen's arguments was that giving odds ruins the purity of the royal game and that he would rather play even games and have Paul concede him how ever many points he felt to make the entire match even rather than have any games played at Odds.

So I don't think Paulsen could expect or wish for Morphy to accept Odds.

As for what Paulsen wanted:
1) He wanted a match with Morphy
2) He did not want the match to be at odds

Hence all the scuttlebutt and making with Henry Harrisse the go between.

In my mind, not that I am I blitz player, I would avoid a match with Paulsen unless it was timed. If I ever played someone that took up to 1 and a half hours to make a move, OTB, I would never play them again, regardless of the terms. Possible for <Rib-Eyes> of 2 million.

I'm not sure my musing is of any real value, but I am interested to learn if I am overlooking something here.>

Perhaps I should send a dime with my 2 cents to cover the late fees and then again perhaps my tardiness could just be forgiven. I had come across additional background information regarding the Steinitz-Morphy meeting. As we know Steinitz was in New Orleans for about a month and most of his impressions on Morphy were formed by the perceptions of others at the time and local and not so much from his meeting with Morphy. Following is a very short quote from Lawson starting @ 308.

" The year 1883 was uneventful for Morphy except for his meeting with Steinitz, who was in New Orleans for a month's engagement with the New Orleans Chess, Checkers and Whist Club. He had arrived December 28, 1882, and soon made an inquiry about Morphy, whom he was most anxious to meet. On being told of Steinitz's presence Morphy said, 'I know it.' and then added 'his gambit is not good.' Morphy could not help disclosing that he was au courant on chess news and developments. Failing to get a response from Morphy by writing, mutual friends arranged that they should meet by chance. The New York Tribune of March 22, 1883, has a most interesting account of the meeting ......"

Followed by the interview posted by <WilhelmThe2nd> on Wilhelm Steinitz

What seems a likely reason for Steinitz's statements that "a crowd collected round us on each occasion" is that the meetings were not chance happenings, rather, having been arranged by mutual friends AFTER morphy failed to respond to a <note?> 'writing'. I should think the "mutual friends" also had some motivations and expectations of their own in bringing a meeting about and it was their agenda which accounts for the crowds collecting. The 'mutual friends" and crowd might possibly have wanted to see Paul accept a challenge or even a few off hand games. Whatever the reason Steinitz indicated it was the collection of the crowd that prompted Morphy to excuse himself. Steinitz, who just wanting to meet the man and talk chess, should indeed have been angered by the crowd.

If this is an accurate accounting of the events then where does this "Oh yes we may meet, but you must promise there will be no talk of chess" come from, followed by <prawn e4, drumstick e5>

I guess that this is one version of the Steinitz-Morphy meeting and the Lasker version that spurred all the "Steinitz left very disappointed" that someone had used without the "no talk of chess" reference would be another version.

With what I have read I would determine that the New York Tribune account seems to fit in with the Lawson version which leaves the Lasker version of dubious origin.

<excuse me while i gather some facts from the bat pages -- can never find anything when you want it>

<SBC perhaps you could point to the "came away very disappointed" without reference to the "no talk of chess" stipulation>

Anyway, as I recall the article appeared slightly leading because the omission. It was quoted from Lasker's magazine and the specific article may have had very little if any factual basis other than being in Lasker's magazine.

Followed by the interview posted by <WilhelmThe2nd> on Wilhelm Steinitz

I apologize for taking so long to repond to you intriguing posting. That's a fair question and one I haven't totally resolved yet. I have a good bit of information on Morphy's death, but haven't tried organizing and sifting through it yet for such specifics.

However, I did go back to Regina Morphy-Voitier for some quick (and interesting) information that might support your suggestion that Morphy's funeral was in the St. Louis Cathedral.

Here are some brief words on his funeral:

"Numberless telegrams and letters of sympathy were received from his friends and admirers all over the world. His funeral took place on July the 11th. The pall bearers were his brother, Edward, his cousins, Edgar Hincks, E. A. Morphy, Leonce J. Percy, Henry F. Percy and his lifelong friend, Charles A. de Maurian. He was buried in the Morphy tomb in the St. Louis cemetery, corner St. Louis and Basin Streets."

Here are some words linking morphy to the Catherdral (and also demonstrating that Morphy was a Catholic since I'd been asked that question again lately):

"One of his favourite promenades was on Sunday, when he would leave his house early in the morning, walk to the corner of St. Louis and Royal where he would buy a morning paper, which he read comfortably seated in the lobby of the old St. Louis Hotel. After having carefully perused all the news of interest, Morphy would then slowly stroll down Royal Street, turn into Chartres to the St. Louis Cathedral where he would hear Mass. But before entering the church he would linger a while in Jackson Square. He often expressed his admiration for the panorama formed by the Cathedral, Pontalba buildings, Jackson Square and the Cabildo, which is, no doubt, the most imposing spot in the Vieux Carré. After having heard Mass and given his contribution to the "Suisse" or sexton attired in a gay military suit of red trimmed with gold braid, two cornered hat, a staff in one hand and silver platter in the other, Morphy would then proceed to the French Market where he would be greeted by Rose "la gentille petite bou quetiere" as he had named the pretty little flower girl, who would at once pin one of her most fragrant flowers on the lapel of his coat. He greatly enjoyed a stroll in the French Market, where he would stop to look at the old coloured mammies with their "tignons" (bandanas) so bright and clean, selling their cocoanut pralines in pink and white. He would also pause near the Indian Squaws who sold "plantin" (a sweet smelling herb) and whose papooses were tied upon their backs while they waited on customers."

Jan. 1883

dear diary

went walking again this afternoon. nothing unusual, oh..except I bumped into Steinitz, who did not utter the 'chess' word until the second word in his first sentence. word 'match' was third. making a complete sentence: "A chess match now, sir." Crowd gathering. disturbing jostlement. gave me his business card. lawyer? crowd babbling, chanting, "chess, chess, match, match"..i begged my leave.he would have none of it. he inquired did I have an opinion on his gambit in all the commotion? how were my money affairs. clamour growing. did I have an defence against his gambit. Lunch? coffee? talk? match. purse money.seconds. shouting now. arbiter.commotion drawing too much attention. had to attempt exit. stage left. slip off. crowd commotion growing. he would not hear of it. must escape.more conversation must escape. noise. peace...peace. just then a very strange and funny thing happened..

<ckr: <SBC perhaps you could point to the "came away very disappointed" without reference to the "no talk of chess" stipulation> Anyway, as I recall the article appeared slightly leading because the omission. It was quoted from Lasker's magazine and the specific article may have had very little if any factual basis other than being in Lasker's magazine. >

At least one source for this notion is a letter written to Lasker's Chess Magazine under the pseudonym "Caissa". It is widely believe that "Caissa" was Sam Loyd who also wrote for the magazine. You may see that letter starting on page 124 of the January 1905 edition of Dr. Lasker's Chess Magazine here:

http://www.100bestwebsites.org/lcm-...

Mr. Loyd's testimony (if indeed this was Mr. Loyd) would merit some consideration, but should probably not be weighted as highly as some others.

Thanks again!

(: ♗ Bishop Berkeley ♗ :)