|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 249 OF 284 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jun-22-12 | | Memethecat: Thank you. |
|
| Jun-22-12 | | kaingero: <Paul Charles Morphy was born on June 22, 1837 in New Orleans. He was the son of a successful lawyer and judge Alonzo Morphy. His uncle, Ernest Morphy, claims that no one formally taught Morphy how to play chess, but rather that he learned the rules by observing games between himself and Alonzo. When Morphy was only 12 years old, Johann Jacob Loewenthal visited New Orleans and at the behest of his father, agreed to play a casual match with the prodigy. Young Paul won 2½ to ½.
In 1857 Morphy won the First American Chess Congress with a dominating performance http://graeme.50webs.com/chesschamp... . This success was followed by a European trip where he met and triumphed over most of the prominent masters of the period, including Adolf Anderssen whom he defeated +7 -2 =2. Upon returning to America, he announced his retirement from chess. Although the official title of World Champion did not exist in his time, Morphy was and is widely regarded as the strongest player of his day. Even today his games are studied for their principles of open lines and quick development, and his influence on the modern game is undeniable. Mikhail Botvinnik wrote of his influence: "His mastery of open positions was so vast that little new has been learned about such positions after him."> ...that sums up his chess life. The rise to being the `Greatest Chessplayer ever lived'. |
|
| Jun-22-12 | | DrKurtPhart:
~~~~~~~~~~~~Paul Morphy~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~175~~~~~~~~~~~ |
|
| Jun-22-12 | | metamorphysis: June 22, 2012 : exactly 175 years ago, on June 22, 1837, Paul Charles Morphy, "The Pride And Sorrow Of Chess", was born. "Paul Morphy was the greatest chess player that ever lived...no one ever was so far superior to the players of his time" ~ Dr. Emanuel Lasker "Technique, strategy, tactics, knowledge which is inconceivable for us; all that was possessed by Morphy fifty-four years ago." ~ José Raúl Capablanca "Morphy, I think everyone agrees, was probably the greatest genius of them all." ~ Bobby Fischer "We also remember the brilliant flight of the American super-genius Paul Morphy, who in a couple of years (1857-59) conquered both the New and the Old Worlds. He revealed a thunderous blend of pragmatism, aggression and accurate calculation to the world -- qualities that enabled America to accomplish a powerful spurt in the second half of the 19th century." ~ Garry Kasparov (2003) in 'On My Great Predecessors' |
|
| Jun-22-12 | | newton296: no doubt the farthest ahead of his rivals, the true measure of chess greatness! rip paul |
|
| Jun-22-12 | | AVRO38: Still the greatest...by FAR!!!
Lasker, Capablanca, and Fischer all agree on this point. It's a shame CG.com refuses to put a photo of the world's greatest ever chess player on it's site... ..but instead has an obnoxious photo of Gary Weinstein wearing an ascot!! An Azeri wearing an ascot! |
|
| Jun-22-12 | | Llawdogg: Happy Birthday Paul Morphy! And thank you for so many great games and wonderful combinations. |
|
Jun-22-12
 | | ketchuplover: cosigned! |
|
| Jul-06-12 | | Djoker: Hey, does anyone know if Morphy ever promoted a pawn? |
|
| Jul-06-12 | | Green Bonsai: How about this one? Loewenthal vs Morphy, 1858 |
|
| Jul-10-12 | | Calli: When Morphy died 128 years ago today, Mrs T. B. Rowland wrote the following poem: P aled e'er that light once bright,
A pleiad passed away,
U nrivalled star, afar,
L ost to our sight for aye.
M idst wondering gaze, thy blaze
0 f glory charmed our eyes,
R est, Morphy rest—now blest,
P eace o'er thy spirit lies.
H ushed every grief—each care has fled,
Y et still for thee fond tears are shed.
Mrs. Rowland and her husband were chess problemists in Dublin. For more see
http://books.google.com/books?id=FS... |
|
Jul-10-12
 | | gezafan: <Calli: When Morphy died 128 years ago today, Mrs T. B. Rowland wrote the following poem: P aled e'er that light once bright,
A pleiad passed away,
U nrivalled star, afar,
L ost to our sight for aye.
M idst wondering gaze, thy blaze
0 f glory charmed our eyes,
R est, Morphy rest—now blest,
P eace o'er thy spirit lies.
H ushed every grief—each care has fled,
Y et still for thee fond tears are shed.>
Poetry was much more popular in the USA in the 1800s than it is now. Americans were more cultured and literate then, than they are now. I'll bet the percentage of the population that could read and write was higher in the 1800s than it is now. |
|
Jul-10-12
 | | keypusher: <Americans were more cultured and literate then, than they are now. I'll bet the percentage of the population that could read and write was higher in the 1800s than it is now.> You're on. How about *cocks pinkie* one million dollars? |
|
| Jul-10-12 | | Petrosianic: You're right. The percentage is much higher now. I think what he means to say is that those people who can read are much better read than those who can read now. He may be right now, and you may not need to go back to the 19th century. Take a look at old Mad Magazines. In the 50's and 60's they could do parodies of Gilbert & Sullivan songs, or classic literature, and expect even the clods who read Mad to understand it enough to laugh. Now now. |
|
Jul-11-12
| | keypusher: <He may be right now, and you may not need to go back to the 19th century. Take a look at old Mad Magazines. In the 50's and 60's they could do parodies of Gilbert & Sullivan songs, or classic literature, and expect even the clods who read Mad to understand it enough to laugh. Now now.> Yes, I think People in the 1970s ran longer articles and fewer pictures than Time runs now. Also, not quite on point, but I have a little Dover book of Lincoln speeches, including one from the famous 1858 debates with Douglass. Lincoln's speech was incredibly sophisticated by modern political standards and, of course, long. But obviously he figured the yokels of Illinois could handle it. I'll have to look up what the Little Giant was saying. But literacy rates higher in the 19th century than now? Sorry, no. |
|
| Jul-13-12 | | e4 resigns: I just heard someone from chess.com claim that Morphy today would be rated 1300.
Of course, I laughed my head off.
<http://www.chess.com/forum/view/gen...>
If you need a laugh... |
|
Jul-13-12
 | | perfidious: < gezafan: ...Americans were more cultured and literate then, than they are now....> This is a broad statement-got something to corroborate it? <.... I'll bet the percentage of the population that could read and write was higher in the 1800s than it is now.> I'll bet it isn't. |
|
Jul-13-12
| | perfidious: <e4 resigns: I just heard someone from chess.com claim that Morphy today would be rated 1300. Of course, I laughed my head off.
If you need a laugh...>
This is rich. It must be that the critic would have a negative rating by that standard. |
|
| Aug-17-12 | | Big Pawn: Morphy was offering knight odds to his peers. |
|
| Aug-17-12 | | thomastonk: <Big Pawn> Please, be precise. Whom did he offer knight odds and when? |
|
| Aug-18-12 | | Big Pawn: <thomastonk>
What am I in college again? I have to leave references? It was in Lawson's book. He played Thompson about 26 games at knight odds including 9 match games. Go read Lawson's book like I did, if you like Morphy. It's a great book and I enjoyed reading it. |
|
| Aug-18-12 | | thomastonk: <Big Pawn> Thank you for the reference. I have read a lot about Morphy, many contemporary sources, e.g. Edge's book and Löwenthal's, too, and of course later books like Maróczy's, which presents a series of knight odds games after his return from Europe. But none of the opponents receiving these odds, was a player of international reputation. Maybe the strongest among them was Theodore Lichtenhein, who lost with +4,-6,=1. Probably it's all about the meaning of "peers". I am not a native English speaker and after using a dictionary I assumed that you thought of his nearest rivals, too, say men like Louis Paulsen. BTW. If you kibitz something here, in particular a statement about a historical figure, then a question for a source is something quite natural I think. |
|
| Aug-18-12 | | uncleostrich: So what is your point, Morphy is not a good chess player because he didn't offer odds to players of international reputation? He played and lived mainly in the US. He went to Europe seeking the best of the best, and one of them avoided him. There is debate about that, but from what I read, it looks like the supposedly strongest player in Europe didn't want any part of Morphy. What I also find most fascinating about Morphy was that he didn't even like chess, but he was so good at it naturally, like he was just born to play the game with ease and apparently didn't take much time to make moves. Yes, I'm a big fan of his and I think he is among the best in history. |
|
| Aug-19-12 | | thomastonk: <uncleostrich> I haven't said that Morphy was not a good chess player! I haven't said anything about his strength at all. I wanted to check the meaning of <Big Pawn>'s statement, and only this! There are reports that after his great successes Morphy declined to play certain masters (if not all) at even terms, and instead offered pawn and move odds. So, for me at least, it is interesting to whom he offered which odds, and when he did it. That's all. Really. And thus my kibitzing has nothing to do with: where he lived, why he travelled, who he wished to play, who declined to play and why, who was the strongest player here and there, whether he liked chess or not and so on. No doubt, these are all very interesting questions, but different ones. |
|
| Aug-19-12 | | TheFocus: <BTW. If you kibitz something here, in particular a statement about a historical figure, then a question for a source is something quite natural I think.> I agree. One should always be ready to give a source when asked. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 249 OF 284 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
