|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 283 OF 284 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Apr-26-23 | | Reviews By AdiN: YO!!! Morphy did not want to be remembered just as mere chess player... people did not take him seriously... he knew law very well... once his family (or whoever) tried to lock him up in the nut house... but once they came to pick him up, he used law in such details, they were afraid to touch him because they knew he would destroy them in court!!! america is not a free country at all as most prisoners in the world per capita are in america... willard fiske did a lot for chess andespecially for american chess, without him there might not have been first american chess congress in 1857 where morphy destroyed everybodody, except for paulson in the final...paulson was also good blindfold player, both players played 8 people welll at the same time blindfolded... im sure morphy could do more, but organizers in europe did not want to put too much mental strain on him... worldchesshof.org/hof-inductee/daniel-willard-fi-
ske
i just want to mention george mackenzie who was u.s. longest champion, but also like lasker did not defand his title many times...
In December 1845, Charles Henry Stanley (1819-1901) beat Eugene Rousseau (1810-1870) in a match in what was considered the first unofficial U.S. chess championship. It was played at the Sazerac Coffee House in New Orleans. The match was played for a stake of $1,000, winner-take-all. That would be worth over $23,000 in today’s currency. The winner would be the first to win 15 games, draws not counting. There was no time limit. The chess match was the first organized chess event in the country. Stanley won with 15 wins, 8 losses, and 8 draws. 8-year-old Paul Morphy was a spectator at the event. In February 1850, Stanley defended his title and defeated John H. Turner in a match in Washington, D.C. for the U.S. championship. At the time, it was called the “Great Match.” The match was played for a stake of $1,000 to the first who won 11 games. Stanley won 11 games, lost 5, and drew 1. The whole match of 17 games was played in four days. In 1857, Paul Morphy (1837-1884) won the first American Chess Congress and was considered the U.S. champion. No one challenged Morphy in his lifetime. Some consider him the U.S. champion from 1857 to his death in 1884. In 1866, George Mackenzie (1837-1891) defeated Gustavus Reichhelm in a match, held in Philadelphia. The British Chess Magazine wrote that the match was for the U.S. title. In December 1871, George Mackenzie won the 2nd American Chess Congress, held at the Kennard Hotel in Cleveland and was considered the U.S. champion. He won $100 (equivalent to $1,700 in today’s currency) for 1st prize. Mackenzie finished two points ahead of his next rival. In 1874, Mackenzie won the 3rd American Chess Congress in Chicago and retained his U.S. champion title. He won 8 games, drew 1, and lost 1. Time control was 15 moves an hour. In 1876, the 4th American Chess Congress was held in Philadelphia. James Mason won the event, but he was not a U.S. citizen. The tournament was designed to attract foreign players and was never intended to be for any U.S. championship title. Mackenzie did not play in this event. In 1880, Mackenzie won the 5th American Chess Congress in New York after winning a two-game playoff against James Grundy, who also tied for 1st place. In 1881, Mackenzie defeated Max Judd in Saint Louis in a match for the U.S. championship. He won 7, lost 5, and drew 1. In 1886, Mackenzie beat Samuel (Solomon) Lipschuetz in a match for the U.S. championship, played in New York. In 1887, Max Judd defeated Albert Hodges in a match and claimed the U.S. chess champion title. In 1889, Samuel Lipschuetz (1863-1905) was the top scoring American (6th place, with 5 foreigners ahead of him) at the 6th American Chess Congress (New York International) in New York and was regarded as the de facto U.S. champion. Mackenzie did not play, was ill, and retired from chess, he forfeited his title and like joe galzaghe, rocky marciano, lennox lewis walked away as champion! |
|
| Aug-04-23 | | ADmightywarriorIN: is paul really most accurate player in history? how about magnus? milan vidmar? |
|
| Aug-04-23 | | Caissanist: I remember reading, back in the pre-Internet days, that Morphy suffered from dyslexia and would sometimes ask his sister to read to him. Now, though, I can find no online references to that. Certainly that would fit with his decision to memorize seemingly the entire Louisiana civil code, as well as his failure to become a lawyer despite that. Does anyone know one way or the other if he suffered from that condition? |
|
Aug-04-23
 | | Sally Simpson: Hi Caissanist,
I cannot recall reading anything about Morphy being dyslexic. There has been so much written about him I'm sure it would have been mentioned. However it was not recognised as a condition when Morphy was alive. There are a few letters in Morphy's hand, here is one; http://www.edochess.ca/batgirl/May_... but this may not prove anything as dyslexia does not always affect writing skills. (Agatha Christie was apparently dyslexic.) I do not doubt you picked it up from somewhere but I'd put this down to another Morphy myth If I had to hazard a guess I'd go for 'The Chess Players' by Frances Parkinson Keyes with Morphy's sister reading to a very young Morphy because he could not read. From there someone who had read the book made the great mistaken leap that Morphy must have been dyslexic and added it to the Morphy myths. And having said all this I would not be at all surprised if Morphy was dyslexic, many a genius has suffered ( if suffered is the correct word) from dyslexia. Einstein is often mentioned as being dyslexic. |
|
| Aug-06-23 | | ADmightywarriorIN: caissanist: wrong, he did become lawyer but did not have many takers, same with high class new orleans broads... they said: me, marry a "chess player? LADIES... BIG MISTAKE!!! |
|
| Nov-11-23 | | stone free or die: George Walker - speaking of the Morphy vs. Staunton affair: <"the matter has long ago been so clearly settled, by public opinion here, in favor of the gallant American, that to carry discussion further, is like knocking done sparrows with cannon balls."> https://www.chessarch.com/excavatio... |
|
Nov-16-23
 | | HeMateMe: Here's an interesting thought. If Paul Morphy had both oars in the water and not disappeared, ala Bobby Fischer, who would have been the first of the great masters of the next generation to beat him in a match? I'll exclude Anderssen and Steinitz. |
|
| Nov-16-23 | | Olavi: <HeMateMe> Why, Zukertort of course. Born 1842 but chessically next generation. |
|
Nov-16-23
 | | keypusher: <HeMateMe: Here's an interesting thought. If Paul Morphy had both oars in the water and not disappeared, ala Bobby Fischer, who would have been the first of the great masters of the next generation to beat him in a match? I'll exclude Anderssen and Steinitz.> Steinitz himself wasn't beaten until Lasker, 1894. Morphy was a colossal talent. Players who were as strong as he was, as young as he was, just didn't exist in his time. So the big question is whether he would have continued to work at the game and develop as a player. If he had, I don't think anyone before Lasker could have beaten him (Steinitz included). Why did you exclude Steinitz, by the way? He's the only pre-Lasker player that I think would have had a prayer against Morphy. Maybe Zukertort. |
|
| Nov-16-23 | | Olavi: Tarrasch for sure.
For Morphy to have a chance against Steinitz and Zukertort he would have had to work seriously on his chess. |
|
Nov-16-23
| | keypusher: < Olavi: Tarrasch for sure.
For Morphy to have a chance against Steinitz and Zukertort he would have had to work seriously on his chess.> I guess I wasn't thinking of Tarrasch as a pre-Lasker master, which was a mistake on my part. Something I've said often -- probably too often -- is that it's more interesting to look at a master as he actually was rather than speculate how he'd be if he was alive today. Because we just don't know. Imagining Morphy as a chessmaster in 1890 similarly involves a heroic number of assumptions, starting with him still being alive then. I agree that Morphy would have had to work hard to stay on top, and he doesn't seem particularly likely to have done this. But if we make the assumption that he doesn't quit competitive chess in his early 20s we're already going against his character, so might as well assume he's a hard worker at chess too.... |
|
Nov-16-23
 | | tamar: We saw with Bobby he wasn’t the same when he returned to play 20 yrs later versus Spassky. Even present day players like Firouzja make wild elo gains, only to fall back when their interest wanes, so it is hard to know if Morphy was at his peak in 1858-59, or would even have gotten better. Kolisch and Steinitz were almost exact contemporaries of Morphy. Kolisch had a chance to beat Morphy in tournaments, but he proved to be an indifferent match player, and he also gave up chess after winning Paris 1867. Steinitz would have been the great matchup. He knew Morphy’s games inside and out, and focused on his few flaws to know what type of game to play against him. Morphy would have to change his openings, and I don’t know if he was flexible later in life. |
|
| Nov-17-23 | | stone free or die: For these kinds of questions I always go to EDOchess (mostly because I love good graphics). Let's look at the top players over the 30 years, 1850-1880: http://www.edochess.ca/top.graphs/g... It's clear that Steinitz would have beaten Morphy in 1870 and later - that is, the Morphy at the end of his career. But what about the Morphy of 1855-1860?
Well, we have to widen out the view to find a truly competitive player to him. Let's start with the 60-year period of 1860-1920: http://www.edochess.ca/top.graphs/g... Yes, though Steinitz comes close, it's not until Capablanca reaches his peak that we finally have a player who can beat the top-form Morphy. And if you want to find your own favorite slice of history: http://www.edochess.ca/Edo.top.html
. |
|
| Nov-17-23 | | nok: <It's clear that Steinitz would have beaten Morphy in 1870 and later> Very doubtful to me. I respect Edo but it extrapolates on thin ice here. Rather agree w/KP that Morphy could dominate into his 50s were he interested. |
|
Nov-17-23
| | HeMateMe: The men who lost decisively to Paul morphy while they were all young would not have beaten him while they were all middle aged. It simply doesn't happen. New blood would have taken down morphy. |
|
Nov-17-23
 | | perfidious: Likewise, I am far from convinced that Steinitz defeats Morphy as early as 1870; by the time the former whitewashed Blackburne in 1876, could well be, but I believe a Morphy motivated to play remains firmly in the top two players in the world through at least the 1870s. |
|
| Nov-17-23 | | stone free or die: For those doubting the graphs, and late-Morphy's level of play, I suggest looking at his 1863 "match" with de Riviere: https://www.chessgames.com/perl/che... http://www.edochess.ca/matches/m576...
Morphy--de Riviere +13 -5 (*)
This weren't odds games, and can't be discounted just because they were "casual", since most of Morphy's games were casual (e.g. his match with Anderssen). de Riviere was rated 2500+. Morphy was beatable. If you want to qualify Morphy according to his motivation, well, I think you can just as well talk about <Morphy (1858)>, and then you have actual game play to look at. But don't mind me too much, I'm just being pedantic as usual. * * * * *
<Notes:
The oft-cited score of casual games between Morphy and de Rivière during Morphy's visit to Paris from Dec. 1862 into 1863 (+9-3) is apparently just a collection of a few recorded games amongst many. In the Jan. 1863 issue of La Nouvelle Régence (p.24) de Rivière reports that he won the first three games he played with Morphy, and the Feb. 1863 issue gives a score so far of 4-3 for de Rivière. The 14 Feb. 1863 issue of the Liverpool Mercury (p.5) gives a score so far of 3-2 for de Rivière. Two games are given with dates 7 and 8 Jan. 1863. The Illustrated London News of 4 Mar. 1865 gives a win by Morphy over de Rivière 'Played in Paris, at the latter end of 1863...', reprinted from the Chess World. thus, there were more than 12 games, de Riviére won at least 4 (early in the year) and how many Morphy won is not at all clear. The Philadelphia (Daily) Evening Bulletin of 1 Oct. 1864 states that the final result of these games was +13-5 for Morphy. I will use the latter result, which is at least consistent with all earlier reports. Zavatarelli gives a cummulative score in games between them of +18-6 for Morphy. The total of the 1858 series and the 1862-1863 series (using 13-5) comes to 20.5-6.5, which is close to the total given by Zavatarelli.> |
|
Nov-17-23
| | keypusher: <This weren't odds games, and can't be discounted just because they were "casual", since most of Morphy's games were casual (e.g. his match with Anderssen).> My understanding with Anderssen was that there was a formal first-to-seven-wins match (11 games, nine days, no King's Gambits) followed by six casual games (all played in a day, all King's Gambits). https://www.chessgames.com/perl/che... Anyway, doesn't change the point. I'd be curious to see a computer analysis of the Riviere 1863 games versus the Anderssen 1858 games, though I would expect it would support the story told by the Edo ratings. |
|
| Nov-17-23 | | nok: <de Rivière reports that he won the first three games... the final result of these games was +13-5 for Morphy.> So Morphy started 0-3 then went 13-2. I'd like to know what happened there. Interesting nonetheless. |
|
| Nov-17-23 | | stone free or die: <kp> of course that's a very good and important point about the various Morphy--Anderssen games. I think if there's a need for a semi-formal category - applicable to the best-of-seven match. Those games weren't part of a tournament, or of a money-stakes match, both of which I view as "formal". The M-A match was for honor, and though Morphy viewed as distinctly meaningful, others might put it a half-step less so. I wish I had the Anderssen(?) quote handy about Morphy being (to paraphrase) a true artist of the chessboard. . |
|
| Nov-18-23 | | stone free or die: Did a little research tonight, and found the US newspaper coverage of the first encounter in 1863 reported Morphy and de Riviere had a 5-game match, which apparently de Riviere won with a score of 3/5. The first report I found was given in the <Baltimore Sun>, 1863-03-02 p1. |
|
| Nov-18-23 | | stone free or die: An interesting little aside about Morphy and de Riviere from the <Louiville Courier Journal> of 1884-01-13, p1: <Theodore speaks of La Riviere, the eminent chess-player who claims to have won five games off Paul Morphy in a match of fifteen games. This is a little doubtful. The Frenchman has in his possession the handsome gold watch presented to Morphy by the New York Chess Club, with the monogram of the great chess-player on the case. Riviere loaned the American money on the security, a trophy which will never be redeemed. Morphy is now the inmate of a lunatic asylum.> One must be circumspect with the info contained therein (e.g. the doubtful statement is doubtful, and I don't think Morphy was ever an inmate, though I believe his mother and sister tried to have him committed.). The info that I trust is the bit about de Riviere and the watch, which I believe is true. In fact there is also this (familar to <sally> and <atterdag> from other forums): <What Happened to Paul Morphy's Waltham Watch?> https://blog.pocketwatchdatabase.co... * * *
<John Webb’s Magnum Opus: The Watch Dial Designed for Chess Master Paul Morphy> https://blog.pocketwatchdatabase.co... |
|
| Jan-03-24 | | ADmightywarriorIN: morphy was animal in 1858, and when told about steinitz visiting new orleans he said: pass messagbe to steinitz his gambit is bad, he knew in his head how to break it, so i dont think steinitz, tarrash or whoever would beat him but it would be closer than anderssen@! |
|
| Jan-03-24 | | ADmightywarriorIN: do we have riviere match at least one on the level, remember its like boxing champion being challenged by some loser and he beats him.. its never official since champ was never prepared and simply showed off, result does not go on pro rec!DUH, THIS IS NO FREAKING WIKIPEDOIA TO GET IT.... http://ARCHIVE.IS/Y0BB http://xahlee.info/w/do_not_donate_... PART OF WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION MISINFORMATION DISINFORMATION WHERE WIKIFAGGOTS THRIVE LIKE WIKIMAGGOTS:
https://archive.is/ojSgj
https://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.ph...UTMOST LOSERS ANTANDRUS (DAVID REAL NAME, CAREER STALKER BY TRADE, HAS NO LIFE EXCEPT WIKIPEDOIA) XEVERYTHIN11 HIS SOCK, THEIR WHORE KITTYCATACLYSM, SHB2000, JAVAHURRICANE, XXBlackburnXx THE SATANIST AND CRIMINAL WHO STOPS IPS FROM WORKING AND WIKIPEDIA IS BASED ON BORN... FOUNDER JIMBO GET HARD CORE CHILD PORN BOMIS THUS HIS NAME JIM-BO-MIS! |
|
| Jan-25-24 | | stone free or die:
<
He
has beaten
Harrwitz
in
chess playing
and
Staunton
in
courtesy
>
https://images3-cdn.auctionmobility... |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 283 OF 284 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
