Psycho-analysis can be very helpful to people sometimes though, mostly because it (when done correctly) can help people gain a more objective view of themselves, and once a person understands what is troubling them, they can start taking steps to correct it.

But Freudian didacticism is pretty laughable.

<<Morphy had white and played the Ruy Lopez. Morphy followed a variation recommended by Max Lange in his Schachpartien to the 12th move. Anderssen, on the other hand, had seen neither the book or the variation. The line was extremely unfavorable for Anderssen, leaving him with a hopeless game, even at so early a stage.>>

Did Reinfeld really know that Morphy had seen Max Lange’s Schachpartien and had profited by this variation? Did he really know that Anderssen had not seen Schachpartien (a book his partner and co-editor had published just the year before), and so knew nothing of Lange’s important variation, which he says was the cause of Anderssen’s downfall?

One must also question Reinfeld’s judgement of Morphy (and Steinitz) as expressed elsewhere in The Human Side of Chess:

<<But at the bottom both of these geniuses were actuated by the same feeling: pride, the pride that comes from being unsure of oneself. In Morphy this lack of self-confidence paralyzed his abilities.>>

http://batgirl.atspace.com/Morphy_t...

that “reputation is the only incentive I recognize,” as making the point that he had no professional or monetary interest in chess. One has only to consider Morphy’s attitude and correspondence prior to the Morphy-Anderssen match. Certainly this match was the most momentous incident in Morphy’s chess career and the greatest significance to him and his position in the chess world, yet ambition had no part whatsoever in the match materializing. As Edge had put it to him strongly, “His voyage to Europe was useless, if he did not play Anderssen. All was to no effect, Morphy did not appear to have the slightest ambition.” Morphy had hoped to meet Anderssen, but when he learned that Anderssen could not come to Paris mid-December, he dismissed the matter in his letter of October 14,1858, to the Breslau Chess Club,

http://batgirl.atspace.com/BreslauC...

I've heard it said, that to a scientist, a good theory is NOT one that can be proven true through experimentation, as this is an impossible request for any significant idea. A good theory however should be able to be utterly disproven through experimentation, should the results of the experiment turn out a certain way. In this fashion physicists divorced themselves of belief in the "ether" by proving absolutely that there is no such thing. So where are the great experiments which created an upheaval in the psychoanalyst community? There are none--beliefs in that field fall in and out of favor much like clothing styles change, not because of empirical data.

<Psycho-analysis can be very helpful to people sometimes though, mostly because it (when done correctly) can help people gain a more objective view of themselves> I don't doubt that some good becomes of all of this work, it might even work extremely well in the right circumstances. Nevertheless, that doesn't make it science--you could make that very same claim about astrology.

10 years of University down the drain... thanks a lot!!!

Many of his opponents demanded a stake to play ... and on more than one occasion, Morphy gave his winnings away.

When Morphy returned to America, several cities offered him a "Hero's welcome," with parades and such, many of these were simply brushed aside.

The people who knew Morphy best, Edge, Anderssen, his life-long friend C. Maurian ... all describe Morphy as a modest and pleasant fellow.

Personally - although I cannot prove it - I think Morphy was devastated by three things: #1.) The Civil War - and its 'fall-out' in the South; # 2.) His rejection by the only woman he seemed to care for; # 3.) His inability to practice law after preparing his entire life for it.

Just one of the above things, taken by themselves, may not have led to his mental problems, but together seemed to have been more than Morphy could bear. (In addition, there are strong indications that Morphy was supported by his family in his final years ... this too, was probably a strong blow to his pride.)

I think he was a much better chess player than psychologist, but that's just my opinion.

Fine had an outrageous ego (as evidenced by his previous claims to being world champion) and was also hyper sensitive to anti-semitism (real or perceived) both of which led him to make some rather vicious statements towards his fellow chess players, and skewed his judgement on more than one occasion. If I remember correctly, Fine famously accused Bogolyubov of having his chess rivals executed in Nazi concentration camps during the War. (because of Fine's accusation this rumour still makes the rounds) However, when later pressed for specifics of who Bogolyubov had actually sent to the camps, Fine only named Jakob Adolf Seitz who had remained in Argentina (with many other chess masters) and was never in Europe during the war.

Also, if you have a chance, get a hold of his book "The Psychology of a Chess Player" and you will realise that Fine had bought so heavily into Freudian dogmatic theory (a great deal of which has been discounted by the modern medical community) that his conclusions often have to be regarded as suspect at best.

Fine was impossibly vain, and more often than not, his remarks about other chess players had more to do with how they related to Fine's own ego than an actual objective analysis of fact, though Fine would often portray it as such.

...as I mentioned before, Fine is often an entertaining read, but his observations often have to be taken with more than a grain of salt (sometimes a pounds worth).

petty, sniping, backstabbing, out-of-control egos, mudslinging, muckraking, wild accusations, claims of cheating... chess has come a long ways since the days of Fine...

...oh wait... cancel that...

...well, at least we here at chessgames.com don't exhibit any of that behaviour.

ummm...

final diagnosis: all chess players are insane.

Your psychological analysis of Paul Morphy is simply remarkable and I really enjoyed reading it. I'm going to elaborate on one of the points you brought up. I agree that Morphy was probably devastated that he couldn't practice law. This must have been a major blow to his ego and was also the reason for being rejected by his love, who said," You're only a chess player".

We can all agree that Morphy was a genius, and yet the irony is that he had no career. This must have led to depression. I think if Morphy was born in the 20th century, some Selective Serotonin Re-uptake Inhibitors (SSRI) would have helped.

I don't understand, why didn't Morphy pursue his chess career if his law career didn't work out; perhaps pride. I think Morphy in the 19th century, had the potential to make a living from playing chess. He could have done so much to utilize his chess talent. Why not open up a chess school like Susan Polgar? He had the finances to back him up. Why not write books?

I wonder if Morphy used his father's law connections to get him a position at some law firm? After all, Mr. Alonzo worked for the Louisiana High Courts and he was a respected Judge; I'm sure he could have helped his son get his foot in the door.

I remember watching a documentary once about the " Smartest man in America ", who has an IQ of 200 and a member of Mensa, yet he's a Bouncer at a bar making 10G a year. Another guy, who was also a member of Mensa, was a Train Conductor at an amusement park. Why weren't these geniuses Professors, Doctors, MBA's, Engineers, Architects etc. The reason given was that: IQ has very little correlation with success in life. What was missing in most of these people was lack of persistency. They all had the inability to get back up on their feet when they originally fell, unable to over-come set backs, inability to struggle in spite of difficulties.

I think Mr. Paul Morphy falls into this category: Despite being a genius, he didn't have the ability to over-come set backs. Everything came easy to Morphy. One of the hardest game in the world, Chess, was easy to him. Law school was easy to him. Yet when his law firm failed, he simple couldn't get back up- one strike and he's out.

This is only my humble opinion, feel free <ALL> to comment.

<Chancho> said,".. Fine said that it was PROBABLE that chess may have had something to do with his mild derangement".

I find it fascinating that so many Grand Masters went insane in their life. My opinion is that the obsession with this beautiful game has the potential to lead to insanity. Also losing in chess maybe harder on some people that others.

I'll give a few examples:

1)Paul Morphy- arranging women's shoes.
2)Wilhelm Steinitz who believed that he could move pieces through mental telepathy- dying in an insane asylum 3) Harry Pillsbury: Died broke and insane.
4)Aaron Nimzowitsch. In the middle of a complicated position once went to the corner of the room and stood on his head. 5) Carlos Torre. Stripped naked on a New York bus
6) Paulino Frydman- Liked clearing hotels by yelling "Fire" 7) Akiba Rubinstein- Had a mental disorder his whole life 8) Alexander Alekhine-Called his cat "chess", sometimes urinated on the floor in tournaments. 9) Bobby Fischer- Do I really have to give examples? I don't have enough time.

1. the women's shoes is a myth

2. jilted by a ("mere chess-player" phobic) lover is a myth

3. calling Morphy, at any stage of his life, "mad" or "insane" does nothing but redefine those words into something far beyond their usual meanings.

4. <Neurotic Patzer> got it about right, in my opinion.

Along with some twenty other misrepresentations Lawson states that there is also no evidence regarding his being rejected by anyone because he was “a mere chess player”.

For those interested in whether the basis of their post is myth or fact, there is a Taylor Kingston review of Paul Morphy: Genius and Myth, a chessbase biography, on-line dispelling several baseless anecdotes in regard to Morphy.

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/revie....

(page 5-6)

for those that do not have a pdf reader you can google keyes morphy "mere chess player" and read the html version.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
***Casual Unofficial Chessgames.com Tournament***
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Date
~~~~
Saturday November 19th

Time
~~~~
U.K.: Saturday 6PM
East Coast, USA: Saturday 12 Noon
West Coast, USA: Saturday 9 AM
Hawaii: Saturday 7 AM (rise-n-shine Pawntificator!)
Tokyo: Sunday Morning 2 AM

Place
~~~~~
http://games.yahoo.com/ - go to beginner rooms - go to "beginner blitz" look for table hosted by "sleepkid"

(please note that "beginner blitz" has been chosen not because I think it reflects the level of players here on chessgames.com, but rather because that particular yahoo chess room is usually empty and thus we shall have no problem logging in.)

This Saturday at http://games.yahoo.com/ in the beginner room entitled "beginner blitz" there will be a casual gathering of chessgames.com players for the purpose of playing chess! Go into the "beginner blitz" room and look for the table hosted by "sleepkid" - be sure to let me know WHO you are, since your chessgames.com ID may not be the same as your yahoo.com ID.

See you there!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

<Averageguy> said,"..chess drives sane people mad, but keeps mad people sane.." On a similar note, I've also read that," There is a much higher percentage of insanity among chess players than with the general population".