Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Paul Morphy World Champion


  • 8 months ago · Quote · #21

    niceforkinmove

    Estragon wrote:

     

    ...Of other modern champions, Kramnik could be accused of ducking an opponent as he refused to entertain a rematch with Kasparov for years after shocking the world by winning their match. ... 

     

    Of course anyone can be accused of anything.  Although you don't go out and say it yourself your suggestion unfortunate.  

    Goting from memory I believe the following facts are important.

    A) Prior to the match both had to sign an agreement as to what the loser of the match would need to do to get another shot at the title. 

    B)  Kasparov insisted that the contract not allow an automatic rematch.  

    C) The agreement required a tournament qualifier be completed.  It was not that different than the dortmund qualifier that Leko won.  Kramnik and the organizers did try to accomadate several of Kasparovs requested changes to this format,(I believe one request from kasparov was that the head to head matches be longer) but in the end Kasparov refused to abide by the agreement he signed.  

    D) Kramnik merely kept his word to the other chess players of the world by allowing them the possibility of participating in a qualifier.  

    E) Also keep in mind that Kramnik was basically thrilled for the opportunity to play a match against Kasparov and so likely agreed to any sort of terms Kasparov wanted.  Hence if we are going to blame Kramnik then we are blaming him for keeping the contract that was likely prepared by Kasparov.    

    I think keeping these facts in mind is important for 2 reasons:

    1) It tends to show more clearly that Kramnik wasn't ducking Kasparov, but instead it was Kasparov ducking the qualification cycle that he (kasparov) himself likely insisted on.

    2) It highlights the fact that Kasparov knew a single tournament qualifier was a bad idea.  Kasparov knew he was the more likely than other players to win the tournament.  But he also knew that even if he was the best chess player he likely would not win the qualifier.    That is why he was pushing for longer matches.  

     

    As a side note.  I definitely agree with Kasparov that a single tournament is a very poor way to pick a challenger.  However, he should have played in the qualifier, finished his contractual obligation and then insisted on a better method.  I hope if he is elected president of fide he remembers his position and has the integrity to continue to push for longer candidates matches instead of a single tournament.  

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #22

    niceforkinmove

    batgirl wrote:

    The reasons that Paul Morphy, clearly the premier player of his time, isn't considered officially a world champion is that the concept of a world champion existed at that time in only the most nebulous way, that there was no formal method of establishing a world championship and that Morphy never played anyone specifically for such a title nor did he ever claim such a title. This doesn't lessen Morphy in the least.

     

    Are you sure he never claimed it?  I beleive people called him World Champion including Edge at the end of his book - I would need to double check this.  

    Did Morphy explicitly say he wasn't world champion?  Or do we just not have anything recorded one way or another.  

     

    It seems (if wikapedia is to be believed on this, that he was often introduced as the world champion.)  If I was introduced as the Bishop of Rome I would probably correct that introduction at some point.  Did Morphy ever correct people when they called him World chess Champion.

     

    Fabelhaft regarding Steinitz.  You might be right.  I wasn't that up on Steinitz but from reading it does seem he at least comes close.  

     

    It is interesting that the term world champion seems to be used before his first match with Zukertort. 

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #23

    devesation

    He was clearly the best in his time period!

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #24

    TheGreatOogieBoogie

    batgirl wrote:

    The only known potentially serious challenges to Morphy whom Morphy didn't play (during the time he was active) were possibly Petroff in Russia and v.d. Lasa in Germany.  Judging from Morphy's manhandling of Anderssen, even those two players weren't likely to have put up much resistance. Some people have suggested S. Dubois, but that would have been dubious or perhaps Duboious. 

    Love the pun ^_^

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #25

    batgirl

    niceforkinmove wrote:
     

     

    Are you sure he never claimed it?  I beleive people called him World Champion including Edge at the end of his book - I would need to double check this.  

    Did Morphy explicitly say he wasn't world champion?  Or do we just not have anything recorded one way or another.  

     

    It seems (if wikapedia is to be believed on this, that he was often introduced as the world champion.)  If I was introduced as the Bishop of Rome I would probably correct that introduction at some point.  Did Morphy ever correct people when they called him World chess Champion.


    The only instance that I recall off-hand of Morphy being, not actually introduced but noted in a speech, as "Chess Champion of the World," is by Martin Van Buren's son, John,  at Morphy's victory reception at the NY Chess Club on 3-25-1859.  I can't recall Edge calling Morphy, or refering tto him as, a World Champion, but, if so, maybe you can give it.  At the end of his book Edge said, " Surely, it is not too much to declare, on the authority of so much proof, that  Morphy can give pawn and move to every living player."

    Morphy isn't recorded anywhere that I know of to have claimed any title (except perhaps that of American Champion by virtue of winning a Congress established specifically for the purpose of finding a national champion), though it seems he proved to his own satisfaction that he was, indeed, the best player in the world.    Most of the world seemed to agree.   Still, there's a difference between being the best player in the world and being World Champion.  

    Morphy never said he wasn't World Champion, but why would he?  I can't think of any sport that had World Championship at that time and, while the concept doesn't seem completely nonexistant, it was certainly very shadowy and unformed.




  • 8 months ago · Quote · #26

    Spiritbro77

    batgirl wrote:

    The reasons that Paul Morphy, clearly the premier player of his time, isn't considered officially a world champion is that the concept of a world champion existed at that time in only the most nebulous way, that there was no formal method of establishing a world championship and that Morphy never played anyone specifically for such a title nor did he ever claim such a title. This doesn't lessen Morphy in the least.

    Excellent post. One has to remember that the concept of the "world" was quite different at that time.

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #27

    ajmeroski

    Chessquotes.com has a quote, supposedly by Capablanca, mentioning Morphy as a World Champion:

     

    The great World Champions Morphy, Steinitz, and Lasker were past masters in the art of Pawn play; they had no superiors in their handling of endgames. The present World Champion has not the strength of the other three as an endgame player, and is therefore inferior to them.


    I have no idea about its credibility though.

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #28

    Tal1949

    I have spent quite a bit of time playing through the pgn files of the early masters, and it is quite amazing how far ahead Mr Morphy was from anybody else in the world. People love his combinations, but for some strange reason I love his endgame play. He knew exactly what he wanted to achieve and simply used combinations to head the game in that direction. And very impressive that he played so quickly on the board.

    Having said that, however, I am very comfortable that Steinitz is the first WC. The playing style that he brought in during 1870's really was a forerunner of what 20th century chess would become. I much prefer playing through a game from that era than the Morphy era. Both sides played defense so much better and it feels like 'real chess.' 

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #29

    Spiritbro77

    GM Ben Finegold in one of his St. Louis Chess club lectures said he believes Morphy was a modern master who went back in a time machine to teach them how to play chess. :) http://youtu.be/CbRkqqawcTo

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #30

    niceforkinmove

    batgirl wrote:
    niceforkinmove wrote:
     

     

    Are you sure he never claimed it?  I beleive people called him World Champion including Edge at the end of his book - I would need to double check this.  

    Did Morphy explicitly say he wasn't world champion?  Or do we just not have anything recorded one way or another.  

     

    It seems (if wikapedia is to be believed on this, that he was often introduced as the world champion.)  If I was introduced as the Bishop of Rome I would probably correct that introduction at some point.  Did Morphy ever correct people when they called him World chess Champion.


    The only instance that I recall off-hand of Morphy being, not actually introduced but noted in a speech, as "Chess Champion of the World," is by Martin Van Buren's son, John,  at Morphy's victory reception at the NY Chess Club on 3-25-1859.  I can't recall Edge calling Morphy, or refering tto him as, a World Champion, but, if so, maybe you can give it.  At the end of his book Edge said, " Surely, it is not too much to declare, on the authority of so much proof, that  Morphy can give pawn and move to every living player."

    Morphy isn't recorded anywhere that I know of to have claimed any title (except perhaps that of American Champion by virtue of winning a Congress established specifically for the purpose of finding a national champion), though it seems he proved to his own satisfaction that he was, indeed, the best player in the world.    Most of the world seemed to agree.   Still, there's a difference between being the best player in the world and being World Champion.  

    Morphy never said he wasn't World Champion, but why would he?  I can't think of any sport that had World Championship at that time and, while the concept doesn't seem completely nonexistant, it was certainly very shadowy and unformed.




     

    Yeah my memory was faulty about the end of that book.  It was almost 20 years ago when I read it.  

    Also you are correct in your general statement that although Edge refered to him as "chess champion" even in the title, he often refered to several chess champions.  Morphy was the "American chess champion" who was looking for a "European chess champion" or "English chess champion" to have a match with.  

    I did  a search of the pdf for champion.  There is not only no "world chess champion mentioned" but the word champion always seems to be modified by somthing like "prussian champion or European champion" etc.

    https://archive.org/stream/paulmorphychess00morpgoog#page/n32/mode/2up/search/champion

     

    I guess I my view of world champion isn't really dependant on official mechanics.   It has more to do with at some point or other proving that you are/were the best in the world.  That is why I can easilly say the people who won the FIDE KO tournaments were not world champions even though they won that official fide event.  


Back to Top

Post your reply: