Second paragraph should read "both of whom" referring to his parents rather than "both of which." All the best.
Bio of Paul Morphy
Sort:
Very nice piece, ChessBlucher. Some minor spelling / grammatical suggestions from a retired languages teacher...
1 Louise Carpentier, both of WHOM...where people are involved...
2 and ENSURE him the finest education...
3 Staunton knew he would be BEATEN...unless "beat" is an Americanism for the past participle ...
4 Morphy was never able, however, ----however needs to be enclosed inside commas. I'm afraid that for any piece of literary work to earn credibility, it has to observe grammatical and punctuation niceties. Otherwise it attracts derisive comments.
Finally, if I may, a gratuitous comment about Morphy. For me, the man was a chess icon. Some of his winning moves were absolutely breath-taking. Therefore, I personally have no problem with attributing to him "an amazing mind".
Cheers, and all success to your piece.
Paul Charles Morphy was born on June 22, 1837 in New Orleans, Louisiana. He was nicknamed "The Pride and Sorrow of Chess," and is considered to have been the greatest chess master of his time, and was an unofficial World Champion. Some chess grandmasters consider Morphy to have been the greatest chessplayer who has ever lived.
He grew up in an atmosphere of genteel civility and culture where chess and music were the typical highlights of a Sunday home gathering. According to his uncle, Ernest Morphy, no one formally taught Morphy how to play chess. Ernest wrote that as a young child, Morphy learned on his own from simply watching the game played. His uncle recounted how Morphy, after watching one game for several hours between his father and him, told him afterwards that he should have won the game. Father and uncle were surprised, as they didn't think that young Paul knew the moves, let alone any chess strategy. They were even more surprised when Paul proved his claim by resetting the pieces and demonstrating the win his uncle had missed.
In 1846, General Winfield Scott visited the city, and let his hosts know that he desired an evening of chess with a strong local player. Chess was an infrequent pastime of Scott's, but he enjoyed the game and considered himself a formidable chess player. After dinner, the chess pieces were set up and Scott's opponent was brought in: diminutive, eight-year-old Morphy, dressed in a lace shirt and velvet knickerbockers and looking like anything but a ferocious opponent. Seeing the small boy, Scott was at first offended, thinking he was being made fun of; but when assured that his wishes had been scrupulously obeyed, and that the boy was a "chess prodigy" who would tax his skill, Scott consented to play. To General Scott's surprise, Morphy beat him easily not once, but twice. The second time the boy announced a forced checkmate after only six moves. Two losses against a small boy was all General Scott's ego could stand, and he declined further games and retired for the night, never to play Morphy again.
In 1850, the strong professional Hungarian chess master Johann Lwenthal visited New Orleans. Morphy was 12 when he encountered L wenthal. Lwenthal had played young talented players before, and expected to easily overcome Morphy, and considered the informal match as a waste of time but accepted the offer as a courtesy to the well-to-do Judge. When L wenthal met him, he patted him on the head in a patronizing manner. He expected no more from Morphy than the usual talented young players he had played before. When the first game began, Lwenthal got to about move 12 and realized he was up against something formidable. He slowed way down on his moves, and each time Morphy made a good move L wenthal's eyebrows shot up in a manner described by Ernest Morphy as "comique". He was shocked at the power he was up against. Lwenthal played three games with Morphy during his New Orleans stay, losing all three.
After 1850, Morphy did not play much chess for a long time. Studying diligently, he graduated from Spring Hill College in Mobile, Alabama in the spring of 1855. He then was accepted to the University of Louisiana to study law. He received an L.L.B. degree on April 7, 1857. Although Morphy was able to recite the entire Civil Code of Louisiana from memory, he was too young to be officially admitted to the bar.
Consequently, this left Morphy with a lot of free time. He received an invitation to participate in the First American Chess Congress, to be held in New York in the fall of 1857. At first he declined, but at the urging of his uncle, who was quite proud of Morphy's chess skill, he eventually decided to play. After securing parental permission, Morphy made the long trip to New York via steamboat up the Mississippi River and overland by railroad to New York. He won the competition by winning fourteen while losing one with three draws. In the final round, he defeated the strong German-American master Louis Paulsen winning five games, drawing two, and losing one. (It was said that Louis Paulsen was an extremely slow player and that made Morphy nearly cry while playing with him). Morphy was now the chess champion of the United States, and such was his strength of play that many urged him to test his skill abroad.
Still too young to start his law career, soon after returning to New Orleans he was invited to attend an international chess tournament to be held in Birmingham, England in the summer of 1858. He accepted the challenge and traveled to England but ended up not playing in the tournament, playing a series of chess matches against the leading English masters instead and defeating them all except English chess master Howard Staunton who promised to play but eventually declined. At times, Staunton was physically present in the same room where Morphy easily beat the English masters. He had every opportunity to measure Morphy's talent, and he decided not to play a single game against Morphy. While the few months he stayed in England, most of his times were playing blind-fold games with eight people simultaneously, he won every time he played.
Seeking new opponents and now aware that Staunton had no real desire to play, Morphy then crossed the English Channel and visited France. There he went to the Caf de la Regence in Paris, which was the center of chess in France. He played a match against Daniel Harrwitz, the resident chess professional, and soundly defeated him. In Paris he suffered from a bout of intestinal influenza and came down with a high fever. In accordance with the medical wisdom of the time, he was treated with leeches, resulting in his losing a significant amount of blood. Despite the fact that he was now too weak to stand up unaided, Morphy insisted on going ahead with a match against the visiting German champion Adolf Anderssen, who was considered by many to be Europe's leading player, and who had come to Paris all the way from his native Breslau, Germany, solely to play against the now famous American chess wonder. Despite his illness Morphy triumphed easily, winning seven while losing two, with two draws in 1858. When asked about his defeat, Anderssen claimed to be out of practice, but also admitted that Morphy was in any event the stronger player and that he was fairly beaten. Anderssen also attested that in his opinion, Morphy was the strongest player ever to play the game, even stronger than the famous French champion Bourdonnais.
Returning to England in the spring of 1859, Morphy was lionized by the English. As had happened in France, he was now sought after by the best people. His fame was such he was even asked to a private audience with Queen Victoria. His chess supremacy was universally acknowledged and no longer did it seem fit to have him play even masters without giving him some sort of handicap. A match therefore was set up where he was pitted against five masters (Jules Arnous de Rivire, Samuel Boden, Thomas Barnes, Johann L wenthal, and Henry Bird) simultaneously. Morphy won two games, drew two games, and lost one. No other world champion has since duplicated his feat of playing five of his closest rivals at the same time. Shortly after, Morphy started the long trip home, taking a ship back to New York.
Prior to his getting home, Morphy had issued an open challenge to anyone in the world to play a match where he would give odds of pawn and move (in a match between two evenly matched Masters, a pawn advantage is considered a winning advantage); and to play for any amount whatsoever. Finding no takers, he declared himself retired from the game, and with a few exceptions, he gave up the public playing of the game for good.
Morphy's final years were tragic. Depressed, he spent his last years wandering around the French Quarter of New Orleans, talking to people no one else could see, and having feelings of persecution. Morphy was found dead in his bathtub on the afternoon of July 10, 1884 by his mother. The doctor said he had suffered congestion of the brain (stroke), brought on by entering cold water after being very warm from his long mid-day walk. He died at the age of only forty-seven.
Despite the fact that Morphy had not played chess publicly for over twenty-five years, it was not until after his death that Steinitz proclaimed that his match with Zukertort would be for the "official" world chess championship. Steinitz's forbearance to claim the title while Morphy was still alive was a recognition of Morphy's superior chess strength.
May 11, 2009
0
#25
Morphy's mother name was still Thelcide and Morphy's body was still never autopsied. Morphy recieved the sobriquet "Pride and Sorrow of Chess" not from Lawson, but, even before he himself died, from Sheriff W.C. Spens of Scotland.
I'M SURE BATGIRL KNOWS PAUL MORPHY MORE THAN HE KNOWS HIMSELF
SIMPLY BECAUSE PAUL MORPHY NEVER KNEW WHETHER HE WAS AUTOPSIED OR NOT
JUST FOR LAUGHS! PEACE! V
May 11, 2009
0
#29
Thanks again all of you. Especially for all of the grammatical corrections and things like that. Special thanks to Owenwilson and Crisy:)
Batgirl, I can find nowhere that Paul Morphy's mom was named Thelcide. Also all my sources say it is Louise so I just don't have a particularly good reason for changing her name. You said yourself it was technically correct.
I found the article more than acceptable for the 11th grade level, and a little bit entertaining.
A question for bat girl:
Why was Staunton - reknowned as a Morphy-dodger - invloved in other complexities that would make him avoid a match? I have heard some say he went so far as to taunt Morphy in his published works. If you (bat girl) wrote something on this issue; I'd love to see the link. I wont claim to have enough information to challenge your opinion, but I know individuals like Bill Wall actually post this type of (Morphy-dodger) stuff on their sites. Is it just propaganda?
As for the nature versus nuture debate (mentioned by the fellow from Dallas) I would love to see this examined with apparent prodigy material, including:
Capablanca (how much did he play as a youngster? One of his claims was his apparent lack of opening knowledge, but it's funny that he came up with 4.Qc2 in the Nimzo-Indian. Since about the year 2000 it has exploded in popularity, long after his death.)
Fischer (who originally was lackluster, according to his club-mates. He himself then admits "I just got good".)
Reshevsky (who put on simuls as a boy... but how long had he been training?)
Magnus Carlsen (what is his background? How much training did he recieve?)
We could even throw in prodigies from various pursuits such as Tiger Woods. Wasn't he trained from an incredibly early age to master golf? Isn't there a clip of him on the Johnny Carson show at a very tender age making a put?
The nature versus nuture issue for those proclaimed to be natural talents would make excellent material for another paper.
Nice work though lad,
Mavros
May 11, 2009
0
#33
swrr2009,
The contributors to the Howard Staunton page at wiki, while a bit too over-enthusiastic for me (even though I did discuss some of this at length with them), did a pretty good job explaining some of the nuances of the Morphy-Staunton affair though eyes other than those of Frederick Edge or Philip Sergeant. Staunton has seldom been treated fairly.
I published v.d. Lasa's article on Staunton here
I published Staunton's Obit from theCity of London Magazine here
I published H.J.R. Murray's Bio of Staunton here
One can glean from this information certain things about Staunton either glossed over or ignored by those who either simply want to make a case for Morphy (which he probably would never have wanted, and certainly never needed) or who never bothered to look further than some text (or site), often in the Coward Staunton mode, for their facts in the matter.
SWRR2009 [#33]:
ChessBlucher gushed that Morphy was born with an "amazing mind". It was not only this presumption regarding the nature of Morphy's skills that bothered me a little, but also the reverential tone. What I mean is, its not hard to imagine that someone's brain could be wired a little unusually making them adept at chess, but should we revere them for this? In my experience there seems to be a slight element of idiot-savant at the core of many chess prodigies. Chess Prodigies as a rule are not Renaissance Men. Bobby Fischer was not a very scintillating individual or highly knowledgable or conversant in areas outside of chess. FIscher did spend countless hours as a youth studying chess, and I'm sure Morphy did as well. Were either one of them born to play chess? Was that their manifest destiny? Was it their gift to mankind? Was it their God-ordained function in life?
A computer's chess ability is directly tied to how many moves ahead it can think. Chess is inherently a computational activity. Should we revere some savant because of how many numbers he can multiply?
May 11, 2009
0
#36
Well I would say that someone who spoke four languages fluently, was possibly the greatest chess player ever (most certainly the best of his time,) who memorized the entire Louisiana Book of Codes and Laws, and who exceled in all his schooling would qualify as having an amazing mind. I really don't see how you could say otherwise.
Well it wasn't in your paper he spoke four languages - that is impressive (at least for an American). Actually memorizing an entire book of codes when perhaps it was not required in the curriculum seems savant-like. But it was admittedly a fine paper you wrote.
I see now it was in your revised version that he spoke four languages.
Hi Batgirl,
I would like to thank you for posting links to those enlightened articles. I read them all. Some of them need to be revised because it appears you used a scanning tool and it cannot pick up certain things (most frequently numbers).
It seems that insight into Staunton's predicament shows how dangerous it can be to take things out of context. I must still confess I believe the match would have been heavily in favour of Morphy, and that is compounded by Staunton being out of practice and being preoccupied with his publishing. However, calling him a coward (or dodger) makes no sense after reading these articles by his contemporaries, some who even found him to be a jerk! Staunton had an adversarial switch that seemed to remain in the "on position", even away from the chessboard. If I were a psychologist I might suggest he suffered mild depression, based on his angry and drawn out meetings and writings with his opponents, but I know a chessplayer when I hear one. Just think of the gibbering lips of Kasparov after Deep Juniour took points from his hide. Think of the angry accusations Kasparov makes against Deep Blue to this day. Chessplayers want to fight, as Lasker said. Surely Staunton was a fighting man, and the eagerness with which he pushed for his successful second and never-to-happen third match with St. Amant seem a testiment to this.
Failing health seems to follow chessplayers of centuries past like the plague, but it is a sad fact that Staunton was often put off his game by his heart problems. It seems this recurrent problem caused him to be weakened on more than one occasion, which is a great pity. It must have been of great concern to him on just how much this potential match would cost him. We all remember famous Russians that had to withdraw due to the pressure exerted by matches with one R.J. Fischer.
The constant delays at the time of the never-to-happen match with Morphy seem to show Staunton trying to do far too much. I think he made the right choice by prioritizing his publishing works. He might have also foreseen the terrible anger and grief that could come from losing to this American boy, which might have caused him to lead an even more embittered life than he seemed to be already living. He did not seem able to resist attacking his adversaries by abusing his publishing rights.
I do like the fact that Staunton would come to recognize the level of Morphy's play in his later publications. Its too bad he lacked this kind of understanding earlier in his chess career, which he could have used to absorb his opponent's strengths by studying them without such bias.
I am also happy Staunton 'thwamped' the pompous St. Amant. This is mostly because the Frenchman could not admit defeat, even after being handed such a decisive margin to lose by. Surely Staunton's victory over Andersson in such a long series proves that he was, at one time, the best in the World.
However, by the time Morphy came around I have to believe that the American would have won by a handy margin. I do wonder if Staunton was angry that he missed the chance to fight, or if he just hadn't the passion, or if his publishing had become his true love.
Glad you're getting a lot of comment - I didn't realise you hadn't submitted it yet, so here are some detailed points (along the lines of 'succession - secession').
para 2 - you have 'insure'. Should it be 'ensure' (to make sure of, rather than to protect against loss or damage, which would be 'insure')? I'm asking because this might be a US English/UK English difference. In UK English it would be 'ensure'; is the same true here (US readers please confirm or deny)?
para 4 - General Scott and his 'aids'. I would put 'aides'. Or is this another US/UK difference?
para 7 - Staunton would be 'beat'. I would put 'beaten'. Maybe another US/UK thing, but 'beat' does sound colloquial to my ear, and I wonder if 'defeated' would be better anyway.
para 8 - you have 'contribute' where I'm pretty sure it should be 'attribute'.
I hope this is helpful - best of luck with it