paul morphy

share your thoughts on this prodigy of chess.

He was the pride and sorrow of chess... oh wait those are someone else's thoughts. My Morphy lore tells me that he beat a lot of people and then retired from chess in disgust when what's his name wouldn't match him...

Staunton! I just wikied Morphy. Funny, I always heard that Morphy dies in poverty when his law practice failed and his civil war woes are news to me!

One thing I can say based on what "I" have seen of his chess. Morphy seemed to be the first player who didn't accept profferred gambits. Just look at Napoleon's Games.

Basically Morphy was really good when most people weren't. He might have been the world's first 2600+ player

"Morphy was the first to forego the early attack in favor of development."

Surely not...

Dunno. But Greco, way on back in 1626, was right up there.

"Morphy seemed to be the first player who didn't accept profferred gambits."

That can't be right, can it?

For those of you interested in a detailed analysis of morphy's games and style, I suggest the book "paul morphy: a modern perspective, by valerie beim"

His games are works of art, and the book does a really excellent job of breaking down morphy's life and games. 

Nor will you. It's been recounted in several places that Morphy, before he was 9,  played Winfield Scott - The Evening Post's rendition can be read at:  http://sbchess.sinfree.net/morphybio2.html - but it's still not a for certain occurrance. If the meeting actually took place, the account above seems a bit fanciful. The above article reports Morphy starting the first game with the un-Morphy-like opening 1. a4 and mating Scott in 10 moves. In the second game "after the sixth move, [Morphy] marked the spot and announced the movement for the debacle - which occurred according to schedule " It's was also referred to as Morphy's first public chess game.

Anyway, no conrete evidence exists, that I know of, including the game scores.

I once played one of his games almost exactly the same as he did, only the opponent made more mistakes so I won quicker. This is the game I'm talking about, he really destroys the opponents:

"Two guys interrupted Paul Morphy and wanted to play a game during an opera. He supposedly played with his back to the board, so he could continue watching."

No, Morphy was invited to the Opera where two acquaintances, Duke of Brunswick and Count Isouard, had a box. He often played both those gentlemen and they played several times at the opera.  Morphy, as usual, sat facing the board with his back to the opera ( he probably would have prefered it the other way around since he loved the opera far, far more than he loved chess - see Morphy and Music)

Did Morphy rehearse the combination?  How can someone rehearse such a thing??

I got my version of the story from this site:

 http://www.exeterchessclub.org.uk/Openings/lessphld.htm

HotFlow, you never know what goes on in a genius' mind ;)

At least I don't...

Hi everyone,  when I was a teenager and an avid student of chess, I studied a lot of Paul Morphy's games from a book written by  P. Sergeant and also another one written by his admiring opponent, J. Loenwathal, who was a chessmaster himself at that tine. It seems to me that Morphy had two diferrent styles of play. He would play in a Positional style, ( the acquisition of small advantages: like giving his opponents doubled, isolated,backward and "hanging" pawns and controlling important, "Key" squares with pieces,) against masters of his day. He would try to avoid getting embroiled in combinational-situations. That is why he refrained from accepting gambits.  Against the amateurs, he would open-up. Then his artistry in carrying out his attacks burst out in a flare of "Pyro-technic". The kind we see in the game illustrated in this blog. This game was played by Morphy against two noblemen of his day, the Duke of Brunswick and Count Isouard in an Opera House while the Opera, "The Barber of Selville" was going on. It was said that the two good noblemen made Morphy sit with his back to the stage because they would not allow him to watch the show.They wanted him to concentrate on the game as they had paid him a substantial fee to play with them. In those days rich patrons were willing to pay a lot of money to famous masters just to play with them! Needless to say Morphy was very annoyed and decided to trounce them in double-quick time so that he could enjoy watching the rest of the opera!  Heh! Heh!   We get the benefit of learning both style of play when we study Mophy's  games. Young, aspiring players should study the games he played from his simultaneous exhibitions where his emphasis on development and his technic of increasing and exploiting his lead in development ( having more pieces in play than his opponent has) is manifested. Usually when we have 3 pieces more in play than  our opponent,we have an advantage approximately equal to a pawn. But this advantage is transcient and must be converted quickly into a permanent one, otherwise our opponent will catch up with us and the 3 tempo advantage disappears. When we grow stronger and reach the level of  1500-1700 rating pts. We must start to study Postional play and the resulting Endgame that follows. Edmar Mednis' book "From the Opening to the Endgame" would be a start for us. Why? change our style when we are already quite proficient in playing attacking, combinational chess?  There is always some element of risks when one embark on a combination. It is NOT foolproof! In the calculation of a series of forced moves, there is the "ZUGSCENZWIG" an IN-BETWEEN move which our opponent can throw in to upset our forced series of moves which will completely turn the table against us. So players at the higher levels choose the safer method of winning their game by the Positional way. You may be wondering who am I to expound all these mish-mash. My only reason for doing so is that all of us can improve our game if we have this little knowledge with us. I started playing competitive chess in my teens and did rather well.  Later, I was appointed coach to promising younsters some of whom have become masters and grandmasters. I am retired now, as I am seventy-five years old,  born on July 29, 1932! Without blowing my trumpet, perhaps you would like to visit my blog to play over some of the games I played there.