best players?

I hope the Fine citatation (if there is one) is not from Fine's book Psychology of the Chess Player.  It was a while ago but what I read of it seemed fairly worthless, a straight recitation of then fashionable Freudian theory without a shred of insight from one of the world's great chess players who also held a doctorate in psychology, but a book that any accomplished academic in the field with no background in chess at all might have written.  Any insight into Morphy based on such "analysis" is probably not very insightful at all.

In 1943 Fine wrote a series of articles called "The Great Materpieces of Chess" for Chess Review in which he analyzed a game by a great player and provided some background material. One of the games was the famous 1857 Paulsen-Morphy game where Morphy sacs his Queen for an irrefutable attack.  In this article he wrote:
"Then, Morphy's great goal in life, we have repeatedly been told, was to be a prominent lawyer and he found that prospective clients gaped at the chess genius, but could not take the lawyer seriously. He must have reflected on how different the situation would have been if he had achieved casual prominence in some other field. Thus the twin delusions that chess was worthless, and that he could not do anything else, continually increased his isolation and finally led to loss of balance. "


In 1956 Fine published an article called, "Psychoanalytic Observations on Chess and Chess Masters," in the professional journal Psychoanalysis. He republished it in 1967  in booklet form with some slight variations under the title, "The Psychology of the Chess Player."
There he wrote:
"Now Morphy's refusal to embrace chess as a profession was followed by his refusal to embrace any profession. Such a deep refusal to take life seriously must have much deeper roots than the accident of Staunton's verbal dyspepsia. In fact, the withdrawal from life must have been present very early and compensated by the overpowering interest in chess. . . . In effect, his chess playing warded off the psychosis. The accident of native genius catapulted him into a world famous celebrity. As world champion, he could no longer take chess lightly, or look upon it as a mere game. If chess could not be recreation, it lost its defensive value, and hence a further regression took place; the psychosis, previously concealed, broke out in full force. . . .
Morphy's breakdown revealed traits which had previously been sublimated in chess: memory regressed to a fixation on his childhood environment; visualization broke down into voyeurism, gratified by the opera, by staring at women's faces, and by another eccentric habit of arranging
women's shoes in a semicircle in his room. When asked why he liked to arrange the shoes in this way he said: "I like to look at them." The connection between organization and paranoid systematization has been mentioned. The paranoia was also a regressive expression of the fear of attack which had been sublimated in chess. Instead of being able to accept the imaginary chess world, he lost the ability to differentiate between fantasy and reality (he became his father through a psychotic identification with him). In spite of all this, however, the ego remained sufficiently intact to allow him to be maintained outside a hospital."

Lawson wrote (p.304) that "Edge and various letter bring out that he [Morphy] led an active social life in Paris during his three sojourns there.  His company was sought out by women of the French nobility. . ."

Other that to disabuse the readers of the writings of Fine and Jones on the causes of Morphy's psychological condition, Lawson really made no suggestion himself, explicitly or implicitly, on the possible causes.

I would have loved to see Morphy play Petrosian or Smyslov. ..

We could finally find out what happens when an unstoppable force meets an unmovable object.

I assume that after Morphy sacs his queen against Petrosians defensive wall all matter in the known universe will implode.

We have already seen it.  Spassky in the 1969 second world championship match, Fischer from 1970 onward on every occasion.

And they weren't even born here...

Fischer... he even had a US open swift all the players... a real headache of the Russian who dominates chess especially during his time. Got great numbers of novelty and brilliancy games.  It's Fischer.

Chess is a progressive activity. Petrosian and Smyslov benefited from the experience of all players between Morphy and themselves, which Morphy could not obviously do, being first mentally disturbed and then later dead.

I'm sure that Morphy could wipe out even very good modern amateur players, but I don't think he, or any of the other 19th century greats, could compete with modern top GMs.

I read these a long time ago and I might be wrong about the sources but the books are

Reuben Fine  Fine was a psychoanalyst and chess player.  The work I mentioned was actually several books and articles by Fine.  One in particular involved Bobby Fischer which led to a discussion on Paul Morphy.  I can’t seem to find the title of the book but it was around the mid 1970s, it might have been: Bobby Fischer's Conquest of the World's Chess Championship: The Psychology and Tactics of the Title Match.  In the 1960s, Fine was examining the young Bobby Fischer and recounted how one of his colleagues told Fine something along the lines of  “leave (Fischer) alone, he’ll be another Morphy…” and how another colleague asked, “What’s wrong with you Americans?  You win a world championship and promptly” go crazy.  Fine discussed Morphy and the parallels with Fischer mentioning works by Ernest Jones: The Psychoanalysis of Chess and Paul Morphy from the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease November 1933 - Volume 78 - Issue 5 - ppg 534-539 and Ernest Jones, (1931). The Problem of Paul Morphy—A Contribution to the Psycho-Analysis of Chess. Int. J. Psycho-Anal., 12:1-23 that focus on Morphy’s relationship with his mother, with Staunton, with other chess players and with his subsequent aversion to chess. 

David Lawson.  Paul Morphy: The Pride and Sorrow of Chess.  Lawson wrote an extensive biography which served as the background for Morphy.  He also credit Sheriff Walter C. Spens, chess editor of the Glasgow Weekly Herald for using the phrase “the pride and sorrow of chess” in describing Morphy though Golombek stated that the phrase was coined by D.W. Fiske (an editor).   Anyway, Lawson’s biography seems to fit Fine’s and Jones’s views on Morphy except for the part where Morphy became disillusioned with chess.

Philip Sergeant.  Morphy’s Games of Chess. Sergeant wrote a brief biography about Morphy.  His was one of the first works to describe Morphy’s failed legal career and troubles after he gave up chess including the rumored woman who rejected him for being a mere chess player.  Also, Sergeant notes the comments he attributes to MacDonnell in 1859 and to Morphy’s sister Helena in her letter to Max Lange though it regards Morphy’s later life.  They seem consistent with the image of Morphy as loner and social outcast a notion disputed publicly by Edge but not privately. The Sergeant book is also interesting because he writes briefly and broadly about what future chess players would think of Morphy and those views have been expressed in this forum…

Frederick Milne Edge.  Edge was Morphy’s valet while in England in Europe.  He claimed to have made the arrangements for the Anderson match and was involved with the negotiations for the Staunton Match.  He wrote two books on Morphy but none of them regarding actual chess games.  These though should be compared to the various articles from Chess Notes published until 1986 regarding Morphy including letters from Edge to Morphy and from Edge to Fiske.  And, the latter letter written as Morphy was leaving England.  These seemed to me that Morphy was a loner and social outcast who privately wasn’t very nice to those he considered beneath him like Edge (who used the term "slave") and made enemies along the way. 

“… Now, Fiske, I can from the depths of my soul declare, looking God in the face, that had it not been for me, you wouldn’t have seen 20 of Morphy’s games - the correspondence with Staunton wouldn’t have been written, and Morphy would have gone back humbugged and a laughing stock. I made him stay and play Anderssen, and I have stood invariably between him and his enemies; and conspiracies have been dangerous in Paris, I assure you - in the salons - by Morphy’s own fault.”

And, writing to Fiske about what he wanted to write to Morphy:

“… What you are outside of chess, I have made you. Your tremendous laziness, but for me, would have obliterated all your acts. I have taken your hundreds of letters out of your pockets even, and answered them, because you would have made every man your enemy by not replying. I made you stay and play Anderssen, when you wanted to leave. I nursed you when ill, carrying you in my arms like a child. I have been a lover, a brother, a mother to you; I have made you an idol, a god ---“

See these websites: 

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/edge.html
http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/fiske.html

Edge states that none of these comments will appear in his books which Morphy later disavowed.

Mike

He sure would according to Sergeant in Morphy's Games of Chess.  Morphy challenged someone (it might have been his brother in-law, Sybrandt) to a duel on the field of honor but friends of both men intervened.

Mike

So True!!

I admire fischer, but I just can't believe that he is the best. Maybe if he had stayed in a little longer, we could see what he was, but he stayed in chess for only a short time. Also, another player like him who was dominant at the beginning was Josh Waitzkin, and he has a losing record after being a strong player like Fischer in the beginning of his career.

I made that point in a letter to Chess Life (that was printed) when they ran a cover story on Jesse Kraai celebrating the first U.S. born GM in a decade (Chess Life conveniently forgot to mention how long it had been or who the last one was).  The current USCF rating list is very short of titled talent, at least talent of recent vintage clearly post Fischer-boom, that was born in the U.S. or at least developed into titled players from the U.S. (Nakamura makes that standard I think) and not in an Eastern Bloc training regime (like Kamsky) to arrive in the U.S. as  ready-made candidate masters or already titled as with the many emigres.  That event was little reason to celebrate without a reasonable expectation of more to come and soon.  Otherwise it is proof positive of how poor the U.S. culture of today is at producing world class chess players and how much the products of rigorous Eastern Bloc programs prefer living in the U.S. regardless of the status of chess as a profession in the USA.

Is this a problem?  It depends on ones priorities or a wider view to discover other deficiencies of more importance that are correlated with it.  The USSR and the Eastern Bloc pushed chess very hard for propagandistic reasons, but in reality is a bumper crop of super GM's really important in any practical way?  They have GM's, the U.S. developed computer technology, you pick.  Another area in which the U.S. "sucks" is distance running, show me the native born great American marathon runner of recent vintage (let alone the 1500-10000 meter runners).  Is the "marathon gap" something that needs to repaired ASAP?  Will Kenya and Ethiopia be marching triumpantly down Pennsylvania Avenue in conquest if nothing is done?   Will the U.S. go to ruin without a gold medal and world record in the marathon?  Not likely.  On the other hand, if one can correlate a lack of GM production with a general decline in native interest in all activities that require intense concentration and strenuous effort sustained over a period of years to yield satisfactory results in favor of cheap and quick gratification and avoidance of direct competition and measurable results then there might be a problem.  If a society directs the majority of those who are still willing and capable into the sterile activities of financialization and litigation, the best and brightest becoming nothing better than lawyers, quants, traders and money changers at the expense of real research, development and production of products and services that are the real foundation of wealth, there is a problem.   If the best efforts made primarily serve to concentrate wealth and power into ever fewer hands rather than to bring benefit to the entire society, there is a problem.  And there IS a problem.  And more GM's will not fix it.

In his book "The Golden Dozen," Irving Chernev rates Capablanca the greatest of all time, with Alekhine second. Botvinnik is down the list. I believe Fischer is included, but I forget where he placed him. I tend to agree with Chernev, but the book was written before the age of Karpov and Kasparov, and I think even before Fischer's World Championship.

So I think the 5 greatest (in no particular order) are Capablanca, Alekhine, Fischer, Kasparov, and one place left open to be fiercely debated.

I recommend Chernev's book to everyone interested in this question.

Hi guys,

When this topic comes up someone always mentions Kasparov and hardly anyone mentions Karpov.  In their five world championship matches, Karpov scored 19 wins, 21 losses, and 104 draws in 144 games (and Karpov was older).  To me, that strongly suggests these two men as being equal.  At best, one could only say Kasparov was marginally better. 

My point is that if you want to say Kasparov was the best player of all time, you must mention that Anatoly Karpov was a very close second.

Fischer was the best chess player of all time.

Watch your backrank.

He rated Fischer behind Capablanca, Alekhine and Lasker. 

Mike

That's a bold statement, which needs qualification. Fischer was undoubtedly the best ever for a short period of time. He has the highest 1-year peak on Chessmetrics. But being the best is also about consistency, superior performance day in, day out over a considerable period. And Fischer didn't manage that. He was too flighty. For 2-year, 3-year, 4-year, 5-year, 10-year, and 20-year peak he is beaten by Kasparov all of the time and Capablanca all of the time except 20-year peak (where neither player appears). For 1-year peak, Kasparov is only TWO points behind Fischer.

For 10 and 15-year peak, Karpov also beats Fischer. Karpov has also won the most tournaments in the history of chess.

In 1972 Fischer I'm sure would have beaten both Kasparov and Capablanca, had they been around, but in other periods I'm much less sure. 

Mike,

Thanks for the documentation.
For the sake of clarity, you can view Jones' writing on Morphy here and Fine's here and here.

While Edge wrote quite a few books on different subjects, he only wrote one book on Morphy. The  confusion seems to be that Edge contracted to have the book published in America and almost  simultaneously (unknown to the New York publisher, Appleton & Co.) contracted to have the same book  published in England, by William Lay Publishing of London, under a different title.

Sergeant wrote Morphy's Games of Chess in 1916. He extended that work with a much more complete  work, Morphy Gleanings (later reprinted as Unknown Morphy) in 1932.

I imagine you refer to pp 34-5 of Morphy's Games of Chess where Sergeant quoted GA MacDonnell's,   "...he [Morphy] was eminently tactiturn, seldom if ever opening his lips, and only doing so to make some  remark about chess..."

but you ignore the immediately following statement, "Edge, on the other hand, who claims to have been  almost constantly with Morphy in London, states that they visited 'all the lions,' and that no subject was  referred to him less than chess - it being other people who would insist on talking to Morphy. Similarly in  Paris he wished to see all that was to be seen, and owed his bad start against Harrwitz to unduly late  hours."


"Anyway, Lawson’s biography seems to fit Fine’s and Jones’s views on Morphy"

Why would you say that?
 in Paul Morphy: The Pride and Sorrow of Chess, Chapter 24, Psychologists and Paul Morphy (pp.300- 301)
"...due to their sources, both [Jones and Fine] were obliged to proceed on the basis of a good deal of  misinformation. . . and since both Jones and Fine relied upon  these sources to some extent, this may  have resulted in some ill-founded assumptions and conclusions."
So it would seem, from the little actually personal commentary that Lawson gave concerning Fine and  Jones was that, at the very least, he was suspicious of their conclusions. He gave absolutely no indication  that he agrees with them.


As far as Morphy being a loner and a social outcast, there seems to be no indication of this during his  chess years. His later life is another matter altogether.  I haven't found a single instance of Morphy's so-called madness attributed to frustration over his inability to find any real challengers.  His failure to be  taken seriously at anything besides chess (and the social stigma of professionalism) has been suggested,  but most writers on Morphy, even de Maurian himself, believe that Morphy's association with chess wasn't  as all-consuming as the general public seemed to assume.  As he got older, Morphy seemed to become  more and more reclusive - not really a socially outcast, because he still attended the opera and soirees, but a self-directed withdrawal - but during his chess years, I can't find anything of the sort.

The Edge letter may be too involved to discuss here, but briefly, Edge wrote a letter to Fiske complaining  of Morphy's ingratitude in dismissing him.  Edge portrayed Morphy as treating him as a servant.  Fiske, it  seems, never acknowledged Edge's letter and panned Edge's book in Chess Monthly and in The Book of  the American Chess Congress after having previously written some encouraging remarks about it, which  leads one to believe that Fiske knew something about the Edge-Morphy business and didn't think highly of  Edge as a result.  Edge has insinuated himself into Morphy's life without Morphy's prior consent of  expectation. Since Edge was just a news reporter and had no independent means, it can only be  assumed that Morphy kept him on in Europe under some financial arrangement. It also seems likely that  Edge's plan to write a book wasn't to Morphy's liking nor had Morphy anticipated it.  As a result, Morphy  would possibly have seen Edge, not just as a servant, which in fact he was, but also as an oportunist,  which he also was.  Edge, obviously -as his letter indicates - wanted to be something more to Morphy and  above all appreciated, not only equating his clerical coups to Morphy's chessic ones, but rating his book  superior to Morphy's accomplishments . Edge's letter reflected his own dillusions, not Morphy's.


"His was one of the first works to describe Morphy’s failed legal career and troubles after he gave up  chess including the rumored woman who rejected him for being a mere chess player."

I looked through both Morphy's Games of Chess and Morphy Gleanings and couldn't find Sergeant  referring to the "mere chessplayer" nonsense.  I know Francis P. Keyes brought it up in The Chess  Players.
Can you reference where Sergeant mentioned this?

It is certainly true that the former Soviet Union pushed chess hard for its own reasons -- the People's Republic of China seems to be following that example today -- but one should acknowledge that the Russian interest in chess is both long standing and widespread. Long before anyone thought of a Soviet Union, Russian culture had a special place for chess at all levels of society. The current bumper crop of super GMs seems to be a direct result of where Russians have their interest and put their efforts.