For Paul Morphy Fans

Maroczy's book, unless it has been recently released in English, is in German, so I left it off the list.  Ward's book is good and should have been on the list.   Edge's book is on the list.   I thought Shibut's was on the list, but I see it isn't.  We used Maroczy and Shibut as part of the reliable sources in creating the Morphy Historical pgn.

Good thoughts. Thanks.

The Story of the Widow's Son by Mary Lavin.

The article in the Hartford Weekly Times states, "Several attempts were made to bring Steinitz and Morphy together, but the latter successfully resisted them."  That is actually the first I have ever read of such attempts being made, and I would love to hear of more details surrounding those attempts; that these two contemporaries, Morphy and Steinitz, never did play each other seems to me one of those great and unfortunate losses to the arc of the history of the World Championship.  Steinitz, it seems, did not fully hit his stride until well after Morphy had already "retired" from serious chess; had Morphy continued to play, and somehow retained his mental soundness, into the 1870's and 80's, one can only imagine what great chess would have resulted from a clash with the mature Steinitz.  Alas...

Steinitz only visited Morphy on one occasion - to talk not to play-  during his tour that took him through New Orleans in 1883.  If attempts were made to bring Morphy and Steinitz together, it was never made by either Steinitz or Morphy.  Worth noting is that Steinitz lost an even game to de Maurian (although he won 2 and drew one) in 1883.  Morphy never conceded de Maurian less than Kt odds (though at the end, Morphy admitted that de Maurian had grown too strong for thise odds). De Maurian, like HE Bird and Louis Paulsen, considered Morphy heads and shoulders above Steinitz, take that as you will.

Great.  I'll keep my eyes open for the English edition.  Thanks.

They talked about the weather and Louisiana chicks.

Paul Morphy: A Modern Perspective by Valeri Beim is a good book on Morphy, looking at him through the eyes of a modern GM and using computers in checking on the accuracy of Morphy.  Beim and Shibut both wrote books looking at Morphy's style, openings, developement as a player, psychology as a player, even his practical side--great stuff for someone who likes to study Morphy.

If this means they considered Steinitz more brilliant than Morphy, then I don't agree with them.

It means just the opposite.  They all played both Morphy and Steinitz and each one thought Morphy was far more brilliant.

But one could also argue that the Steinitz of 1866 wasn't the Steinitz of 1886.

I think comparing them is pretty fruitless. Each had their own time and place.

         To Honza Zvolsk;  I like what you wrote in post 22. It makes perfect sense. I think when Morphy's dad died; it took the heart out of Paul playing chess. The father wanted Paul to become a lawyer. If you can't honor your parents in life, honor them in death.

Unfortunately, history doesn't bear that out.

The problem is chess is not only about brilliancy, but also about results. Morphy indeed was brilliant, however Steinitz was methodical. Paulsen and Bird lost heavily not only to Morphy but also to Steinitz. So if Morphy was head and shoulders above Steinitz, how much higher must they have considered Morphy than them? Then there is one thing I don't understand, why did they play Morphy on level terms, when they apparantly were so much more than head and shouders below him? I really wonder, whether Paulsen ever admitted something like Steinitz was head and shoulders above him?

Can really anybody be compared to anyone, when everybody and everyone has their time and place?-)

Thank you! I think his dad was awesome - he was so important(judge) and yet he paid attention to his kid:

'On a balmy summer afternoon Judge Morphy and his brother Ernest were seated on the back porch, which overlooked the long yard, playing chess. The game had been a particularly interesting one, and lasted several hours, with the result that both armies were sadly reduced, though apparently still of equal strength. The Judge's king seemed in an impenetrable position and Mr. Morphy, after vainly checking and checking, wiped his perspiring brow and remarked that the game was a certain draw. Judge Morphy smilingly agreed with him and the pieces were swept aside to be reset for another trial. Now, little Paul, hardly out of skirts, had been an interested spectator to the closing stages of the drawn battle, and while the men were being replaced he astonished his elders by saying: "Uncle, you should have won that game."

Judge Morphy and Ernest Morphy looked at the boy and the former asked, "What do you know about it, Paul?" Paul, with the assurance of a born genius, asked leave to set the pieces in the final position, and, just to humor him, his father consented.  The boy faithfully and accurately arranged the men; and then studying the board for only a moment, leaned forward and said: "Here it is: check with the Rook, now the King has to take it, and the rest is easy." And sure enough it was. The child had seen mate in an apparently impossible position, and the Judge and his brother simply stared at him, hardly able to express themselves in words.' (from http://www.edochess.ca/batgirl/ :)

I believe Paul Morphy in a way honored his dad when he proposed his father to be mentioned in Encyclopedy of Lousianna of important personalities instead of him.

To me the whole family was wonderful!

Their claim was that - each of them having played both-  Morphy was head and shouders above Steinitz.  Whether their opinions mean anything, one must judge for himself.

I had put some of this on a different thread:

De Maurian wrote:
" For Morphy’s rise to the front rank of chess-players was not like that of Steinitz, or Anderssen, or Staunton, or Zukertort, or Blackburne, or any one of a dozen other masters – nay, even of LaBourdonnais himself, the result of long years of personal study and practice with other great, and perhaps stronger, players than himself. As a very child, and (as his uncle Ernest Morphy wrote to La Régence as far back as 1851) before he had ever opened a chess work, he was a finished player, selecting the "coup justes" in the openings as if by inspiration! When he struck the kings of European chess from their lofty thrones, it was not by virtue of the experienced strategy of a practiced master, but by the sheer strength of an irresistible genius that rose equal to the requirements and superior to the difficulties of every occasion presented. Well might so profound a judge as Mr. Boden declare that the possibilities of Morphy’s genius had never been half revealed because only a very limited exercise of its powers had always been sufficient to insure victory!"

Very interesting topic, I'm a Morphy's fan too. I'll intend to read at least the Lawson's "Pride and Sorrow" and the Queyrouze's "First and Last..". I also notify an italian novel (based on true facts): "The Archangel of Chess - secret life of Paul Morphy" by Paolo Maurensig, but I don't know if an english translation already exists.

Well, I am trying to judge for myself, am I not? :) To me Morphy and Steinitz can be compared to Fischer and Kasparov - first dominating clearly but shortly and the latter beeing on top for a longer period of time, though maybe not so dominant all the time.... Here is the original comparison made by Magnus Carlsen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6g77y_4OQs

I think if anybody could test Morphy's resources, than it was Steinitz. I don't see anyone better to do that in that time than him.

And thank you for the detailed information!

I think comparing Kasparov to Fischer is very analogous to comparing Steinitz to Morphy.

Comparing Morphy and Steinitz is underpinned here..