Lasker's Lecture on Paul Morphy and Life.

   It is perhaps to be regretted that Dr. Lasker's lecture on the "Chess Philosophy of Paul Morphy" was not delivered before a larger audience than is possible under the rules of the New Orleans Chess, Checkers and Whist Club, for it was brimful of thoughtful suggestion that appealed not only to the chess player but to those who have never seen a chessboard. It was not only the philosophy of chess that lie demonstrated. but the philosophy of life itself, and the lecturer proved his genius by investing a somewhat technical subject with the color of human interest, and drew a lesson or two that may serve as an inspiration to the young man seeking for principles of action that lead to success in life. According to Dr. Lasker's theory success is not achieved by brilliant dashes but by infinite labor backed by intelligence and logical method.
   Paul Morphy's success, according to Dr. Lasker. was due to the scientific application of logical principle to a game where contending forces of equal strength confront each other and his victories were due not to subtle combinations or natural intuition, but to a gradual development of forces that crushed his opponent with cumulative effect. This rather controverts the popular belief that Morphy was a genius and owed his phenomenal success solely to superior natural gifts and powers or intuition.
   Dr. Lasker began by saying that while it was imagined that few men deserve the name of philosopher, yet every man who has the ability to generalize a series of observations is a philosopher. All skillful chess players are philosophers because they ascribe their wins and losses to rational causes rather than the freaks of chance. The tyro ascribes his defeats to the superior luck of his opponent or to an accidental position brought about without intent on the part of the successful player. As he grows older he learns that chance cuts no figure in the game and that victory and defeat are due to logical causes.
   It was long a popular theory that the chess master was a genius who had the gift of mysterious combinations and the fatality of investing his pieces with a magic beyond the ken of the ordinary mortal
   "What is a genius?" asked the lecturer. "Is it a man gifted with a mysterious power which enables him to divine the truth without effort?  No.  
   "Paul Morphy's life illustrated the idea that genius is the tenacity to take Infinite pains added to the knowledge of how to achieve ends with small effort."   
   To further illustrate his idea the lecturer drew a comparison between the great chess master Anderssen, and his young conqueror, Morphy,  
   Anderssen's skill lay in a faculty for conceiving and executing combinations that took his opponent by surprise. Surprise was the keynote of all his combinations. His idea seemed to he that victory would perch upon the banner of the man who could lay deeper plans than his adversary. In this style of play he was extraordinarily successful. being gifted with rare powers of imagination and a great talent for combination. The economy of means by which he achieved his ends were remarkable. Surprise was the basis of his combinations. and the same might he said of his contemporaries. In Morphy's games, on the other hand, we are struck by a sense a of logic.  
   Prior to Morphy's time it was the fashion to believe chess masters gifted with a mysterious power. Even Bird, a chess master himself, said that when Anderssen was in form nobody could withstand his combinations. This, said Dr. Lasker. is a false I Idea. Victory in chess depends not only upon your own play. but on that of your opponent.
    When Morphy developed to his complete stature something happened which never happened before.  Here was a man who took no stock in the occult power of another human being, and had no reverence for chess traditions. Probably he owed this bold attitude to the new world in which he lived. for it was, essentially, a democratic attitude. Perhaps it arose from his encounter with Lowenthal, whom he defeated, shattering a belief that genius is a mystical force given to some people at their birth.
   Morphy had this faculty in connection with others. The capacity for seeing a position when it presented itself. In this democratic atmosphere the mystical sense of dreamy philosophy could not flourish. Morphy probably owed his fine mental equipment to the artistic element of his Latin blood tempered by modern influences; it was partly English, partly German:  in fine, a logical sense. How this miracle happened we do not know, but the result was a system of philosophy that achieved its end but by logical methods. He must hare formulated for himself two axioms:
   1. Results depend on rational causes, namely, the effect of the action of pieces, such as mobility. activity and consequently features susceptible of study.
   2. Where one player has achieved a superiority of these effects of chess pieces, he is aided in his combinations to such an extent, that no matter bow subtle the combinations of his opponent. he must be victorious it he does his tactical work correctly.
   This was a tremendous challenge to the masters of the old world. They depended on beauty in their play. The beautiful was not necessarily included in Morphy's play, but was merely a by-product so to speak. His theory was a belief in justice of effort: that no combinations however skillful could resist the inexorable force of superior effort.
   "It is the same in life as on the chess board."  tersely remarked the lecturer.  Dr. Lasker demonstrated his theory by analyzing several of the games between Anderssen and Morphy. using a chess board with attachable pieces. suspended on the wall. showing how vain were ingenious combinations and brilliant dashes against the resistless force of a well-developed position. In conclusion Dr. Lasker said: "Paul Morphy's games constitute a beautiful bequest to the chess world , and give aim and purpose to the modern chess master: they have magnetized chess and taught players to develop their game to the fullest extent and then await the opportune moment for aggressive play."

Point out all these many typos.

Are you dyslexic ?

Is he referring the a comma that should be a period, somewhere around the middle/upper half at "Morphy"?

Interesting read, batgirl. Is this how the article appeared in 1907? If so, was there a byline? Do we know how many attended Dr. Lasker's lecture? 

Thank you for reporting on these historical events.

There was no byline unfortunately.  This is the only newspaper article I could find on the lecture.  I looked for other hoping for more details, but no luck.  There may be someting in the N.O. Times-Democrat, but I can't access that paper.

?

you want to find video footage of something said in 1907?

Really?

or Am I just missing some kind of  joke?

Interesting insight from Lasker, comparing the two attacking genius, Anderssen and Morphy, both players contribution were incredible; and love their games. Morphy who never took the game serious develop to be great master, can you imagine if Morphy took the game serious like Steinitz, he would develop a lot dynamic theory similar to Chigorin. Anderssen did evolve from purely attacking style to deeper understanding positional play, he learn from Paulsen in the art of defense and some positional play. In the match between Anderssen and Morphy, you see the two different style, Morphy's dynamic style to Anderssen avoiding tactics and open games ( 1.e4) and going to more positional means ( 1.a3), Anderssen demostrated his positional depth to Morphy lack of it. Anderssen complain that Morphy won his games quickly while he won in the endgame. I believe why Morphy won was his great understanding dynamic play, what a pity he quit chess; he might develop the Sicilian defense or opening that require more aggressive handlily.

Unfortunately, in that day batteries in mobile phones could not withstand such a long lecture, making video impractical.

yeah!

that's what I feared.  back when an apple was an apple.

nonetheless, that's why we appreciate the batty lady-- typos notwithstanding.

Plus the world was in black and white back then, which ruins video.

I'm sure wiki is hardly the final authority on the matter... but

here's what it says

"The history of film began in the 1890s, when motion picture cameras were invented and film production companies started to be established. Because of the limits of technology, films of the 1890s were under a minute long and until 1927 motion pictures were produced without sound"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_film

so a gm lecture seems comfortably Well beyond the technology of the day.

Here's a video years before the Lasker lecture, in color.

well. ok. fine.

but then, cite you sources.  where's the proof that they could have recorded both words and footage of a 1907 gm lecture?

Super interesting read thanks.  Reti wrote that Andersen possessed more imagination and a greater penchant for combinations but Morphy was able to defeat him because he was the first 'positional player'.