Lasker's Lecture on Paul Morphy and Life.

Do we really need a rehashing of that nonsense?

As an aside, I found the typos to be distracting enough to make me re-read sections to make sure I understood what was being said. The editor did a very poor job on that article. 

The article itself was still worth reading, but yes, the typos were distracting. 

Well, I'll try to refrain from posting further articles.

Don't do that. While I don't get to read everything you post, I enjoy what I get to read. 

Thanks for the effort to make the original more readable than it would have been otherwise and for sharing it in the first place so it could be read.

2Q1C, do you have to prove yourself a moron at every opportunity?

Batgirl's scholarship and writing are one of the few shining lights on this forum, her efforts to show the history of this game deserve praise, instead of the offhand drivel that you seem able to inject into every discussion, no matter how serious.

there were cameras, but they were not as good as the one on my iPhone 5

Batgirl, you didn't write the article, my comment wasn't directed against you. I have already thanked you for posting this article. I hope you continue to post interesting articles, regardless of their flaws.

The typos, mostly misplaced marks of punctuation and the occasional letter-switch, were all mine; the sometimes odd terms (e.g. "in fine") were the turn-of-the-century writer's peculiarity.   

I don't look for expressions of appreciation but I do find it baffling, even insulting, that some commenters (not you) will disregard the value of an article itself or  the information contained within, for the sake of pithy superciliousness. 

I want people to appreciate the content, not the act of presenting it and by the same token, critique the content, not the presentation.

That's the very heart of the sunrise.

Bout those perfection czars, just ignore them.

Your work is the reason I started translating stuff.

Thank you!

Didn't bother me at all. The only re-reading I did was to try to spot them in order to know what people here were writing about.

After reading this I was reminded of a recent thread where a video of an audio book 'Talent Is Overrated' was posted. Too often we are lead to believe there are natural born genuises , who spring into being from thin air. The audio book in question debunks the idea that Mozart wrote no error perfect first draft pieces of music...

I came across a book review on Morphy that said contrary to popular belief he won most of his game by attrition after acquiring a material surplus. He won because he, like the modern player was better at analysing  positions. 

I assume Morphy came from a comfortable middle-class background - someone correct me if I'm wrong and his inclination to chess was helped by exposure to the necessary materials at a YOUNG AGE. (BTW I'm not suggesting an environmentalist argument as sole reason for achievement in anything, as I believe genes do have an important contribution , but to what extent, it's difficult to say.)

One thing to keep in mind is that when Morphy was young, there were few books of value and almost no chess periodicals. His family might have subscribed to the CPC and La Régence.  He was from a wealthy family, as opposed to middle-class, but instructional material of real value just didn't exist.  Paul was allowed to play chess on Sunday afternoons only.

Charles de Maurian wrote:

"it's a well known fact that Paul was a chess genius when he was barely nine years old".

and he also give us the earliest description of Morphy's involvement chess.

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 bee 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.

 

Maurian also claimed that up to the time of the 1st American Chess Congress, Morphy only ever possessed the following books:
Chess Studies by Horwitz and Kling
La Regénce collection of Lionel Kieseritzky
The Chess Tournament by Howard Staunton
Chess Player's Handbook and Companion by Howard Staunton (owned by Maurian)
Treatise on the Game of Chess by William Lewis (owned by Maurian)

Morphy himself claimed he never looked at an instructional book that told him something he hadn't already deduced through his own efforts.

You have to remember he's just a person though. Chess players all the time say silly things like this that simply aren't true.

For example "I never studied endgames" yet they can play certain technical positions completely correctly. Or "I never studied openings" but they somehow know tons of theory.

I'm not so interested in his own account. A list of books says enough.

Sure.  It's just words.   Capablanca claimed the same thing. My thought is that there's an element of truth but probably not the whole story.

Somehow, I did not read this earlier, but then I remember that I was on holiday for a couple of weeks, and so this came through then.

Once again, another gem from you, typos and all, which proved to not get in the way of understanding the article.

I sincerely hope that is an idle threat .  I'd have left chess.com long ago if not for posts like yours.

Thanks for the article Batgirl! Your articles add flavor to the experience here at Chess.com. Only someone who has passion for the game and a sense of history can come up with interesting articles such as yours.

What rubbish!

Because it would not then be free to the guys who cannot or will not pay.

Like it is everywhere else unfortunately.