Awesome! I wonder if Morphy was somehow connected to the chess world after his retirement, as Fischer did, or he didn't want to know anything about it.
Morphy vs. Steinitz
Sort:
Pulpofeira wrote:
Awesome! I wonder if Morphy was somehow connected to the chess world after his retirement, as Fischer did, or he didn't want to know anything about it.
Morphy retired from public chess around 1863 but continued playing in private until at least 1869, though there is evdence he played until the mid to late 1870s (In 1877 Maurian wrote to the "NY Sun" : "As to chess, he is unquestionably to-day the best player in the world, although he does not play often enough to keep himself in thorough practice. He gives odds of a knight to our strongest players, and is seldom beaten, perhaps never when he cares to win.").
Upon learning that Steinitz wanted to meet him in 1883, he reputedly noted that Steinitz' Gambit was not good, indicating he followed chess even up until then.
Interesting essay. Almost a model of a certain type of writing once common in Freshman Composition, and perhaps still.
Love the article... thank you :)
Steinitz would've beaten him.
Everything that Steinitz taught can be discerned in Morphy's play.
'or even trace the silent and deleterious influences that are exerted by a ceaseless call upon its energies.' 
The match that should have happened but never did.
Morphy V Steinitz.
Like Fischer/Karpov, Morphy and Steinitz missed each other and their match was never played.
Morphy's challenge to the world- one pawn and one move odds - was not accepted. Presumably this challenge existed even as late as when Steinitz met Morphy in 1880's.
indurain wrote:
"... Morphy's challenge to the world- one pawn and one move odds ..."
It is understandable that one might think that there was such a challenge, but you might want to see if you can find any record of a quote of that challenge.
ylblai2 wrote:
indurain wrote:
"... Morphy's challenge to the world- one pawn and one move odds ..."
It is understandable that one might think that there was such a challenge, but you might want to see if you can find any record of a quote of that challenge.
Frederick Milnes Edge in "Exploits of Paul Morphy" :
"After Anderssen's departure, Paul Morphy declared he would play no more even matches, and, certainly, his resolve was justified by the unheard of manner in which he had walked over all opponents."
...
"Morphy now determined to offer the pawn and move to Herr Harrwitz..."
1/7/1859 Dr. Johnston, Paris corresponadant for the "NY Times" :
"Mr. Morphy offers now to play Staunton, and give him a Pawn and a move..."
Edge wrote in a dispatch to the "NY Herald," Jan. 5, 1859 :
"Paul Morphy had declared that he will play no more matches with anyone unless accepting Pawn and move from him."
batgirl wrote:
"Frederick Milnes Edge in 'Exploits of Paul Morphy' :
'After Anderssen's departure, Paul Morphy declared he would play no more even matches, and, certainly, his resolve was justified by the unheard of manner in which he had walked over all opponents.'"
An unwillingness to play a match of level games is not a challenge to the world to play at odds.
Quoting Edge again, batgirl wrote:
"'Morphy now determined to offer the pawn and move to Herr Harrwitz...'"
Not a challenge to the world.
batgirl wrote:
"1/7/1859 Dr. Johnston, Paris corresponadant for the 'NY Timess' : 'Mr. Morphy offers now to play Staunton, and give him a Pawn and a move...'"
Not a challenge to the world.
batgirl wrote:
"Edge wrote in a dispatch to the 'NY Herald,' Jan. 5, 1859 :'Paul Morphy had declared that he will play no more matches with anyone unless accepting Pawn and move from him.'"
An unwillingness to play a match of level games is not a challenge to the world to play at odds.
Don't play semantic games.
Those are the sources of the contention.
Morphy didn't "challenge" the world to pawn and move. Morphy would not accept a game even unless a contender could first beat him at odds - that is the gist of the announcement. There were several things at play here. First, that was SOP for 1st class players - to make an opponent first prove himself at odds, but generally not for other first class players to prove themselves. Second, other first class players rarely accepted odds since by doing so they set themselve a rank below their opponent. So, it wasn't a "challenge" by Morphy, it was a condition - and a strategic one since he had already avowed to abandon chess and wished to do so gracefully.
batgirl wrote:
...
Morphy didn't "challenge" the world to pawn and move. ... it wasn't a "challenge" by Morphy, it was a condition ...
That sounds right to me.
batgirl wrote:
Don't play semantic games.
Those are the sources of the contention.
...
I am not sure who you think is playing semantic games. I'm sorry if my ~5-hours ago comments were unnecessary obvious observations. Thanks, by the way, for posting the quotes and the Brooklyn Chess Chronicle thing.
Because, while obviously different, the result is basically the same. It's definitely a wrong way to express it but not a big deal. Morphy refused to accept even challenges (as Paulsen discovered later).
According to Edge, Morphy set this condition in January after his match with Anderssen. But in March he contested a match with Augustus Mongredien on even terms (at the Hotel du Louvre in Paris, winning 7-0). This apparent backpedaling was due to an earlier promise he made to Mogredien. He also played an even game with Boden, 3 games with Loewenthal in England in 1859 and in 1863 a few even games with his friend Arnous de Rivière.
What's the Brooklyn Chess Chronicle thing?
Oh, and I apologize for the semantic comment. It was harsher that what I intended.
thanks Batgal...for this piece and for generally getting me into the History of Chess. i've been on the hunt for chessbooks in bookstores...the older dustier versions....and have come up with some fun stuff like "Chess for Children" wherein some Chess History resides. a very interesting and stylistically interesting as well, "The Even More Complete Chess Addict" by Mike Fox and Richard James...a "faber and faber" publication.
batgirl wrote:
"... obviously different, ... It's definitely a wrong way to express it ..."
Those comments sound right to me.
batgirl wrote:
"... but not a big deal. ..."
I have no opinion about how big a deal it is.
batgirl wrote:
"... the result is basically the same. ..."
If Morphy had made a real challenge-to-the-world without financial provisions to compensate someone taking up the challenge, then it seems to me that Morphy would have been guilty of making an empty gesture. Travel cost alone could have been a substantial obsticle for someone thinking of taking up a challenge-to-the-world without the potential to receive money. On the other hand, if there had been a real challenge-to-the-world with a potential for substantial monetary gain, it would be of some historical note if nobody took up the challenge-to-the-world. If there was no real challenge-to-the-world, then there was not an empty-gesture-challenge-to-the-word and there was nothing noteworthy about an absence of takers for a challenge-to-the-world that never took place.
batgirl wrote:
"What's the Brooklyn Chess Chronicle thing?"
That was my way of referring to the ~3-weeks-ago post at the beginning of this thread.
batgirl wrote:
"Oh, and I apologize for the semantic comment. It was harsher that what I intended."
No problem. I think you post a lot of good stuff.
fiddletim wrote:
thanks Batgal...for this piece and for generally getting me into the History of Chess. ...
I would suggest looking into the work of Edward Winter. Also perhaps consider Bobby Fischer vs. The Rest of the World by Brad Darrach, Howard Staunton - 1810-74 by David Levy, The Psychology of the Chess Player by Reuben Fine, Howard Staunton - The English World Chess Champion by Raymond Keene and R. N. Coles, Kings of Chess by William Winter, The World's Great Chess Games by Reuben Fine, The Great Chess Masters and Their Games by Fred Reinfeld, Grandmasters of Chess by Harold C. Schonberg, Paul Morphy - The Pride and Sorrow of Chess by David Lawson, William Steinitz - Chess Champion by Kurt Landsberger, Morphy's Games of Chess by Philip Sergeant, Emanuel Lasker - The Life of a Chess Master by Dr. J. Hannak, Garry Kasparov on My Great Predecessors - VOLUME I by Garry Kasparov, Jose Raul Capablanca - Third World Chess Champion by Isaak Linder and Vladimir Linder, Wilhelm Steinitz: 1st World Chess Champion by Isaac Linder and Vladimir Linder, The History of Chess in Fifty Moves by Bill Price, Jose Raul Capablanca 3rd World Chess Champion by Isaac Linder and Vladimir Linder, ... Perhaps I am getting a little carried away here.
A PARALLEL.
The brightest luminaries the Chess world has revealed. Born almost in the same year—one at New Orleans and the other at Prague—Morphy's star had set in the night of life, when that of Steinitz was just glimmering on the verge of the horizon.
One was a child of the sunny South—instinct with its fire and inventive genius, which were singularly allied with the most wonderful depth of thought; the other, born in a northern region of a race whose reflective faculties attain the most powerful development, is yet gifted with uncommon mental acumen. One was a nervous, delicate organizat1on ; the other has a far less impassioned nature, but an iron.like constitution. One is dead; the other survives in the maturity of his powers.
Morphy learned the moves at eleven and beat the world at twenty.one. He "Walked up to fame as to a friend." Steinitz fought his way by the sheer force of ability to his present eminence; and his ascent resembles in its features the rise of Fox, of whom Burke said, " He rose by slow degrees to be the most accomplished debater the world ever saw."
Morphy is the phenomenon of the ages; Steinitz is a combination of genius and endless endeavor. One was a meteor that flashed across the mental sky; the other is a luminary whose radiance is undimmed after the lapse of nearly a quarter of a century. Morphy was doubtless the greatest player who ever lived; Steinitz is the foremost Chess analyst of .this or any other time, and is the only master who might have imperiled the majesty of Morphy. Neither sought to nurse his reputation. Morphy crossed a continent to challenge and defeat all comers; Steinitz fears no knight beneath the sun. Morphy overthrew with hardly a struggle all the European potentates of his generation ; Steinitz has dethroned those who reascended, or who have risen since that revolution. Morphy never lost a match; Steinitz, during a long and eventful Chess career, has never been defeated in a solitary one. Morphy participated in a single tournament only and won the first prize; Steinitz has engaged in many and won the first prize in six of them and tied for first prize in a seventh. Morphy's noblest emanation was the Four Knights' game against Paulsen. It is of such remarkable depth and beauty that it ranks among the " immortals." The blindfold game against Baucher is a masterpiece of brilliancy and originality. Steinitz's Kieseritzky Gambit against Simonson—one of twenty.seven simultaneous games—is one of the most beautiful on record; and the Vienna Opening against Blackburne, in the Tournament of 1882, is a grand exhibition of Chess power.
Harrwitz made the best score against Morphy—2 to 5, and 2 draws. It is singular though, that the Rev. Mr. Barnes should have made so strong a one—7 to 19 and 1 draw; and Bird the best score against Steinitz—7 to 8 and 7 draws—when both deemed Anderssen the greatest antagonist they ever encountered. In one case, it exhibits either Morphy's indulgence or his moments of weakness, and betrays the force of Mr. Bird's genius, in the other.
Morphy possessed that unwearied patience, which is so striking and extraordinary in Steinitz and Winawer, and which is such an element of strength. Morphy's memory was marvelous, and his blindfold feats are still unrivaled specimens of elegant and forcible play in an age that boasts a Blackburne and a Zukertort. He once proposed to play twenty simultaneous blindfold games, but was dissuaded by his friends. Steinitz has devoted but little attention to this feature of the royal pastime, but his memory runs like lightning on the books, and his masterly familiarity with the vast and intricate variations of play is astounding.
Morphy could not possibly have possessed in a greater degree than Steinitz does that supreme courage, which is essential to all true greatness in any department of human thought or action. In critical moments, when the brain reels and the heart sinks, it preserves the intellectual poise and the physical balance of man's nature—rare examples of which are to be found in the career of Brougham at. the bar and that of Napoleon on the battle.field. Mark Morphy in his match with Harrwitz: while laboring under downright indisposition and fighting an uphill score, he rallied as if by a spell and never lost another game. The finish broke poor Harrwit'z heart—who was assuredly a player of the very first range. The last eleven or twelve games against Barnes were scored game after game without the loss of a solitary one. Steinitz, near the close of the Tournament of 1873, had to defeat Blackburne twice or fall to second place—but he succeeded. At Vienna, in 1882, he lost the first game in playing off the tie with Winawer for first prize, but he boldly won the next game and divided honors. In the recent tournament, when far behind, discouraged by his unfortunate score and want of form, he recovered by a supreme effort and never lost another game, and by his successive triumphs over Blackburne, Mason and Mackenzie, earned and achieved the second place.
Such signal feats deserve distinction and mark the master. They call to mind, but far surpass, the celebrated triumphs of Harrwitz over Lowenthal and Campbell against Barnes. Both Morphy and Steinitz possessed in a higher degree than all others that wonderful union of every characteristic that constitutes the genius; and if given a different direction, these physical and intellectual forces would have accomplished an immortal destiny in the loftiest spheres of human action.
To sum up in a word the leading qualities of these two distinguished knights:
Morphy was a consummate master of both attack and defence; he possessed judgment, patience, memory, imagination, daring, originality beyond measure, precision, polish, elegance, subtle and profound powers of combination. Steinitz's most remarkable characteristics are his supreme courage, and "deadly accuracy'" (as the Rev. Mr. Ranken puts it), novelty, invention, aggressiveness and tenacity, marvelous judgment and originality, patience and extraordinary powers of analysis and combination.
In the meridian of Morphy's glory, Chess was the embodiment of chivalry, but was not so deeply studied as at present. A bold and beautiful order of play offered opportunity for profound and brilliant combination. In Steinitz's time the openings have been reduced by exhaustive and scientific analysis to an exactness never known before, while the chivalry and splendid possibilities of the game have been narrowed, if not destroyed, by a too cautious and professional spirit.
Since Morphy's day, the theory has changed somewhat, and new principles have been developed; but who can doubt that, if he had lived to a later era, that his peerless genius would have still maintained its supremacy. On the other hand, who is hardy enough to limit the possibilities of Steinitz's genius, if his career had been cast in that former time.
The mental malady that produced the "twilight of his faculties," never developed in Morphy until years after he had abandoned Chess. But the scalpel of the anatomist, the analysis of the chemist, the tireless research of the psychological student are powerless to reveal the mysteries and wonders of the mental organism.
No human ken or effort can measure the power or understand the operations of its intangible and hidden forces, or even trace the silent and deleterious influences that are exerted by a ceaseless call upon its energies. Yet it is affirmed and believed by those who ought to know, that misfortunes and sorrows that had no connection wilh Caissa caused this mind to wander in a world of shadows. It is, too, a striking coincidence that Steinitz suffered from a temporary mental derangement, produced, it is believed, by sunstroke, but he never moved for years in a land peopled with shadowy and unreal forms.
Morphy's habits never led him to preserve his games, and he was ever careless of his fame. He was too young, perhaps, to write a volume upon the theory of Chess, but his memory was embalmed by the friendly spirit who gave to the world the collection of his games. Steinitz has kept no record of his finest efforts, and appears indifferent regarding his reputation. No kindred spirit has embodied in book form the splendid creations of his genius, but he expects soon to give to the world an elaborate work upon the principles of the game, which will no doubt lay the foundation of a second fame—unless as strange a destiny overtake it as befell Macaulay's idol. That great man deemed his '' Essays" of little value, while he lavished so much of love and genius on his "History," and proudly trusted to it to perpetuate his name to the remotest generations. The verdict of posterity has adjudged in favor of the slighted and unvalued volume which built his fortune, and upon which his fame will rest forever.
Morphy carved a niche in the temple of fame long before the noble mind began to wander from its dwelling.place; and posterity will accord Steinitz even a more eminent recognition than has the age he lives in. But—
"Tomorrow, let us trust the morrow, their fame will need no word of ours."
EMMET HAMILTON.
Fort Snelling, Minn., Sept, 1884.