Paul Morphy World Champion

No player, as far as I know, has ever gone so far out their way to try to arrange matches with the best players in the world and soundly beat all who took up his offer.  Actually I don't think any other players even come close.    

IMO there is no reason not to call Paul Morphy a (if not the first) World Chess Champion.  

The reasons that Paul Morphy, clearly the premier player of his time, isn't considered officially a world champion is that the concept of a world champion existed at that time in only the most nebulous way, that there was no formal method of establishing a world championship and that Morphy never played anyone specifically for such a title nor did he ever claim such a title. This doesn't lessen Morphy in the least.

Morphy went to Europe and beat everyone who would play him. Stauton dodged him and may have been able to beat him, but who else? If there were other people with equal abilities, certainly they would have been known. You said yourself, R&O, you don't get good by playing patzers.

You could say today that there are probably better chess players in the world than Anand and Carlsen that we just don't know about, but that would be unfounded speculation. The same is true for Morphy.

Morphy went to Europe and beat everyone who would play him. Stauton dodged him and may have been able to beat him, but who else? If there were other people with equal abilities, certainly they would have been known. You said yourself, R&O, you don't get good by playing patzers.

You could say today that there are probably better chess players in the world than Anand and Carlsen that we just don't know about, but that would be unfounded speculation. The same is true for Morphy.

The only known potentially serious challenges to Morphy whom Morphy didn't play (during the time he was active) were possibly Petroff in Russia and v.d. Lasa in Germany.  Judging from Morphy's manhandling of Anderssen, even those two players weren't likely to have put up much resistance. Some people have suggested S. Dubois, but that would have been dubious or perhaps Duboious. 

To clear up a few biographical missteps:
Morphy received his L.L.B. degree from the Law Dept. of Louisiana State University on April 7, 1857,  two months prior to his 20th birthday, but, while he passed the exam, he couldn't immediately practice at the bar due to his age.  Some confusion might have arisen from the fact that he graduated from Spring Hill in 1854 with a B.A. and received his A.M. degree in 1855. 

In December of the same year he received his law degree, he won the 1st American Chess Congress.  The following year he traveled to Europe and arrved just 2 days before his 21st birthday.

Deschapelles, also considered by many as an "unofficial" chess champion and who predated Morphy by more than a half-century, also was very specific than he wouldn't accept any challenge except at odds.

Game recording prior to the La Bourdonnais - M'Donnell match was precarious at best. There were almost no chess columns (see my recent article "After There Were Books...") and few books that included contemporary players.  People like Deschapelles played for money, not posterity.  Although Deschapelles was a prolific player, almost none of his games have been preserves and of those that have survived many were by opponents who happened to win. I put some of his success here.

When I was a new chess player, I found the games of Morphy exciting. Clear play coming from sensible development--and then the lightning strikes! He probably is responsible for more people loving the game than any other master. In contrast, when I look at games of the modern titans of the game, I really have no idea what is going on. No lightning. 

"He probably is responsible for more people loving the game than any other master."

I'd never thought about it in exactly that way, but I think you may be absolutely right.  Morphy's play, while heavy with combinative possiblities, is extremely clear and easy to follow.  Even if we're not prepared for the lightning, once it strikes, it's easy to trace.  That might be Morphy's timeless appeal.  Morphy hated closed games with a passion - not so much that he couldn't play them, but rather that he saw them as an affront to what makes chess beautiful- they stifle combinative play. Combinations, at that time and in Morphy's mind, were the apex of chess.   Modern chess sees combinations less as a goal and more as a strategic tool. 

Point well made, DrS. I too love Morphy's games and your post helped me understand why.

As for a World Champion title - he does not need it.  Chess players the world over know his name, his games and rank him with the very best.

Steinitz played all the strongest available opponents for decades, while Morphy more or less only did the same 1858-59, before retiring from serious competition. In that respect I wouldn't say that Steinitz doesn't even come close.

The point was that Morphy wasn't the only, or even first, champion to accept challenges only at odds.

I made it about half way through till I bailed. Kings & Rooks & Knights shuffling around. Meh.

Yes, but it was hard to stay interestsed once Aronian stranded his Rook deep in the White position. I'm sure there was a reason for it, but that kind of thing usually leads only to trouble.

Yeah, but if you count him as the first World Champion, all those who expose their jealousy with anti-American sentiments saying the United States hasn't produced any chess greats will look even more stupid than they always have and always will.

I think Morphy was one of the greatest of all time. I also loved reviewing his games. I also think he probably had a photographic memory. He could play blindfolded better than most I have ever heard of.

Incisive, razor-sharp observation. Sadly, yes. thank you Savage.

Of course anyone can be accused of anything.  Although you don't go out and say it yourself your suggestion unfortunate.  

Goting from memory I believe the following facts are important.

A) Prior to the match both had to sign an agreement as to what the loser of the match would need to do to get another shot at the title. 

B)  Kasparov insisted that the contract not allow an automatic rematch.  

C) The agreement required a tournament qualifier be completed.  It was not that different than the dortmund qualifier that Leko won.  Kramnik and the organizers did try to accomadate several of Kasparovs requested changes to this format,(I believe one request from kasparov was that the head to head matches be longer) but in the end Kasparov refused to abide by the agreement he signed.  

D) Kramnik merely kept his word to the other chess players of the world by allowing them the possibility of participating in a qualifier.  

E) Also keep in mind that Kramnik was basically thrilled for the opportunity to play a match against Kasparov and so likely agreed to any sort of terms Kasparov wanted.  Hence if we are going to blame Kramnik then we are blaming him for keeping the contract that was likely prepared by Kasparov.    

I think keeping these facts in mind is important for 2 reasons:

1) It tends to show more clearly that Kramnik wasn't ducking Kasparov, but instead it was Kasparov ducking the qualification cycle that he (kasparov) himself likely insisted on.

2) It highlights the fact that Kasparov knew a single tournament qualifier was a bad idea.  Kasparov knew he was the more likely than other players to win the tournament.  But he also knew that even if he was the best chess player he likely would not win the qualifier.    That is why he was pushing for longer matches.  

As a side note.  I definitely agree with Kasparov that a single tournament is a very poor way to pick a challenger.  However, he should have played in the qualifier, finished his contractual obligation and then insisted on a better method.  I hope if he is elected president of fide he remembers his position and has the integrity to continue to push for longer candidates matches instead of a single tournament.  

Are you sure he never claimed it?  I beleive people called him World Champion including Edge at the end of his book - I would need to double check this.  

Did Morphy explicitly say he wasn't world champion?  Or do we just not have anything recorded one way or another.  

It seems (if wikapedia is to be believed on this, that he was often introduced as the world champion.)  If I was introduced as the Bishop of Rome I would probably correct that introduction at some point.  Did Morphy ever correct people when they called him World chess Champion.

Fabelhaft regarding Steinitz.  You might be right.  I wasn't that up on Steinitz but from reading it does seem he at least comes close.  

It is interesting that the term world champion seems to be used before his first match with Zukertort. 

He was clearly the best in his time period!