Talk:Paul Morphy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Morphy/Staunton Match

It is to simple to state just that Staunton ducked. Althought it is true that Staunton probably no appetite for the match, he had his reasons not to play (he was retired and very busy working on his Shakespeare-works).

See for instance http://www.johntownsend.demon.co.uk/page7.html: Later, Staunton was criticised for failing to meet the American master, Paul Morphy, in a match in 1858, but by then he had effectively retired from competitive chess. But Morphy regarded him as "the man to beat". Staunton was flattered and at first he intended to prepare for a match in which he had little chance of success. There is no doubt that he was a very busy man in 1858, as he was under pressure to produce his edition of the complete works of Shakespeare. These circumstances, together with imperfect health, probably frustrated Staunton as much as Morphy. He should have told Morphy once he had decided not to play a match. He did invite Morphy to play some casual games at his Streatham home.

Other sources: http://markofwestminster.com/chess/staunton.html

Grammar

The latest change, substituting pronouns for nouns has not always been for the better, in my opinion, and in some places has in fact introduced errors of grammar, especially in the paragraph on how Morphy learned chess, where the use of "him" I believe is grammatically incorrect. However, I am not so positive I wish to make corrections, but instead invite anyone strong in grammar to look at this paragraph closely and make changes.

Here is a section that seems to me to be made very unclear by the substitution of pronouns for nouns: "His uncle recounted how Morphy, after watching one game for several hours between his father and him, told him afterwards that he should have won the game. They both were surprised, as they didn't think that young Morphy knew the moves, let alone any chess strategy."

Between his father and "him"? Who is "him"? Morphy? The uncle? Even if this is grammatically correct, it certainly seems to me that its unclear writing.

I hope this doesn't sound harsh to the person who wrote this; if it is in any way offensive, I apologise...my sole interest is in making the text of the article as clear and well written as possible. ChessPlayer 06:20, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Supposed odds challenge to the world

The only quote (from Morphy's time) cited as such a supposed challenge is on page 183 of David Lawson's famous biography of Morphy. Rather than get into a lengthy argument over whether or not the quote amounts to a challenge, it is probably sensible to compromise and adopt a wording that reflects what was actually reported: "Paul Morphy had declared that he will play no more matches with anyone unless accepting Pawn and move from him." - Louis Blair (June 21, 2006)

Batgirl link

I have restored the batgirl link. I do not know why it was removed, and I hope that this action will be reconsidered by whatever person took it down. The link has an enormous amount of information, maintained by a person who really seems to care about documentation. I can not imagine why anyone would remove it and leave other links of lesser quality. - Louis Blair (October 14, 2006)

Supposed Steinitz forbearance

I have removed the material about Steinitz's supposed forbearance to claim the title while Morphy was alive. Apparently, this is another myth. As early as the 1870s, there were those who were saying that Steinitz was the world champion. Steinitz himself argued (in 1874) that he had a claim to the title of champion, by noting that he had "not yet lost any set match on even terms" and had "come out victorious in the last two international tournaments". The 1874 Steinitz quote (along with information about where the quote originally appeared) can be found in the Steinitz entry of The Oxford Companion to Chess. An 1866 chess magazine (Chess World) had commented, "as Mr. Morphy no longer considers himself a chessplayer, there is no reason why others should do so." When Steinitz met Morphy in 1883, it was wondered if Morphy would "ever play chess again". See the March 22, 1883 New York Tribune report of an interview of Steinitz. (Reproduced at the batgirl site, by the way.) - Louis Blair (October 21, 2006)

Footnote and link to Jeremy Silman's page on Morphy

http://www.jeremysilman.com/chess_history/grt_plyr_pc_morphy.html

I severely question the value of any link to this page. After examining it, the only value I can see is possibly the annotated Morphy-Andersen game for which Silman is eminently qualified. The rest of the page is a perpetuation of misinformation for which the annotated game doesn't compensate. The "note" claims the page "has comments from Fischer on Morphy." That in itself is a stretch of the imagination. The note and link should unquestionably be removed.

My feeling is similar about the misinformation in the Silman article, but I have a somewhat higher opinion of the value of game annotation. My suggestion would be to keep the link and add a warning about the accuracy of the historical information. I also think it would make sense to direct people somewhere else for information about Fischer's comments. - Louis Blair (November 5, 2006)

Some questionable material

"His principled stance against the war was unpopular in his native South, and he was unable to begin practice of the law after the war. Attempts to open a law office failed due to a lack of clients; if anyone came to his office, it was invariably in regard to chess. Financially secure thanks to his family fortune, Morphy had effectively no profession and he spent the rest of his life in idleness."

I believe there may be some question concerning the extent of the so-called Morphy family fortune after the American Civil War. I'm not so sure the Morphys were so financially secure.

I do not know all the evidence related to this, but one item comes to mind: that response he made to a plan to include Morphy in a book about famous residents of Louisiana. Didn't Morphy say something about having enough money to satisfy his needs? On the other hand, there is that famous story about Morphy agreeing to play chess in exchange for a loan. Perhaps it would be best to replace the sentence with a more moderate wording. Something like: "Morphy's family had enough money to get by." - Louis Blair (November 5, 2006)

"Asked by admirers to play chess again, he refused, considering chess not worthy of being treated as a serious occupation."

This makes no sense. He played chess before retiring without treating it as a serious occupation, so what is the argument?

Perhaps it would be better to say that Morphy no longer wished to be associated with the game which he had never considered to be worthy of being treated as a serious profession. - Louis Blair (November 5, 2006)

"Chess in Morphy's day was not a respectable occupation for a gentleman, but was admired only as an amateur activity. Chess professionals in the 1860s were looked upon as akin to professional gamblers and other disreputable types. It was not until decades later that the age of the professional chess player arrived with the coming of Wilhelm Steinitz, who barely made a living and died broke, and Emanuel Lasker who, thanks to his demands for high fees, managed a good living and greatly advanced the reputation of chess as a professional endeavor."

Since Morphy never was or never contemplated become a professional chess player, what is the purpose of this entire paragraph?

I think it is reasonable to give some sense of how attitudes towards chess were different (and evolving) during Morphy's life. This is not to say that the paragraph does not require improvement. At the moment it strikes me as oversimplifying the way things were and the way things changed. - Louis Blair (November 5, 2006)

"Morphy's final years were tragic. Depressed, he spent his last years wandering around the French Quarter of New Orleans, talking to people no one else could see, and having feelings of persecution."

Not to make light of Morphy's mental problems, I'm not so sure his final years were so tragic. I think this paints a very distorted picture of a man who was brilliant and articulate up to the day he died.

Maybe a Maurian quote would add some balance. Didn't he write something about Morphy being fine as long as certain subjects were avoided? - Louis Blair (November 5, 2006)