| Dec-10-04 | | Zembla: A nice straightforward Evans Gambit by Morphy. 21...Kb7 might have been a little better for black. |
|
| Dec-10-04 | | Pawn Ambush: What after 24...ab5? |
|
| Dec-10-04 | | Minor Piece Activity: 24...axb5 25. Rxg7+ Kc8 26. Rc7+ Kb8 [Kd8? Bf4+) 27. Rxh7+ Kc8 wins I think. Just a windmill. |
|
| Dec-18-04 | | Pawn Ambush: Yeah!! I over looked 26...Kd8; 27.Bf4!
MPA Thanks |
|
| Aug-24-05 | | Agent Bouncy: Does anyone know where this game was played? New Orleans? Havana? |
|
| Aug-24-05 | | sneaky pete: Havana, February 16, 1864. |
|
| Aug-25-05 | | RookFile: The ugly looking 12... Qd7 looks
like a tough nut to crack. The
defensive threat is.... Na5. So,
White goes 13. Ng5, forcing ... Nd8.
Now 14. Rad1 and black plays ...Ne6.
|
|
| Aug-25-05 | | sneaky pete: <RookFile> 12... Qd7 13.Ng5 Nd8 14.Rad1 Ne6 15.Bxe6 fxe6 16.Nb5 .. (Cafferty & Harding) is very unpleasant for black. |
|
| Nov-25-05 | | aw1988: Morphy vs C Stanley, 1857 |
|
Jan-24-06
 | | ketchuplover: Does anyone else like 17Qxd7 ? Not that it matters. A win's a win :) I wonder if he considered it? |
|
| Jan-25-06 | | Boomie: I'd love to see Morphy at the Amber blindfold. Any guesses on how well he'd do? |
|
| Mar-25-09 | | WhiteRook48: 26 Re7+.
I almost forgot the discovered check |
|
| Apr-08-09 | | heuristic: 12...Qd7 is the best reply
and
13.Rae1 Na5 14.Qb5 Qxb5 15.Bxb5+
is better than
13.Bb5 a6 14.Bxc6 Qxc6
which is better than
13.Ng5 Na5 14.Bxf7+ Kd8
(13...Nd8? 14.Rad1 Ne6 and 15.Nf3 seems more forcing than 15.Bxe6)22.Nxc7 a5 23.Ne8 Nd5 24.Rxd5 Rxe8 |
|
| Jun-21-12 | | Llawdogg: A blindfold simul while chatting. Incredible. |
|
| Jun-21-12 | | LoveThatJoker: <Llawdogg> Good job commenting on this game. This is a masterpiece! LTJ |
|
| Mar-17-15 | | Cactusjuice: It seems like that morphy is bulldozer just pushing forward for checkmate he dont know about draw |
|
| Nov-14-15 | | fork: Wht a game |
|
Feb-24-19
 | | Ziryab: Golmayo deviated at move 16 from Morphy's well-known game against Stanley in 1857. The link is posted above by aw1988. Stanley put up more stubborn resistance. |
|
| Sep-24-20 | | paulmorphy1969: 1864 Return to Cuba
At the end of January Morphy embarked for Santiago de Cuba and then taking a steamer arrived in Havana on February 16 stopping for two days. The gentlemen of Havana welcomed him with great pleasure and with many honors. The wealthy banker Señor Francisco Fésser gave a luxurious banquet in his honor which was attended by wealthy landowners and passionate chess players whom Morphy had already known in 1862 as Lords Golmayo Zúpide, Sicre, Dominguez, Medina and others such as Villergas Palmer, Valdes, Cespedes, La Calle, Diaz, Albertini.
the following day February 17, 1864, invited by his admirers, Morphy made a blind simultaneous against Messrs Félix Sicre, Celso Golmayo Zúpide, Placido Dominguez. The event was played at the Havana Chess Club. It was Morphy's last blind simultaneous. And he won with ease. While playing the simultaneous, Morphy had conversation with F. Fésser. (Havana El Tiempo, February 18, 1864).
Celso Golmayo y Zúpide
(Logroño, April 24, 1820 - Havana, April 1, 1898) was a Cuban chess player of Spanish origin. A lawyer by profession, he was a public prosecutor at the Havana court.
He was champion of Cuba from 1862 (when he defeated Félix Sicre in a match) to 1897.
He participated in the great tournament of Paris 1867, finishing 7th-8th (Ignatz von Kolisch won).
In 1864 he won a handicap match 3 to 2 in Havana with Paul Morphy, who gave him the advantage of a horse. The match took place on February 16 in the home of Francisco Fesser, a Havana banker (El Tiempo, February 18, 1864). He played several matches: in 1867 he lost 0–3 to Gustav Neumann; in 1883 he lost 2–9 to Wilhelm Steinitz; in 1887 he won 7–0 to Andrés Vasquez and lost 3–6 to George Mackenzie; in 1890 he won 7–4 with Andrés Vasquez; in 1891 he lost 4–6 to Joseph Blackburne; in 1893 he lost 0.5–2.5 to Emanuel Lasker |
|
| Jul-04-23 | | YandyRB: Hello, it was not an exhibition of 3 "simultaneous" games, but of 3 successive games. "El Tiempo", February 18, 1864, used the term "alternativamente" ("alternatively") and "El Moro Muza", February 21, 1864, used the term "sucesivamente" ("successively"). (See "La Odisea de Pablo Morphy en La Habana", pp. 31 and 36.) This means that the games were played one first, another later, and then the other. The fact that the games have been played consecutively does not diminish Morphy's merit, he was playing blindfold against 3 of the best chess players in Havana, but the story must be told as it was. |
|
Jul-04-23
 | | MissScarlett: Not convinced without clearer documentation. 'Alternatively' suggests simultaneity and even 'successively' is ambiguous. Morphy played simultaneous blindfold games against leading French and English players, and I'm sure the Cubans would have preferred/expected a similar display. |
|
Jul-04-23
 | | Sally Simpson: But why not use the word 'simultaneously' instead of alternatively. It reads better, makes it more of an outstanding feat. Are the dates correct? It looks like the 3 blindfold games were played on the 17th of Feb. If not then it appears the 16th of February 1864 was quite a busy day for Morphy. He lands in Cuba, skips through customs, attends a banquet in his honour, plays a 5 game odds match losing 3-2, here is one of the games; Morphy vs C Golmayo, 1864 then squeezes in 3 games of blindfold chess all in the same day. If that was a typical day in the life of Paul Charles Morphy then it is no wonder he gave up playing chess saying he was fed up with it. |
|
| Jul-05-23 | | YandyRB: It is one thing what the Cuban fans expected and another thing what Morphy was really willing to do. Let's see some examples taken from La Odisea de Pablo Morphy en La Habana:
1st Visit:
p.20: on October 18, 1862, after beating Sicre and Toscano (giving him odds of a knight), they proposed that he to play another game with Medina and declined "for reasons we couldn't hear," though it was postponed to another day.
p.21: it is announced that Morphy will play blindfolded and with his back turned, "a la vez" ("at the same time"), with ten or twelve, each one on the board apart. This indicate that it would be a simultaneous event, however, there is no evidence that it took place.
p.22: on Tuesday [October 21] he played a blindfold game which he won in 22 moves.
p.23: it is announced that Morphy intends to play blindfolded 5 or 6 games "a la vez" ("at the same time") with as many opponents. Once again, it is noted that it would be a simultaneous event, but there is no evidence that it took place either.
p.28: again reference is made to the blindfold game on Tuesday, it is added that it was against Medina (it really lasted 36 moves), and that on Wednesday [October 22] he won a blindfold game against Sicre.
On October 30, 1862, Morphy left Havana, without offering the announced simultaneous blindfold games.
2nd Visit:
p.31: it is stated that the games played by Morphy were on Tuesday [October 16, 1864].
pp.36 and 37: in addition to saying "successively" instead of "at the same time" as on previous occasions, it is said that the first game was against Domínguez, the second game was against Golmayo and the third game was against Sicre. Why are they listed? If they were simultaneous games, that would not be the order in which they ended, since the game against Domínguez lasted 20 moves, the game against Golmayo lasted 29 moves, and the game against Sicre lasted 21 moves.
All the evidence suggests that they were consecutive games and not simultaneous.Talking about simultaneous games has been just an incorrect interpretation in my opinion. |
|
| Jul-05-23 | | YandyRB: That Morphy and Golmayo played several games giving the 1st odds of a knight to the 2nd was revealed on February 21, 1864. (La Odisea de Pablo Morphy en La Habana, pp.32-36). The game that survived was published on March 13 without indicating the date in the credits. (p.48). Vázquez in El Tablero Latino, p.9, says that it was in February 1864 without specifying the day. It was also published in El Sport, March 25, 1886, but I do not have that issue. Maybe there are more details there. The truth is that it could have been any day between February 17 and 20. I have not been able to find a primary source that proves that there were only 5 games with a result of 3-2 for Golmayo. Vázquez implies that the advantage was greater. Can anyone offer a primary source please? |
|
|
|
|
Kibitzing
