|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 154 OF 284 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Mar-24-06 | | KYENNY139: <jamesmaskell> No it is not a joke. Blieve it or not, I am extremely ignorant. I dont know why I thought he was alive. I guess I have just heard his name a lot. I now see the biographies. I was so dumb asking questions when I just couldve read the bios. Thx for all your help. |
|
Mar-24-06
 | | BishopBerkeley: <ckr> Thanks! The 'Round 3' comments sound like the remarks I recalled, with a bit of embellishment from my own imagination! (: ♗ Bishop Berkeley ♗ :)
|
|
| Mar-24-06 | | historybuff: I know Morphy had a few chess books and I have read that he would give them away after going through them, but he was never a "Book Player." He was a natural chess genius. To me, there is only one other natural chess genius, and that is Capablanca. He refused to study chess, did not even have a chess set in his home, but from 1916-1924 he didn't lose a single game, only lost 36 out of 567 games. All the other chess genius's were hard studing, very disciplined, book players who made chess the center of their life, most had trainers.
We all agree Bobby Fischer was a genius, but he lived and breathed chess, and studied thousands of books constantly, even quit school because it took up to much of his chess time, to study. |
|
| Mar-24-06 | | ckr: <Another description of playing against Morphy> Many others came to New York to play Morphy, among them was the Rev. Moncure. Daniel. Conway of Cincinnati and E. C. Palmer of St. Paul. In his autobiography, the Reverend Conway describes his encounter with Morphy: <Despite all my freedom there was a curious survival in me up to my twenty-seventh year of the Methodist dread of card-playing. The only indoor game I knew was chess. There was a flourishing Chess Club in Cincinnati and I entered into matches with keen interest. For a time I edited a weekly chess column in the Cincinnati Commercial and wrote an article on chess which Lowell published in the Atlantic Monthly. Whenever in New York I hastened to the Chess Club there, and watched the play of Lichtenhein, Thompson, Perrin, Marache, Fiske (editor of the Chess Monthly), and Col. Mead, president of the club. This was at the time when the wonderful Paul Morphy was exciting the world. In July, 1959, I called on him at the Brevoort House, New York. He was a rather small man with a beardless face that would have been boyish had it not been for the melancholy eyes.
He was gentlemanly and spoke in low tones. It had long been out of the question to play with him on even terms; the first-class players generally received the advantage of a knight, but being a second-class player, I was given a rook. In some letter written at the time, I find mention of five games in which I was beaten with these odds, but managed (or was permitted) to draw the sixth. In the same letter I find the following:-> |
|
| Mar-24-06 | | ckr: <"When one plays with Morphy, the sensation is a queer as the first electric shock, or the first love, or chloroform, or any entirely novel experience. As you sit down at the board opposite him, a certain sheepishness steals over you, and you cannot rid yourself on an old fable in which a lion's skin plays a part. Then you are sure you have the advantage; You seem to be secure, - you get a rook - you are ahead two pieces! three!! Gently, as if wafted by a zephyr the pieces glide around the board; and presently as you are about to win the game, a soft voice it your ear kindly insinuates, Mate! You are speechless. Again and again you try; again and again you are sure you must win; again and again your prodigal antagonist leaves his pieces at your mercy; but his moves are as the steps of Fate. Then you are charmed all along - so bewitchingly are you beheaded: one had rather be run through by Bayard, you know, than spared by a pretender. On the whole I could only remember the oriental anecdote of one who was taken to the banks of the Euphrates, where by a princely host he was led about the magnificent gardens and bowers, then asked if anything could be more beautiful,. "Yes," he replied, "the chess-playing of El-Zuli." So having lately sailed, I wrote you, down the Hudson, having explored Staten Island, Hoboken, Fort Hamilton and all the glorious retreats about New York, I shall say forever one thing is more beautiful than them all, - the chess-play of Paul Morphy."
This was in July, 1959. I had already received a domestic suggestion that it was possible to give too much time to an innocent game, and the hint was reinforced by my experience with Morphy. I concluded that, if, after all the time I had given to chess, any man could give me a rook and beat me easily, any ambition in that direction might as well be renounced. Thenceforth I played only on vacations or when at sea.> |
|
| Mar-24-06 | | ckr: Perhaps someone can tell
<When one plays with Morphy, the sensation is a queer as the first electric shock> If the phrase is googled – it would seem that the quote is attributed to Henry Bird. However,
<In some letter written at the time, I find mention of five games in which I was beaten with these odds, but managed (or was permitted) to draw the sixth. In the same letter I find the following:-> And later it seems to become apparent that Conway is the author of the letter. If it is Bird’s quote then was the letter was from Bird – why would Bird be writing about Conway’s games? Does anyone know where it is said that the quote is from Bird? How would you interpret these references??
|
|
| Mar-24-06 | | ckr: And finally:
<I gather that I am not the best movie critic, but Morphy was like an F18 – the rest were Zeros> in comparison. |
|
| Mar-24-06 | | Calli: <ckr> That can't be Bird. In his "Chess History and Reminiscences", Bird does his best to lower Morphy's lofty status. "The author's [Hoffer] assertion with regard to Morphy is that "He
was head and shoulders above the players of his time." What
precise degree of superiority that may imply in chess is not easy
to define, and must be left to the imagination of the reader. As
a matter of fact Mr. Hoffer never saw Morphy; and his statement
is based upon his published games and public chess opinion;
which, it is true, mostly awards Morphy the highest place in
modern chess history; his title, however, is principally based
upon his victories over Anderssen and Lowenthal, the former
in bad health, and not in his best form at the time! Staunton
and Buckle, the best English players of their day, never
encountered Morphy. Against Harrwitz he won five to three, and
fourteen to six against Barnes. Morphy's record, though great,
is not superior to Staunton's before, and Steinitz's after him.
There do not appear sufficient grounds for estimating one more
highly than the other. Foreign critics sometimes as well as
English ones have been apt for purposes of inferential comparison
to exalt one player and proportionately disparage another; thus
chess critics, with whom Staunton does not stand in the highest
favour in the past, or Steinitz in the present, too often indulge
in the most extravagant statements as to Morphy's immeasurable
superiority, not based on conclusive grounds; when the games and
evidence are closely and impartially tested." |
|
| Mar-24-06 | | ckr: <Calli> I am afraid I don't understand
.
I don't believe that Bird said it at all, bt that most internet sources attribute it to Bird. How does Hoffer work into this?
|
|
| Mar-24-06 | | Calli: <ckr> I thought you were asking whether it was Bird or Conway. So, errr what's the question? :-) |
|
| Mar-24-06 | | ckr: <Calli> I think it is Conway. How is it the "net" thinks it is bird?
|
|
| Mar-24-06 | | ckr: <Calli> How does Hoffer fit in? |
|
| Mar-24-06 | | Calli: Sure, it is Conway. Always assume quotes and quips in chess are wrong unless there is a citation. If they say Alekhine said it, he probably didn't. Simple rule no? ;=) Conway was not famous enough in chess so I guess someone decided it must be Bird. Hoffer - Bird quotes Hoffer as saying Morphy "He was head and shoulders above the players of his time." |
|
| Mar-24-06 | | SBC: <DrKurtPhart>
Thanks for that wonderful hierarchy of odds...and welcome back. I missed you. <keypusher>
<I was just looking again at your piece on Renaissance chess players> That was one of my most enjoyable forages and still my favorite. It was originally intended to be a complex of pages - many of which I now simply link to from my chess journal page. It was the first, and perhaps only, time I tried to coordinate all the aspects of design, chess content and historical background into a cohesive unit... sort of my own, though humbler, Sgt. Pepper. It has two primary pages - chess literature of the Renaissance: http://batgirl.atspace.com/printing... and chess players of the Renaissance: http://batgirl.atspace.com/Renplaye... Il Puttino, aka Leonardo da Cutri, aka Giovanni Leonardo di Bona, has always been one of my favorite historical chess players. He's rather Morphy-like, I think. However, Max Lange seemed to think that Leonardo's friend Paolo Boi was comparable to Morphy: http://batgirl.atspace.com/PaoloPau... |
|
| Mar-24-06 | | midknightblue: <DrPhart> Thank you for that synopses.
As Anthony Michael Hall once said "float an air bisquit."
He was way ahead of his time. |
|
| Mar-25-06 | | SBC: Speaking of Kasparov and odds...
An aquaintance of mine had recently been to London where she visted Simpon's-in-the-Strand. After she told me about her visit, I did some poking around and found this 11/2000 article by John Henderson on the impending odds match between Kasparov and Terry Chapman back in April, 2001.
http://www.rochadekuppenheim.de/hec...
Henderson makes some common blunders in educating the world on odds: "The format of playing at "odds" is a glorious throwback to the romantic era of chess at the tail end of the 19th century, when it was commonplace among the chess elite." Odds playing was commonplace throughout the ranks of chess players - perhaps in emulation of the elite. "Stars such as Paul Morphy, Wilhelm Steinitz and Johannes Zukertort would entertain the Victorian elite for a fee by playing such games against rich amateurs in their Gentleman Clubs " I find it hard to picture Morphy playing for a fee.
Several people have commented on the odds games of Morphy (and of others) as being unimportant or trivial. I think this attitude does a dis-service to the entire era that supported this method of equalizing players of different skill levels. The idea that odds games don't contribute to the theory on non-odds chess isn't enough to discount their importance or their value in determining a players ability. In the article Henderson states that Chapman should be considered as having a rating of 2300. Chapman was an English junior champion, but played relatively little chess, though he did play with a degree of regularity, since then. Perhaps in his heyday he might have been 2300, but I have to seriously wonder if that rating isn't greatly overstating the case. At any rate, Kasparov gave him 2 pawns (and the move in 2 of the 4 games). Kasparov won +2-1=1. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches... Hardly an inspiring victory considering the disparity. It makes Morphy's odds games seem all the more impressive. |
|
Mar-25-06
 | | keypusher: yes, <SBC> that match makes no sense -- in one game Kasparov played without his rook pawns. Just the thing you want to give Kasparov -- open files for his rooks. It would have made more sense for Kasparov to give knight odds. I am trying to run down an account of Petrosian giving knight odds to an IM and winning easily -- astonishing if true. Can anyone help? |
|
| Mar-26-06 | | DrKurtPhart: <SBC> I've been riding on the long trail of the Leona Q papers. More g news later. Missed U2. Glad you liked the odds list. The interesting list was googled, of course, and any credit naturally belongs to Roger Cooper at:
http://www.chessvariants.org/other....
Here's another interesting googled contemporary of Morphy, Jacob Elson (1839-1909) of Philadephia and other interesting related allsorts bag of stuff:
http://www.correspondencechess.com/...
http://www.chessvariants.com/piecec...
http://www3.sympatico.ca/g.giffen/1...
http://www.chesscenter.com/chapmank...
http://chess.about.com/od/history/p...
And, last but not least, one you'll familiar with since it's off your Great Site, http://batgirl.atspace.com/index.html but there's always possibly the odd interested punter or two who hasn't heard of her, or her papers: http://batgirl.atspace.com/Leona.html"il plantera"..long live Morphy. |
|
| Mar-26-06 | | SBC: <keypusher>
It was my initial (and current) impression that the pawns that Kasparov chose to remove in that little match were, as Paulsen might have suspected, partially in favor of the odds-giver. I'll leave that determination up to the technicians. But I think the bottom line is that Morphy's odds games, particularly those against strong players (and most specifically his QN odds match vs Thompson), aren't something to gloss over, especially considering the ease with which he seemed to vanquish his opponents. Oddly enough, Howard Staunton is considered one of the greatest odds-giver of all time. Of course, part of this can be attributed to the idea that as long as he played giving odds, no loss could be taken seriously - so perhaps he could more rightly be considered the greatest defensive odds-giver of all time. |
|
| Mar-26-06 | | SBC: . <DrKurtPhart>
Merci beaucoup, mon docteur.
I wasn't aware of Jacob Elson. Partially because Reichhelm's "Chess in Philadelphia" is so very hard to come by. He sounds like a diamond in the rough, perhaps another Benjamin Lynde Oliver. All the other links were quite appropriate (especially the last one!!) I hope Madame Q's testament is resting well after the long trail ride. On the lighter side, here's a posting I just made, from some information a friend of mine sent me, that involves in the most peculiar way Morphy's Opera Box Game. I called it "Chess: the Ice Age" http://batgirl.atspace.com/IceAge.h... . |
|
| Mar-26-06 | | DrKurtPhart: <SBC>This seems to be the place for much Morphy era books http://www.bcmchess.co.uk/chessbook... approx half way down:
'Chess in Philadelphia'
Reichelm & Shipley
Moravian Chess
Re: the v interesting 'Ice age' piece in yr journal http://batgirl.atspace.com/IceAge.h... Suggestions for actors filling the roles re-enacting PM's OBG. Dec 3rd 1953 (played 95 years earlier in celebrated Paris game played 1858): Morphy - Montgomery Clift or Audie Murphy in 'Red badge of courage' Duke of Brunswick - Liberace
Count Isouard - Charles Laughton or Burl Ives (again) i'dve paid to see that
|
|
| Mar-27-06 | | SBC: <DrKurtPhart>
Thanks for the site to buy the Reichhelm book. But really, I was talking about difficulty getting it on loan. I wish I could help with selecting the actors but I really don't know too many. . I do have a Morphy question. One that has puzzled me for a while but I never got around to dealing with. When Morphy traveled to the chess congress, he went via the Mississippi to Cincinatti and via train to NY. He was rather unknown on his trip going. He returned to N.O via the Mississippi (though it's not said what route, I would assume the same one) with a modicum of fame. Has anyone ever seen written anything about his return trip? |
|
| Mar-28-06 | | DrKurtPhart: <SBC>: Morphy Travels - New York / New Orleans
According to FPK p.192-193
NY to Pittsburgh. Friday Dec 17 1857
The farewell dinner, less ostentatious than the one that had marked the climax of the Chess Congress, was equally convivial and, despite the ungodly hour at which his train left for Pittsburgh, a large and genial gathering was at the station to see him off in one of the "Silver Palace" http://cprr.org/Museum/Exhibit/_hou... cars run by the Central Pennsylvania. A greater contrast to the clattering Smoky Mary of the Pontchartrain Railroad, to which Paul's experience with "taking the cars" had hitherto been confined, could hardly have been imagined. The "Silver Palace" was both clean and quiet, and the stops at Harrisburg for dinner and Altoona for supper http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/Mi... gave him a chance to stretch his legs and broke the tedium of the trip. For several hours, the train progressed through level landscape, now shorn of the autumnal foliage http://www.worldwar1.com/foto/mhq07... which, a few weeks earlier, had given it brilliance and beauty; the scene might have appeared monotonous to Paul, if his mood had not been such that he was prepared to find everything about the journey enjoyable; and though dusk was already descending when they reached the mountains, he made the most of such glimpses as he could get of them, http://cprr.org/Museum/Books/PRR_Vi... for they, too, like the harbor of Havana and the skyline of New York, represented a strange and wonderful sight. But he had become very tired before the train finally pulled into the Pittsburgh depot, and he was still more weary by the time he had fought his way through the crowds there, in the wake of a runner from the Monongahela House, http://www.clpgh.org/exhibit/neighb... who steered him into a waiting bus. Then, after a jolting passage through noisy, sooty streets, this functionary lead him down a long passageway, flanked on either side with cigar stores and lined with plush-covered sofas, and ushered him triumphantly into the lobby of the hotel...
http://sbchess.sinfree.net/note9.html |
|
| Mar-28-06 | | ckr: <according to Charles Whipple> At 5 o’clock in the afternoon Mr. Morphy took passage [via the Mississippi] on board the steamer Benjamin Franklin bound for Cincinnati, and eight [eleven] days thereafter landed in New York. p.48 While in New York, Morphy had received many earnest solicitations from cities eager to honor him, but time allowed him to visit only those directly on his path toward New Orleans. He planned to visit Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington, the last merely for sightseeing. Philadelphia had had great plans for his visit but Morphy, in the following letter, published in the Charleston Courier of August 3, 1859, ruled them out: p.225 The Baltimore Daily Exchange of November 24, 1859, reported that that evening there was an “entertainment in honor of Paul Morphy by the Chess Amateurs of Baltimore prepared by Guy’s House,” at which time he announced he would be leaving Baltimore the coming Wednesday. Morphy arrived in New Orleans the week of December 12, some twenty days after having left Baltimore. Obviously, he had stopped somewhere in the interim. Washington and Richmond have been mentioned as places he may have visited. p.243
MyMorphyCalendar.txt
11/23/1859 Wednesday
11/24/1859 Thursday
11/25/1859 Friday
11/26/1859 Saturday
11/27/1859 Sunday
11/28/1859 Monday
11/29/1859 Tuesday
11/30/1859 Wednesday
12/01/1859 Thursday
12/02/1859 Friday
12/03/1859 Saturday
12/04/1859 Sunday
12/05/1859 Monday
12/06/1859 Tuesday
12/07/1859 Wednesday
12/08/1859 Thursday
12/09/1859 Friday
12/10/1859 Saturday
12/11/1859 Sunday
12/12/1859 Monday
|
|
| Mar-28-06 | | ckr: Whipple doesn't have much on these travels but what is referenced above. he mentions some 20 days of traveling, but the dates do not seem to support that amount of time.
Since it was reported on 11/24 <a Thursday> I interpret the ‘coming Wednesday’ to be <11/30/1859> and his arriving 12/12 to be more like 13 days. If he did go to Washington, D.C., why would he head west to the Mississippi? Wouldn’t he have simply caught a train to New Orleans? Perhaps it is susposition on Whipple's part due to a math error in his dates. The 11 days vs 13 days would not seem to be enough time for sojourn to the nation's capital. <SBC> Do you know how you came about the Mighty Mississippi as being part of the return route? |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 154 OF 284 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
