Talk:Paul Morphy
|
|
| Missing image Cscr-featured.png Featured article star | Paul Morphy is a featured article, which means it has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute. |
- He is by far the winningest chess master in the history of the game.
Is there a source for this? I can't help feeling it's somewhat unlikely to be true, given his relatively short career and playing in a time when a top player's schedule was not as busy as in the 20th century. --Camembert
- One source so far: chessgames.com. Morphy's record: +181 -20 =15 (87.3%). I don't see any master with higher percentage.
- Ah, percentage - I was taking "winningest" to mean "won the most games". I'll fiddle with the article. (I'm not sure chessgames.com is completely 100% reliable, by the way, so I will state them as the source to cover ourselves) --Camembert
- match/tournament results
- Match
- Löwenthal +9 -3 =2
- Owen (P&move) +5 0 =2
- Harrwitz +5 -2 =1
- Anderssen +7 -2 =2
- Mongredien +7 0 =1
- Thompson (Knight) +5 -3 =1
- Tournament
- Thompson +3 0 0
- Meek +3 0 0
- Lichtenhein +3 0 =1
- Paulsen +5 -1 =2
+52 -11 =12 total=75 69.3% 14.6% 16%
according to Morphy's Games of Chess by Philip W. Sergeant--SBC
One thing to consider in naming Greco as having the highest percentage of winning games, is that no one knows if Greco's games are real games, or analysis. His games do not have opponents listed; and I think most authorities feel they are not real contests. The games themselves look like they were invented, not played. I also feel that chessgames.com is an incomplete source. There are over 400 known Morphy games. Finally, many of the games are exhibition or casual games played against non-masters, and one can't really judge Morphy on his games against non-masters while other players are judged on their record playing masters. --ChessPlayer
True, Greco and some other players (Ruy Lopez, Polerio, etc.) have the highest percentage of winning games (100%) according to chessgames.com, which does not have complete archive of games to date. However, since Morphy and Greco have dozens of their games already archived by chessgames.com, their winning percentages are significant enough to be calculated and published. After all, no statistic, not even ratings, is 100% accurate. Today's players are judged mostly by their ratings, but great players from centuries ago didn't have the luxury of ratings to compare their strength. Therefore, lacking ratings, Morphy's and Greco's winning percentages are the best statistics we can use. --Giftlite
- I've removed mention of Greco from the article. It's silly to talk of him having a 100% record when we don't know whether he actually played any of the games with his name on them, and when many games that he did play must have been lost to posterity. I've left the mention of chessgames.com percentage score for Morphy in, however, as it's sourced and readers can make their own minds up whether they want to take it seriously or not (that said, I wouldn't be too distraught if it was removed, though it is good to have an indication of Morphy's dominance).
There's one more thing to keep in mind when discussing the games of Greco (http://batgirl.atspace.com/Renplayers.html). Whether Greco actually played the preserved games or not is somewhat moot. But what is important is that they don't represent his play as such. Greco was a professional, itinerant chess player who taught chess and played for money. He sold, or presented as gifts, his "secrets", mostly traps, to wealthy benefactors. While in England, he got the idea to not only record openings or positions, but entire games, which he kept on manuscripts. Later, after his death, many of these manuscripts were published as a collection. Since the games were intended to be instructional, even from the start, they only included his successful games (real or created). --SBC
- I've also moved mention of Morphy being World Champion out of the intro paragraph into the article proper. To put it in the intro gives it a little too much prominence, I think - Morphy himself didn't like being labelled world champion, and his championship is regarded today as unofficial. I think it could be confusing to readers who see elsewhere that Steinitz is regarded as the first world champion (which he is) to then read here that Morphy was world champion before him. In any case, the suggestion that was in the article that Morphy may have been champion beyond 1859 is mildly odd, as he basically retired after 1859.
- I've also fiddled with the score the twelve-year old Morphy had against Lowenthal, changing it from 3-0 to 2.5-0.5. As I said at chess prodigy, I don't have anything definitive to check this against right now, but I'm pretty sure it's correct, and [1] (http://www.schachgeschichte.de/chess/meister/morphy.htm) (first paragraph below the second picture) and [2] (http://www.worldchessnetwork.com/English/chessHistory/salute/kings/morphy.php) for example seem to back it up. --Camembert
I am sorry to see that the score between Morphy and Lowenthal has been fiddled with, though I suspected it would eventually, as its incorrectly reported going as far back as 1860, and most works since then have simply repeated the untrue version. Lawson, Morphy's biographer, has a chapter dedicated to telling the story of both Lowenthal's visit, and how the score came to be misreported. I suppose I will have to recount Lawson's chapter in order to support the fact that the true score was 3-0. As the story is too long to include on the Morphy page, I guess I need to create a new page specifically devoted to the history of Morphy's relations with Lowenthal, and how later books simply copied Lowenthal's false claim in his 1860 book that one of the games was a draw.
As for the change in the statement that Morphy was the first pre-eminent American in an intellectual field, the key idea here is "pre-eminent" as opposed to just "eminent". Franklin was perhaps the first American to be regarded as an eminent intellect by Europeans, but they did not regard him as the greatest intellect in the world. They simply regarded him as worthy of inclusion in the list of the world's top men of art and science. Morphy was different. Morphy was universally hailed as better than anyone else. He was pre-eminent.
Finally, it pains me how people want to demote Morphy from the list of world champions. Morphy clearly showed that he was much better than anyone else during his 1858-1859 European tour. If this doesn't mean "World Champion", I don't know what does. The fact that he never went around calling himself world champion, and others did not use the term, was simply cause the state of chess was such that the idea was not like it is today. Steinitz CALLED himself "World Champion"..., and popular opinion supports him as the first World Champion simply cause he was bold enough to proclaim himself so; he also asked for money when he played, and such things where considered vulgar by Morphy. But its fair to look at the match record. Morphy destroyed Anderssen, while Steinitz only defeated him by a very close margin. Similarly, Steinitz struggled in tournament play against his contemporaries, not winning first prizes, while Morphy beat everyone everytime he played. I am not saying that Steinitz, especially after 1884 when Morphy was dead, does not deserve his title. But Morphy was stronger than Steinitz, and to call Steinitz world champion and not say the same about Morphy is to punish Morphy for his genteel behavior and lack of self-promotion. Morphy was a natural genius on the level of a Capablanca, and Capablanca was one of his most devoted admirers --ChessPlayer
- On the Lowenthal score - no, you don't need to recount Lawson's story if you don't want to, but where a fact is widely misreported, it is often a good idea to say something along the lines of "contrary to many sources which say the score was X, it was in fact Y, as recounted by David Lawson in Whatever the Book Is" (Pride and Sorrow, I assume - I've not read it). That way, people can be confident the article is correct and check up on sources themselves to confirm it if they're so inclined - otherwise they'll think, as I did, that it was an error.
- On the World Championship thing: I agree, of course, that Morphy was very strong, I agree that he was very probably the strongest player in the world in 1859, but the fact remains that virtually no commentators whatsoever consider him to have been an official world champion, so it's completely wrong for us to present him as one. It's mentioned in the article that he's considered an unofficial champion, and I've now added a brief mention of the fact back to the opening paragraph. I hope that's OK for you. --Camembert
Franklin was preeminent in electricity (and meteorology) in the 1750's. He deservedly won the Copley Medal in 1753. --Giftlite
Giftlite: I am not an expert on Franklin, so I will defer to your statement that Franklin was regarded by Europeans as the greatest expert on electricity and meteorology of his day...if you are saying he was universally hailed as more knowledgable than anyone else.
Camembert - You are right that Morphy's score against Lowenthal deserved a footnote. I would have included one, except I didn't know how to do it, and I was more interested in adding new material than going into the fairly long story of how the error got to be. If you or others feel its worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, I will present Lawson's material, in my own words to avoid any copyright infringement - ChessPlayer
Why credit Steinitz with being an "official" champion? There was no officiating body then. Is somebody the "official" champion because they say so and few argue? Is the reason Morphy is not an "official" champion is he didn't announce that he was "world champion"?
Why say that Morphy himself did not like being called World Champion? Its true that he didn't like being called a chess professional, but I don't think he ever disliked being called a world chess champion. I took the liberty of deleting this assertion, and would like to know what its based on if its wanted back. In all my research, I only could find that his only concern was that people didn't equate him with professional chess players, who played for money not love of the game.
About the book that was listed as by Morphy. Does anybody have a copy of it? Is it just a reprint of the book published in 1860 by Löwenthal, or does it have other material added to it from Morphy's sparse other writings, that didn't appear in L's book? That book, which I have, purportedly has an introduction by Morphy, but Lawson has established that Morphy did not actually write it. Instead, he simply "signed" it, as a favor to Löwenthal in order to help him sell the book.
PS - I recognize I am new on Wikipedia. I don't know the customs here. I pose some of these questions here rather than simply amending the article, as I am guessing its better to discuss first and change later, and people should be allowed to change their own material, rather than it being deleted for them. I welcome any education from old hands here. - ChessPlayer
ChessPlayer: About the book in question, I haven't read it myself. I got the book info from bn.com. I think it's unlikely Morphy was a co-author because he didn't want to be known as a professional chess player. I agree with you to not explicitly say Morphy co-authored it. --Giftlite
Page looks much nicer now with the image moved right! ChessPlayer 18:25, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
A few points.
Re: Löwenthal's "Morphy's Games of Chess," Morphy wrote an intro to it (http://batgirl.atspace.com/Morphypreface.html) but didn't contribute directly.
Morphy was, in fact, hailed as World Champion on more than one occasion, the most notable of which was by Martin van Buren's son, John Van Buren, at the New York testimonial banquet on May 25, 1859: "Ladies and Gentlemen, I ask you to unite with me in welcoming with all the honors, Paul Morphy, Chess Champion of the World!"
Morphy didn't defeat all the great players of his day, but he defeated all the players he contended with. I think that's an important distinction. There were quite a few he never had the opportunity (nor, perhaps, the inclination) to play.
I agree that there is no indication that Morphy ever had qualms about being considered World Champion, though he never claimed it outright. --batgirl
Excellent article! Kudos to all who contributed. I have only one criticism, relating to the following snippet of text:
"A match therefore was set up where he was pitted against five of the leading English masters simultaneously. Morphy won two games, lost one, and one game was drawn."
The numbers don't add up: five opponents, but only four results reported... -- Cyan 03:15, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Oops! .... score corrected.. :-) ChessPlayer 05:45, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
A few more nitpicky observations:
"Morphy's mother, Louis Therese Felicite Thelcide Le Carpentier, was the musically talented daughter of a prominent French Creole family."
Louise Thérèse Felicite Thelcide Le Carpentier. Telcide's parents weren't Creoles. That would be impossible by the definition of Creole. However, by the same definition, Telcide herself would have been Creole.
"Staunton later was criticised for failing to meet Morphy."
The main criticism against Staunton was never his failure to play Morphy. As Lord Lyttleton put it:
"In the general circumstances of the case, I conceive that Mr. Staunton was quite justified in declining the match."
His futher statements explain Stauton's failings: "...I cannot but think, that in all fairness and considerate-ness, Mr. Staunton might have told you of this long before he did. I know no reason why he might not have ascertained it, and informed you of it in answer to your first letter from America. Instead of this, it seems to me plain, both as to the interview at which I myself was present, and as to all the other communications which have passed, that Mr. Staunton gave you every reason to suppose that he would be ready to play the match within no long time...."
"When asked about his defeat, Anderssen claimed to be out of practice, but also admitted that Morphy was in any event the stronger player and that he was fairly beaten."
This is false.
From Max Lange:
"...an impartial presentation of facts, devoid of national vanity, can only be in favour of the youthful champion who came off victorious; and, therefore, we will add here a few expressions of Anderssen's, which we can warrant to be authentic. He was asked if the American was superior in coolness and self-possession, and if his play in general had seemed to him superior to his own. The first part of the question was not strictly answered, for Anderssen merely replied to it as follows :— 'I cannot say I believe so; for, in my own opinion, I was quite cool, but still I have overlooked the most simple moves.' The second question was answered without reserve:— 'He did not even in his dreams,' he said, 'believe in the superiority of his opponent; it is, however, impossible to keep one's excellence in a little glass casket, like a jewel, to take it out whenever wanted; on the contrary, it can only be conserved by continuous and good practice.'"
"Prior to his getting home, Morphy had issued an open challenge to anyone in the world to play a match where he would give odds of pawn and move."
All indications seem to put this challenge in January, 1859 from New Orleans (not prior to getting home)
Morphy also refused to play any American at odds less than a knight.
"He lived for a time in Paris to avoid the war"
It might be more accurate, though debatable, to say "to avoid the humiliation of the occupation of New Orleans."
"His principled stance against the war was unpopular in his native South.."
As hinted in the previous paragraph, Morphy's objection wasn't to the war but to secession.
"Chess professionals in the 1860s were looked upon as akin to professional gamblers and other disreputable types"
Is there some source to support this assertation?
"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 irrational feelings of persecution."
This seems more than a bit over-dramatic. It's the type of unsupportable statement that contributes nothing to our understanding of Morphy and perpetuates the tabloid-like innuendo of his later life.
--batgirl
| Contents |
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)
Chess Terminology
"Open game"? "Combinative player"? "Positional systems"? I'm not ragging on the article, but is there any possible way non-geeks can play, too?
- That stuff is in a section titled "Morphy's cless play". If you don't play chess, you skip that section. Arvindn 06:12, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
NPOV
Does this sentence need to be revised? "He was also the first American superstar, acknowledged by the entire world as the preeminent figure in a cultural or intellectual field."