This guy seems to have been exceptional -- both in chess and
in strangeness!
From Otto Friedrich's biography on Glenn Gould:
Morphy took up chess at eight and could defeat anyone in his native New Orleans when he was ten. At nineteen, having won his law degree but being too young to practice, he went to New York to compete in the first American Chess Congress, which he won easily. Moving on to Europe, where he soon defeated the unofficial world champion, Adolf Anderssen, Morphy gave an exhibition in Paris by playing blindfolded against eight opponents at once, a world record at that time. The next day, he could still recite all the moves in all the games. He then planned to play blindfolded against twenty opponents, but friends dissuated him on the ground that such an effort might cause a mental breakdown.
Thwarted in his ambition to overthrow his last rival, the British champion Howard Staunton, who evaded every challenge from the Young American, Morphy sailed back to a hero's welcome in New York... But after a competitive career that lasted only about a year and a half, Morphy gave up chess...and never again played a major match. Indeed, he seems to have acquired an intense distaste for the game. Even his friends could see that something had gone wrong. Morgphy returned to his mother's home in New Orleans, dabbled at the law, engaged in a protracted litigation against a brother-in-law who he thought had defrauded him. He claimed that enemies were trying to poison his food. For two decades, he emerged from his mother's house at noon every dau, walked alone through the streets, swinging his cane, often talking to himself. At night, he went to the opera. One summer morning in 1884, when Morphy was forty-seven, his mother found him dead of a stroke in the bathroom.
Originally posted by NemesioI bet Bobby Fischer is Paul Morphy. He's discovered secret rituals which let him take over the life force of young men, like Fistandantilus.
This guy seems to have been exceptional -- both in chess and
in strangeness!
From Otto Friedrich's biography on Glenn Gould:
Morphy took up chess at eight and could defeat anyone in his native New Orleans when he was ten. At nineteen, having won his law degree but being too young to practice, he went to New York to compete in the first American ...[text shortened]... in 1884, when Morphy was forty-seven, his mother found him dead of a stroke in the bathroom.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNow that is an obscure reference.
I bet Bobby Fischer is Paul Morphy. He's discovered secret rituals which let him take over the life force of young men, like Fistandantilus.
There's no historical evidence to suggest that Morphy had a
Bloodstone of any kind... 😉
Nemesio
Originally posted by KneverKnightMorphy stopped playing chess 30 years before Steinitz became the first recognized world champion.Morphy died in 1884, Steinitz became champion two years later in 1886, so a match would have been difficult to arrange. After his death, Morphy was clearly not at the peak of his powers, and Steinitz would have had an easy time defeating a corpse.
This site is a shrine to Morphy, much information here. I think he was possibly the greatest natural chess playing talent ever. That he never played Steinitz is worse than Fischer never playing Karpov.
http://batgirl.atspace.com/
Originally posted by Dodger11Morphy and Steinitz were about the same age.
Morphy stopped playing chess 30 years before Steinitz became the first recognized world champion.Morphy died in 1884, Steinitz became champion two years later in 1886, so a match would have been difficult to arrange. After his death, Morphy was clearly not at the peak of his powers, and Steinitz would have had an easy time defeating a corpse.
Steinitz actually had a brief meeting with Morphy in New Orleans. By that time Morphy had given up playing serious chess. Morphy agreed to the meeting with the proviso that Steinitz would not talk about chess. No one recorded what they did talk about. Steinitz died insane "in a mental asylum on Wards Island, not far from New York. He went there by boat, clutching to his chest a small chess board; he imagined that he produced and electric current, moving his pieces and striking down his opponents."--Gary Kasparov, My Great Predecessors, Part I.
Originally posted by KneverKnightYes, they were born one year apart. But Morphy was at his peak, crushing everyone in the mid-1850's, when Steinitz was just beginning to develop as a chess player, and Steinitz didn't become a world class competitor until the early 1870's, some 12-15 years after Morphy quit playing chess and had become a recluse due to his increasing mental instability. But have it your way...if Morphy had met Steinitz in 1858, when he was squashing the best players in Europe, and Steinitz was still playing the Danish gambit like all the other Romantic Turds Of The Time, Morphy would have won playing blindfolded. Steintiz sucked like everyone else until 1870 or so. Or at least that's what I think, spending several decades researching and analyzing the games of each player. My book will be out soon, titled:" All's You All Suck If You's Disagree With Me"
Morphy and Steinitz were about the same age.
Originally posted by Dodger11According to "The Chessplayer", which is a biography about Morphy, he was the American champion at the same time Steinitz was holding the European title. The incident did occur where Steinitz refused to play Morphy during that time period. I don't know if Steinitz was the world champion then or not.
Morphy stopped playing chess 30 years before Steinitz became the first recognized world champion.Morphy died in 1884, Steinitz became champion two years later in 1886, so a match would have been difficult to arrange. After his death, Morphy was clearly not at the peak of his powers, and Steinitz would have had an easy time defeating a corpse.
The reader gets the impression that there were 3 things that drove Morphy to madness...
1) the actions of Steinitz who kept putting up barriers against a match with Morphy.
2) the loss of the woman he loved (she left him).
3) the death of his father (who died from a head injury of simply putting on his hat and hitting himself in the temple with the brim).
😳
Originally posted by arrakisOdddddd.....my references list Anderssen as being considered the preeminent european player between 1850 and 1870, winning clear firsts in all of the strongest tournaments held, ahead of Steinitz. Steinitz changed to a positional style by the time he played at Vienna 1873, after which he was considered the best player in the world.
According to "The Chessplayer", which is a biography about Morphy, he was the American champion at the same time Steinitz was holding the European title. The incident did occur where Steinitz refused to play Morphy during that time period. I don't know if Steinitz was the world champion then or not.
The reader gets the impression that there were 3 thin ...[text shortened]... a head injury of simply putting on his hat and hitting himself in the temple with the brim).
😳
Originally posted by Dodger11Actually steinitz and morphy where about the same age but when steinitz started playing chess morphy had already quit. I have a nice book about morphy with everything in it you would want to know. "Paul Morphy and the evolution of chess theory" Lots of history and annotated games!
Odddddd.....my references list Anderssen as being considered the preeminent european player between 1850 and 1870, winning clear firsts in all of the strongest tournaments held, ahead of Steinitz. Steinitz changed to a positional style by the time he played at Vienna 1873, after which he was considered the best player in the world.
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardYeah, thanks, lord, we've established that they were the same age, but Morphy was already playing a newer positional style in 1855, getting all his pieces developed before attacking,whereas Steinitz was still playing the old Romantic Gambits of the day, and didn't come into his own until the early 1870's when he got away from the swashbuckling attack-at-all-costs playing style of the common herd. But thanks a butt-load for your input. I'm still right.
Actually steinitz and morphy where about the same age but when steinitz started playing chess morphy had already quit. I have a nice book about morphy with everything in it you would want to know. "Paul Morphy and the evolution of chess theory" Lots of history and annotated games!
I think Arrakis is referring to Staunton, not Steinitz. Morphy went to Europe to play the best. Andersson was the best until Morphy came along. Staunton wasn't bad, but Morphy would have destroyed him, after the usual first or second game problems. Morphy was a slow starter in matches. Staunton was a Shakespeare scholar and put Morphy off by saying he was working on his Shakespeare. Meanwhile, Staunton was writing in his column, belittling Morphy's accomplishments. Steinitz was born a year BEFORE Morphy, but of course Morphy gave up chess at an early age. Steinitz at the height of his powers didn't like the fawning attitude of others toward the Morphy. He said it was like sacrificing the living for the dead. Anyone interested in Morphy and the times should read "Paul Morphy and the Evolution of Chess Theory." In this excellent book Macon Shibut rejects the idea that Morphy somehow represented the "romantic era" and Steinitz "the scientific or positional era." Morphy was just so damn good, so precise in tactics and vision combined with great positional judgment that otb people simply couldn't beat him. Forget his games against patzers. Just look at his games against Andersson, Paulsen, Lowenthal, the great players of the day. Morphy simply outclassed them. The irony is that he didn't consider himself a professional and refused any money prizes.
Originally posted by buddy2I'm sure he did mean Staunton, Steintz didn't get competitive til later.
I think Arrakis is referring to Staunton, not Steinitz. Morphy went to Europe to play the best. Andersson was the best until Morphy came along. Staunton wasn't bad, but Morphy would have destroyed him, after the usual first or second game problems. Morphy was a slow starter in matches. Staunton was a Shakespeare scholar and put Morphy off by saying he ...[text shortened]... hem. The irony is that he didn't consider himself a professional and refused any money prizes.
There's a story that Steinitz went to see Morphy at his house and sent in his business card. Morphy sent it back, remarking to the servant "Tell him his gambit is no good" Morphy had quit chess at this point, it is a great pity he quit so early and Stienitz went away disappointed.
Originally posted by buddy2I'm sorry, you are right. It was Staunton, not Steinitz. Remember now.
I think Arrakis is referring to Staunton, not Steinitz. Morphy went to Europe to play the best. Andersson was the best until Morphy came along. Staunton wasn't bad, but Morphy would have destroyed him, after the usual first or second game problems. Morphy was a slow starter in matches. Staunton was a Shakespeare scholar and put Morphy off by saying he ...[text shortened]... hem. The irony is that he didn't consider himself a professional and refused any money prizes.
<big sigh>