It's a further irony that to chessplayers now remember Staunton as a coward, his ego unable to deal with a superior player. His Shakespeare studies are forgotten. Andersson was a great player, the best in Europe as he had proven. He was also a gentleman in every sense of the word. Even he had no chance against Morphy. The unsuccessful negotiations for a match with Staunton no doubt took their toll on Morphy, but I have a feeling the paranoia that overcame his later life would have happened anyway. I'm thinking of Fischer as an example. All his successes didn't cure his problems. As chessplayers we all wish for success, but, as the adage says, "Be careful what you wish for, it might come true."
Originally posted by KneverKnightExcellent site. Thanks for the link.
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/
Cheers,
Martin
Originally posted by arrakisWow......lotta arguing over nothing, then. I thought you had Staunton in mind. Staunton was indeed considered the strongest player in the world, about 10 years before Morphy came along, but he was way past his prime and would have been defeated easily by Morphy, that's pretty much a done deal. Certainly not the equivelant of Fischer versus Karpov in 1975.
I'm sorry, you are right. It was Staunton, not Steinitz. Remember now.
<big sigh>
Who's arguing? Staunton was an interesting character. "Staunton" was probably not his real name. He may have been the illegitimate son of the Earl of Carlisle. In chess, aside from dodging Morphy, he is best remembered for standardizing the forms of the chess pieces to be "elegant and solid." The tournament pieces we see today. If anybody thinks Staunton was a good chess player, he should take a gander at his match with the intimidating H.W. Popert in 1840, where in one game he drops a rook that any beginning chess player would see instantly. He dressed dandily and liked to think of himself as a Shakespearean actor. On his grave there is simply his name and date of birth and death and a big knight surmounting all. Fischer, inexplicably, considers him one of the best chess players of all time.
In 1843 Staunton decisively defeated the French player Saint-Amant, who was considered the best player in the world at the time. Staunton then was considered the unofficial world champion until Anderssen came along. I like Staunton, and I think he's got an undeserved bad reputation because he declined to play Morphy. He was past his peak at the time and knew it, and his correspondence to Morphy excusing himself from playing a match against him was gracious. All the bad press concerning Staunton's refusal to play Morphy was the result of a huckster Morphy was associated with that made a big stink over nothing.
The descriptions of Staunton's personality are too long to type up here, but my impression from reading about him is that he was like Robert Duval's character in "The Great Santini", a great, blustery, larger-than-life character that would never permit a dull moment to pass when he was around. One quote from someone that knew him: "with great defects, he also had great virtues...widely disliked, he was widely admired, and there was nothing weak about him, he had a backbone that was never curved with fear of of anyone"
Staunton certainly was past his peak. I think if Morphy was fifteen at the time, the contest, if it took place would have been pretty equal. He was quite willing to put off the date for the match as long as possible to fit in with Staunton's busy schedule. Remember, he had gone a long distance (in those days) to play the best players in Europe. Staunton should simply have said at the beginning, "I can't play; I'm too busy with my Shakespeare writings." That would have been the gracious way to end the discussion.
Originally posted by Dodger11How'd you get the big letters, Dodger?
Wow......lotta arguing over nothing, then. I thought you had Staunton in mind. Staunton was indeed considered the strongest player in the world, about 10 years before Morphy came along, but he was way past his prime and would have been defeated easily by Morphy, that's pretty much a done deal. Certainly not the equivelant of Fischer versus Karpov in 1975.
Originally posted by pompomtomI know you can do that to change the font size of everything, but Dodger has large font while the rest of us have small font.
Got a scroll-mouse?
If you accidentally hold ctrl while scrolling you'll change the font size.
I'll test the theory. After this sentence I will hold control and scroll up.
Now, after this one I will hold control and scroll down.
Testing testing 123.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNope! Didn't work.
I know you can do that to change the font size of everything, but Dodger has large font while the rest of us have small font.
I'll test the theory. After this sentence I will hold control and scroll up.
Now, after this one I will hold control and scroll down.
Testing testing 123.