Talk:Paul Morphy/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Morphy's college commencement

I read, years ago, in a novel, that Spring Hill College in its early years had an unusual academic schedule, and held its commencements in the fall, not the spring; can anyone address this question? J S Ayer 23:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

You may have more luck in the talk page of the Spring Hill College article or on the Reference Desk. Fetofs Hello! 00:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article is ridiculously flattering. No doubt he was a great chess player, but comments on his general demeanour do not belong in an encyclopaedia. If such material must be included, it must be quoted verbatim and sourced appropriately. Soo 15:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The article is written according to the source..biographer David Lawson. What do you want, "Lawson says" put in front of every sentence? The article is actually balanced. Flattering would be removing the material stating that he was mentally imbalanced and spent most of his life doing nothing. Mostly only chessbooks discuss Morphy, and they are equally "flattering", if not more, as they will omit to discuss his insanity and simply discuss his outstanding chess ability. Your tagging this is unjustified. Drogo Underburrow 16:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
If you're going to say things like "his combination of brilliant play and personal modesty made him a welcome guest everywhere" then yes, you need to make explicit who had that opinion, probably with an inline citation. Describing books as "an invaluable resource" and "a great book" is also POV. The fact that some books about him are also biased has no relevance. Soo 16:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
There is only one POV expressed in this article, that of biographer David Lawson. If you can find another, be my guest and enter it. NPOV requires that all sides of an issue be given...and Lawson's is the only side you'll find. Seach the literature if you like. You won't find anybody saying that Morphy was not polite to a fault. As to the books, if you feel what is said is not true, then take it out....if you have read the books. Drogo Underburrow 16:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
"POV" does not mean "untrue", it means "expressing a personal opinion". Clearly you think the books are great; maybe I would too if I'd read them, but that's still POV. I'll put the article up for Peer Review if you still don't believe me. Soo 16:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Lawson's book is the only full length, carefully researched, biography of Paul Morphy. To call it an "invaluable resource" is to state a fact, in my mind. There is no other resource availible in English, and Lawson is very authoritative, and its doing the reader a service to say so. Again, if you think the book is not all this, then by all means, change the article. But there is no reason to argue or object or change the article if you have not read it. Drogo Underburrow 16:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I've marked the article for Peer Review. Soo 16:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
So what? Does that have anything to do with the issue of this article's neutrality? Is there some POV you feel is not being expressed on this page? By all means add it in. Is the article not telling some side of the story? Tell it. The POV tag is not warranted if nothing is being disputed. You are complaining about POV, but offering no clue as to what other side of the story there is. Drogo Underburrow 17:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not getting into an edit war over this. You claim I am not raising any actionable objections and yet I have highlighted specific sentences that show blatant POV, and there are plenty more. However I am not bothering to edit the article if you're just going to revert my edits on the basis that I haven't read these books. I don't think you really understand WP:NPOV or WP:OR, so there's no point arguing any further. Nevertheless I still dispute the neutrality of this article for the reasons already outlined, and the tag is staying on the page until those issues are resolved. Soo 11:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Your objection is that the article is too favorable to Morphy, yet you don't have any sources that give an alternative view. The article is all supported by David Lawson. Numerous editors have over the years visited the page, and you are the only one to have suggested that the article as a whole violates NPOV. I think the problem here is you, not the article. You simply don't like articles that are say good things about people. If you object to material, then put in "Lawson says" in the sentences you don't like, to make clear whose opinion is being expressed. If you don't like that Lawson's is the only POV on the page, then find another. But don't just carp and demand a tag be permanently on the article, that is not the purpose of the tag. Drogo Underburrow 11:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Understand that I'm objecting to the article because I want it to be better, not to annoy you or because I have some kind of pathological aversion to complimentary articles. And I don't want the tag to stay on the article permanently - just until the dispute is resolved, and that certainly is the purpose of the tag. Your combative attitude is not helping resolve anything. Soo 11:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
But there is no POV dispute going on. We arn't debating POV's or arguing whose is correct. The fact that only one POV is given in the article does not make the article a POV dispute, nor is it a violation of the NPOV policy. There is nothing in the policy that says one side cannot predominate, if it is the predominate POV. Here it is the ONLY one, cause no other scholar has an opposing view. That is not a POV dispute. Drogo Underburrow 11:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You accuse me of not knowing what the NPOV policy is. Let me quote from the policy page:

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

Now, there are no conflicting views about Paul Morphy. The article gives David Lawson's views, such as that his combination of brilliant play and personal modesty made him a welcome guest everywhere. There are no conflicting views about this. I know of no source that disputes this. NPOV is about articles presenting both sides...if there are two sides. Here there is only one side, and until you find another, and editors refuse to allow it in the article, the NPOV tag is unwarranted. Drogo Underburrow 11:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

So whose POV is "This is a great book for anyone interested in not only Paul Morphy, but information about the First American Chess Congress"? Is that Lawson speaking again, or is that just you? Soo 11:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I notice you removed the dispute tag yet again. Well, I said no edit war and I'm sticking to that. If removing the tag helps you feel better about this awful article then that's okay with me. Soo 11:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Is that your only objection? Then take it out, or modify it to suit your tastes. Putting up a POV tag indicates an impasse. You've made no edits that anyone has objected to. You can't go slapping tags on every article that has something you don't like. Fix it. Drogo Underburrow 11:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't care enough about this article to debate it any longer. I'll hand over to someone who does. Soo 12:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I've done some preliminary removal of POV through the article, but I still don't think it's all gone yet - the tone is still too similar to that of an unencyclopaedic biography. But this is a start, I hope. Jono 12:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Prince Galitzine

Why the removal of this colorful story? Drogo Underburrow 12:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a good story, but it's a bit out of tone with the rest of the article. I'm sure there were other equally colourful episodes from Morphy's life but they don't necessarily need to be detailed. But mainly it's the tonal issue, which I believe does not befit that of an encyclopaedia. Jono 12:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, encyclopedias must be dry, devoid of all color, written so that they resemble phone books, being a bare recital of facts. If possible, be sure to avoid any connection of those facts so that they make an interesting essay, if two possible ways of saying something, choose the most banal. If the facts are still interesting, delete them entirely and say they are "unencyclopedic". Make bare assertions that someone is famous, rather than give a story illustrating it. Very good, Wikipedia no doubt will be more successful this way. Finally, state that in doing this, you are eliminating "POV", as if that is something desireable. Ignore that NPOV is about giving all POV's their say, not about eliminating any of them. Drogo Underburrow 13:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
As adept as you are at mercilessly exhibiting the lowest form of wit, I still don't think this trivially pathetic anecdote is worthy of the article at all, really. It's not even that interesting in it's full glory. If it had any significance in terms of his global movements, then that might give me an incentive to keep it in. But it doesn't, just like almost every other unimportant event in Morphy's life. The story adds as much to the article as your frustrated talk page rambling does to the success of Wikipedia. Jono 13:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The material you removed from the article:

While in Paris, he was sitting in his hotel room one evening, chatting with his companion Frederick Edge, when they had an unexpected visitor. "I am Prince Galitzine; I wish to see Mr. Morphy," the visitor said, according to Edge. Morphy then stated that he was Mr. Morphy. "No, it is not possible!" the prince exclaimed, "You are too young!" Prince Galitzine then explained that he was in the frontiers of Siberia when he had first heard of his "wonderful deeds." He explained, "One of my suite had a copy of the chess paper published in Berlin, the Schachzeitung, and ever since that time I have been wanting to see you." He then told Morphy that he must go to St. Petersburg, Russia, because the chess club in the Imperial Palace would receive him with enthusiasm.

replacing it with:

While in Paris, Prince Galitzine (having read Morphy chess paper entitled Schachzeitung) told Morphy that his presence would be welcomed at the chess club in the Imperial Palace in St. Petersburg, Russia.

Not only do you shorten it, but you change what it says, toning it down so that its less complimentary to Morphy...and against the facts. Galitzine did NOT say that Morphy would simply be welcomed if he came to St Petersburg; he promised that he would be recieved with enthusiasm. You toned it down. By ommitting the details of this story, you remove the point of it, which is to illustrate the extent of Morphy's fame, that nobles in Siberia where enthusiastic over him, wanting to meet him. You are censoring this information about Morphy, and replacing it with nothing. You don't add alternate material..you simply delete what you don't like to hear said. You do nothing to improve the article, unless improving the article is, in your mind, changing or eliminating the facts given by Lawson and Frederick Edge. Drogo Underburrow 13:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

A few remarks: There was nothing like "Morphy chess paper entitled Schachzeitung" ("Schachzeitung" can mean "Chess News" or "chess newspaper" in German) - so the JonONeill's edit replaced a colorful (but perhaps true) story with a nonsense. Similarly it is not true that St Petersburg is in Siberia.

In my opinion, these colorful stories are good for showing how enthusiastic were chess fans about Morphy in 1859 - which is an undisputable fact. They can be cited in the Wikipedia article, but they should be cited as examples, sourced, and clearly divided from the normal text of the article. --Ioannes Pragensis 13:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I did the best I could with what was there. But if the story must return, then I agree that it should be divided from the normal text. Jono 13:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
By "nobles in Siberia where enthusiastic over him" I was refering to that Prince G. himself was a noble in Siberia, and that he had wanted to meet Morphy. Nobody said that St P was in Siberia. The purpose of the anecdote is to illustrate Morphy's fame, as recommended in the style guide for Wikipedia, rather than dryly saying "Morphy was a well-recognized name" which is factually false by way of being an understatement. Drogo Underburrow 14:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know, the Galitzine family always lived in the western part of Russian Empire, its roots being Lithaunian. In the time, Siberia was populated with prisoners, not with the high nobility :-) -- But I agree with you: to be a good encyclopedia does not mean to be dry and without wit. --Ioannes Pragensis 19:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I have replaced this point of conflict for the time being in an act of appeasement. Hopefully the paragraph will become the best it can be during the Peer Review. Also, I don't appreciate the implication that I am against Morphy adulation ("you simply delete what you don't like to hear said") - he is my favourite chess player. Jono 20:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


When did he learn Chess?

My understanding is that Morphy didn't learn to play chess until he was 10. This article states that Morphy played Winfield Scott when Paul was 8.AaronCBurke 03:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Skepticism appears to be justified. Lawson reports the encounter as taking place in December of 1846. This would have made Morphy about nine and a half. - Louis Blair (October 22, 2006)

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."

I completely agree, and will change it to be more moderate (and accurate). I mean, really, Ben Franklin was considered pretty amazing overseas 80 years earlier. --tgeller 00:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The original statement is correct. Morphy was the chess champion on both sides of the Atlantic in 1859; the first American to be acknowledged by Europeans and Americans alike as the pre-eminient figure in his cultural field. Ben Franklin was never universally accepted as the world champion of science. --Drogo Underburrow 06:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
It is probably also accurate that Morphy was never universally accepted or acknowledged as the preeminent figure of intellectual games (or board games, if you really want to limit the field - it is necessary to make this broad a comparison, as Chess is but one game and 'science', as you use, is many fields). Even in the mid-1700's, it was desperately difficult to become a universal polymath in the sciences (enough to be the preeminent figure in all of the scientific disciplines). It may be accurate, though, that he was the first American 'Superstar'.
Was chess a cultural field back then? I know it is now, but back then it seemed mostly to be a game played for amusement or stakes (would it be right to call roulette a cultural field, even though analysis and strategies have been developed around it?). There is active culture, and then there are 'cultural fields'. 24.16.251.40 02:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC) (Formerly 24.22.227.53)
What about the fact that Franklin was awarded the Copley Medal in 1753? Doesn't that denote recognition as the world's pre-eminent scientist? Anyway, who says Morphy was "the first American to be internationally acknowledged as the preeminent world figure in a cultural or intellectual field"? Rocksong 08:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Aldrichio's Edits

I've made many edits to the biographical section in an effort to streamline the section, improve the flow and remove extraneous material. Feel free to comment politely.

Aldrichio 18:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Chess Monthly

The article states According to the December 1857 issue of Chess Monthly, "his genial disposition, his unaffected modesty and gentlemanly courtesy have endeared him to all his acquaintances.". While Chess Monthly is an ambiguous title, it is likely this was The Chess Monthly, and according to our article Morphy was an editor of sorts for the periodical. As a result, Chess Monthly isnt an independent source for opinions about Morphy's personality — can someone get a hold of this issue and find out who wrote the article being referred to. John Vandenberg 23:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You Tube link removal

1 link removed - Clip was animated description of game - No clear indication uploader has rights to footage, However they may be associated with the website mentioned in the clip information. If this can be confirmed link can potentaily be re-instated.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Does this article over-rate Morphy?

I think it does. I know of commentators who think was not a great strategist and who say he was significantly less effective in slower, more closed games. And he had less impact on how the game was played than Steinitz or even Reti and Breyer, both of whom died prematurely. I know the article says "other writers disagree with the more extreme sessments", but that's just one sentence tagged on at the end.

The whole "Morphy's Chess Play" section is lacking in citations - except, ironically, the one-sentence qualification at the end. Philcha (talk) 12:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree he was not a great strategist, but yes the article over-rates him in giving serious consideration to him being the greatest of all time. The only cite for considering him "best ever" is Bobby Fischer, but Fischer's top 10 list (which is given at Greatest chess player of all time) is very idiosyncratic and can't really be taken very seriously IMHO. The article should definitely reflect the consensus that he's not really in the running for greatest of all time. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
As Kasparov has pointed out, the best player of one era will in absolute terms almost inevitably be a stronger player (and thus arguably "greater") than the best player of an earlier era. Players of today, even comparatively weak players, have learned a great deal of chess knowledge that was unknown in Morphy's day. For example, in Morphy's day and for many decades thereafter the Sicilian Defense was an "irregular defense" of dubious reputation, and the idea of Black sacrificing an exchange on c3 was unknown and would probably have been considered absurd. Today, the Sicilian is generally accepted as the strongest defense to 1.e4 and the exchange sacrifice on c3 is a standard idea known even to very weak players.
In absolute terms, Morphy was not as good as Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Tal, Fischer, Kasparov, Karpov, Kramnik, etc. However, that is akin to saying that Newton was not as good a physicist as Einstein, since Newton didn't understand a thing about relativity. As I recall, Einstein himself said, "If I have seen far, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants." The same phenomenon applies to chess and every other intellectual endeavor. During his time Morphy towered above the rest of the chess world to an extent rarely, if ever, seen before or since. As such, I think he has a claim to being the "greatest player of all time." Krakatoa (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
By that argument Philidor is also a contender for greatest of all time. But "Greatest of all time" generally means who played the best chess. I've seen Capablanca + Alekhine put forward seriously as contenders (at least in the pre-Fischer era), and even recently a study ranked Capablanca moves ahead of all other world champions except for Kramnik (this was pre-Anand's reign) (see Greatest chess player of all time). But I think you'd struggle to find a sane, qualified commentator who'd put Morphy up top by that generally agreed definition. IOW, Morphy is only a contender for "greatest of all time" if "greatest of all time" gets redefined. Peter Ballard (talk) 07:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
[1] reviews a CD whose authors argue that Morphy was only a little ahead of his competitors in aspects except the openings, and the reviewer agrees - note that this is not comparing Morphy with modern players. Philcha (talk) 21:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

GA failed

I'm sorry, but I cannot pass the article at this time. Here a few things you'll need to take care of before you nominate the article again for GA:

  • The article has inadequate referencing. There are entire paragraphs and sections with no citations. Articles need to be fully cited to be a GA.
  • The lead is too short. Per WP:LEAD, a lead should summarize all the main points of an article. For an article this size, it should be 2, or possible 3, paragraphs long.
  • The subject of an article should not be mentioned in headers. For example, Morphy's chess play should just be Chess play and Morphy is hailed as World Champion should just be World Champion.

Fix these problems, and the article should be ready to be renominated. Thanks. Nikki311 21:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Image

Extracting his face from this image would be better then the existing top image in my view. Morphy is the one middle right. Image currently being used on American_Chess_Congress. SunCreator (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Review for quality assessment

This article is currently being assessed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chess/Review, please join the discussion. Voorlandt 07:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The review is now closed and the article is assessed as GA-class. You can find significant hints for improvement in the review at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chess/Review SyG 20:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You can see the archived review hereunder: SyG (talk) 09:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Review of Paul Morphy

This review is done in the scope of the WikiProject Chess and is transcluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Paul Morphy. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Early life

...has direct sentences from here? [2] Which one was made first? Lab-oratory (talk) 07:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

bobby-fischer.net is a Wikipedia plagiariser, at least when it comes to the non-Fischer biographies. Look at some of the other articles, e.g. the Topalov article is a snapshot of the Wikipedia Veselin Topalov article some time in 2006, and you can see from the article history that the Wikipedia article was build incrementally, not copied from an external source. Peter Ballard (talk) 07:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
And most of the section in the "Early life" section was already there in February 2004 (see the version here) while the www.bobby-fischer.net website was created on August 2005 (see here). SyG (talk) 07:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I have now listed this site under Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks and under Wikipedia:GFDL Compliance as a copyright infringer. SyG (talk) 08:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Just looked a bit more: the Topalov article is a direct copy from the 1-Mar-06 Topalov article here.[3] As I said, you can see from the article history that the Wikipedia Topalov article was build incrementally. So it's definitely the case that bobby-fischer.net copies Wikipedia, not vice versa. And since they haven't acknowledged the source, they have plagiarised. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The age of the chess pro

The article currently says "It was not until decades later (after Morphy's retirement) that the age of the professional chess player arrived." That's rubbish: Wilhelm Steinitz and Joseph Henry Blackburne both turned pro in the 1860s, and Blackburne made a good income out of simul and blindfold exibitions. Johann Löwenthal was apparently a pro at least a decade earlier. Philcha (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Class C?

While I can see the lead is poor. It seems odd that a previous FA article should slide down through GA, A, B and C while continously improving in it's presentation and contents! SunCreator (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes this is a real pity, linked to the general increase in the level of quality required for each various grade, so that what was a FA three years ago is now only C-class ! That being said, because of the poor Lead, in my opinion this article is definitely not B-class. SyG (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Some more at Talk:The Staunton-Morphy controversy. -- Philcha (talk) 23:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The modern rules of chess era

I've never heard that term before. What does it mean? Dlabtot (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It means it's less of romantic attackin style, without long term plan, without pieces coordination, more of planning, opening, strategy format in complete sense of opening, middle, end game! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chesmorf (talk • contribs)

MOZART OF CHESS

I CANT BELIEVE WIKIPEDIA RULES ALLOW ONE QUOTE, SOME IDIOT REVERTED THAT http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Morphy&diff=377203608&oldid=377161622 BUT ITS HERE FOR POSTERITY, SUCH IGNORANCE!~SO IF WASHING WAS FATHER OF USA, THEN IF WE SAY FIRST PRESIDENT, THAT'S WRONG! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chesmorf (talk • contribs) 00:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Please give a citation from a reliable source or it will be removed. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 21:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I removed this - it has been unreferenced for five weeks. If a reliable reference can be found, it should go back in. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 04:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Pride mentioned, Sorrow censored

I hadn't looked at the Morphy article in a while. I'm startled to see that all mention of his problems with mental illness have been completely removed from the article. He's called "The Pride and Sorrow of Chess" in the lede -- the reason for pride is detailed, but there is zero hint at the sorrow. His mental state in his later years is a famous or notorious aspect of Morphy that any serious biography of him that treats anything beyond his chess games needs to mention. Certainly it should abide by NPOV, and if his problems have been overstated elsewhere some correction to any misperceptions included. Here's a link [4] giving some details from primary sources. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the link you gave and this doesn't seem convincing as to mental illness. The behaviour described seems more of someone lacking ambition than anything else. Is Morphy's mental problems a myth; a good story? Not wanting to play chess doesn't alone mean you're crazy. I haven't looked at this article's history, but generally it is sparse on references and that could be why it was removed. BashBrannigan (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Infrogmation, I just noticed it was you changed my version of "pride and sorrow". I don't dispute your reasoning, but there is no mention of mental illness in the article. Anyone reading the lead is going to wonder about this. The lead MUST reflect the body. Perhaps, the mental illness was improperly removed, as you say above. However, it still must be added added back in, before being in the lead.BashBrannigan (talk) 23:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • "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." -- Morphy biography on Bobby-Fischer.net [5]. "He became insane" -- Encyclopedia Brittanica [6]. Many similar citations could be provided. An argument might be made that his problems with mental illness later in life are the second most famous aspect of Morphy's life after his phenomenal prowess at chess. To see an article about Morphy with zero mention of this strikes me as similar to reading a biography of Abraham Lincoln that makes no mention of his life being suddenly ended by assassination. Some mention of Morphy's mental problem needs to be put back into the article. If it is now widely considered a myth, some debunking of it should be included. If it is disputed, some mention of the various sides of the dispute should be mentioned. Since there seem to be some editors active in the article with more detailed knowledge/interest in Morphy than me, I've been hoping someone else would fix this oversight. If no one else does, I'll feel the necessity to do so myself -- and of course finding published citations is no problem. I'd like to see the issue treated with tact and taste, but I think pretending the issue doesn't exist is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. Infrogmation (talk) 21:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I can't disagree with anything you say. I'm aware myself of reports of Morphy's emotional issues, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to know if they were rumours, or fact. However, even as only rumour, they should be in the article. At some point i can try to add it myself, but if you have the time feel free. Again, when I wrote the lead, I based it upon what was in the article as per WP policy. BashBrannigan (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree too. Bash wasn't trying to censor anything, just follow a wikipedia rule/custom that the article lead not contain claims not supported in the article text. I'll start a section at WT:CHESS to see if it draws the attention of anyone who can help with this. Quale (talk) 23:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Morphy's Games of Chess By Philip Walsingham Sergeant, page 27-32. The quote from Buck on pp28-29 about the asylum that he went to but protested against then was taken home again fits nicely I feel. Regards, SunCreator (talk)

Harrwitz Match

I have read numerous sources that say Harrwitz won 4 games in a row against Morphy, only for Morphy to get serious and win 5 in a row back.

However, the page shows Harrwitz and Morphy having a "match" of a single game which Harrwitz won (nonsense), and then a match which Morphy won with 5 wins, 2 losses, and a draw. At the very least, these two matches should be combined into one, and also, it should be 4 wins for Harrwitz, not 3 wins and a draw.

76.126.237.65 (talk) 14:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Lev

This editor is imposing his own personal views and it constitutes vandalism. This is a matter of historical record and not up to debate. It is described in detail in Lawson's book, Pride and Sorriw, p.126. After refusing Morphy's request for a match Harrwitz said he'd be wiling to "play an off-hand game". Only after winning this game he agreed to a match which he lost 5-2=1. It is only this editor's personal view that the first game should be inluded and it is do blatantly incorrect and POV I do not respect this editor's request not to revert.BashBrannigan (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, very well. After further research, there are indeed a wealth of sources that mention the match as +5-2=1 in favor of Morphy. I do recall reading some older sources that mention it as +5-4, but perhaps they were wrong. I only want to add that my long-ago edit was hardly "vandalism"; just what I believed the accurate match score at that time.

ChessPlayerLev (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Fischer, World Champion

OK, let's try to settle this. I personally believe Fischer was a legendary chess player, but this article is about Morphy, not Fischer. Finegold does not come close to being as famous as Fischer, so we shouldn't flatter him at all.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about, do you mean Fine (and "famed" qualifier)? ChessPlayerLev already withdrew that. On the point of Fischer's qualifier, CPL's point to add one came out in his edit summary, he opposed when the qualifier was stripped off for a couple reasons, this was one: "since Fischer is judging another all-time legend, Morphy. Give his qualifications properly". Okay then, my view is that "Bobby Fischer" is qualification enough, as was the article's original text. If CPL thinks additional qualification is needed in the context of Fischer's evaluations of Morphy, then my view was that "Eleventh World Champion" does not fit that bill very well, as a point of writing. There have been many World Champions, the "eleventh" one is not what makes Fischer's evaluations interesting about Morphy; the fact of Fischer's, and Morphy's, legendary status (e.g. sometimes considered "all-time greatest players", and so on), does. So my dispute with CPL's modifier was nothing more than a point of efficient writing, and, indirectly minimizing that aspect of Fischer by qualifying him as "the eleventh World Champion". Big deal. (CPL asserted that because it is "a fact" it justifies the inclusion. Bad argument. Fischer was 6'2" and that was a fact too. Let's add his eye color while we're at it.) CPL's other argument was that "not everyone knows who Fischer is". Gosh. No player is more a household name than Fischer continues to be. Not only that, the wlink is there to click on. Geez. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Illustration: do we prefix references to Adolf Hitler in WP articles with "The Xth ruler of Germany Adolf Hitler"? No. But if the context demanded a qualifier, then an appropriate one would be chosen, and it wouldn't be consistent w/ CPL's idea of "properly qualifying", it would be selected driven by the point of context. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you on everything. This is a matter of staying on topic and to the point. Yes, I did mean the fame qualifier for Finegold.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Your advise that the article is about Morphy not Fischer is true, but no matter what modifier is added to Bobby Fischer – either "eleventh World Champion" or "legendary" – they work equally in drawing some attention away from Morphy and diverting it to Fischer, by adding add'l text re Fischer. As you know I felt the modifier was unnecessary and the original text without modifier was good, which also avoids any attention-diverting potential. But CPL felt it was essential to "properly qualify" Fischer (plus define who he is/was). Anyway, it seemed to me the burden was on CPL since he wanted to add the additional modifier text, but he tried to turn this around as you can see by commenting in the noticeboard incident: "I thought I was just preserving important information on a page from someone who kept reverting it." And that is a really curious statement to make too, seeing how he just got done reprimanding me in an edit summary over that same (reverted) text: "I don't know what your problem is with edit warring over something so minor." So he should really decide which it is: either "important information" needing protection, or "something minor" that doesn't merit any contention. Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC) p.s. The article referred to Fine; Finegold is a different player!
As Ihardlythinkso correctly mentioned, I don't have a problem with not calling Reuben Fine "famous". (He was/is, but it can be interpreted as an unnecessary flourish) And yes, Reuben Fine, a top 10 GM and famous writer from the 1930s and 40s, is quite a bit different from Benjamin Finegold, a contemporary GM who has never cracked the world's top 500. But calling Fischer "legendary" is the same type of flourish as calling Fine "famous", and shouldn't be there. Besides, there have been MANY players in chess history I would personally call "legendary", (GM Fine himself is a borderline case!) and 90+% of them never became world champion. "Eleventh World Champion" is a concrete fact, not a subjective opinion like "Legendary", and furthermore, is actually way more impressive. Anywho, the idea that it's "drawing attention away from Morphy" is silly. It's just three words that properly introduce Fischer to the audience. Believe it or not, not everyone knows who Fischer is, or that he was World Champion. We shouldn't assume, especially when all it takes is three simple words to inform people. Finally, and most importantly, there is significant precedent for calling a player a World Champion in the first mention of him. For instance, look at a Featured Article in the chess section on George Gossip. When Steinitz's opinion on Gossip is mentioned, he is introduced as "the first World Champion"! And this is a featured article in the Chess section. The creme de la creme! There are many other examples on Chess pages. To me, the idea of a chessplayer not knowing who Steinitz is is almost as weird as the idea of someone not knowing Fischer is world champ would be to Ihardlythinkso. But there it is! So yes, let's include those harmless three words that properly introduce Fischer, "Eleventh World Champion". ChessPlayerLev (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
This article is about Morphy, not Fischer. People interested in him could simply click the link. I don't see why we should deviate from Morphy here, because it's Morphy's article.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Did you click on the Gossip Featured Article I cited above? One can use the same argument there; "Oh, the article is about George Gossip, not Wilhelm Steinitz! People interested in him could simply click the link!" The reason we add in those harmless three words is the same here. Fischer is judging Morphy's chess strength relative to the elite players of Fischer's day, a good 100 years later, in the 60s and 70s. The fact that Fischer was the Eleventh World Champion gives him unique qualifications to make this judgment, and thus, is particularly relevant.ChessPlayerLev (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  1. The first world champion title carries more weight, in my opinion, than an 11th world champion title;
  2. We don't call Kasparov by his titles in any of the three chess articles I wrote (Rotlewi versus Rubinstein, Levitsky versus Marshall, Botvinnik versus Capablanca, AVRO 1938).Jasper Deng (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Let me answer this;
  1. That's your opinion, and one most chess players do not subscribe to. Most World Champions before the FIDE mess of the 90s and 2000s are usually referred to by their number, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the associated prestige. There are few people who would rank the first World Champion, Wilhelm Steinitz, over the second World Champion, Emmanuel Lasker, for instance.
  2. Was Kasparov judging the strength of a classic player from many decades ago against the best of his time? A quick glance confirms that he was not in any of those three articles. Meanwhile, look at the Gossip article. Steinitz was a contemporary of Gossip, and judging his chess strength. Thus, Steinitz being "first World Champion" is important, relevant, and included. Here, Fischer, a player from the 1960s and 1970s, is judging the strength of Morphy, whose career spanned mostly from 1857-1863, against the best of his own day. Fischer being "Eleventh World Champion" is thus also very important. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
CPL, your arguments don't make sense. The "three simple words" (and BTW what is the point of that? – I can think of "three simple words" which would get me expelled out of Wikipedia immediately and perhaps even permanently) simply are not necessary. No modifying qualifier to "Bobby Fischer" is needed. But you want to put something there. Okay, then choose an appropriate qualifier for the point of context. There have been many world champions, what is "qualifying" about the eleventh? What qualifies Fischer is that he is Fischer. The reason Steinitz has a qualifying modifier explaining who he is when introduced in an article, is because the audience you refer to would probably not know who he is. That's not the case w/ Fischer. I added "legendary" in attempt to satisfy you since *you* suggested that was the point of context responsible for demanding a qualifier when you wrote in an edit summary: "'World Champion' is ESPECIALLY relevant, since Fischer is judging another all-time legend, Morphy." No one asserted that adding a modifier to Fischer draws attention away from Morphy, but Jasper cautioned that it might. I responded to that with observation that *any* modifier would be equal in that respect, if true. The issue isn't what modifier is "more impressive", the issue is whether one is needed at all, and if so, what would fit the point of context. I think no modifier is needed, and by wanting to add text, the burden is on you (a point you described in edit summary as "minor" and not worth contending over, remember?). If you get to say something is "silly", they I get to say your statement, "calling Fischer 'legendary' is the same type of flourish as calling Fine 'famous'", is "bull". Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
"What qualifies Fischer is that he is Fischer". While it might be hard to do, imagine that someone doesn't know who Fischer is. In that case, a basic qualification of being "Eleventh World Champion" is very relevant. Also, comparing the relative fame of Steinitz to Bobby Fischer is subjective. They're both World Champions and pioneers of the game. In terms of current pop culture, Fischer is more famous, sure. But that doesn't mean everyone in the whole wide world knows who Fischer is. More importantly, I know many people, chess fans too, who have heard of Fischer, but don't know he was an actual World Champion! If we can describe his fundamental qualifications in three simple words, why shouldn't we do it? Also dude, drop the shit-talking. Your last sentence has no real purpose other than to insult and try to turn an interesting discussion into nonsense. I've noticed you love getting into huge flame-wars when you think you're right, whether it be with Jasper Deng or Ellen of the Road, and the results have been embarrassing to read. I'm not interested in that. I want to resolve this issue and improve the Morphy entry.ChessPlayerLev (talk) 01:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
No, 11th world champion is not a big qualification. His mention alone implies that his comment is worthy of mention; we only use good players' comments, so it's implicit, when we include his comment, that he's qualified. We aren't trying to describe Fischer, only Morphy, in this article.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
"11th world champion" is an ENORMOUS qualification. Not just "big". It's the greatest accomplishment that any chess player could ever hope to achieve. And while the article is not describing Fischer overall, you have to look at that section in context. In context, Fischer is judging Morphy's strength relative to Fischer's own era. Thus, a very brief mention of Fischer's strength is in order. Anyways, I've said my piece, for the most part. Any other active editors, like BrashBrannigan, want to chime in? ChessPlayerLev (talk) 02:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
CPL, you accused an established editor of "blatent dishonesty" recently, and you have the gaul to accuse me of loving to participate in "flame-wars"? Wow. Clue for you: "shit" isn't appropriate here. Also, my name is not "dude". Elen also, as Admin, invested in some name-calling sent my way, then used her UK language-culture to defend it. Interesting. Now aren't you happy that you changed the topic on this Talk page to *me*, instead of what the Talk page is for? Your arguments don't make sense, I've explained why, try to deal with those. Your short time on WP has been frought with contentiousness from the start, and IMO you also show a big lack of understanding re consensus-building, but, it is not my job to correct you, the system will. Just keep doing what you're doing.
Jasper, as compromise proposal, I really don't have any problem with some version of "World Champion" or "former World Champion" re Fischer. But the Morphy article is not a place to detail "eleventh" – that lacks purpose, the reader can click on the wlink. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
"Former world champion" may be good, but that's all I might take. I'd wait for a 3rd party's comment on this. Jasper Deng (talk) 03:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
CPL, would you agree to "former world champion" or "former World Champion"? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I would be quite fine with "Former World Champion" or "Former world champion" to start that sentence. I don't really want to wade much into the rest, but since you keep repeating everywhere that I called someone "blatantly dishonest", I need to correct that. I stated that "suppressing raw numbers because you think someone might draw the wrong conclusion is blatantly dishonest", but I never said an actual editor was being "blatantly dishonest". In fact, I'm very happy with what said editor has done on the article in question. That's the difference here; I confine myself to statements about arguments, not the person making them. There's a huge difference between saying an argument is "silly" or even potentially "dishonest" (what I've done), and calling editors like Jasper or Elen "asshats", "idiots", etc. (what you've done, repeatedly) Anyways, that's the last I hope to discuss this on here. "Former World Champion" is perfectly fine. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 03:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey CPL, you are throwing false accusations. I would never call anyone on WP the names you said, and never did. Yet you accuse falsely. Show me the diffs. Show evidence of your accusation. Or, fairly enough, you should apologize for such accusation. Terrible. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC) p.s. You accused BrashBrannigan of protecting Judit Polar, or protecting her image in the article, and called his edit preference "blatant dishonesty". You are splitting hairs here. Sheesh!
CPS, you've stated I used those names "repeatedly". So, you should be able to come up with at least one diff, easily. Let's see it. Put your facts where your mouth is. (Or, put an apology there, in all fairness. It is not nice to make such violent accusations falsely. For Christ's sake. Terribly mean, or, you have made a big mistake. Which?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Back up your recent accusation, CPL. Let's see it. Sorry, if you thought I would just "take it". Very nasty of you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Silman misinterpreted

Here is the quote by Silman:

After looking over Morphy’s games, Fischer said that, given time to study modern theory and ideas, Morphy would beat any modern player (except Fischer, of course!).

You have misinterpreted the Silman text. The "except Fischer, of course!" is a parenthetical interpretation and/or conjecture added by Silman, Silman is not quoting Bobby Fischer here, or even saying Fischer said that. The way you have incorporated the Silman text into the article, you are putting words in Fischer's mouth, that he never spoke, that he never said. You mention there are several other references that show Fischer said this. Then it should be easy matter for you to find one and replace the Silman reference, which doesn't support your contention Fischer said those words or intended that meaning. It would be different if you were saying in the article that Silman said or thought this about what Fischer did say, but that is not what the article text is structured to be saying, and a footnote is not sufficient to make that clear that it is Silman's interpretation or conjecture what Fischer meant. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not conjecture on Silman's part. It's an actual quote by Fischer. Which Silman quotes as such, albeit in a humorous manner. Yes, there are other sources for this same quote. One being "American Chess Masters from Morphy to Fischer" by GM Arthur Bisguier. I don't currently have this book so I don't know the exact page, but it mentions Fischer saying that Morphy, if allowed to study modern openings, would be the second best player in the world after Fischer himself.ChessPlayerLev (talk) 12:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
The article should not have to endure your *memory* of what you think another source did say. You might be right that Fischer said Morphy would be "the second best player in the world", but right now, we have no actual source for that. Only your memory of a source, which isn't sufficient. The Silman text looks like Silman's own parenthetical conjecture of what Fischer meant, and if that is wrong, the burden is on you to provide another source, of which you say there are several. To say "I don't have that book but I remember" is not good enough.
Please revert your add based on WP:BRD. Your contribution to the discussion here is that we should rely on your memory of what a source says. That isn't good enough. If you don't voluntarily revert under WP:BRD, I'll be asking for admin assistance of some kind.
Also, I reverted your add based on policy WP:BRD. The revert and asking you to take to Talk was totally within policy. So now you go off being uncivil? Here's your edit summary: "It would be nice if you gave me a chance to respond on the Talk page before rabidly reverting the most minor of my edits." (Please explain what you mean by "rabidly". What do you mean? And, to put words if Fischer's mouth, regarding his view of the strongest player of all of chess history past and present, can hardly be characterized "minor edit".) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Why do you keep insisting that Silman's quote about Fischer considering himself better than Morphy is "parenthetical conjecture"? Seriously, there is no evidence to back this claim up. Rather, it's pertinent additional information Silman presented in a slightly humorous manner within parenthesis. I think the present link is enough support for a perfectly reasonable, minor statement that I added in the article. However, if you really like, I can pick up "American Chess Masters from Morphy to Fischer" from the library tomorrow or (alternatively) contact Silman directly about the question. It's just annoying to have to go such lengths over the tiniest edit, especially when the information is right there already.ChessPlayerLev (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Please don't mischaracterize what I've written. I've already explained at top of thread, that the Silman quote reads like his own parenthetical conjecture, it does not read like he is attempting to quote Fischer, or assert Fischer said that. That is just the way his text reads. If he were really quoting Fischer, one would expect the text to more convey that, like this for example:

After looking over Morphy’s games, Fischer said that, given time to study modern theory and ideas, Morphy would beat any modern player except him (of course!).

But that is *not* the way he wrote it. (Compare.) Since the way he did write it suggests it was his own parenthetical conjecture added, it can't be called a reliable source for Fischer actually saying that. The burden is on you (not me) to provide a clear source, if you want to add that content to the article. (So, stop asking me for a source that proves an unclear and ambiguous quote *doesn't* mean something.)
Your suggestion re contacting Silman directly shows to me that you do not understand WP:RS. (If you got answer by Email or voice, what are you going to do then? Ask here on the Talk page to accept that Email or phone call based on your say-so? Please tell me you understand the unworkability of that.)
I already told you I did not consider the edit "tiny" or "minor", and why. Now you want to re-hash that? For what end?
Please revert your add under WP:BRD, go get that book or another source when you find the time, then add a better source for the content you want in the article. (No more complaining and useless back-and-forths, please -- I'm not a WP basics instructor. Do you consider yourself what they call a "Newbie"? I presumed you had more WP knowledge, I have seen you argue stuff on other articles. Please clarify.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
To me, the quote is very clear. Fischer considered himself better than Morphy. No matter how many times you try to argue it, it's clearly stated in the link that Fischer said Morphy would be second best in the world after him. When it's stated in a link, the burden of proof falls on you to show otherwise. However, since you seem so fixated on this point, I have gone ahead and contacted IM Silman on his site, and will also get "American Chess Masters" tomorrow. As for Silman's response, I can simply post a screenshot of it. I don't see how that is "unworkable". Also, the fact that you want to discredit it before even finding out what he says (maybe he will support your position, how do you know?) shows that you seem more intent on "winning" this argument than uncovering the truth behind that quote. By the way, I'm not saying that screenshots of e-mail responses are by themselves good enough as evidence. However, when a reputable link clearly states something, then a statement from the source confirming that it's not a "parenthetical conjecture" is enough. Anyways, this is my last post on the subject before I receive Silman's reply or get the book, whichever comes first. Any other editors want to chime in?ChessPlayerLev (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
That is not what the link said. I copied the content of Silman's text at top of thread. I already told you, voice or Email from Silman is an unpublished primary source and not a published reliable source, and that is what WP sourcing is based on. (Didn't you read RS? You can't get why "screenshot" is not workable?! It is impossibly workable, that is obvious, you should first figure that out -- do some reading or ask an admin.) You miss the point. I'm not trying to "discredit" anything, except your idea what is a WP:RS. I have no interest in "winning" any argument from you, only in keeping unreliable content out of the article. (Drop your personal stuff.) Your link does not "clearly state" what you are asserting it does. (How many times do you want to re-hash?) You can't use a screenshot to make a reliable source explain itself. (Where are you going to post it? The Talk Page? And how will you authenticate it? How will it be accessible to readers? You still do not understand basic WP:RS, what an RS constitutes and what it doesn't. Have you done any reading at WP:RS?)
I've asked you at least three times now, to revert based on WP:BRD, and then go get your source. You keep ignoring. That's not satisfactory, CPL. Do I have to get an admin to teach you the basics? (It seems you won't listen to me, or do your own reading.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Two things, (1) the book "American Chess Masters" should help clear it up. (2) Silman should be able to clarify the ambiguity in his books without causing RS problems. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 21:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, but it's unclear to me how Silman's clarification would be implemented here. (How would be associated with the quoted RS, for all to see, for the duration the RS is in the article? And how would it be authenticated? Has such a thing ever been done in WP before?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
In the past I have forwarded email to the OTRS giving permission to use photos. However, I don't think that this is needed here. The parenthetical remark about Fischer may be Silman's or Fischer indicated that Morphy would not beat Fischer himself. I think a clarification from Silman would be sufficient - just use the same source as a reference and clarify which interpretation it is. I've written to Silman about errors in his endgame book, and he replies so he will probably reply. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I understand photos and OTRS. WP procedure is all set up for that. But can it accomodate text/RS material?! Also, "clarification from Silman would be sufficient". Fine. But am still confused. (What form? Email? Obviously a phone call is not workable, right? And I don't know how an Email would be authenticated, outside an OTRS-like process for it. I don't know what form is being assumed. And what if authenticity is challenged?) I see chaos. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
BTW (the fun part!) ... I'd put $ down, Fischer never said he's better than Morphy. (Could be wrong of course, and if CPL has any decent memory, then I certainly *am*.) It's just my guess; wager. I'll admit if wrong -- I'll "pay up"! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC) p.s. What's *your* guess!?

FWIW, Kasparov, My Great Predecessors, p. 32, quotes Fischer "... and Morphy's natural talents would be more than sufficient for him to vanquish the best 20th century players.", so the "except Fischer" is not there. However, when Fisher was asked about the ten best players ever, he didn't include himself, although I think that he must have certainly thought so. He might have listed what he thought were the ten best players ever, other than himself and he might have thought that Morphy would not beat him. So I'm undecided at this point. But I would accept an email from Silman. I know those could be faked, but I trust editors I know. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I think Ihardlythinkso is basically correct here. People don't speak parenthetically, and generally something in parentheses is not a direct quote. It reads to me like Silman's interpretation of Fischer's statement rather than anything that Fischer said directly. No one doubts that Fischer believed he was the greatest chess player ever, and by extension that he believed himself to be greater than Morphy, but if Fischer ever said that explicitly I have never seen evidence of it. We must be very careful to not imply that Fischer did make that explicit claim unless we have a reliable source, and the Silman quote provided is not it. Concerning the Fischer top ten list mentioned by Bubba that pointedly omitted Lasker and Botvinnik, I believe it was Brady (and probably many others) who noted that Fischer had not included himself on the list either but that that fooled no one. Ihardlythinkso's point that we must not put words in Fischer's mouth is correct. I'm not certain that interpretation of Fischer's estimate of his own strength vis a vis Morphy is so crucial to this article that it's worth the risk of giving a potentially misleading implication of precisely what Fischer said. I wouldn't accept an email from Silman as this is unpublished and I think a bad idea for a really inessential and minor detail in this article. It's a shame when relatively minor disputes become heated, but I understand the desire to be careful to avoid the possibility of misleading the reader. Quale (talk) 04:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Completely agree on every point. (Except, I don't think the point is a minor one, And especially agree, what Quale advises, to error on side of caution, as it reflects on Fischer's character and humility re Morphy and chess history. We would need an unambiguous RS if using such a quote or assigning it to Fischer.) p.s. I'm not "heated", more amused! Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Like Quale, I've never read at any time either, Fischer saying he was better than Morphy. (So ChessPlayerLev, that's quite an assertion, that there are multiple sources saying that. As mentioned, I am guessing you are wrong about that, but will admit being wrong if you find one of those non-ambiguous sources. [The deal is, if Fischer did not include himself in his list of top 10 players, that suggests being a gentleman about such matters, and when comparing Morphy's strength to 20th century grandmasters, it is a similar deal, so I'd expect the same consistent gentleman side of Fischer in that case, to keep himself out of that comparison, so as to not "boast".]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I have only glanced over the above discussion, but here is the reply Silman gave me (I can post the screenshot if necessary);
This is just a mistake by me since it should read: "Fischer said that, given time to study modern theory and ideas, Morphy would beat any modern player." (Except Fischer, of course!). In other words, Fischer didn’t say this, it was me saying Fischer would, of course, consider himself the superior player. All that discussion over what amounts to a typo!

So the editor was right. It was meant to be pure conjecture by me, and was certainly unrelated to anything Fischer actually said. I just placed the parentheses in the wrong location!
Sorry about that!
JS
So yes, it was not a direct quote by Fischer.ChessPlayerLev (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Good research, Lev. (And Silman = very responsive author! Impressive.) But you also said there were other accounts of the same thing, other books -- multiple sources saying Fischer said what you contended. (Are you backing off that now?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I will see about getting "American Chess Masters from Morphy to Fischer", (which isn't at my local library; I might only be able to order it from an affiliated library) but I'm now worried that it was also conjecture on their part, and not an actual direct quote from Fischer. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Me too. BTW, can we do a WP:BRD next time? (Because 'D' before the 'R', which you requested in your edit sum, isn't policy.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I finally got a hold of American Chess Masters from Morphy to Fischer, which, reading it now as an adult, is actually quite awful. Lazy, poor analysis, numerous historical mistakes, and an unbelievably biased point of view. As just one small example, Pillsbury was apparently "as good as anyone from 1895-1900" and "Lasker didn't get back to playing chess full-time after 1895 until 1907...a year after Pillsbury died". Somehow though, Lasker managed to play Pillsbury 12 times during that time span and finished ahead of him in every single tournament since Hastings 1895, winning the events where Pillsbury came in second or third. The authors also fail to mention that Lasker was recovering from pneumonia at Hastings.

All that aside, they did have this quote on page 20 of the book; "To repeat, it is hard to assess how strong Morphy really was. Bobby Fischer more than a hundred years later said Morphy could beat anyone today (excluding Fischer, of course) if given the right preparation."

(The book was published in the early 70s, hence the "today") So yes, I was remembering the quote perfectly accurately. However, the book has enough dubious and incorrect claims that it's probably not reliable enough to include.ChessPlayerLev (talk) 05:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you're misinterpreting Bisguier and Soltis in exactly the same way that you did Silman. There are no quote marks so the book doesn't claim that those are the precise words Fischer used, and since people don't speak in parenthesis there's no good reason to believe that Fischer ever qualified his statement with "excluding Fischer" or "excluding myself". Most often parenthetical material is not part of a quote but rather the author's interpretation of the meaning. I don't think anyone would dispute that Fischer thought he would beat Morphy, but I haven't seen any claims that he said it explicitly. Quale (talk) 06:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree w/ Quale. If the book puts text "excluding Fischer, of course" in parentheses, the parentheses have meaning. (The author conveying his interpretive conjecture to the reader, same as Silman.) If Fischer actually said he was better, what would be the purpose to put in parens? IMO Fischer was just being polite by keeping a direct compare of his strength versus Morphy out of the equation when making his point. (Because he admired Morphy, and it wasn't necessary to claim superiority to make his point regarding Morphy's strength.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Early Discussions

Please reference such vile attacks as he was pyschotic. There was an independent journalist to debunk all these crazy rumors. Please refer to "The Chess Player by Frances Parkinson Keyes before such libel in an encyclopedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azzy7 (talk • contribs) 03:26, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

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. 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 [7] (first paragraph below the second picture) and [8] 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://www.edochess.ca/batgirl/Morphypreface.html Batgirl (talk) 15:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)) 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


Another drawing of morphy

I uploaded a drawing of Morphy. Cheers!OTAVIO1981 (talk) 14:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


Consideration as greatest of all time

"He is considered by present and past world champions (including Bobby Fischer), and by many other leading chess players to be the greatest chess player of all time," First, the comma at the end of this sentence should be deleted, because the sentence already contains a period at the end.

Second, the phrase "present and past world champions" is ambiguous. Surely no former world champion living today thinks Morphy was the greatest player of all time (I am a chess enthusiast, and happen to think Morphy is likely the greatest). The phrase should probably read only "past world champions" -- since the opinion was held by several including Anderssen, Steinitz and Fischer much later. The word "present" does not seem to clearly refer to anything, so it should be dropped.Cdg1072 (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2015

became the site of the now-closed restaurant Brennan's. should be changed to 

is today the site of Brennan's, a famous New Orleans restaurant.

because Brennan's Restaurant re-opened in Fall 2014. 72.36.21.108 (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually that edit doesn't need a reliable source, he's asking us to remove unsourced and apparently incorrect information from the article. Since no source was give for the description "now closed" there is no problem with removing it, which I have done. Since the article is about Morphy and not Brennan's, it doesn't really matter whether the restaurant is open or not. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Morphy and madness

It's been widely repeated that Morphy "went mad" after his return to the States. For example, in King's Gambit: A Son, A Father, and the World's Most Dangerous Game, Paul Hoffman writes:


In fact, Morphy never got over Staunton's refusal to play him. He returned to the United States and withdrew from chess in 1859, at the age of twenty-two, his career at the board ending just eighteen months after it started. He spiraled slowly into paranoid mania. His life had flipped: when he played chess, the only aggression he experienced was safely confined to the chessboard; now he saw violence everywhere. He thought strangers and friends were plotting to kill him, and he made a preemptive attack, with a walking stick, on an innocent brother-in-law. Morphy refused to eat food that was prepared by anyone besides his mother or sister for fear it was poisoned.


The article debunks the myth that Morphy surrounded himself with women's shoes, but does it address this issue? Smitse (talk) 10:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2015

There are lot of information given by the past world chess champions about paul morphy which are to be included in the wiki page. Please allow me to do it. All the entries which i gave before where true. But, my edit mode has been locked. 182.65.36.94 (talk) 02:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The article is semi-protected due to persistent disruptive editing by an IP hopping editor who matches your geographical area (Chennai). If you are this person I suggest you refrain from editing the English language wikipedia, as you lack the necessary competence. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

"more like a story"

The current flag "This article reads more like a story than an encyclopedia entry" really isn't correct, IMO. It should be removed. An "Intro too long" flag might be appropriate, for those who like flags. 72.74.19.117 (talk) 01:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the issue the tag referred to (excessive dramatization) has been addressed. I removed the tag. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Paul Morphy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:39, 12 May 2017 (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?

An open game is one where the lines for attacking pieces like Bishop, Queen, Rooks are not blocked by defended pawns and the pieces have long, extended range. In Morphy's day most of the games were open as positional play had, for the most part, not yet emerged. In positional games (modern chess), the pawn structures remain intact, lines are closed; hence the term close games. A combination player, and all the great players are, is one where a player wins by combinations, usually involving a sacrifice of a pawn or piece, to open up the game where the long range pieces (Queen, rook, bishop)can blast apart an enemy defensive position. Missaeagle (talk) 23:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
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)

Memorising Louisiana law

What's the earliest reference to this claim? The earliest I found with a google book search was in New Orleans Holiday (1947) by US Travel writer Eleanor Early. The claim wasn't in Lowenthal's Morphy's Games of Chess (1860). MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

O.K. Found an earlier instance of the claim, C. A. Buck, Paul Morphy his Later Life (1902). MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paul_Morphy/Archive_1&oldid=1187723301"