Paul Morphy was born on June 22, 1837 in New Orleans, United States. He was considered as the 1st unofficial World Chess Champion and one of the greatest chess players of all time.
Here are some of the links about Paul Morphy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Morphy
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=16002
http://www.excaliburelectronics.com/bio_morphy.html
Sharing Paul Morphy’s birthday is GMs Pavel Blatny (1968) and GM Evgeniy Najer (1977).
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
Paul Morphy is the greatest!
Go Morphy!
Howard Staunton died on this day in 1874.
Milan Vidmar was born today in 1885 (died October 9, 1962).
Paul Morphy was the greatest NATURAL chess prodigy in recorded history. Even more than Capablanca…because Capa..despite the myths and legends. Capablanca had Morphy’s games and legen to learn from, to build upon. Morphy had….who?
No computers. No “seconds.” Just raw, natural chess talent. That was Morphy. There are much better players today but, consider for a moment: What would the chess world be like today if there had been no Paul Morphy?
He was ahead of his time. With 20/20 hindsight GM’s of today can always find errors and flaws in his games.
Yet, the simple fact remains:
Considering the times in which he lived, the strongest opponents available to play against him at his peak (in EUROPE and AMERICA), no one…absolutely no person matched the skill of Morphy. He was a chess genius. In the “natural talent area,” even moreso than Fischer, Kasparov, or any modern GM since all modern GM’s have access to so much more theory and computers.
But, also, before anyone tries to argue that Morphy wasn’t the greatest natural chess talent…for example, by comparing him with Greco or Philidor (who were great)…Morphy did one thing that, still, to this day, shows not only that he was the best in world between 1857-1860 but that he wanted to prove it:
After defeating the best America had at the First American Chess Congress, he INVITED the “best” player in Europe, that is, Mr. Staunton, to come to the U.S. and play him….at Morphy’s expense.
Staunton declined. He knew he was outmatched and would have his proud English reputation ruined by being defeated by a “mere American Youth.”
So, Morphy went to Europe and…did what no other player in the world at that time could do….defeat the best Europe had to offer (in match play). Even the great Andersson admitted, after his defeat by Morphy, that no living person could defeat Morphy.
It’s sad that Morphy never got to play Chigorin. However, Staunton knew he was outclassed. The world knows it now….
A lot of Europeans do not like to admit that a “small town” southerner from Louisiana visited their shores and defeated their greatest players but remember….
Chess is not about “Nationalism.”
Morphy was the best, the greatest, and just happened to have been born
in America.
How many other American chess players have a statue of themselves sitting in France? None. Only Morphy.
He was the greatest natural chess talent to date. No one, not before or since, has been Morphy’s equal in NATURAL chess talent.
Of course, Capa could’ve defeated him, so could modern GM’s. But, in 300 years….our best GM’s will be but “child’s play” to the chess GM’s of the future.
Still, though, Morphy had no computers, nothing but talent. During his few great years (1857-1860), he was the best, the greatest chess player on Earth and could defeat any living player in a MATCH.
It hurts the pride of some to admit that Morphy, an American, was the best during the those years. But, the games prove it.
And it’s silly to compare him to Kasparov or later chess geniuses.
Always, Always, place a person within the context of the times in which he/she lived and the competition he/she had.
Morphy was, simply stated, the greatest chess talent that has yet to be born and play the game.
Amazing.
Wimbledon this Monday!
How about Susan’s predictions?
Just FYI,
Garry Kasparov considers Capablanca to be the greatest natural chess talent that ever lived. He said so in an interview I read in chessbase.com
Rob
It is a slap in the face to Morphy when he is referred to as merely an “unofficial” world chess champion (as many people do).
What, exactly, is meant here by that qualifying term, “unofficial”??
The social mores of the time prevented Morphy & Anderssen from boasting that their match was for the world title. That is no justification for staining Morphy with the label “unofficial”.
There is a stronger argument for calling “unofficial” all champions before Botvinnik, who became the first “official” champ in 1948 under the auspices of an international organization (FIDE).
GeneM
>>
He was considered as the 1st unofficial World Chess Champion
>>
I’ve heard lots of people regard him as unofficial world champion, but I don’t remember hearing anyone calling him the FIRST Unofficial champion before. Of course unofficial means unofficial, so there’s no right or wrong answers, but most sources that concern themselves with the “Unofficial” question at all also list lots of people before Morphy, like Ruy Lopez, Philidor, La Bourdonnais, Staunton, Anderssen, et cetera.
>>It is a slap in the face to Morphy when he is referred to as merely an “unofficial” world chess champion (as many people do).
>>
You’ve got this a little backwards. Actually, it would be a slap in the face to consider him an official world champion, considering that Morphy bitterly resented the idea that he was a professional chess player, and spent most of his life trying to disavow this. In the world that Morphy grew up in, gentlemen didn’t play chess for a living, only for personal amusement.
>>
There is a stronger argument for calling “unofficial” all champions before Botvinnik, who became the first “official” champ in 1948 under the auspices of an international organization (FIDE).
>>
There’s no argument at all, considering that your own source, FIDE, recognizes those earlier titles. When they crowned Botvinnik, they could have called him the First Champion, if they’d had a mind to. Instead they called him the Sixth.
Happy birthday Paul, 170 is a nice age.
To set the historical record straight, it was upon his return from Europe in 1859, arriving in New York, that the SON of Ex-President Martin Van Buren (John Van Buren) referred to Morphy in a speech as the “Chess Champion of the World” in a speech on May 25, 1859 in which the actual quote is: “…For more than a thousand years [chess] has been played in Europe. “Like a universal alphabet” as a clever writer has said, “the chessboard is known to all nations …Ladies and Gentlemen, I ask you to unite with me in welcoming with all the honors, Paul Morphy, Chess Champion of the World!” (See link below for footnotes and references)
He is referenced as the “World Champion” in many contemporary letters of the time. For notes and historigraphical evidence, see the following:
http://batgirl.atspace.com/morphybio11.html
Andersson himself stated, “Morphy is too strong for any living player to hope to win more than a game here and there.”
How does one interpret this? Well, although I certainly consider Morphy to be the first World Chess Champion, one might ask why?
Public sentiment. For example, what makes GM Kramnik the “World Chess Champion”? Is it that he defeated the FIDE champion or is it that the public, the match, was considered to be one for the “world title?”
It’s the same as asking what gives a $20 bill its worth? It is, after all, a mere piece of paper in reality. Yet, it is the publics….the “people’s” confidence that that “piece of paper” is worth something that gives it value.
So it is with Morphy. There is no existing written evidence that he ever considered himself to be the “Chess Champion of the World.” On the other hand, there exists no written evidence that he specifically said “NO” to the the compliment…which is probably all it was meant to be.
Morphy did not play chess for a living. He never wanted to. It was merely something that he had a talent for and his real interest was practicing law and to not be known as a “chess player.”
However, there was nothing more than an agreement (i.e. no “official body”) that stated the winner of the Steinitz-Zukertort match would become the “World Champion.” Yet, Steinitz won and is listed as the first World Chess Champion. By the way, Steinitz was an American citizen.
So, what of this enigma of Morphy?
Between 1857-1861, Morphy was the best chess player on Earth. Although he personally disdained titles and playing chess for money, that does not take away from what is the facts:
He was the best. He beat the best AT A TIME in which real chess “talent” could be truly tested (i.e. in long match play and tournaments). This is what separates Morphy from, say, Philidor or Greco, or Lopez. During their day, there was no international method recognized nor held to specifically see who was “the best.”
By Morphy’s time, there was a method, there were tournaments, and he proved himself to be the best.
If Morphy had argued that the Earth was flat, does that make it true? No. He never argued That he was NOT the “Chess Champion of the world.” He merely stated that he didn’t like “titles” or did not want to play chess for a living.
He was not only the First World Chess Champion, that is, one who was recognized BY HIS CHESS PEERS to be the “best,” that made him the first. “Official.” “Unofficial”. these are meaningless as Morphy was considered to be, by his peers, the “chess champion of the world.”
It’s an argument that is interesting but ultimately leads to nowhere. If you consider Morphy to be the first world champ, then that is fine. If you do not, that, also, is fine.
The real question is what can YOU learn from Morphy’s legacy?
What does his games mean to YOU?
That’s what matters. Not what is “official” or “unofficial.”
Morphy was my first inspiration on how great and beautiful chess can be. After all these years, I am still amazed at how great and dominating he was. I consider him the first World Champion! The only other World Champion to dominate them all as Morphy did was Bobby Fischer, sorry Kasparov, but as great as he was he was always just first among equals as Botvinnik would say.
Paul Morphy’s legacy is an interesting and worthy debate that deserves attention and needs to be discussed in a civilized manner.
Was he the “first world chess champion?” The historical evidence, the letters written by those who knew him, described him using that phrase.
We were not there. It does not matter that during Morphy’s brief chess career there existed no “FIDE” or no other international body to “officially” recognize a world chess champion.
To the chess community in both Europe and America, THEY (i.e. Andersson) considered him “the best living player.” He was referred to, not by himself but by the chess community (and it can be proven as it is recored in the letters written by the “Masters” of the time) that he, Morphy, was the “Chess Champion of the World.”
The concept of whether this makes him “unofficial or official” is irrelevent. For those that consider Morphy anything other than the first true World Champion usually argue the following: “Why not consider Philidor, Greco, Andersson, Staunton, etc as the first W.C.C?
Good question. The answer is simple. Prior to the 1850’s there was no mechanism in place to truly bring together the best chess players from different countries to play against each other.
Philidor might well have been the “best in the world” during his lifetime. Yet, there was no mechanism in place to allow him to prove it other than his outstanding performances in France and England…which, by the way, did not make up the entire chess world at the time.
To bring such great names as Greco and Lopez into this is absurd. Their legacy lives on to this day and they were probably the “best.” But, the concept of international match play had not evolved at that time.
By the time Morphy conquered the American Chess Congress and then went to Europe and, in matches, defeated the best, it was the opinion of the best of his peers that he was “the chess champion of the world.”
He was the first, true, World Chess Champion simply by utilizing the method of bringing together the best chess talent from Europe and America at the time and see who ultimately defeated the great players.
Who did this on two continents? Paul Morphy!
This is not “nationalism” or anything other than the facts speaking for themself. Kasparov could, in theory, begin having mental problems that would make him say such nonsensical things as he was never a chess player. Yet, we all know he is, or was, the best player on Earth for a long time.
Even if MOrphy himself denied that he was the “chess champion of the world” it was not due to anything other than his unfortunate mental problems and the fact that he did not like all the accolades.
He was the first world champion as he proved it in match play against the world’s best. This is something his predecessors such as Philidor and Staunton, Greco and Lopez, did NOT do nor could NOT do given the historical times in which they lived.
By Morphy’s day it was not only possible but quite easy to prove who was the best, and as a result, the “Chess Champion of the World.”
Paul Morphy proved it. He was the first true World Chess Champion. For those who doubt this, I ask: What international body (other than public sentiment) recognized Steinitz as the “first” Champion? There was no International Chess Federation that bestowed this title upon him. What made Steinitz the world champion was that PEOPLE, the PUBLIC recognized him to be the best.
So it was with Morphy.
It is us, later generations that create this artificial distinction between “official” and “unofficial.”
What matters is that Morphy’s contemporaries, those that he played against, considered him the best. He was called by many, in both letters and speeches, as the “Chess Champion of the World.”
The fact that his contemporaries accepted him as such (regardless of what he desired) is what matters.
Morphy was the Chess Champion of the World during his brief chess career. That is the historical facts. The letters are there to prove it.
To argue otherwise is to interpose current ideas upon an era that had no such ideas. This is not fair and is an historical crime.
Our ideas of what constitute a “World Champion” should never be “cut and pasted” upon the past generations.
That’s the plain truth of the matter. Morphy was the first true world chess champion.
It doesn’t matter if you agree or disagree. What matters is what you, as a chess player, learn from Morphy and his contemporaries.
Just think of the 1990’s…we had two people claiming to be the “world Champion…” the FIDE champ and Kasparov’s camp.
How will future historians judge this?
Who was the “real” champion, if there was a “real” champion during that time.
As President John Adams once stated, “Facts are the most stubborn things…”
and the fact remains: Morphy defeated the best in America and europe and was called by his peers the “Chess Champion of the World.”
Who are we to take this away from him? We have not the right. We never played him we never played his contemporaries that called him the champion.
It is us, the present generation, that has created this dishonorable abstraction between “official” and “Unofficial.”
If it makes you feel better to deny Morphy the right to be called the “Chess Champion of the World” during his brief career, then good for you.
What matters most is that he lived, he made our sport a better one, and his legacy will live on far beyond those who want to smear his name today.
History always wins in the end. In fact, it has already in Morphy’s case.