Paul Morphy – The King Of Chess

by National Life Master Loal Davis

 

 

I recently received an email from a chess friend Derrick Bartotto who had looked at some “analysis”/comments (on-line) regarding a famous Bird vs Morphy game where one of these “arm chair GMs” said, “Dazed, Bird takes one final swan dive with 22. Kb2? when 22. Kc1 would’ve knocked the stuffing out of Black’s attack.”

What unmitigated arrogance !

Derrick responds with, “I think I’m just getting cranky in my old age but these guys commenting on Morphy like they know how to stop him makes my veins pop.”

Yes – mine too.  Furthermore a Grand Master and former United States Champion (multiple times) said that Morphy was of Expert strength at best and would be easily dismantled by today’s players.  The Grand Master shall remain nameless in the interest of protecting his ignorance.

There was a Grand Master (World Champion) who actually studied the games of Paul Morphy who had a different opinion.  Robert Fischer said:

“A popularly held theory about Paul Morphy is that if he returned to the chess world today and played our best contemporary players, he would come out the loser.  Nothing is further from the truth. In a set match, Morphy would beat anybody alive today. . . . .  Morphy was perhaps the most accurate chess player who ever lived.”

Fischer On Morphy

 

I would like to share some thoughts from around the globe and through time in the analysis of this game.  

 

Please feel free to Click on any Diagram below to step through the game via PGN.

 

Bird,Henry Edward – Morphy,Paul

London, 1858

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 f5

Steinitz writes:

“Modern researches have proved this absolutely unsound”.

Yes – Steinitz was a World Champion and his views are not to be taken lightly, however it is important to point out that “absolutely unsound” is a very strong statement and adding the word “proved” makes it even more so. It may be true that in light of “recent” researches, the move 3. …. f5 is risky and analysis since Steinitz has shown that White may end up with a positional plus. It is a very long/involved piece of analysis with many variations and sub-variations. “Proof” under these circumstances is hard to come by. I think what can be said is that “current” views and temperament steer most players away from the line as it involves a lot of calculation accompanied with fear. It is also important to point out that despite his prowess, Steinitz was not thought of in a very bright light by many chess fans in his day. His style was difficult to understand and he had a temper (certainly in writing) that could be very biting. It had come to Steinitz’ ear that several amateurs thought Morphy could beat Steinitz at Pawn and Move Odds. This surely rankled the first World Champion and it is more than possible that his views were slanted attempting to “prove” otherwise. On top of all this – it is very important to point out that this was a CASUAL GAME. I find it incredible that so much time/energy/passion has been devoted to the analysis of this game. How many players would like to be taken to task for their skittles play – but such was the reputation of Paul Morphy.

4.Nc3 fxe4 5.Nxe4 d5 6.Ng3 e4 7.Ne5 Nf6 8.Bg5 Bd6 9.Nh5 0–0 10.Qd2 Qe8 11.g4 Nxg4 12.Nxg4 Qxh5 13.Ne5 Nc6 14.Be2 Qh3 15.Nxc6 bxc6 16.Be3 Rb8 17.0–0–0

Black To Play

Rxf2 !

In his fine collection “Morphy’s Games Of Chess” Philip Sergeant writes:

“Steinitz remarks that Morphy’s impetuous ingenuity could not resist the temptation of a brilliant sacrifice, though he was a P ahead with an excellent game.”

Again – A Skittles Game. Morphy had a beautiful artistic style and loved the fun of exploring even with strong chess players.

18.Bxf2 Qa3

Threatening mate and obviously immune. How many players would see (two moves back), much less play this sequence?

19.c3

Steinitz claims a “win” for White with

[19.Qg5 Qxb2+

Steinitz did not consider

(19…Rxb2 – Fritz and Houdini give Black an advantage here in excess of 11 Pawns.

20.Qd8+ Bf8 21.Kd2 e3+ 22.Bxe3

(22.Ke1 Qc3+ 23.Kf1 Bh3+ 24.Kg1 Qxc2)

22…Qb4+ 23.Kd3 (23.Kc1 Rb1#) 23…Bf5#)

Analysis Diagram

20.Kd2 Bb4+ 21.Ke3

Steinitz did not consider

21. …. Qa3+

only

(21…Qc3+ 22.Bd3 where “White ought to win.”)

Fritz/Houdini say Black is up at least a Pawn and a half.

Steinitz gives no further continuation, just the proclamation.

22.Bd3 Ba6 23.Rhg1 Bf8] and here Fritz/Houdini say Black is up 1.5 to 1.75 Pawns, however credit for the analysis is given to Geza Maroczy.

Analysis Diagram

19…Qxa2 20.b4 Qa1+ 21.Kc2 Qa4+ 22.Kb2

Now Sergeant writes that

“22. Kc1 seems to leave Black nothing better than a draw . . . .”

He considers the “only” alternative being ….. Bxb4 with a long line resulting in “White must win.”

He does not consider

[22.Kc1 a5]

BUT – World Champion Anatoly Karpov does. In his book “Miniatures from the World Champions” Karpov goes into great depth (exceeding 7 pages of intense analysis) concluding with:

“The opinion held for a whole century, that after the correct move by the white king on move 22 Morphy would have been forced to give perpetual check, is wrong. After 22.Kc1 a5 ! Bird would have been faced with finding a whole series of accurate moves, in order to maintain the equilibrium. And as our analysis shows the initiative is entirely with Black.”

22…Bxb4 23.cxb4 Rxb4+ 24.Qxb4 Qxb4+ 25.Kc2

Here Sergeant writes:

“25. Ka2 still draws.”

Oh – Really ?

[25.Ka2 c5 26.dxc5

(26.Be1 Qa4+ 27.Kb2 Ba6)

26…d4 27.Rxd4 Be6+ 28.Ka1 Qa3+ 29.Kb1 e3]

Fritz/Houdini again give Black an advantage in excess of 11 Pawns.

As an aside bear in mind that Golombek considers “A Century of British Chess” probably Sergeant’s best chess book, but opines that although Sergeant’s chess books are lucidly written, they suffer from the defect that, as a non-master, he was not competent to deal with the annotational aspect of his work. 

25…e3 26.Bxe3 Bf5+ 27.Rd3 Qc4+ 28.Kd2 Qa2+ 29.Kd1 Qb1+ 0–1

 

No Computers / No MCO / No BCO / No NCO / No CDs / No DVDs / No Internet

 

A True King Of Chess