1885

< Prev Home Next >

January 01, 1885

• Rutland Daily Herald Rutland, Vermont Thursday, January 01, 1885 - Page 2 — New Years, Deceased in 1884. ★ / ★ / ★ / ★ / ★ / ★ / ★ / ★ / ★ / ★ / ★ / ★ / ★ / ★ / ★ / ★ / ★ / ★ / ★ / ★ / ★ / ★ / ★ / ★ / ★ / ★ / ★ / ★ / ★ / ★ / ★ / ★ / ★ / ★ / ★ / ★ / ★ / ★ / ★ / ★ / ★ / ★ / ★ / ★ / ★ / ★ / ★ / ★ Read More

January 04, 1885

• The Times-Democrat New Orleans, Louisiana Sunday, January 04, 1885 - Page 16 — Chess.

January 05, 1885

• The Tennessean Nashville, Tennessee Monday, January 05, 1885 - Page 6 — The Chess World.

January 10, 1885

• St. Louis Globe-Democrat St. Louis, Missouri Saturday, January 10, 1885 - Page 9 — Chess.

• Ottawa Daily Citizen Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Saturday, January 10, 1885 - Page 6 — Chess.

• The Weekly Times-Democrat New Orleans, Louisiana Saturday, January 10, 1885 - Page 6 — Chess.

January 11, 1885

• The Times-Democrat New Orleans, Louisiana Sunday, January 11, 1885 - Page 6 — Chess.

• The Brooklyn Daily Eagle Brooklyn, New York Sunday, January 11, 1885 - Page 4 — Chess.

• The Times Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Sunday, January 11, 1885 - Page 8 — The Chess Board. — Herr Steinitz's long-looked for “International Chess Magazine” is now before the public and we are glad to find its “Introduction” that it has earned its title by having subscribers in almost every country in the world. Its first article is on “Paul Morphy and the play of his time,” the burden of which is that Mr. Morphy, through the champion of his era, was, in the highest sense of the chess mastership of to-day, neither original, correct nor brilliant. Let us go over the counts separately. In proof that Morphy was not an original player Herr von der Lasa is cited as saying that he (Morphy) had made no inventions in the openings. Well, who, in the strict sense of the term has invented anything? The idea of 1. P to K4, P to K4 2. P to K B 4, P x P, 3. P to Q 4, Q checks, 4. K to K 2 has come down to us from the Middle Ages (see our report of April 25, 1880,) and yet, with a Q Kt attachment, it now poses as the “Steinitz Gambit,” and is considered by its “author” as the most “original” opening in chess. Lack of space, we presume, alone prevented Mr. Steinitz from also quoting Von der Lasa's more important opinion, namely, that Paul Morphy was the greatest practical chess genius the world had ever seen! Next, Mr. Morphy is declared to be not very correct and some little errors are magnified to support this assertion. Thus Herr Steinitz asks, “What would be said nowadays if any first-class player would compromise his game so early in the opening to the extent of losing a piece for two pawns on the twelfth move?” Well, we don't remember just now what it was we said on hearing that a distinguished chess champion in the Vienna tournament was virtually beaten on the tenth move by Dr. Zukertort and also beaten in the same tourney by Mr. Ware, to whom Morphy successfully gave the odds of knight! and who hasn't visibly improved since that time. Again, Mr. Steinitz says: “In the second game (with Anderssen) Morphy is a clear rook ahead on the twenty-third move, in consequence of unsound sacrifices. Morphy fails to take advantage of the position and allows his adversary to escape with a draw.” On looking for the supposed burly blundering we discovered that Morphy was indeed a rook ahead at that particular moment, but that he was, in consequence of Anderssen's “unsound sacrifices,” in a critical position and that winning was, to say the least, a very delicate question to decide at the moment. All of which apparently necessary explanation was also, no doubt, crowded out by Mr. Steinitz for lack of room. Of course, the learned critic, who was smashed up in almost the very opening of his own gambit by Englisch and Tschigorin in two of those “brilliant games of the London Congress,” would have avoided such a mistake. Then, again, Mr. Morphy is decided not to be brilliant in a match sense. In the first place Steinitz appears to give the term brilliant a peculiarly limited signification and under it narrows down Morphy's brilliant match games to two, and even these are not very brilliant in his opinion. As appreciation of brilliancy is purely a matter of taste we have no fault to find with his opinion and can only add that in this connection he informs an ignorant chess world that the celebrated Morphy-Paulsen game, wherein the former so wonderfully sacrificed his queen, was not “as commonly supposed,” a match game, but a “casual, off-hand encounter.” The error of supposing it a match game, however, is very pardonable, for the players themselves labored under this error, also the spectators, and the delusion was carried to such an extent that the editor of the book of the First American Chess Congress blindly printed it on page 252 as the sixth game of the Morphy-Paulsen match! There are also minor points in the article which betray ignorance of the commonest facts in Morphy literature. Thus it is said on page 5 that the preliminary Morphy-Harrwitz game “is not recorded at all;” whereas, in point of fact, the aforesaid game has been printed in almost every edition of Morphy's games (except Lowenthal's) for the last quarter of a century! Herr Steinitz, however, admires a few points in Morphy's game which dimly resemble his own. “Really,” said a learned serpent, “the eagle is a very unscientific creature. I can't bear to have it highly thought of. Its flying quite disgust me, for I long ago demonstrated that it couldn't be safely done! Yet there are some points about its walk I quite admire, and I think that if it had its wings clipped and its legs pared I could school it into a highly respectable crawl.” Read More

January 12, 1885

• The Tennessean Nashville, Tennessee Monday, January 12, 1885 - Page 7 — The Chess World.

• The Times-Democrat New Orleans, Louisiana Monday, January 12, 1885 - Page 3 — Widow A. Morphy, Theleide LeCarpentier Death.

January 13, 1885

• The Times-Picayune New Orleans, Louisiana Tuesday, January 13, 1885 - Page 7 — Deaths. Mrs. Widow A. Morphy, 77 years, 89 Royal.

January 14, 1885

• The Times-Picayune New Orleans, Louisiana Wednesday, January 14, 1885 - Page 2 — Widow Thelcide Morphy Death —Mrs. T. Morphy, who died recently and was buried on Monday evening, was the widow of the Hon. Alonzo Morphy, who was a number of years ago one of the justices of the Supreme Court of Louisiana. She was also the mother of Paul Morphy, the eminent chess player, who died about six months ago. Mrs. Morphy was possessed of a brilliant intellect. She published in this city a number of musical compositions, which obtained a good deal of success. An opera in five acts, “Louise de Lorraine,” was also composed by her. This musical gem was much admired and praised by such composers as Guiraud, Eugene Prevost and Gregorio Curto. She was an artist in the widest scope of the word. As a woman she was always devoted to her own; she lived by them, for them. Since the death of her son Paul, of whom she was justly proud, the health of this estimable lady had been failing, and it is easily understood that the shock was such that it caused her death. Read More

Thelcide Morphy Death 14 Jan 1885, Wed The Times-Picayune (New Orleans, Louisiana) Newspapers.com

January 16, 1885

• New-York Tribune New York, New York Friday, January 16, 1885 - Page 6 — International Chess Magazine. — From the statement with which Mr. Steinitz introduces the first number of his new chess magazine and the general flavor of nearly all its contents, it is evident that the editor has a fund of grievances, personal and professional, and that he looks upon the pages over which he has assumed supervision as the proper medium for their ventilation. This is unfortunate. Mr. Steinitz is one of the ablest chess players in the world. He has come from London, taken up his residence in this city, and joined the Manhattan Chess Club. Every lover of chess will be interested in his comments, criticisms and analyses, but touching his private grievances the American chess public have neither curiosity nor interest. A cynic, no matter how able, can rarely make a good editor, and as we wish Mr. Steinitz and his literary undertaking, for which we think there is room, every success, we hope to find less personal equation in the future numbers of The International Chess Magazine than disfigures the first issue. The most interesting article in the January number is the first installment of a discussion of the ability of Paul Morphy. Its obvious purpose is to demonstrate that while Morphy was the strongest player of his time, he could not have competed successfully with the best masters of to-day, among whom we must certainly place Mr. Steinitz, who writes the article. While the question at issue is of little interest to the present generation of players, the analyses of Morphy's games and the writer's reasoning on them are of great value. Mr. Steinitz's theories seem to be: First, that brilliancy of play is no match for the slower methods of the modern school; second, that Morphy was not so brilliant as has long been supposed. To the first proposition it may be replied that the public like brilliancy, and when chess becomes a game in which at the end of a hundred moves the winner is simply a pawn ahead the public will abandon it. To answer the second proposition would consume more time and space that are at our disposal. We wish simply to call attention to some errors which have been committed by the critic. Mr. Steinitz asserts that the wonderful game with Paulsen in which Morphy sacrificed the Queen was an off-hand encounter. The game was a tournament game, and the brilliant sacrifice was made in a sharply contested battle. Again in game 11 with Lowenthal, Morphy made a hazardous sacrifice of a Knight rather than incur a cramped position. Mr. Steinitz says this was forced, as the piece would have been lost anyhow had it been retreated to Knight 2 by the move of Queen to B 6. In this Mr. Steinitz is clearly in error. The editor asserts that Morphy did not originate any new openings; in view of the fate of the Steinitz gambit at the London tournament it would seem that in this respect the judgment of our countryman was sound if not brilliant. Mr. Steinitz charges that some of Morphy's winning games in matches do not stand the test of analysis. In this he is doubtless correct. In a game over the board all the possible variations cannot be analyzed and the instinct of position must be the chief guide. Even Zukertort, the winner of the London tournament, in his celebrated game with Skipworth played his Queen in such a position that thorough analysis shows it could have been captured. Read More

January 17, 1885

• The Weekly Times-Democrat New Orleans, Louisiana Saturday, January 17, 1885 - Page 3 — Morphy, Thelcide Lecarpentier Death, Mother of Paul Morphy

• Ottawa Daily Citizen Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Saturday, January 17, 1885 - Page 6 — Chess.

January 18, 1885

• The Times-Democrat New Orleans, Louisiana Sunday, January 18, 1885 - Page 12 — Chess.

• The Saint Paul Globe Saint Paul, Minnesota Sunday, January 18, 1885 - Page 3 — Chess. — “Mr. Steinitz concludes his first article on Paul Morphy and the play of his time, with the italicized opinion, ‘that Morphy was stronger than any one he played with, including Anderssen and Paulsen, even if each one of his opponents is taken at his very best before or after his meeting with the great master.’ In another department he adds the comment: “Credit belongs to Zukertort for the last italicized passage in our essay on Morphy. For myself, I doubted whether Morphy was really stronger than Anderssen at his best, but on putting the question to Zukertort some years ago, he substantially gave me the answer which I adopted in the above leader. It was an honest remark on his part, for his interest was undoubtedly to the contrary. Zukertort knew Anderssen's play better than I did, having been his pupil for many years, and altogether the former, with his extraordinary memory, is more competent to handicap the different shades of strength between different players than any man living, provided he always will do so honestly.” Read More

• The Times Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Sunday, January 18, 1885 - 7 — The Chess Board. — Who Are Morphy's Successors? Only the attitude of Mr. Steinitz towards our immortal champion has compelled us to speak up for Mr. Morphy, for we really have the heartiest good will and esteem for Mr. Steinitz and his undertaking, but we would also like to call attention to some of his mysterious allusions. He constantly refers to the great performances of Morphy's “successors.” At the first reading the smiling forms of Steinitz, Zukertort, Winaver, Blackburne, etc., appear to the mind's eye, but a slight pondering on the subject will convince any one of the illusion. Zukertort cannot be a “successor,” for Steinitz himself calls him a “sham champion.” Winaver cannot be a “successors,” for Steinitz has told the world that he (Winaver) always gets muddled in the middle game, Blackburne and the rest cannot be “successors,” for Steinitz puts them even below the “sham champion.” The answer that Herr Steinitz alone, out of modesty, poses as the “successor” will not do, for didn't he come out three games behind the “sham champion” in the tourney of 1883 and only tie with the “middle game muddler” in the tourney of 1882? The development of who Mr. Morphy's “successors” really are will be anxiously looked for by an expectant chess world in the coming numbers of Herr Steinitz's new magazine. Read More

January 19, 1885

• The Tennessean Nashville, Tennessee Monday, January 19, 1885 - Page 7 — The Chess World.

• The Morning Post London, Greater London, England Monday, January 19, 1885 - Page 2 — Chess. — The first number of the International Chess Magazine, which is published by Mr. Steinitz in New York, is principally noticeable for an article in which Morphy's place is subjected to analytical examination and compared with that of the masters of the present day, the writer's conclusion being favorable to the latter. The utility of such investigation is not quite apparent. In the direction of analysis chess has made great strides since Morphy's time, his success having been due to exceptional genius combined with limited scientific knowledge. What results that genius would have produced if allied with the increased science of to-day, it is obviously impossible to decide. We are inclined, therefore, to regard all such comparisons as misleading. The magazine contains an interesting letter from London, in which recent English chess events are summed up, and several excellently annotated games and problems. It is, however, not quite devoid of contentious matter, and this, the magazine claiming to be international, is to be particularly deprecated. Read More

January 25, 1885

• The Times-Democrat New Orleans, Louisiana Sunday, January 25, 1885 - Page 12 — Chess.

• The Times Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Sunday, January 25, 1885 - Page 8 — The Chess Board. — The Chess Board. — “…take into debate the forming of an American Chess Congress in New Orleans in favorable conjunction with their World's Exhibition. Nothing has been definitely settled as yet, says the New Orleans Times Democrat, but there can be no doubt that such a tournament would be brilliantly interesting and watched by every checkmater in the land with the keenest relish.” … A Morphy Masterpiece. — We'll next give you a sight of a Morphy masterpiece, which is doubly interesting from the fact that it is not to be found in the ordinary editions of his games. It was played in Paris in 1859… Read More

January 31, 1885

• The Weekly Times-Democrat New Orleans, Louisiana Saturday, January 31, 1885 - Page 5 — Chess.

• St. Louis Globe-Democrat St. Louis, Missouri Saturday, January 31, 1885 - Page 9 — Chess.

February 01, 1885

• The Saint Paul Globe Saint Paul, Minnesota Sunday, February 01, 1885 - Page 10 — Chess.

February 02, 1885

• The Tennessean Nashville, Tennessee Monday, February 02, 1885 - Page 7 — Chess.

February 08, 1885

• The Times Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Sunday, February 08, 1885 - Page 7 — The Chess-Board

• The Times-Picayune New Orleans, Louisiana Sunday, February 08, 1885 - Page 2 — An American Chess Congress — Why were they afraid to invite the public to New Orleans while Morphy yet lived? Had the public visited, they'd seen the truth, that the stories circulated were based in falsehood about the great man.

February 08, 1885

• The Times Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Sunday, February 15, 1885 - Page 8 — The Chess Board — “…More About Morphy. In the second installment of Herr Steinitz's article on ‘Paul Morphy and His Time,’ the critic first of all gracefully acknowledges some few errors in regard to facts that he had fallen into and enters on the second division of his subject, namely, the scores of Mr. Morphy as compared to those made by modern masters. First of all we are treated to that old stand-by yarn of the decadence of Morphy's adversaries, and especially how ‘unprepared and rusty’ Anderssen was at the time. Did it ever occur to Herr Steinitz that a few weeks before his match with Morphy, Anderssen performed one of the finest feats of his life, namely, beating Harrwitz 3 to 1 in a match? Singularly enough, Herr Anderssen never got ‘rusty’ after that, not even when, at the age of 52, he beat Herr Steinitz in the Baden-Baden Congress. The second argument advanced by the critic in his new article is that none of the adversaries who Morphy pulverized have remained unconquered or really come to the front since that time. Well, let us see about that. Anderssen ‘came to the front.’ by beating Steinitz two tournaments out of three. Paulsen, who is notoriously handicapped by the time limit in tournaments, “came to the front in 1873, right after the tourney, by beating Herr Steinitz in a little contest, and also ‘came to the front’ in 1877 by winning the first prize over Dr. Zukertort. Bird, whom Morphy beat 10 to 1, almost ‘came to the front’ by scoring five games to Steinitz's six in a match, the nominal score of which was 5 to 7, as Mr. Bird had to forfeit the match in consequence of leaving town. There are more of the same kind, but these will suffice for the present. Mr. Steinitz then comes to the climax of his article and almost withers us with the weight of his argument. It is true that Morphy beat Anderssen, Harrwitz, Lowenthal and Paulsen, but then, just think of it, he never met Tchigorin, nor Englisch, nor Blackburne, nor Rosenthal, and thee are the players whom Herr Steinitz in recent tourneys came very near beating himself! Steinitz, however, thinks very well of Morphy on the whole and says that “considering his youth” his record is wonderful. We are very glad that Mr. Steinitz is so indulgent to Mr. Morphy and we can only regret that the latter did not keep on playing and really ‘distinguish’ himself. Had he gone on he might have “kept up with the time’ and earned for himself the title of a ‘modern master’ by entering six great international tournaments and winning, like Herr Steinitz, just one first prize; but that brilliant consummation was not to be and Morphy was consequently doomed to annihilate all his adversaries and to be patronized by the winner of the second prize in the last tournament. Not a ‘Standard,’ you know. Steinitz also claims that he is champion, because he decisively beat Zukertort thirteen years ago. Surely, Herr Steinitz forgets that ”the game is constantly progressing in all directions’ and that though his performance, ‘considering his youth’ was ‘wonderful’ it really ‘could not be considered as a standard for our time.’ Read More

February 16, 1885

• The Morning Post London, Greater London, England Monday, February 16, 1885 - Page 2 — Chess — “The following game was played in 1858 between Messrs. Bird and De Reviere. The notes are by the late Paul Morphy…”

February 21, 1885

• St. Louis Globe-Democrat St. Louis, Missouri Saturday, February 21, 1885 - Page 10 — Chess.

• The Weekly Times-Democrat New Orleans, Louisiana Saturday, February 21, 1885 - Page 6 — Chess — The second (February) number of Mr. Steinitz's new periodical, the International Chess Magazine, made its appearance with due punctuality in the beginning of the month. In its varied and interesting contents it is even more notable than its predecessor, the January issue. A second installment of the monograph upon “Paul Morphy and the play of his time” is given, and marked still to be continued. A fair and even-tempered statement of the late unsuccessful negotiations for the match between Steinitz and Zukertort, from the former's point of view is also an interesting feature. The respective departments of chess correspondence, news, games, problems, etc. are all well filled, and all in all, the present number may justly be said to uphold the best hopes entertained for the periodical. Only, we would suggest, a little more rigorous attention to the proof-reading seems requisite, and this more especially as to the games. Read More

March 21, 1885

• The Weekly Times-Democrat New Orleans, Louisiana Saturday, March 21, 1885 - Page 7 — Chess.

March 28, 1885

• The Weekly Times-Democrat New Orleans, Louisiana Saturday, March 28, 1885 - Page 5 — Chess.

March 29, 1885

• The Inter Ocean Chicago, Illinois Sunday, March 29, 1885 - Page 19 — Parisian Chess-Players

• The Times Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Sunday, March 29, 1885 - Page 7 — The Chess Board.

“The happiness of “the Bohemian Caesar,” as Steinitz fondly called himself, was not unalloyed. Paul Morphy was his bête noire. He attempted to undermine the pedestal upon which Morphy's glory is everlastingly established. But he did not succeed. If Blackburne makes a brilliant combination, he calls it a “bit of Morphy.” But no one ever heard anybody call a brilliant finish a bit of Steinitz…” — The Age Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Saturday, June 19, 1897 Poison Pen Blackmail and Defamation of New Orleans Lawyer Paul Morphy: These articles were part of 1860s-80s campaign of stalking. Attempts by friends of Morphy vouching for his sanity & to stop such false rumors (New Orleans Republican 11/21/1875; Tennessean Nashville, 5/05/1877, “The Truth About Mr. Paul Morphy. He has Never been Insane”; Detroit Free Press 11/30/1880, etc). 1884 at age 47, Mr. Morphy “suddenly died”. The stalker's press release claimed ‘due to a bath on a hot day.’ Forensic toxicology was still in its infancy and no investigation ever performed. ★ / ★