by David Lawson
In this second game he reversed what should have been his twenty-third and twenty-fourth moves by touching his Queen for move twenty-three, fifteen seconds after Paulsen had pondered for thirty-five minutes over his twenty-third move. Morphy had the following to say about this twenty-third move in his notes on the game for the Congress book:
A most unfortunate slip. As soon as the second player [Morphy] had touched the Queen he remarked that had he taken the Knight the contest should not have been prolonged a dozen moves. And that he had the winning combination in his mind, he proved . . . after the close of the game.
As Fiske mentioned, Morphy lost the next game and drew the fourth on November 2. The fifth game commenced immediately after the fourth and was won by Morphy.
The sixth—the famous Queen Sacrifice game—was played on November 3, Paulsen having the move. In this game, as in most of the others, the elapsed time was recorded for some moves only. On his sixteenth move, Paulsen deliberated for thirty-eight minutes before moving. Morphy replied in less than five minutes, threatening mate in two moves. On his seventeenth move, Morphy took twelve minutes before offering his Queen for a Bishop (Morphy’s longest time on any move during the tournament), but Paulsen looked at Morphy’s Queen a long time before accepting it. Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper of November 28, 1857, gives the following account of this moment in the game:
Mr. Stanley, one of the bystanders, remarked of Mr. Morphy, on making this seemingly rash move, that he should be confined in a lunatic Asylum. Not one present could fathom the meaning of this bold play, until move after move showed to the wonderstruck spectators how accurate had been Mr. Morphy’s calculation . . . seeing into a dozen moves ahead with all the attendant variations!
W. J. A. Fuller’s remarks about this game (given in the Steinitz-Zuker-tort Chess Match Programme) are also of interest:
Steinitz confirmed me in my opinion that Morphy played some of his best moves by intuition, as it was impossible that human brain could have thoroughly analyzed the result. Take, by way of illustration, the 30th move in his 4th game of the match with Harrwitz, where the simple advance of a Pawn was followed up with such ingenuity and accuracy; or the game in his match with Paulsen . . . where he [Morphy] gave up his Queen for a Bishop. Just before this game Morphy went down to the restaurant with me and took a glass of sherry and a biscuit. His patience was worn out by the great length of time Paulsen took for each move. His usually equable temper was so disturbed, that he clenched his fist and said[,] “Paulsen shall never win another game of me while he lives[,]” and he never did.
When he made the move referred to, we all thought that he had made a mistake; especially as he had taken so little time for the move. Paulsen, with his usual caution, deliberated long—over an hour—before he took the Queen. He doubtless thought of Virgil’s line Timeo Danaos, et dona ferentes. Meanwhile the rest of us had set up the position, and our joint analysis failed to discover Morphy’s subsequent moves.
William Steinitz, analyzing this game in his Modern Chess Instructor, published in 1889, comments:
White cannot be blamed for not seeing the most wonderful combination that the opponent had prepared . . . One of the most charming poetical chess compositions that has ever been devised in practical play. . . . Full justice has not been done to Morphy’s extraordinary position judgment.
And Steinitz adorned the front cover of the Modern Chess Instructor with this game printed in gold, showing the position after Morphy’s dramatic seventeenth move, Queen takes Bishop. The diagram on the previous page shows the position as the Black Queen is about to capture the White Bishop.
Oddly, Steinitz, in his short list of brilliant games in the January 1885 issue of the International Chess Magazine, was not aware that this game was a Paulsen match game, for which there was little excuse, since the game was published as such in The First American Chess Congress. Calling it a casual game, he refused to accord it merit for brilliance, although he obviously changed his mind later.
In the February 1885 issue of the International Chess Magazine, when discussing Morphy’s chess activities, Steinitz states: “Morphy found his principal opponents unprepared and rusty.” This remark calls for comment. It might be asked which opponents Steinitz had in mind—Paulsen, Lowenthal, Harrwitz, or Anderssen? All certainly were principal opponents at one time or another. Paulsen had certainly been more active than Morphy prior to the Congress. While Morphy was yet a college student, playing but a few games of chess here and there, Paulsen had been active in the western United States for some time, playing numerous blindfold and casual games with many strong players. And Staunton, in commenting in Chess Praxis about the Morphy–Lowenthal match, mentioned that Lowenthal had had “all the advantage of incessant practice, a life, in fact, devoted to the game.” As for Harrwitz, who was the professional in residence at La Régence, need anything be added? Concerning Anderssen, more later. In any case, the “rust” of which Steiniz speaks in reference to Morphy’s opponents is far from apparent.
The seventh match game, played on November 6, was won by Morphy in twenty-six moves, and the match ended on November 10 when Morphy won the eighth game and First Prize.
After the match, Fiske described Morphy’s and Paulsen’s different styles of play in the Chess Monthly of December 1857:
Mr. Morphy is bold and attacking, resembling in this particular the lamented M’Donnell; Mr. Paulsen is cautious and defensive to a fault. Mr. Morphy always met Pawn to King’s fourth with Pawn to King’s fourth; Mr. Paulsen, when his adversary had the move, invariably played Pawn to Queen’s Bishop fourth. Mr.Morphy is rapid in his moves and quick in his combinations, his time on any move never having reached a quarter of an hour [12 minutes] and that only once. Mr. Paulsen is exceedingly slow, some of his moves having occupied more than an hour and several in succession having exceeded thirty minutes.
G. A. MacDonnell, in his book Chess Life-Pictures, described Morphy and his manner of playing, having witnessed many of his games when in England:
His smile was delightful; it seemed to kindle up the brain-fuel that fed his eyes with light, and it made them shoot forth most brilliant rays. . . . He moved very fast, but never hurriedly. He never put his hand near a piece until he was going to move it, nor placed any of them inexactly on the board, so as to leave his antagonist doubtful as to its position, never swooped down upon a piece he was going to capture nor described an atmospheric arc with his arm previous to making the coup that was to strike the spectators with wonder, or ensure for him the victory. . . . Morphy generally kept his eyes fixed intently upon the board whilst he was playing, yet, like that gentleman [Henry T. Buckle] he always looked up from it as soon as he had a winning game, but never with an exulting or triumphant gaze. He seldom—in fact, in my presence never—expended more than a minute or two over his best and deepest combinations.
He never seemed to exert himself, much less to cudgel his brains, but played with consummate ease, as though his moves were the result of inspiration. I fancy he always discerned the right move at a glance, and only paused before making it partly out of respect for his antagonist and partly to certify himself of its correctness, to make assurance doubly sure, and to accustom himself to sobriety of demeanor in all circumstances. . . . I fully agree with Mr. Boden’s opinion, that he possessed a truly gigantic capacity for chess that was never fully called forth, because even its partial development sufficed to enable him to triumph over all opponents.
FOOTNOTES
______________
* EDITOR’S NOTE: Paul Rudolf von Bilguer was a German chess master who died at age 25 in 1840. His Handbuch des Schachspiels ( Handbook of Chess) had made his name.
** EDITOR’S NOTE: Alexander McDonnell died in 1835 of kidney disease. The Irish player was best known for competing with Frenchman Louis-Charles Mahé de La Bourdonnais in the World Chess Championship of 1834. The discrepancy in Lawson’s spelling is not a technique of convenience. It is, rather, a function of McDonn
ell’s various spellings of his last name, and thus a profusion of different choices for chess historians in later years. “M’Donnell” is one of the recognized spellings, as is “MacDonnell.” But
“McDonnell” is probably the most common twenty-first century spelling. For a thorough discussion of the McDonnell name debate, see Edward Winter, “Alexander McDonnell,” http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/mcdonnell.html (2004).
CHAPTER 6
First Prize and Congress Aftermath
After Morphy won his eighth match game of Paulsen on November 10, the Committee of Management made immediate plans for the formal presentation of prizes to all winners on the following day, November 11, the Minor Tournament having also been concluded. Because of the great public interest in the National Chess Congress, it was decided to open the doors of Descombes’ Rooms to all chess lovers and (as related in The First American Chess Congress),
a large audience having assembled, Col. Mead, President of the American Chess Association, took the chair at eight o’clock.After expressing his regret that the Honorable A. B. Meek, the able presiding officer of the Congress, was not present to award the prizes, Col. Mead said that the sessions of the National Chess Congress would this evening terminate.
The President then proceeded to read the following list of prize-bearers:
Then turning to Mr. Morphy the President said:
“In delivering to Mr. Morphy, the chief victor in the Grand Tournament, the first prize, consisting of a service of silver plate, I discharge a duty which I know meets with the cordial approbation of every member of this Congress. To none, I truly believe, is this act more gratifying than to those whom he has so gallantly vanquished. To none is it more agreeable than to myself to be the means of conveying to him that to which he has proven himself, by his superiority as a chess-player, to be justly entitled.”
The remaining prizes were awarded, the President stating that the prizes for problems would be delivered as soon as the Committee who had the competing positions in charge, had finished their labors.
The service of plate, which formed the first prize, was then exhibited. It was manufactured to the order of the Committee by Ball, Black & Co. of New York, and consisted of a silver pitcher, four goblets, and a salver. The latter bore the following inscription:
This Service of Plate
is presented to
PAUL MORPHY
The Victor in the Grand Tournament
at the First Congress
of the
American National Chess Association
New York, 1857
Above this inscription was an admirable representation of Mr.Morphy and Mr. Paulsen seated at a chess-table playing. Both of the likenesses were excellent, having been copied from a photograph by Brady. The pitcher and goblets bore the initials P.M.
On the same table lay an elegant testimonial purchased for Mr.Paulsen, by a number of the members, as a token of the gratification with which they had witnessed his blindfold games. It was a medal of gold in the form of an American shield, having on the obverse a design representing Mr. Paulsen playing five simultaneous games without sight of the boards. The reverse bore this inscription:
Presented to
LOUIS PAULSEN
by
Members of the National Chess Association
October, 1857
After the distribution of the prizes Mr. Morphy who had been requested by the subscribers to perform this duty, proceeded to present this elegant medal to Mr. Paulsen. Upon doing so, Mr.Morphy said:
“Mr. Paulsen, in behalf of several members of the first National Chess Congress, I present you with this testimonial. If measured by the admiration it is meant to convey of our estimation of your wonderful blindfold play it will not be deemed of little value. Sir, I claim you for the United States. Although not a native of America, you have done more for the honor of American chess than her most gifted sons. Old Europe may boast of her Stauntons and Anderssens, her Harrwitzes and Lowenthals, her Der Lasas and Petroffs; it is the greater boast of America that the blindfold chess of Paulsen has not yet been equalled. What if Labourdonnais played two, Philidor three and Kieseritzky four games at one time? We have in our midst one whose amusement it is to play five, and who will soon fulfil his promise of playing seven blindfold games of chess simultaneously. We fling proud defiance across the waters. Come one, come all!
“Let the superhuman feats of our Paulsen be performed with equal success by the much-vaunted European chess Knights! Let the much and deservedly extolled Harrwitz enter the lists! We challenge him—we challenge all the magnates of the Old World. But, Sir, your achievements need no commendation at my hands—they speak for themselves. And now, with a reiteration of our thanks for the many highly interesting entertainments you have so kindly given us, we beg you to accept this slight token of our admiration and gratitude.”
Mr. Paulsen received the gift from the hands of Mr. Morphy and replied as follows:
“The honor which you have deigned to confer on me, in presenting to me such a beautiful and valuable present, is so great, that I only regret not being able to return my thanks in words sufficiently expressive of the feelings of gratitude, appreciation, and pleasure, which move my heart at this moment. The pleasure which I have enjoyed at our recent campaign in fighting many a peaceful battle, and in making the acquaintance of the noble champion of our Congress, as well as of other worthy and esteemed friends of Caïssa—this pleasure is so great that I do not hesitate a moment to mark these days as among the very happiest of my life. And ever afterward, when far from you, in the West of this broad country, where Providence has secured me a home, the remembrance of these days will be to me a source of joy and pleasure. Once more, Sir, let me express to you my sincere and heartfelt gratitude.”
Colonel Mead, after reminding the members of the necessity of supporting the American Chess Association, then pronounced the first National Chess Congress finally adjourned.
That Morphy’s prize was in the form of an elegant set of silver valued at $300 (the First Prize amount) was undoubtedly due to his having let it be known that he would not wish the prize in the form of money. All the other prizes were cash awards. Morphy never wished, in fact, refused, to profit monetarily from chess, but money stakes were usually necessary to complete arrangements for a match and so always presented a problem to him.
As noted above, Morphy’s success at the Congress had been expected from the first day. Even Paulsen had foretold it, and public expression of this anticipation was found in Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper of October 31, 1857:
It is tactically understood that the final contest in the tournament will be between Paul Morphy and Paulsen. . . . He [Morphy] is considered by the leading players in the Congress to be the most brilliant and successful amateur living, and as he proposes shortly to visit Europe [this is the first intimation of a trip abroad] we fully expect to hear of his treating all the great Chess magnates there as he has done those of the New World.
Both Lowenthal and Staunton of London were following closely the progress of the National Congress in the Chess Monthly, to which Lowenthal contributed. They both kept up a running correspondence with D. W. Fiske and Eugene B. Cook, and examined various American publications that reported different aspects of the Congress. As will be seen by the extract from the following letter to Cook, Staunton took particular note of the above reference to Morphy’s possible visit to Europe in Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper, and, in view of the strained relations that later developed between Staunton and Morphy, the letter has special interest:
Leigham Avenue
Streatham, Surrey, Nov. 17, 1857
My dear Sir.
The packet came safely to hand. . . . I see from one of your journals Mr. Morphy meditates a visit to Europe: I wish you would use your influence with him to delay the journey until the time of the gathering of the Chess Association at Birmingham next Spring or Summer; and further that you would ascerta
in whether Mr. Paulsen’s avocations would permit him to visit us at the same time. I should be delighted as would most of our amateurs to see them both on that occasion, and my gratification at seeing them, would be doubly enhanced were you to accompany them. Pray do what you can to bring this about: it might lead to an interchange of visits between the chief players of the two countries and be productive of incalculable benefit to the game. I should always have real pleasure in showing them the hospitality my house can provide.
Faithfully,
H. Staunton
Apparently convinced of his strength if need be, after his triumph in New York, Morphy soon began to think of invading Europe, and talked about it to Fiske, with whom he had developed a close friendship. As Morphy left New York on December 17, a month after the date of Staunton’s letter, he probably knew about Staunton’s invitation before leaving. And it seems he showed it to Fiske, who mentioned it in a letter to George Allen dated December 20, 1857:
By the way, Staunton, in the epistle alluded to above, having heard that Morphy intends to visit Europe, very handsomely proffers him the hospitality of his house during his stay in England. This part of his communication I have seen since Cook copied it out and enclosed it to Morphy.
But back to Morphy’s activities during the period of the Congress. When he was not engaged in tournament play, Morphy played many casual games, for as Edge wrote much later, when discussing Morphy’s European games, “Morphy was easily approached by anybody, no matter what their strength. . . . As he invariably refused to play for any stakes, this pleased them the more.”
As well as the Grand and Minor Tournaments, the Committee of Management had made plans for other games for the diversion of members of the Congress, and about the middle of October it announced that a grand consultation game was planned between Northern and Southern players. The North was to be represented by Colonel C. D. Mead, H. P. Montgomery, and Louis Paulsen; the South by Judge A. B. Meek, Paul Morphy, and Dr. B. I. Raphael. However, the early departure of Judge Meek caused the plan to be abandoned.