Paul Morphy: The Pride and Sorrow of Chess

by David Lawson

  Morphy arrived in New Orleans the week of December 12, some twenty days after having left Baltimore. Obviously, he had stopped somewhere in the interim. Washington and Richmond have been mentioned as places he may have visited.

  His announced intention now was to establish himself in his profession in New Orleans. Morphy had for a time considered taking up residence in New York, but in the end he decided against it. Back home now, he wished to relax and rest on his laurels for a while, and enjoy the comforts and pleasures of private life. However, he did say, as the New Orleans Sunday Delta of December 18, 1859, reported, that it was “his intention to visit the amateurs of the Commercial Chess Rooms as soon as he will have entirely recovered from the fatigues of his journey.” But Morphy had not come back to play chess, except perhaps with his friend Maurian. And of course at this time he still had his chess editorial responsibilities for the Ledger to attend to.

  * EDITOR’S NOTE: South Carolina became the first state to secede from the Union December 20, 1860. From 1789 to 1860, Southerners had dominated the presidency. No northern president had ever won reelection. Two-thirds of the Speakers of the House and presidents pro tempore of the Senate had been Southerners. The Supreme Court

  had Southern majorities since 1791. And so the election of an antislavery northerner was more than a simple glitch in the traditional, Southern-dominated system. Abraham Lincoln was elected without any Southern votes.

  Other states began to fall in line after South Carolina—Mississippi, then Florida, then Alabama, then Georgia, all in the first three weeks of January 1861. Louisiana’s first secession meetings came in December 1860, but cooperationists (largely from Morphy’s New Orleans) opposed secession on the grounds of the port city’s vulnerability and the economically beneficial federal protective tariffs on Louisiana sugar. Amid the fever pitch that was secession, however, those urban voices would be shouted down. The state elected delegates to an official secession convention on January 7, 1861, and the state itself absconded on January 26. Louisiana representatives would be present at the first meetings of the Confederate States of America in November. But the legacy of dissent would remain strong, particularly amongst the urbanites of New Orleans. See Willie Malvin Caskey, Secession and Restoration of Louisiana (New York: Da Capo Press, 1970; originally published 1938); John D. Winters, The Civil War in Louisiana (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1991); and Arthur W. Bergeron, ed. The Civil War in Louisiana: The Home Front, vol. 5, part B, The Louisiana Purchase Bicentennial Series in Louisiana History (Lafayette, LA: Center for Louisiana Studies, 2004).

  FOOTNOTE

  ______________

  * EDITOR’S NOTE: As previously mentioned, Fiske’s The First American Chess Congress was republished in 1985 by Edition Olms.

  * EDITOR’S NOTE: As previously mentioned, op cit page 206, Edge’s The Exploits and Triumphs in Europe of Paul Morphy was republished in 1973, and is also available in a free online edition. Stanley’s Paul Morphy’s Match Games, Frère’s Morphy’s Games, and Couvée’s Twee Merkwaardige Partijen have not been so lucky.

  CHAPTER 18

  The Deacon Games

  Now that he was back in New Orleans, it would seem that at last Morphy could settle down to a normal life. There was even the possibility that Staunton’s unkind remarks would now fade away. But it was not to be. Staunton had been working on a new book, and the following announcement of it appeared in the Illustrated London News of December 17, 1859:

  CHESS IN THE METROPOLIS

  The two following games, hitherto unprinted, are extracted from the forthcoming Guide to Chess by Mr. Staunton. This work, so long expected, is on the eve of publication, and will be found to contain the promised new code of chess laws, based upon the treatises of Messrs. Jaenisch, Heyderbrand, and Staunton—a copious analysis, extending over some four hundred pages, of all the improvements in the openings devised since the appearance of the author’s “Handbook,” and, “in compliance with the expressed wish of very many influential amateurs,” a classified collection of Mr. Morphy’s games, about one hundred and fifty in number, accompanied by critical and explanatory annotation. The new volume is to be issued by Mr.Bohn, and will be uniform in size, appearance, and price with “The Chessplayer’s Handbook.”

  Then followed “a finely-played Gambit between Mr. Morphy and Mr. F. Deacon,” won by the latter, giving checkmate to Morphy in forty-six moves. This was followed by an Evans Gambit between the same players, won by Morphy.

  Apparently Morphy did not become aware of the above until well into January 1860, when he sent the following letter to W. J. A. Fuller of New York:

  New Orleans, January 19th, 1860

  Dear Fuller:

  The two games published by Staunton in the Illustrated London News of December 17th, were not played by myself with Deacon. I never contested a single game with Deacon, either on even terms or at odds. Had I played at all, I would have given him the Pawn and Move at least, as public estimation does not rank him as a player on an equality with Owen, to whom I yielded those odds successfully. One of the games published in the Illustrated News—the Evans Gambit—was shown to me in London by Riviere, as having been played between Deacon and himself. I do not know who Deacon’s competitor was in the other game, but must repeat that some one has been guilty of deliberate falsehood in both instances.

  Ever yours,

  Paul Morphy

  The following Sunday, January 22, 1860, the New Orleans Delta commented:

  The games published in the London Illustrated News of the 17th December last, and purporting to have been played between Messrs. Morphy and Deacon, were certainly never played by the former gentleman; indeed, he never played a game with Mr. Deacon. If we did not know who the Chess editor of the Illustrated News is, we might suppose he had here committed an error, but being aware that the Chess Department of that paper is under the care of Howard Staunton, we do not hesitate to say that he willfully attributed games of inferior quality to Mr. Morphy, well knowing they had never been played by him. This is in perfect accordance with his course heretofore, but it is needless to say that no one will be gulled by this new dodge of Mr. Staunton, as it will be duly exposed, we hope, by all chess-publishing papers.

  Fiske now published “A Card” on February 1, 1860:

  Staunton’s book was undoubtedly too far advanced in the press for any possible alterations, and the two games appear therein. Incidentally, Morphy mentions in his letter to Fuller that had he played Deacon he “would have given him the Pawn and Move at least.” Morphy may or may not have known that Lowenthal had given those same odds to Deacon successfully on June 2, 1857, and that the game was printed in the Era of London on August 2, 1857, for all to see, including, of course, Staunton. Yet Staunton was a staunch defender of Deacon and said that Morphy “condescend[ed] to depreciate” Deacon’s skill by suggesting odds (see Appendix, Staunton in Illustrated London News, March 31, 1860).

  The Chess Monthly for March had a short comment on the alleged Morphy–Deacon games:

  We are authorized to state that the games in question are forgeries, and that Mr. Morphy never played any games whatever with Mr. Deacon. Had he contended against that gentleman he would have given him Pawn and move at least, as public estimation does not rank him as a player as high as Mr. Owen, to whom Mr. Morphy successfully yielded these odds.

  Philadelphia’s Forney’s War Press of April 27, 1864, also spoke of the games:

  Immediately upon seeing these games Mr. Morphy pronounced them forgeries, asserting that he had never played at all with Deacon. He also stated that one of the games was shown to him in London by the French player, Dr. Riviere, as having been won by him from the Englishman; and in this Mr. Morphy was corroborated by M. De Riviere before his statement had reached Europe. Of course, it was now incumbent upon Mr. Deacon to prove his veracity, but he contented himself with simply affirming the authenticity of the games, in which he was supported in very bitter and abusive language by Mr.
Staunton, in the Illustrated London News [March 31, 1860].

  Fiske’s “Card” of February 1, 1860, given above, appeared in the New Orleans Delta of February 26, 1860. Mr. Deacon took notice of it in letters to the Illustrated London News of March 31, 1860 (see Appendix), and the Illustrated News of the World of March 24, 1860, but took no notice of Morphy’s statement that the Evans Gambit game was played by Rivière.

  There is no reason to believe that Staunton and Deacon acted in concert in any publication of forged games, but it is possible that once Deacon had submitted the games, Staunton willingly accepted and backed them, even though he may have had doubts concerning their authenticity. It is hardly to be considered that Deacon, known as a “game parader” in MacDonnell’s words, would have kept a successful encounter with Morphy a secret for several months, especially at a time (April 1859) when winning from Morphy on even terms would have meant great publicity and prestige.

  As it happened, Rivière had seen the Illustrated London News of December 17, 1859, before it reached America, and wrote Staunton that the Evans Gambit was one that he, not Morphy, had played with Deacon. Rivière’s recollection of the game was evidently good because he had discussed it with Morphy. On February 18, Staunton published a Rivière–Deacon game, which was identical with the one he had printed as the Morphy–Deacon game up to the ninth move. But Staunton added an opinion, which he said Rivière had offered as a possible explanation for the situation created by Deacon.

  Staunton never published Rivière’s letter, unfortunately, for he had a reputation of using his chess column arbitrarily, but he added the following note to the game, which might or might not have been in strict accordance with the intent of Rivière’s letter:

  Up to this point [ninth move] the moves are identical with a game between Mr. Morphy and Mr. Deacon, printed in our journal of Dec. 17th; and, indeed, M. de Riviere writes to us expressing an opinion that this identity in the opening has led Mr. Deacon into the error of confounding the games. Mr. de Riviere believes that the Evans Gambit in question, published on Dec. 17th, was really played betwixt him and Mr. Deacon, while the present game was that won by Mr. Morphy.

  Altogether, a very disagreeable controversy developed in the press, which had its effect on Morphy, who wanted no part in it. Again there was attack and the question of veracity. On April 22 the New Orleans Sunday Delta had the following:

  A delay has occurred lately in the forwarding of Mr. Morphy’s copy to the Ledger, owing to a painful indisposition of that gentleman from the effects of which he is, we are happy to say, almost entirely recovered.

  Mr. Deacon’s reply to Mr. Morphy’s letter, published in this paper, appears in the News of the World in March, and in the London News of the same date. It is evident that the clever English amateur did not anticipate so prompt and forcible a denunciation of his trick when he forwarded these spurious games to Mr. Staunton, for his reply to Mr. Morphy’s card is weak in the extreme; he does not even attempt to prove his assertion, but merely insists that Mr. Morphy is mistaken, and has forgotten, &c. The public would certainly be very glad to learn when these games were played, where they were played, in presence of whom and why. Mr. Morphy’s score with Mr. Deacon was not published, whilst that with every other player of note was regularly made known to the public by the weekly chess columns. It is to be hoped that in some future communication Mr.Deacon will throw some light on the subject; indeed he will be required to do so by Mr. Morphy.

  We have gathered the following facts from Mr. Morphy.

  1st. That he made Mr. Deacon’s acquaintance only two weeks before his departure.

  2nd. That he did not play with Mr. Deacon in any of the Chess Clubs of London, as their respective members will testify.

  3rd. That he once visited Mr. Mongredien in company with Messrs. Deacon, Sybrandt, De Riviere and Maude, but did not play there, except with Mr. Maude at Pawn and 2, as the gentlemen who were present will prove.

  4th. That he did not meet Mr. Deacon at chess at the British Hotel, where he (Mr. Morphy) resided during his sojourn in England, as Messrs. Sybrandt and De Riviere, who were constantly with him, will say.

  Where then were the games played? How comes it too, that one of the games purporting to have been played with Mr. Morphy is claimed by Mr. De Riviere as his own[?]

  Mr. Deacon indirectly replied to the above through his response to a request from the chess editor of the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, who had written to a friend in London rather than to Morphy for information:

  May 9, 1860 3 Hales Place

  South Lambeth

  Dear Sir:

  In answer to your letter of yesterday, I need hardly say how happy and thankful I am to give the particulars of my playing with Mr. Morphy; to bear out gentlemen who have so fairly, and to their honor, preferred believing in the fallibility of memory, rather than in loathsome—may I not say impossible—crime.

  On the night when Mr. Morphy played his blindfold game at the London Chess Club, Mr. Lowenthal and myself accompanied Mr. Morphy and his brother-in-law from the Club, as far as Charing Cross; on leaving them, both Mr. Morphy and his brother-in-law pressed me to call upon them at the “British Hotel.” This invitation was repeated a day or two afterwards at the St. James Chess Club, and on the following Monday I called upon them at that hotel. I was accompanied by my cousin, Col. Charles Deacon, and Mr. Morphy received us very courteously, and showed us a game he had played at Paris, and then played two games with me, the first of which he won, and lost the second.

  One of the waiters came in the room several times, and my cousin was present while Mr. Morphy played with me. Our visit was made at about half-past ten in the morning, and we left at about two o’clock. On the evening of that day, I took down the games, together with some others, although I only put Mr. Morphy’s name to the game I had won of him, and that game my cousin distinctly remembers, with some remarks which were made during and after the play. These games were played exactly as they were published in the London Illustrated News.

  Col. Deacon is now in Westmoreland, but I will write to him, by to-day’s post, and he will give you his corroboration of these circumstances.

  Regarding the affair, however, as in truth, only a question of memory, I do hope and trust that Mr. Morphy will be able and will soon make amends for the forgetfulness by a manly and honorable acknowledgement.

  May I add, dear sir, these details are to be used as you may think best, for I feel and know full well how unnecessary any information would be to satisfy your mind upon the subject.

  Believe me, sincerely yours,

  Fred. Deacon.

  In the above letter Deacon does give specifics, i.e., time, place, and a witness. But Morphy, on the other hand, names two, Sybrandt and Rivière, the latter an esteemed chess master, willing to testify that no chess games whatsoever took place at the British Hotel between Morphy and Deacon. It may well be, as Deacon says, that he “called [italics added] upon them [Morphy and Sybrandt] at that hotel.” In the Delta of April 22 it is stated that Morphy “did not meet Deacon at chess [playing] at the British Hotel.” But this does not rule out Steinitz’s explanation of what happened, which will be given later.

  Note that Deacon also says, “I only put Mr. Morphy’s name on the game I had won of him.” It seems very unlikely, even strange, that he would not have put Morphy’s name on both games he says he played with him. Of course he knew that in saying he had not put Morphy’s name on the Evans Gambit game that evening as he “took down the games” and made notes, it would lend plausibility to Rivière’s explanation of a possible mix-up, about which Deacon now knew and was undoubtedly glad to accept.

  The Chess Monthly of July 1860 printed Deacon’s letter of May 9, 1860, “without comment, to our readers, as sufficient time has not elapsed since its publication in this country to enable Mr. Morphy’s reply to reach us. His answer will appear in our August number.” But Morphy refused to reply, and there was no longer a Frederick Edge to ass
ure a forthright rebuttal. However, the Illustrated News of the World of September 1, 1860, quoted J. D. Sybrandt, Morphy’s brother-in-law, in defense of Morphy’s position:

  J. D. Sybrandt, Swedish and Norwegian Consul in New Orleans, and brother-in-law to Mr. Morphy, was with the latter during the whole of his second sojourn in London . . . Mr.W. J. A. Fuller authorizes us to state that Mr. Sybrandt used the following language in speaking of the Deacon affair to him: “I was with Morphy constantly, went with him everywhere, and I would swear that he did not play a game with Deacon!” To Mr.D. W. Fiske he said, “I was at Morphy’s elbow continually, and I know that he played no games with Deacon.”

  The following reasons, noted in Forney’s War Press of April 27, 1864, were also offered as proof of the inauthenticity of the Morphy–Deacon games:

  1st. The lapse of time between Mr. Morphy’s departure from England and the publication of the games, eight months were suffered to pass, that the memory of Mr. Morphy and his friends might become indistinct.

  2d. Mr. Morphy’s score was repeatedly published in England, but contained no mention of any games with Deacon, yet the latter never opened his lips to say that it was incorrect, as, if he were honest, he ought to have done.

  3d. He did not contribute the contests to Lowenthal’s edition of Morphy’s games, a work published under Mr. Morphy’s superintendence; this looks very much as if he knew that Morphy would deny them.

  4th. The mistake before noticed about the De Riviere game, which was never satisfactorily explained.

  5th. The game asserted to have been won by Deacon is very inferior to Mr. Morphy’s usual style of play.

  As for Rivière, neither Staunton nor Deacon ever challenged Morphy’s call upon Rivière as his witness that Deacon never played a game with Morphy at the British Hotel.