Copyright © 1993, 2004 by Macon Shibut All rights reserved.

Bibliographical Note

This Dover edition, first published in 2004, is an unabridged republication of the work originally published in 1993 by Caissa Editions, Yorklyn, Delaware. An addendum to this book, printed by the original publisher, has been included in this edition. A list of errata has been specially prepared for this edition by the author.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Shibut, Macon.

Paul Morphy and the evolution of chess theory / Macon Shibut. p. cm.

Includes indexes.

9780486149875

1. Morphy, Paul Charles, 1837-1884. 2. Chess—Collections of games. I. Title.

GV1439.M7S45 2004

2003070112

Manufactured in the United States of America
Dover Publications, Inc., 31 East 2nd Street, Mineola, N.Y 11501

Matthew Brady photo, New York, 1859

Introduction

“Paul Morphy needs little introduction.” This opening sentence from the Batsford reprint of Lowenthal’s classic Morphy’s Games of Chess fairly reflects a popular modem attitude. Morphy was, after all, the most famous chess player ever. Certainly the outline of his story is familiar to all chess players: The Pride and Sorrow of Chess; the great natural player who came from nowhere to conquer his countrymen and later to vanquish the greatest masters of Europe. Too soon afterwards he withdrew from competition, failed as a lawyer, failed in private life generally suffered delusions, died young. But we celebrate the queen sacrifice by which Morphy pried open Louis Paulsen’s king position. We remember how he sacrificed practically everything to mate the Duke of Brunswick, between acts at a Paris opera. What more is there to know?

Indeed I thought I needed no introduction to Paul Morphy. But when I finally got around to a more comprehensive study of his play, I was surprised to discover how many of the games that I had not been shown previously were, in their own manner, more interesting than the usual anthology pieces. Morphy’s brilliancies, for all their beauty and instructional value, lack something in the way of drama and struggle. They’re just a bit too elegant, too fine. It’s hard to imagine them as games actually played in the atmosphere of hope and fear that animates over-the-board chess. On the other hand, if the “unknown” Morphy games lack that glittering final combination needed to ensure their immortality, it’s all the more fascinating to see Morphy’s familiar combinative vision straining against the rich uncertainty of practical play.

I offer this book as a guide through Paul Morphy’s chess - not the “greatest games” tourist route, but also the back streets where real struggles were decided. (Which is not to say we won’t glimpse some historical landmarks too!) Part I reflects upon some popular preconceptions and prejudices concerning “the pride and sorrow of chess,” where they came from, and the very different impressions that can arise from examining Paul Morphy’s games first hand. Part II presents every available Morphy game, collected together in an English language volume for the first time. (Throughout the book, braces {} indicate a reference to a game score from Part II.) Finally, for added historical perspective, Part III makes available some thoughts on Paul Morphy by two of chess’s greatest champions, Wilhelm Steinitz and Alexander Alekhine.

I am indebted to Dale Brandreth for access to this latter material and the various illustrations, all of which appear with his permission. More generally, I am indebted to many analysts and authors whose work I consulted. Most are acknowledged in the text when I quote a particular variation or evaluation. Three sources deserve special mention here, each of them having been essential to the creation of Paul Morphy and the Evolution of Chess Theory. If this volume is found to contribute materially to the body of Morphy literature, that will be largely thanks to the foundation they provided:

Morphy’s Games of Chess. By J. J. Lowenthal. London, 1860.
Paul Morphy. By Geza Maroczy. Leipzig,1909.
Morphy’s Games of Chess. By Philip W. Sergeant. 3rd ed., London, 1919.

My trusty Olms reprint of Maroczy’s book is the source for the bulk of Part II’s game scores. However, I also incorporated many corrections and additions that have surfaced during the eighty-plus years since Maroczy first published. I found these mainly in books by Philip Sergeant, David Lawson, and some scattered magazine articles by Andrew Soltis (in which he too acknowledges Lawson as a source).

Macon Shibut
December, 1992

PART I - Analysis

1

Paul Morphy and the Play of Our Time

Paul Morphy’s masterpieces are ubiquitous in chess literature. Couple that with the brevity of his career, and it’s easy for students to imagine they already know every Morphy game. In truth, most chess players probably have seen only a few dozen - but these they’ve seen a hundred times apiece.

Too often a champion’s legacy derives from a minuscule, unrepresentative sample of his total product. In Morphy’s case especially, the public has been conditioned to believe his games were all brilliancies and none of his contemporaries could make him break a sweat. This impression began to arise even while Morphy was still active. It was well-established by the time he died in 1884, at just forty-seven years of age. One year later, Wilhelm Steinitz attempted to impart some perspective on the Morphy Myth with his essay, “Paul Morphy and the Play of His Time.” Writing in his International Chess Magazine, Steinitzargued that,

By mixing up Morphy’s blindfold, off-hand, and odds games with those of his serious encounters against strong masters, popular prejudice has [wrongly] credited Morphy with the faculty of creating positions against his strongest opponents, in which brilliant sacrifices formed a distinct feature...

But a popular prejudice, once entrenched, is not easily displaced. Steinitz’s essay attracted notice and controversy in its day, but few modem players have had an opportunity to read it. Meanwhile, everyone has seen Morphy’s famous game with the Duke of Brunswick! Thus a handful of Morphy’s light workouts, against mostly weak amateurs, have come to be esteemed as the standard of 19th century “master” chess.

There are over four hundred recorded Morphy games. In setting out to explore them, a modem player will want to treat each move and each position with an open mind, to “play the board, not the man.” In this regard, analysis of older games demands a special psychological discipline. The truth is that we do possess hindsight knowledge, not only regarding a particular game, but the players’ whole careers and the age in which they played. Like it or not, this knowledge tends to intrude into the domain of “objective” analysis.

For example, old fashioned openings invoke a prejudice in modem players. The resulting middlegame structures look unsophisticated, and it becomes all too easy to substitute historical perspective (“he played thus because they didn’t understand pawn weaknesses back then...”) for hard analysis.

Knowing the outcome of a game can likewise distort our assessment of its individual moves. The loser’s mistakes will be mechanically identified and condemned; the winner’s exploitation will be accepted uncritically. This danger exists even when dealing with modem games. The tendency is exacerbated with a game from another era, all the more so if a near-mythical figure like Morphy is involved. Annotators who want to educate or entertain are not interested in tearing apart an instructive Morphy combination. Rather, they want to find characteristic errors in the opponents’ play, and they want the hero’s consequent victory to seem a matter of course (and the more elegantly achieved, the better).

The effect of such presentations in countless beginner’s texts has been to reduce Morphy’s games to a collection of fables. Their moral is understood to be something about developing pieces, or the evils of chasing pawns in the opening. Whatever the pedagogical value of such portrayals, the games, so presented, can’t help but appear shallow compared to modem grandmaster warfare.

The contrast between black-and-white morality plays of the 19th century, and the rich ambiguity of modem chess, is often ascribed to evolution in strategic understanding. Even back in 1885, Steinitz emphasized that, “it would be misleading if we were to represent Morphy’s play as a model for our time, when, as a matter of fact, the game has made progress since his period in all directions.” While there can be no denying the effect of this progress, it doesn’t follow that modem play should seem more complex in a subjective sense. The impression that Morphy played a somehow simpler variety of chess has more to do with the fact that his games are rarely subjected to serious analysis nowadays, and their appearance in the literature is mainly limited to primers. On the other hand, there are many Morphy games that haven’t been embraced by anthology editors and textbook writers precisely due to the difficulty and obscurity of the play, which renders them unsuitable for such books. Even some of Morphy’s better-known efforts don’t seem so cut-and-dried once subjected to the sort of probing investigation that is popular today.

Morphy - de Riviere Paris 1863

1. | e4 | e5
2. | Nf3 | Nc6
3. | Bb5 | Nf6
4. | 0-0 | d6
5. | d4 | ed4
6. | Nd4 | Bd7
7. | Bc6 | bc6
8. | Nc3 | Be7

Position after 8...Be7

9.
h3

A move indicative of the era in which it was played. In his Morphy’s Games of Chess, Philip Sergeant cheekily observed how, “in nothing was Morphy so fortunate as the frequency with which his opponents played P-R3.” But Morphy himself was more apt to play this move than would be a modern master. So we have here a concrete example of evolution in strategic understanding; today, beginners are warned against such “wastes of tempo.” But as we shall see, such “inaccuracies” don’t render the ensuing play transparent. Moreover, it’s one thing to criticize on the strength of theory and general principles, and quite another to assess the merits of a particular move in a specific position. So here, how much better are the “modern” alternatives to Morphy’s 9th move? A modem grandmaster might consider 9. Qf3 0-0 10. e5?!

Position after 10. e5 (analysis)

But then 10...Ng4! 11. Nc6 Ne5 12. Ne5 de5 13. Rd1 Qc8 14. Qe2 f6 15. Be3 Be6 gave Black a good position in Tal-Böök, Stockholm 1961. Incidentally this variation even reveals some purpose behind Morphy’s choice! 10. Re1 (instead of 10. e5) would have been more patient, but then Black could play either 10...Rb8 or 10...Re8 to get an acceptable game.

9. b3 introduces another possible plan that might appeal to modem tastes.

Position after 9. b3 (analysis)

9...0-0 10. Bb2 Re8 11. Re1 Bf8 12. Qd3 g6 13. Rad1 Bg7 is a plausible continuation. Other moves are possible of course, but we can say this for Black’s position: It looks no worse than what he might get from some topical Lopez defense.

Opening manuals condemn the Steinitz Defense as “cramped,” “lifeless,” etc. But most of the great champions found a place for it in their repertoires at one time or another.

9. | ... | c5
10. | Nde2 | 0-0
11. | f4 | Bc6

12. | Ng3 | Nd7
13. | Qd3 | Rb8
14. | b3 | Bf6

Position after 14...Bf6

15.
Bd2
Bd4

Black’s bishop is soon repulsed with tempo. The immediate 15...g6 Bg7 was a sensible alternative.

16. | Kh1 | g6
17. | Rae1 | Qh4
18. | Nce2 | Bg7
19. | c4 | Nf6

By 19...f5! Black could apply meaningful pressure against the center, the tactical justification being 20. e5? Qh3. But the text move is fine also, a fact that has been obscured by those annotators who were already looking for the seed of Black’s defeat!

20. | Nc3 | Bd7
21. | Nge2 | Nh5
22. | Kh2 | f5
23. | e5 | Bc6
24. | g3 | Qd8

Position after 24...Qd8

25.
e6!?

Because the pawn may be lost eventually, this decision of Morphy’s has been portrayed as a dynamic, risk-loving enterprise. Actually, there was little choice since the only alternative, 25. ed6 cd6, gives Black an easy game.

25. | ... | Re8
26. | Ng1?! |

Inaccurate. White should play 26. Nd5!

Position after 26. Nd5 (analysis)

The tactical point is 26...Re6? 27. Nd4! Re1 28. Nc6, favoring White. If instead 26...Qc8 White could transpose to the game by 27. Ng1 or try to improve by 27. Nec3!? In any event, he avoids the possibility in the next note.

26.
...
Qc8?

26...Bc3 27. Bc3 was not good either. For instance, in Morphy’s Chess Masterpieces, Reinfeld and Soltis show that both 26...Ng7 28. e7! Qd7 (or 28...Re7 29. Bf6 Re2 30. Qe2 Qf6 31. Qe7) 29. Bf6; and 27...Be4 28. Re4 fe4 29. Qe4 Nf6 (29...Ng7 30. Qd5!) 30. Qe3 Qe7 31. f5! are unappealing for Black. However, 26...Nf6! Ne4 surrounding White’s pawn, would have secured a plus.

Position after 26...Nf6 (analysis)

White can’t reply 27. Nd5 as 27...Nd5 28. cd5 Bb5 wins the exchange. The protected passed pawn would offer no real compensation because Black can dissolve the center with ...c6 whenever he feels ready.

27.
Nd5!

White’s point is 27...Re6? 28. Ne7 etc.

27. | ... | Nf6
28. | Bc3! |

Opposing on the long diagonal takes the sting out of both ...Nd5 (see the game) and ...Ne4 (see the next note).

28.
...
Nd5

The complications would favor White after 28...Ne4?! 29. Bg7 Kg7 30. Re4! For example:

Position after 30. Re4 (analysis)

30...fe4? 31. Qc3 Kh6 (if 31...Kg8 32. Nf6 Kf8 33. Nh7! Kg8 34. Nf6 Kf8 35. Nd7! Bd7 (or 35...Kg8 36. Qf6) 36. Qf6 Kg8 37. Qg6 Kh8 38. Qf6 Kh7 39. Qf7 Kh8 (39...Kh6 40. g4!) 40. ed7) 32. Nf6 (32. f5 looks good too) Re6 33. Ng4 Kh5 34. Qg7, White wins.

30...Bd5 31. Qc3! Now if 31...Kg8 32. cd5 fe4 33. f5 f6-f7; while if instead 31...Kh6 32. cd5 fe4 33. f5 f6 and Qe3 White’s attack is irresistible.

29.
Bg7
Nf4

It was natural that de Riviere preferred not to allow cd5, reconnecting the pawn on e6. But neither the text nor 29...Nb4 30. Qc3 was fully satisfactory for him. 29...Kg7! was best after all, and on 30. cd5 Bb5 31. Qc3 Kg8 32. Rf3, Black could undermine the pawn chain by 32...c6.

30. | Rf4 | Kg7
31. | Qc3 | Kg8
32. | e7 | Qa6?!

Here also Black should have cut off the pawn by 32...Be4. Then 33. Ree4 fe4 34. Qf6 Qd7 35. Qf7 Kh8 36. Rh4 looks menacing but 36...h5! proves to be a surprisingly tough defense. If 37. Qg6 Re7. Or if 37. Re4 (“winning without much trouble” according to Reinfeld and Soltis) Qf5! White has no obvious win.

Position after 32...Qa6

33. | Re2 | Kf7
34. | g4? |

Morphy elects to dissolve the kingside. But Black can evacuate the danger zone, and White winds up exposing his own king. 34. Qe3! was much stronger. For example, 34...Bd7 35. Nf3 h6 36. Rh4, etc.

34. | ... | Re7
35. | Re7 | Ke7
36. | Qg7 | Kd8
37. | Qg8 | Kd7!
38. | Qh7 |

Perhaps 38. Qb8? was Morphy’s original plan, but it would have backfired after 38...Qa2 39. Kg3 g5! So White must surrender the initiative.

38. | ... | Kc8
39. | Rf2 | fg4
40. | hg4 | Be4?

Instead of defending g6, Black should organize for counterattack by 40...Kb7! 41. Qg6 Rh8, aiming to cause trouble by Q-a5-e1. Black’s pieces coordinate well, his king is safe, and White’s king situation is very awkward. For example, 42. Nh3 (42. Kg3 Qa5 Qe1 doesn’t seem any safer) Qa5 43. Qg7 Re8 with all variety of unpleasant threats (Qe1; Re1; Re3).

41.
Qe7
Qc6?

Here de Riviere merely compounds his difficulties by making his queen passive, whereas from a6 her threat to take a2 or worm in on the dark squares (Q-a5-e1/c3) was irritating to White. It would have been preferable to unashamedly retract his previous move by 41...Bc6!

42.
Re2
d5?

Very poor, leaving the Black king at least as exposed as Morphy’s, not to mention weakening the queenside pawns. 42...Bb1 was still a fight, at least.

43. | cd5 | Bd5
44. | Nh3 | Kb7
45. | Nf4 | Rh8
46. | Kg3 | Bh1
47. | Re3 | g5

Finally, de Riviere jettisons his g-pawn in the hope of exposing Morphy’s king. But the prospects for such a sacrifice are much worse than they would have been at move 40!

48.
Qg5
Qa6

Maybe 48...Qh6 was a little better, although to immediately trade queens would be no endorsement of Black’s pawn sacrifice.

49. | Qc5 | Qa2
50. | Qb5 | Ka8
51. | Re8 | Re8
52. | Qe8 | Kb7
53. | Qb5 | Kc8

Position after 53...Kc8

54.
g5
c6?

It takes a lot of mistakes to lose a chess game! Black should maneuver his queen, beginning 54...Qa1 or 54...Qd2. The text wastes time, as White can just reposition his queen with check and continue pushing the g-pawn.

55. | Qf5 | Kb7
56. | Qf7 | Kb6
57. | g6 | Qd2
58. | g7 |

Now the knight does a capital job shielding the White king.

| 58... | Qe1
59. | Kg4 | Qg1
60. | Kf5 | Qc5
61. | Kf6 | Qd4
62. | Ke7 | Qc5
63. | Kd7 | Qd4

Position after 63...Qd4

64.
Kc8
1-0

So Morphy wins, as he usually did, but the analysis reveals that it was no walk in the park. On the contrary, both sides had chances, and there is little evidence of Morphy coasting on a “technique not equaled until the 1870s,” to quote The Oxford Companion to Chess. Even some seemingly powerful moves (e.g. 24. g4 - “Breaks up the king’s side pawns, to start the final attack,” in the judgment of Chernev) appear to be not the best, upon closer scrutiny. Still, Morphy won.

The overall structure of this game was not unlike something that could arise from a modem opening system. Other examples look more dated in this respect.; but they too have aged well as absorbing, intense struggles. Moreover, some of these contests can help us to place the question of Morphy’s “brilliance” in proper context. In some old issues of Shakmatny Vestnik (“Chess Bulletin”), Alexander Alekhine discussed the fallacy, as he considered it, of “seeing the center of gravity of Morphy’s game in its beauty.” Alekhine wrote:

Yes, Morphy sometimes played “beautifully” (if by this you mean the creation of cheap effects like sacrificing the queen with the calculation of two or three moves, etc.), but for the most part he succeeded in doing this only against opponents having a very remote idea of the necessity for a normal development of the pieces, and in general rather weak in consideration. When he encountered players of his own class, he no longer achieved victories with these rattles.

But victories he did still achieve, and when victory was not possible, he often snatched half a point even from desperate-looking positions. He collected his points thanks not so much to his “brilliance” but, rather, the fact that at moments of crisis, he was a tougher infighter than any of his rivals.

Again quoting Alekhine:

In the sixties and seventies of the last century in London, and principally in Paris where the traditions of Philidor were alive, where the immortal works of Labourdonnais and McDonnell were still remembered, at the time, finally when Anderssen was living - beauty alone could scarcely have astonished anyone. Strength, Morphy’s unconquerable strength - that is the reason for his success and the guarantee of his immortality. And that the essence of that strength consists of the fact that Morphy always played positionally goes without saying, in the broad sense of the word ... That is, he clearly pictured to himself in each separate instance just what the given position required, and adopted himself to these requirements.

We examine the following game with these remarks in mind. The opponent, Lowenthal, was among the world’s leading masters, i.e. a reasonable claimant to membership in Morphy’s “own class.” Still, he was not Paul Morphy, and modern students may reflexively give benefitof the doubt to White’s (Morphy’s) moves, while always dropping the burden of proof onto the poor underdog. Prejudged this way Morphy’s sacrificial attack might easily be interpreted as “typically” brilliant and daring. But a sober analysis reveals a different state of affairs. The introductory phase of the attack is, in fact, positionally incorrect, so that Morphy soon found himself in grave danger. But he appraised this situation correctly and recognized that extreme risks were justified, indeed there was hardly anything left to lose. In this light, the sacrificial phase that followed is revealed to be a desperate scrapping for chances, during which Morphy’s true strength showed itself and the lost game was saved.

Morphy - Lowenthal London 1859

1. | e4 | e5
2. | Nf3 | Nc6
3. | Bc4 | Bc5
4. | b4 |

More about this later!

4. | ... | Bb4
5. | c3 | Bc5
6. | 0-0 | d6
7. | d4 | ed4
8. | cd4 | Bb6

While it may not be so familiar to modern players, this “Normal Position” of the Evans Gambit was a staple in the repertoire of nearly every 19th century master, including Paul Morphy. The two main continuations are 9. d5, associated with Anderssen, and 9. Nc3, associated with Morphy and praised by Reti as positionally more astute. In fact, Morphy was equally fond of both moves.

Position after 9...Nce7

One of Morphy’s more celebrated attacks, also versus Lowenthal in 1859, illustrates the problem with the natural-looking 9...Ne5. The continuation was 10. Ne5 de5 11. Bb2 (11. Ba3! is even stronger.) Qe7? (Now Black’s game becomes critical, as White recovers material and keeps his initiative. 11...f6 12. Kh1 f4 was better, but even this is promising for White.) 12. Bb5 Bd7 13. Bd7 Kd7 14. Qg4 f5 (Unfortunate, but both 14...Ke8? 15. Qg7 Qf6 16. Be5; and 14...Kd6? 15. Nd2 Nc4 would be disastrous.) 15. Qf5 Ke8 16. Be5 Nh6 17. Qf4 Kd7 (Setting a trap. Now 18. Nc3? unexpectedly drops the bishop to 18...RaeB) 18. Nd2 Rae8 19. Nc4 Bc5 20. Rad1 Bd6 21. Bd6 cd6 22. Rb1 b6 23. Rfc1 ( 24. Rb6! ab6 25. Nb6 Kd8 26. Rc8#) Qf6 24. Qe3 Ng4 25. Nb6! ab6 26. Rc7! Kd8 (26...Kc7 27. Qb6 Kd7 28. Qa7 Kd8 29. Rb8#) 27. Qb6 Qf2 28. Qf2 Nf2 29. Ra7 Nh3 30. gh3 Kc8 31. Kf2 1-0.

Position after 24...Ng4 (Morphy-Lowenthal sub-game)

If instead 9...Na5, the game might continue 10. Bb2 Ne7 11. Bd3 0-0 12. Nc3 with mutual chances. In fact, this is theory’s preference. But the text (9...Nce7) is equally playable.

10.
e5?!

The “book” move, both today and in 1859 as well. But many of these old variations have hardly been reexamined since Morphy’s time. 10. e5 risks overextending the White position. 10. Bb2 would better serve the purpose of building towards a long term initiative.

10.
...
Ng6

Play the Evans Gambit by Cafferty and Harding credits Steinitz with inventing this defense in 1862. But several of Morphy’s opponents used the move prior to that.

11. | e6 | fe6
12. | de6 | N8e7
13. | Ng5?! |

Straightforward development by 13. Nc3 was more advisable. In fact, Morphy himself played that move and won quickly after 13...c6? (13...0-0 is better) 14. Ng5 Ne5 15. Bf4! g6 (if 15...Nc4 16. Nf7 Qc7 17. Bd6 Nd6 18. Nd6 Kf8 19. Qf3) 16. Nf7 in Morphy-Kennedy, London 1859. {274}

Nonetheless, it is a fact that Morphy used the text move more than once. Another example went 13. Ng5 0-0 14. Qh5 h6 15. Nf7 Rf7 16. ef7 Kh7 (Morphy - de Riviere, Paris 1859).

Position after 16...Kh7 (Morphy-de Riviere)

In this position Sergeant recommended 17. Bg5 Qf8 18. Nd2. Morphy actually played 17. Bd3 and eventually lost. {251}

These games with 13. Ng5 provide another illustration of the selective criticism applied to Morphy’s chess. Because Morphy didn’t win either game, the anthologies have not featured these 13. Ng5 trials. On the other hand, a game that did indeed become famous is Meek-Morphy Mobile 1855, which began 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cd4 4. Bc4 Bc5. At this point Meek tried 5. Ng5, prompting Richard Reti to comment in his book Modern Ideas in Chess, “Morphy would certainly never have made this move, an attacking one instead of a developing one.” This remark came as part of a broader explanation of Reti’s theory that Morphy was the author of a novel, development-oriented style. Reti drives his point home by showing the instructive difference between the inferior reply 5...Ne5? (tempting because it attacks the bishop, but itself a non-developing move that justifies White’s premature attack) 6. Bf7 Nf7 7. Nf7 Kf7 8. Qh5 g6 9. Qc5 ±, and the superior, developing defense that Morphy actually chose: 5...Nh6! 6. Bf7 Nf7 7. Nf Kf7 8. Qh5 g6 9. Qc5 d6 . {96}

All very nice; but then we come back to these other games where Morphy did in fact play 13. Ng5. True, the position was not exactly the same as in Meek-Morphy, but close enough to embarrass Reti’s flat claim that Morphy would “never” play such a move.

Position after 13. Ng5

13. | ... | 0-0
14. | Qh5 | h6
15. | Nf7 |

The combinative 15. Qg6? 15...Ng6 16. e7 d5 17. ed8(Q) Rd8 18. Rd1 overlooks 18...c6!, putting White with two units en prise.

15. | ... | Qe8
16. | Bb2 |

If 16. Bh6 gh6 17. Qh6 (or 17. Nh6 Kg7) Bd4! is too strong. The text threatens Nh6.

16.
...
d5!

This strong move turns the tables. White can’t afford 17. Bd3 Be6. But 17. Bd5? Qb5, forking the bishops, would be even worse. The effect of White’s 10th and 13th moves has come to light, and Morphy must resort to the tactics of obfuscation. Therefore...

17.
Bg7!

Not necessarily “brilliant,” just the best practical chance!

17.
...
Rf7?!

Later, Lowenthal. determined that 17...Be6! was stronger. After 18. Bf8 Qf8 19. Nh6 Kg7 20. Bd3 Qf6! he’d be threatening 21...Qa1; 21...Rh8; and 21...Nf4. Morphy might have stirred up something, but Black is surely on top.

18. | ef7 | Qf7
19. | Bb2 | dc4

Position after 19...dc4

Compared against the variation in the previous note, White retains his menacing dark square bishop. That improves his chances, but Black still has a material advantage. White must show why he’s not simply losing.

20.
Nd2
Bf5

It’s hard to blame Lowenthal for this and his next move, developing as quickly as possible. Nevertheless, 20...Qf4! would have been better. In this way Black could prepare to develop his bishop more aggressively (if now 21. Nf3 Bg4 etc.), make a threat (...Qd2), and protect the c4 and h6 pawns. Quite a lot for one move! White has nothing better than 21. Rae1 Qg5! 22. Qg5 (22. Qf3 Nh4) hg5 23. Bf6 (23. Ne4 and 23. Nc4 are alternatives, but not encouraging) Kf7 24. Bg5, which favors Black.

21.
Rae1
Rd8

21...Bd3 deserves attention, especially since the reply 22. Ne4?! Be4 23. Re4 Kh7 is not convincing. But White could play 22. Qh6 Bf1 23. Ne4 (23. Nf3? Re7 fails against 23...Bd3, reinforcing Ng6; and of course not 23. Re7? Qf2 and mate next) Nd5 24. Rf1, threatening Ng5. This would give White enduring pressure, e.g. 24...Qh7 25. Qg5 c6 26. h4 etc.

22. | Nf3 | Bd3
23. | Qh6 |

Now Ng5 is threatened.

23.
...
Qh7

If 23...Bf1, Maroczy analyzed a remarkable drawing variation: 24. Re7! Qe7 25. Qg6 Kf8 26. Ng5! 26...Bf2! 27. Kh1 Rd1 28. Bg7! Qg7! 29. Ne6 Ke7 30. Qg7 Kd6 (30...Ke6 31. Qg4 picks off the rook) 31. Qf8 Ke6 32. Qe8 with perpetual check.

Position after 26. Ng5 (analysis)

Attempts at strengthening White’s attack fail. For instance, 26. Bf6?! looks interesting at first glance, but Black can advantageously play 26...Bf2 27. Kh1 Qf7! 28. Qh6 Ke8 29. Ne5 Bg2! 30. Kg2 Qd5 31. Kf2? (31. Kh3! looks like a draw: 31...Qe6 32. Kg2 etc.) Qd2 32. Qd2 Rd2.

24.
Qg5

A critical juncture. It seems like there ought to be some way to cement Black’s defenses, since White is still a bit short on direct threats. But the basic difficulty - lack of pawn cover for Black’s king - never disappears, and the attacker has the luxury of creeping in gradually. Even without direct threats, proliferous “threats to threaten” may eventually swamp the defense.

In any case, 24...Bf1?! isn’t good. Black already has a material plus, and the Rf1 can’t go anywhere, so it doesn’t make sense to exchange the crucial defender Bd3. Thus 25. Re7 Qe7 26. Qg6 leads to the draw examined above, and White might even try for more by 25. Kf1?!, threatening Re7 and also brandishing such ideas as Bf6; or Re6; or Ne5 with the twin threats Ng4 and Q-g4-e6.

24...c6!? is more interesting.

Position after 24...c6 (analysis)

By defending d5, Black prepares to play ...Rd5 with better results than he achieved in the actual game. Moreover, 24...c6 permits Black’s bishop to defend his rook, unpinning the sensitive Ne7. Nonetheless, White retains a confusing array of attacking possibilities. 25. Bf6 (other ideas include 25. Qg4 Ng5 and Qe6, which might lead to 25...Bc7 26. Ne5 Be5 27. Re5; and 25. Re6!?, when 25...Rd5 26. Ne5 Bd8!? might defend) Rd7 (Here 25...Rd5 26. Qg4 adds Ng5 to White’s arsenal. If then 26...Bf5 27. Qc4) 26. Ne5 Bc7 27. f4 Be5 28. Re5 Bf1 (28...Kf7!?) 29. Be7 Re7 30. Re7 Qe7 31. Qg6. This messy variation should result in a draw.

24...Rf8! is the best of all. If 25. Bf6 Rf6 26. Qf6 Qf7 looks solid. Or, if 25. Ne5 Rf5 defends. Otherwise Black is always threatening to disrupt White with the exchange sacrifice on f3.

Whatever the value of these more or less promising defenses, we can appreciate the practical difficulties confronting Lowenthal, who had to make the tough choice over the board. Considering White’s plainly dubious situation a few moves earlier, that was an accomplishment on Morphy’s part! The move Lowenthal. finally selected was quite natural, but it initiates a sharp, forcing sequence that ultimately resolves into an equal ending.

Position after 24. Qg5

24. | ... | Rd5?!
25. | Re7 |

This tactic became “on” after Black’s rook went to d5, relying on the defense of Ne7.

25. | ... | Rg5
26. | Rh7 | Rg2
27. | Kg2 | Bf1
28. | Kf1 | Kh7

Position after 28...Kh7

Much blood has been spilled, but even now the combination isn’t over. White recovers the pawn by force.

29. | Nd2 | Bc5
30. | Nc4 | b5
31. | Ne5 | Ne5
32. | Be5 | Bd6
33. | Bd4 |

Of course not 33. f4? Be5 34. fe5 Kg6 35. h4 Kf5 winning. But 33. Bd6 would be a tougher call. Sergeant dismissed this with no analysis, merely a claim that it “also leads to a draw.” But after the likely 33...cd6 34. Ke2 a5 35. Kd3 a4! White is losing.

Position after 35...a4 (analysis)

For example:

36. Kc3 d5 37. h4 (37. a3, now or on any of the next several moves, will lead to something akin to a variation that’s given below. Meanwhile, White can never go 37. Kb4? d4 etc. It will become clear that White’s king is already sitting on the only acceptable square. It remains for Black to immobilize the kingside pawns - he doesn’t have to directly threaten them - and White will be in zugzwang.) 37...Kg6 38. f4 Kf6 39. h5 Kf5

Position after 39...Kf5 (analysis)

Although the kingside pawns defend one another, they’ve run out of safe moves. White must upset the delicate queenside balance. The only question is whether or not he wants to play a3. 40. a3 (If 40. Kd4 the breakthrough takes a different form: 40...b4 41. Kd3 a3! (but not 41...b3? 42. a3! d4 43. Kd2 Kf6 44. Kd3 =) 42. Kc2 d4 43. Kb3 d3 etc.) 40...Kf6 (still zugzwang) 41. Kd4 b4 42. ab4 a3 43. Kc3 d4 44. Kc2 (or 44. Kb3 d3) a2 45. Kb2 d3 Black wins.

36. Kd4 b4. The noteworthy difference between this and the analogous variation above is that the d-pawn is a square farther back and White has Kc4 available. Nonetheless, 37. Kc4 (37. Kd3 d5! a3-+ as above; not 37...b3? 38. a3! =) b3 38. ab3 a3 39. Kc3 d5 is winning for Black, e.g. 40. b4 d4 41. Kb3 d3 42. b5 d2 43. Kc2 a2.

36. a3 d5 37. Kc3 (by now 37. Kd4 b4 etc. needs no elaboration) Kg6 38. f3 Kf5 39. h3 (39. h4 Kf4 is likewise zugzwang) Kg5 40. Kd4 b4 41. ab4 a3 42. Kc3 d4 etc.

Position after 38...Kf5 (analysis)

Position after 33. Bd4

33. | ... | c5
34. | Be3 | a5
35. | Ke2 |

Fracturing Black’s pawns by 35. a4? doesn’t achieve the desired result, but the variations are interesting: 35...ba4 36. Bc1 (or equivalently 36. Ke2 a3 37. Bc1 c4) c4 37. Ke2 a3 38. Kd2! (The best try. 38. Kd1 c3 39. Kc2 a2 wins straight away.)

Position after 38...Kd2 (analysis)

Now 38...a2 39. Bb2 c3? 40. Kc3 (40. Bc3? Bb4 promoting) a1(Q) 41. Ba1 Be5 42. Kb3 Ba1 43. Ka4 Bc3 doesn’t work. Even though Black retains the “right color” bishop and rook’s pawn combination, after 44. f3 Kg6 45. h3 White’s pawns again safeguard one another from attack by the king. If Black captures either of them, or if he plays his king towards the queenside, White can use his remaining pawn to deflect the bishop from its defense of a5.

The correct way is 38...Bf4 39. Kc2 Bc1 40. Kc1 c3 ( a2) 41. Kb1 Kg6. The extra material is of no consequence, but the fact that Black’s pawns are far advanced proves decisive: 42. h3 Kf5 43. f3 Kg5 zugzwang.

(For the record, Black can also win by 38...a2 39. Bb2 Bh2! (instead of 39...c3? above) but it’s trickier: 40. Ke3! (40. Kc2 a4 41. Bc3 a3 followed by maneuvering the bishop onto the long diagonal - Black wins) Bd6! 41. Kd4 Bf8 42. Kc4 Bg7 43. Kb3 a1(Q) 44. Ba1 Ba1 45. Ka4 Bc3 etc.)

35. | ... | a4
36. | Kd3 | a3
37. | Bc1! |

It’s not essential that White play this immediately, but it’s most direct for him to do so. Black’s dangerous breakthrough possibilities would win were it not for the saving resource revealed in Morphy’s 40th move.

37. | ... | Kg6
38. | Ke4 | c4
39. | f4 | b4
40. | Ba3! | ba3
41. | Kd4 | Bf4
42. | Kc4 | Bh2
43. | Kb3 | Bd6
44. | Kc2 |

Position after 44. Kc2

A useful theoretical position. Again the rook’s pawn does Black no good, as he can never conquer a2 against correct defense.

draw

Richard Reti was one of the most influential shapers of the Morphy legacy. Reti loved the idea of chess as a self-justified intellectual endeavor, alongside the arts and sciences. He was particularly interested in the evolution of chess strategy, which he recognized as having passed through a series of movements or “schools” (e.g. romantic, hypermodern, etc.), much like developments in painting, architecture, music etc. Pursuing this idea, Reti sought to document the historical origin of specific chess ideas. His investigation of Morphy took place in the context of these broader explorations, and Reti’s work became the foundation for most subsequent accounts of the history of chess thought. In particular, our modern understanding of Morphy’s style derives from what Reti wrote in Modern Ideas in Chess and Masters of the Chessboard. Contemporary analysts embrace the historical model advanced by Reti, especially where Morphy’s supposed contributions to theory are concerned.

Reti decided that Morphy’s “secret” lay in a breakthrough appreciation for rapid development in the open game. The following passage from Modern Ideas in Chess, in which he discusses the Normal Position of the Evans Gambit (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. d4 ed4 7. 0-0 d6 8 cd4 Bb6) typifies Reti’s Morphy commentary:

Position after 8...Bb6

Before Morphy’s time, as the principle of development was not yet known, if a player had no opportunity for a combination he made either an attacking or a defensive move. Therefore ... either 9. d5 or 9. Qb3 or even the purely defensive move 9. h3 would have been the usual continuation. It was first through Morphy’s example that what appears to us the most natural developing move, namely 9. Nc3, has become usual ... Morphy’s positional play and the principle of quick development proved ultimately superior to mere talent, however strong.

In Masters of the Chessboard Reti elaborated his theory through the analysis of several Morphy games. We reproduce in full a sample of these annotations:

Nowadays the open game is readily understood even by less advanced players which was not the case however in Morphy’s time, since it is to him and his games that we owe this understanding. Morphy’s superiority over his contemporaries is a consequence of the fact that he was the first to understand the nature and characteristics of open positions and had elaborated sound principles for their treatment ... The open positions quite naturally lead to a lively game, wherefore - and this is Morphy’s most important discovery - it is essential to develop the pieces without delay, to bring them quickly into action and not to lose any time...

Lichtenhein-Morphy New York 1857

1. | e4 | e5
2. | Nf3 | Nc6
3. | d4 | ed4
4. | Bc4 | Nf6

The important thing in open positions is to bring all the pieces into play as quickly as possible. In open games it is therefore possible to form perhaps superficial but rapid and for all practical purposes often sufficient judgment in regard to a position by simply counting the pieces that have been developed. Let us do so in this instance. White has developed two pieces (king knight and king bishop) and has played the two center pawns, which are absolutely essential for the development of the pieces. We can therefore count four tempi (time units) in White’s position. Black also has developed two pieces, the two knights, but has only moved one center pawn, resulting in only three tempi. Does this mean that White already has an advantage? The answer is no, because at least for the time being he has one pawn less than Black. In order to recapture it he will have to play Nd4, which is not a developing move, since in this case the knight is already developed on f3. This means that White in order to regain the pawn will have to give up his advantage in time. According to this superficial inspection the game is about even.

5.
e5

Here we have...loss of time on account of an attacking move. While move 5. e5 attacks the knight on f6 it does not constitute a continuation of the development. If Black were forced to reply with a defensive move pure and simple, that is to say a move not contributing to the development of his pieces, the loss of time would be balanced and the attack of White would be justified. Morphy however ... manages to answer with a developing move and thereby obtains the advantage in pace.

The correct move would have been 5. 0-0. Should Black then play Ne4 White would recapture the two lost pawns with 6. Re1 d5 7. Bd5 Qd5 8. Nc3.

5. | ... | d5
6. | Bb5 | Ne4

Both sides were forced to move an already developed piece which makes matters even as far as time is concerned.

7.
Nd4
Bd7

Let us again count the developed pieces. White has not progressed any further. He still has only two pieces developed and has move the two center pawns which as before gives us four tempi. Black on the other hand has developed three pieces, the two knights and the Queen Bishop and also the two center pawns, i.e. five tempi. Black therefore is one move ahead in development as a result of the fifth move of White.

8.
Nc6

This move constitutes another loss of time, inasmuch as Black, in countering with the pawn, forces White’s already developed King Bishop to move again.

8. | ... | bc6
9. | Bd3 | Bc5

White so far has lost two tempi. Let us see whether they appear in our count. White has one piece developed and has moved the two center pawns which gives him altogether three tempi. Black has three developed pieces and also moved the two center pawns, so that White’s loss of tempi is clearly recognizable in the position.

10. | Be4 | Qh4!
11. | Qe2 | de4

12.
Be3

In open positions, especially in cases of retarded development, the safety of the king should be the first consideration. Castling was therefore imperative.

12.
...
Bg4

Position after 12...Bg4

13.
Qc4

White resorts to the counterattack, inasmuch as 13. Qd2 would be hopeless on account of Rd8. This gives rise to wild combination play in which the side having the greater number of pieces at his disposal naturally has the more favorable prospects.

13. | ... | Be3!
14. | g3 |

Very nice would be 14. Qc6 Bd7 15. Qa8 Ke7 16. g3! Bf2 17. Kf2 e3! 18. Ke1 (after 18. Kg1 follows e2) Qb4 19. c3 Qb2 20. Qh8 Bg4 with an unavoidable mate.

| 14. ... | Qd8
15. | fe3 | Qd1
16. | Kf2 | Qf3
17. | Kg1 | Bh3

Now White can no longer cover the mate.

18. | Qc6 | Kf8
19. | Qa8 | Ke7

1-0

Reti’s analysis is certainly instructive, and beyond criticism insofar as it addresses technical aspects of the game at hand. But what about this notion that Morphy authored the “principle of development” ? Whatever the date of its first explicit formulation, the principle of development was certainly understood in a practical sense long before Paul Morphy. Anyone who examines a cross section of 18th and 19th century master chess will recognize that the players, whatever the shortcomings of their technique, did at least manifest the principle of development in their games. Likewise, Morphy’s opponents in the two games analyzed above, de Riviere and Lowenthal, clearly understood the principle and applied it more or less consistently.

In fairness to Reti, he did state plainly that his intent was for Masters of the Chessboard to be a textbook, not a history book.

I have presented the achievements of the great masters of the chessboard in historical order because that is also the logical order. The modem technique of chess is based on past experience and for that reason the newer master games can be correctly understood only after a study of the older masters. In the selection of games as well as in the analysis I constantly kept in mind the fact that I was writing a textbook... No intellectual activity can be properly understood unless one has passed through the several stages of its historical development, if only in a general way...this is by no means to say that an actual and exhaustive history of chess is to be expected.

And as a textbook, Masters is one of the great achievements of chess literature. Reti’s “historical” form served his pedagogical purposes admirably. His specious air of certainty (Morphy always played thus, or never played such and such) would hardly matter, except that subsequent writers have embraced Reti’s fantasy/history so uncritically. Consider the language and substance of the following excerpts from popular chess literature:

It was not until many years after Morphy stopped playing that the ‘secret’ of his success was appreciated. Morphy’s contribution to positional play was primarily in the area of ‘development.’ Morphy seemed to be the first to comprehend the maxims ‘develop all your pieces before you attack,’ ‘develop each pieces and put it at once on the correct square’ ...

[Dan Heisman, Elements of Positional Evaluation, p. 13]

Morphy speaks to us today only through his games, which are replete with sparkling combinations. But, more important to our discussion, he was the first successful exponent of positional play. Through no laborious study but rather intuitive grasp, Morphy knew, and imparted via his games, the principle underlying the conduct of open positions. These were: rapid development, control of the center, open lines.

[Anthony Saidy, The Battle of Chess Ideas, p. 18]

What was the secret weapon with which Morphy vanquished with ease the brilliant chessmasters of a brilliant age? While yet a boy, he had discovered the principle, now known to all chess students, of completely mobilizing his forces before seeking to engage the enemy. Morphy waged total war on the chessboard. Others could try to get there fustest. Morphy got there with the mostest.[sic] It was as simple as that!

[Bruce Hayden, “The Lad from New Orleans,” Chess Review, August 1958]

No, it was not as simple as that! The next two chapters attempt to set aside this sort of blind idealism and to reexamine Paul Morphy’s chess vis-a-vis that of Adolph Anderssen and Wilhelm Steinitz, who sat chronologically on either side of him as the world’s preeminent player.

Supplement to Chapter 1

(i) Reti’s Logic Applied to Another Game

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nc3 e6 4. d4 cd4 5. Nd4 Bb4 6. e5 Nd5 (Each side has two pieces developed. White has both center pawns advanced, for a total of four development tempi. Black has yet to move the d-pawn so his position shows only three tempi.) 7. Bd2 Nc3 (Black exchanges a piece that consumed three moves during its lifetime, receiving in return one that moved but once. Moreover, he will lose additional time retreating his bishop next turn.) 8. bc3 Bf8 9. Bd3 (The effect of Black’ play is that we now count five development tempi for White versus one for Black.) d6 10. Qe2 Nd7 11. Ne6! (With a great imbalance between the two sides’ development, combinations are in the air.) Qb6 12. Nc7! 1-0

Had this game been played around 1860, Reti might have used it in Modern Ideas in Chess to illustrate the influence of Morphy and the Age of Development that Morphy is supposed to have introduced. Actually, this is a game by Gary Kasparov, played in a 1977 USSR-Australia telex match. A superior player can make his opponent look bad in any era. Concrete measures of progress are hard to nail down, and ideas as fundamental as the “Principle of Development” cannot be ascribed to a particular author, time, or place.

(ii) Selected Examples of Pre-Morphy Chess

The Lopez opening analysis was published fully three centuries before Paul Morphy. By modem standards, the variation has little theoretical significance. But one thing is clear, namely that the play was motivated by the spirit of development.

The St. Amant - Staunton and Williams-Kennedy games were both played about a decade and a half before Morphy arrived on the world stage. Just a glance at the diagram positions, after White’s eleventh turn in each game, suffices to show that development was a compelling motive behind the opening play of masters prior to 1857.

Bilguer - von der Lasa shows White sacrificing pawns for rapid deployment. Black also tries to bring some pieces out, but his attempt at combining development with materialism comes up short. This could have been a classic Morphy game, except Morphy was only two years old when it was played.

Opening Analysis by Ruy Lopez, 1561

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Bc5 4. c3 d6 5. d4 ed4 6. cd4 Bb4 7. Nc3 Bd7 8. Bg5 Nf6 9. Qd3.

St Amant-Staunton Paris 1843

1. d4 e6 2. c4 d5 3. e3 Nf6 4. Nc3 c5 5. Nf3 Nc6 6. a3 Be7 7. Bd3 0-0 8. 0-0 (This makes it appear White played his 6th move solely to prevent ...Nb4, in anticipation of continuing Bd3. A more positive use of 6. a3 could have been achieved by 8. dc5 8...Bc5 9. b4, gaining time and space compared to what happened in the actual game.) b6 9. b3 Bb7 10. cd5 ed5 11. Bb2

Position after 11. B62

11...cd4 12. ed4 Bd6 13. Re1 h6 14. Rc1 Rc8 15. Rc2 (Now he makes good use of his pawn at a3, which is, after all, the only thing White has to show for the advantage of the first move in this nearly symmetrical position.) Rc7 16. Rce2 (16. Nb5!?) Qc8 17. h3 Nd8 18. Qd2 a6 19. b4 Ne6 20. Bf5 Ne4 21. Ne4 de4 22. d5 (Not 22. Be4? Be4 23. Re4 Rc2) ef3 23. Re6 Qd8 24. Bf6! (Pierre Charles Fournier de Saint Amant not only knew how to develop pieces, he could use them to execute an attack. He may have been the world’s strongest player up until about the time of this game. He met Morphy in Paris, 1858. According to Maroczy, they played seven games, with Morphy winning five and the others drawn. {222} is the only surviving game score from the series.) gf6 25. Rd6! Kg7 26. Rd8 and 1-0 shortly.

Williams-Kennedy London 1848

1. e4 Nc6 2. d4 e5 3. d5 Nce7 4. Nf3 Ng6 5. Be3 Bb4 (A bit crude looking, but Black wants to develop his bishop outside the pawn chain.) 6. c3 Ba5 7. Bd3 Bb6 8. 0-0 N8e7 9. Qd2 d6 10. c4 0-011. Nc3

Position after 11. Nc3

11...Ba5! (In a closed position, Black prefers to pin a knight rather than swap his bishop for its counterpart, even though the dark-squared bishop is White’s “good” one. In fact, Black’s intended ...f5 will imperil White’s bishop. After an odd beginning, the game has acquired a modem look about it.) 12. Net f5 13. f4 fe4 14. Be4 Bf5 15. Bf5 Nf5 16. fe5? Ne3 0-1 (if 17. Qe3 Bb6)

Bilguer-von der Lasa Berlin 1839

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 ed4 4. Bc4 Bb4 5. c3 dc3 6. 0-0 cb2? (This is much too greedy. 6...d6 should have been preferred.) 7. Bb2 f6 (Black loathes to retreat an already-developed piece, but 7...Bf8 may have been better anyway. The text exposes the a2-g8 diagonal and, worse, it helps White to further open the game with e5.) 8. Qb3 Nh6 9. e5 fe5 10. Ne5 Qe7 11. Nc6 bc6 12. Bg7 Qg7 13. Qb4 d5 14. Re1 Kd8 15. Nc3 Bh3 16. g3 dc4 17. Rad1 Bd7 18. Qb7 Rc8 19. Qc6 Re8 20. Rd7 Qd7 21. Qf6 Re7 22. Nd5 Ng8 23. Qg5 Qe8 24. Rd1 (A beautiful attack. Bilguer died a year later at just 25 years of age, so he never got to meet Paul Morphy.) 1-0

Paul Morphy—Paris, 1867

2

Adolph Anderssen and the Standard of Pre-Morphy Chess

It often happens that posterity remembers a player in connection with a particular one of his opponents. In Morphy’s case, a special association exists with Adolph Anderssen. It owes, in large part, to the casting of Reti’s evolutionary drama: Anderssen as the attacking beast, Wilhelm Steinitz as positional homo sapien, and Morphy as the “missing link” between them. While Morphy never played Steinitz, his games against Anderssen decided the de facto world championship. Later, these games came to be regarded as a watershed in chess’s development. To Reti, the results of Morphy-Anderssen were of epochal significance:

Anderssen possessed a talent for combination no less than Morphy, and in addition was more imaginative than the latter. The deciding advantage in Morphy’s favor was the fact that he was the first positional player.

[Modern Ideas in Chess]

Another writer rhapsodized:

For the student of chess thought it is [Morphy’s] contribution to positional understanding that is important: the very weapon with which he vanquished Anderssen. Thus, Morphy may be compared to Beethoven in music: the great transitional figure who signaled the start of a new era. He prepared the stage of chess history for Steinitz.

[Anthony Saidy The Battle of Chess Ideas]

Certainly this makes a nice story, but was it really so? The Anderssen match was the zenith of Morphy’s competitive career, but do the games actually reveal a fundamentally new approach to the chess struggle? In answering such questions, we must recognize that the available commentaries are apt to reflect what an annotator desires to have happened. Consider Reti’s interpretation of the 4th Anderssen-Morphy match game.

Anderssen-Morphy Paris 1858

1. | e4 | e5
2. | Nf3 | Nc6
3. | Bb5 | a6
4. | Ba4 | Nf6
5. | d3 | Bc5
6. | c3 | b5
7. | Bc2 | d5
8. | ed5 | Nd5
9. | h3 |

Reti: “A loss of time. But Anderssen must, as a continuation of his plan of attack, soon play d4 and fears that Black may hinder him by Bg4. Morphy, in contrast to Anderssen, goes quietly on with his development. ”

9. | ... | 0-0
10. | 0-0 | h6

Position after 10...h6

This move by Morphy, on the other hand, “forms a part of development” according to Reti. “Morphy wants to play Be6 without being disturbed by White’s Ng5. ”

11. | d4 | ed4
12. | cd4 | Bb6
13. | Nc3 |

Reti is loath to admit to anything that is inconvenient for his version of history: “Does Anderssen intend to make a developing move? Certainly not. That it happens to be one is merely chance. It is essentially an attacking move which threatens Nd5 and Qd3, whilst Qd3 can at once be parried by Black with Nf6. ”

13. | ... | Ndb4
14. | Bb1 | Be6

In calling Morphy “the first positional player,” Reti meant that Morphy selected moves intuitively, relying foremost on general considerations. Here he noted that, “Morphy could have taken the pawn at d4, but he rightly prefers a simple developing move... ” Reti goes on to give some concrete variations that vindicate Morphy’s judgment; capturing d4 might have involved Black in difficulties. He doesn’t entertain the possibility that Morphy might have simply worked through a similar analysis over the board.

15. | a3 | Nd5
16. | Be3 |

“This also happens to be a developing move only, because with the protection of his pawn at d4 the threat involves the gain of a pawn by means of 17. Nb5 ab5 18. Qc2.”

Position after 16. Be3

And so on. Reti always wants it both ways: He tells us that all Anderssen’s developing moves were in fact mere threats that incidentally developed; whereas Morphy developed purposefully and if he happened to threaten as well, then all the better, for that constitutes “development with gain of time!”

As the game moves beyond its opening phase, both sides having completed their development one way or another, Reti has less to say. But the remaining moves are not without interest:

16. | ... | Nf6
17. | Qd2 | Re8
18. | Rd1 |

As Maroczy notes, 18. Bh6 fails against 18...gh6 19. Qh6 Nd4 20. Ng5 Nf5; but 18. Rc1!? is interesting.

18. | ... | Bd5
19. | Ne5 |

Position after 19. Ne5

19.
...
Qd6

Grabbing the pawn by 19...Ne5 20. de5 Re5 would only land Black in hot water after 21. Bb6 cb6 22. Ba2! The pin on the d-file is very unpleasant. 22...Qe7 (or equivalently 22...Qe8; the only hope is to set up a counter-pin by ...Rd8) 23. Nd5 Nd5 24. f4!

20.
Qc2?

This threatens to win a piece, but the queen was already serving a purpose on the d-file. Better was 20. Qd3 (20. Nd5 Nd5 21. Nc6 Qc6 22. Qd3 is also superior to the text) and now:

If 20...Nd4 as in the game, then 21. Bd4 Bd4 22. Qd4 Re5 23. f4.

Position after 23. f4 (analysis)

Once again this pawn thrust creates difficulties for Black’s defense of his shaky bishop. Now 23...Rh5 24. g4 Ng4 25. Nd5 Rh3, with three pawns for the piece and a somewhat exposed White king, may grant Black some chances, but probably not enough. For example, 26. Rd3 Rd3 27. Qd3 Qc5 28. Kg2 Qf2 29. Kh3 Qh2 30. Kg4 f5 31. Kf3 White’s king slips the net. But 24...Rg5! (instead of 24...Ng4) is more interesting.

Position after 24...Rg5 (analysis)

There could follow 25. Bf5! c6 26. Qf2 and White wins an exchange, although Black has some compensation.

If 20...Ne5, the following interesting variation by Maroczy demonstrates White’s advantage: 21. de5 Re5 22. Bf4 Re1 23. Re1 Qf4 24. Nd5 Qf2 25. Kh2 Ng4 (or 25...Qe1 26. Nf6 gf6 27. Qh7 Kf8 28. Ba2 Qe5 29. Kh1 Qh5 30. Qh8 ΔQa8) 26. hg4 Qh4 27. Qh3 Qe1 28. Bh7 winning the queen.

So 20. Qd3 could have posed some difficulties. However, there is no need for Black to force things; a simple move like 20...Rad8 would give reasonable chances.

20. | ... | Nd4
21. | Bd4 | Bd4
22. | Nd5 |

On 22. Ng4 Maroczy offered an elegant finale: 22...c6! (This solves the main problem - Bd5 is secured. Black’s other bishop is defended indirectly by the weakness of White’s back rank, and the White queen’s incursion to h7 is shown to be toothless) 23. Nf6 Qf6 24. Qh7 Kf8 25. Qh8 (With ...Q-f2-g2# hanging over him, White hardly has anything better) 25...Ke7 26. Nd5 cd5 27. Re1 Kd6!

Position after 27...Kd6 (analysis)

Very showy. Black could win a piece by simply defending his rook, 27...Kd7, since White will soon need to pitch in Bf5 to clear his back rank. But better still, Black sacrifices the rook to deny White this tempo-gaining check. 28. Re8 Qf2 29. Kh2 Qf4 30. Kh1 Qf1 31. Kh2 Bg1 32. Kg3 Qf2 33. Kg4 Qg2 34. Kf4 g5 35. Kf5 Qf3# A classic king hunt.

22.
...
Qe5

Not 22...Qd5? 23. Nc6! Re4 24. Rd4 Rd4 25. Ne7.

23. | Nf6 | Qf6
24. | Qh7 | Kf8
25. | Be4 | Rad8
26. | Kh1 |

White is at a loss for ideas. The depressing 26. Rf1 would be answered 26...Bb2. Maroczy’s rather fanciful conclusion is 27. Rab1 g5!? 28. f4 gf4 29. g3 Qg7 30. Qf5 Qg3 and wins.

26. | ... | Bb2
27. | Rab1 |

An admission that the “attack” is over, but 27. Re1? would be a mere bluff that Black may call, e.g. 27...Ba1 28. Qh8 Ke7 29. Bc6 Be5 30. Be8 Re8 31. Qh7 Kd8 32. Qe4 Re6 etc.

27. | ... | Rd1
28. | Rd1 | Qf2
29. | Qh8 | Ke7
30. | Qh7 | Be5?

The text move leads to an opposite color bishop endgame offering White some hope. On the other hand, Morphy could have continued his attack at no risk by 30...Rd8! This would gain the open file with tempo, as 31. Rd8? cannot be played due to 31...Qe1 32. Kh2 Be5 etc.

31. | Bf3 | Qg3
32. | Kg1 | Qg6

Position after 32...Qg6

Reti’s doesn’t even provide the remaining moves, dismissing the game right here with the comment, “Black wins by the preponderance of his pawns.” In fact, Morphy’s mistake on move 30th has made the win difficult. This would have become clear had Anderssen put up a better defense later.

33. | Qg6 | fg6
34. | Bb7 | Rb8
35. | Ba6 | c6
36. | Kf2? |

36. Rb1! Δ a4 would have liberated Anderssen’s bishop and led to a likely blockade of the Black pawns.

36. | ... | Bd6
37. | Rd3? |

And here 37. Ra1, again intending a4, would have been better.

37. | ... | Kd7
38. | Ke2? |

Even here, 38. a4!? would have been more stubborn. At least White could break up Black’s pawns. After the text, Morphy retained connected passed pawns, rendering even the pure opposite color bishop ending hopeless for White.

Anderssen must have overlooked Morphy’s simple reply to the text. It seems he was fixed on the danger of ...Kc7, snaring his bishop. The explanation for White’s 38th move lies in the variation 38...Kc7 39. a4 Bf8 (or 39...Be5 40. ab5 cb5 41. Rd5) 40. ab5 cb5 41. Rc3 Kb6 42. Rc8.

Position after 38. Ke2

38. | ... | Ra8!
39. | Bb7 | Ra3

Even with opposite color bishops, this is a relatively simple ending to win. The remaining moves were:

40. Rd1 Kc7 41. Bc8 Ra2 42. Kf3 Bc5 43. Be6 Rf2 44. Kg3 Rf6 45. Rd7 Kb6 46. Bg4 Bd6 47. Kh4 c5 48. Bf3 c4 49. Rg7 Rf4 50. Bg4 c3 51. g3 Rg4 0-1

If we examine a cross section of Anderssen games versus various opponents, we find that a singleminded “ideal development” strategy seems to be every bit as much a hallmark of his opening play as it is of Morphy’s. In game after game, Anderssen appears to follow the most general and basic of guides, to develop for development’s own sake. His opponents frequently try to combine development with other impulses, with varying degrees of success. Whenever Anderssen’s “pure” development strategy produces an advantage, he is quick to follow up with a combinative attack. In other words, many Anderssen games follow precisely the strategic pattern that has come to be associated with Morphy’s example!

Anderssen-Staunton London 1851

1. e4 e6 2. d4 g6 3. Bd3 Bg7 4. Be3 c5 5. c3 cd4 6. cd4 Qb6 7. Ne2 Qb2 8. Nbc3 Qb6 9. Rc1

Position after 9. Rc1 (Anderssen-Staunton)

White began an attack with Nb5 and d5. Black hung on grimly for over thirty moves, but he never even got to place a piece on White’s half of the board, except for an ineffectual spite check a few moves before the end.

Mayet-Anderssen Berlin 1851

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. Bc6 dc6 6. 0-0 Bg4 7. h3 h5

(See diagram next page)

White took the bishop and succumbed quickly.

Position after 7...h5 (Mayet-Anderssen)

Anderssen-Pollmacher Leipzig 1855

1. e4 e5 2. d4 ed4 3. Nf3 Bb4 4. Bd2 Qe7 5. Bd3 Nc6 6. 0-0 Bd2 7. Nbd2

Position after 7. Nbd2 (Anderssen-Pollmacher)

White played to recapture d4 with a knight and instituted an early kingside attack with f4-f5, winning in just eighteen moves.

The true historical significance of Morphy’s games against Anderssen is simply that Anderssen was Morphy’s strongest opponent. Moreover, their match was Morphy’s last important competition. The games thus provide the best foundation for speculating as to Morphy’s absolute strength, or what direction his style might have taken had he not retired.

As the match progressed, Morphy’s superiority became evident. Besides the actual score (+7 -2 =2 for Morphy), it’s striking how Morphy was able to score some rather quick wins, whereas Anderssen only triumphed after marathon struggles. Despite their ultimate result, this pair of long, difficult losses rank among Morphy’s most interesting games.

Anderssen-Morphy Paris 1858 (10th Match Game)

1.
a3

With benefit of hindsight, this was Anderssen’s most effective opening weapon versus Morphy! (+1 -1=1) The basis for 1. a3 was partly psychological, but it was more than just an irregular bid to “get out of the books.” Clearly Anderssen had a specific, positional set-up in mind, and the supplement at the end of this chapter records his systematic use of the same scheme in several games.

At any rate, since Morphy was adamant about replying 1...e5, the game always developed into a reverse Sicilian. This surely annoyed Morphy. After all, he had previously vented his disdain for the Sicilian in a New York Ledger column, decrying

...that pernicious fondness for the Sicilian Defense which was displayed during what may be called the period of closed games, extending from about 1843 to some time after 1851. It was an epoch of uninteresting games and dreary analytic labors... It should be a subject of rejoicing for every lover of the game that an age in which so much severe labor led to such unprofitable results has passed away.

1. | ... | e5
2. | c4 | Nf6
3. | Nc3 | d5
4. | cd5 | Nd5
5. | e3 |

White is indeed a tempo ahead of an otherwise familiar Sicilian position.

5. | ... | Be6
6. | Nf3 | Bd6
7. | Be2 | 0-0

8.
0-0

In the 6th and 8th match games, Anderssen played 8. d4 immediately. That provoked a more aggressive reaction from Morphy in the sixth game. After 8...Nc3 9. bc3 e4 10. Nd2 f5 11. f4 he struck with 11...g5!?, perhaps excited by the sight of White’s king in the center. After 12. Bc4 Bc4 13. Nc4 gf4 14. ef4 Qe8 15. 0-0, White was better. But Morphy eventually turned the tables and won. {56}

In the 8th game Morphy varied with 11...Qh4. After 12. g3 Qh3 13. Bf1 Qh6 14. c4, Anderssen again had a good position, but the game was ultimately drawn. {58}

Position after 8. 0-0

8. | ... | Nc3
9. | bc3 | f5
10. | d4 | e4
11. | Nd2 |

White has some advantage because his center outweighs Black’s kingside attack chances. In fact, Anderssen knew from experience that the kingside demonstration holds little promise.

11. | ... | Rf6
12. | f4 | Rh6?!

Reprising a dubious rook maneuver that Anderssen himself had tried in a game versus Wyville at London 1851. The kingside is too narrow a corridor for Black to attack through.

13. | g3 | Nd7
14. | Nc4 | Bc4

MacDonnell-Anderssen, London 1862 demonstrates what can happen if the knight is allowed to reach e5 - see the chapter supplement.

15. | Bc4 | Kh8
16. | Ra2 | Qe7
17. | a4 | Nf6
18. | Qb3 | c6
19. | Be6? |

Morphy’s reply exposes this as a waste of time.

19.
...
Re8

Position after 19...Re8

20.
Bc4

20. Bf5? g6 would lose the bishop. Even so, White retains the upper hand. His advantage derives more from a superior structure than from time.

20. | ... | Ng4
21. | Rg2 | Rb8

His kingside ambitions thwarted, Morphy begins to poke around on the queen’s flank. As this doesn’t achieve much either, the impression arises that Black has no good plan available.

22. | Be2 | Nf6
23. | c4 | b6
24. | Bb2 | Qf7

Threatening 25...b5, but otherwise not too effectual.

25.
Qc2
Be7

Again revealing Morphy’s uncertainty over how to proceed; the purpose of the bishop move is not clear, and Morphy retracts it two turns later.

26. | Bc3 | Rg8
27. | a5 | Bd6
28. | ab6 | ab6
29. | Ra1 |

Morphy’s frustration is almost palpable. He ached to open the game, to release the energy of his pieces, but he couldn’t find a favorable opportunity and so was reduced to “dreary” maneuvering. Meanwhile Anderssen improved his position methodically, laying the groundwork for a fine initiative on the queenside.

29.
...
g5?

Position after 29...g5

He could stand to wait no longer. But exposing himself on the long diagonal was too risky.

30. | fg5 | Rg5
31. | Ra8 |

Maroczy claims a better ending for White after 31. c5 bc5 32. dc5. If then 32...Bc5?! 33. Bf6 Qf6 White can’t capture the bishop because his rook is en prise, but the intermezzo 33. Ra8 Bf8 (forced - 33...Rg8, Δ34. Rg8 Kg8 35. Bf6 Be3, runs into 34. Bc4!) 34. Bc4! Qg7 35. Qb2 ties Black up.

31. | ... | Rg8
32. | Qa4 | Ra8
33. | Qa8 | Qe8
34. | Qe8 |

Steinitz opined that Black could not have survived for long after 34. Qb7! This looks correct, as Black loses one of his queenside pawns. But the text is good enough.

34. | ... | Ne8
35. | c5 | Bc7
36. | Bc4 |

Again, while this should be adequate, Lowenthal’s 36. Rf2 was strong as well. After 36...Ng7 37. d5 White’s rook would crash in with decisive effect. For instance:

37...bc5 38. d6! Bd6 (38...Rd6 39. Rf5 with either Rf7 or Rf8 to follow) 39. Rf5 with the very strong threat of 40. Rf7 Rg6 41. Rd7.

37...cd5 38. Rf5 Kg8 39. Rd5 threatening Rd7 followed, if necessary, by Bc4.

36. | ... | Kg7
37. | cb6? |

This move has the very reasonable purpose of luring the bishop to b6, where it provides a target for White’s rook to gain a tempo and penetrate Black’s position. But Anderssen overlooked a more direct road to victory beginning with the forceful 37. d5!:

Position after 37. d5 (analysis)

If then 37... Nf6 38. d6 Bd8 39. Ra2 Kf8 40. Ra8 Ke8 41. Bf6 Rf6 42. cb6 wins. Also, if 37...Kf8 38. d6 Bd8 39. Rf2! (the immediately 39. Ra2 is less effective because Black obtains counterchances by 39...bc5 40. Ra7 (40. Be5!?) Nd6! 41. Bg7 Ke8 42. Bh6 Nc4 43. Rh7 Bf6 followed by Ne5) 39...Ng7 (39...bc5 40. Rf5 Nf6 41. g4 is bad for Black) 40. Ra2! bc5 (otherwise Ra8 and cb6 follow) 41. Ra7! (driving Black’s knight to where it interferes with the rook) Ne6 42. Ra8 Ke8 43. Ba5 White wins a piece.

Finally, 37...Kg6 38. d6 Bd8 39. Ra2 bc5 40. d7 Nc7 (or 40...Nd6 41. Ra8 Nc4 42. Rd8 winning) 41. Ra7 (threat: Ba5) Nb5 42. Ra8 Bg5 43. Rg8 Kh5 44. Be2#!

Position after 37. cb6

37. | ... | Bb6
38. | Rb2 | Bc7
39. | Rb7 | Kf6
40. | Bb4 |

40. d5? was no better, provided that Black replies 40...Ke7. But 40...Kg5?! would invite an entertaining attack: 41. h4 Kg4 42. Kg2 Bg3 (forced) 43. Re7!? with the possible continuation 43...Nd6 44. Be2 Kh4 45. Rh7 Rh7 46. Bf6#

Position after 46. Bf6 mate (analysis)

None of this is forced of course, but it suggests what possibilities arise as soon as White’s pieces get the scent of Black’s king.

Sensing that a forcing continuation was no longer at hand, Anderssen settled for a simple developing move, transferring his bishop to an open diagonal.

40. | ... | Rg6
41. | Bf8! |

Surely Morphy regretted ever sending his rook down that blind alley on the kingside! Black is nearly out of moves.

41. | ... | h5
42. | Kf2 |

Position after 42. Kf2

42.
...
h4!

It would be nice to activate the rook without conceding a passed h-pawn. But 42...Rg4 would allow White at least two ways to demonstrate his advantage:

First, 43. Bh6 h4 44. Bf4, cements the position. Then if 44...Bf4 45. gf4 Nd6! (45...Rg7 46. Rb6 Rc7 47. d5 is likewise grim for Black) 46. Rb6 Nc4 47. Rc6 etc., although in this case 47...Ke7 48. Rc4 h3 may yet provide a defense.

The second way is surer: 43. Ra7!, maneuvering against c6. 43...h4 44. Ra6 hg3 45. hg3.

Position after 45. hg3 (analysis)

Black has two ways to capture the g-pawn, but neither is likely to bring him any joy: 45...Rg3 46. Rc6 Kg5 47. Be7 (47. Rc7? Rf3) Kg4 48. Rg6 Kh3 49. Rh6 Kg4 50. Rh4# is no good, but 45...Bg3 46. Kf1 Kg6 47. Rc6 Nf6 48. Be7 Bh4 49. d5 leaves Black so tangled up that he can hardly expect to deal with the d-pawn.

43. | gh4 | Rg4
44. | h5 | Rh4
45. | h6 | Rh2
46. | Kg1 | Rh3
47. | Bf1 | Rg3

Not 47...Re3? 48. h7. However, 47...Rh5!? was possible.

48.
Kf2
Rg4

49. | Bc4 | Rh4
50. | Bg8 |

Position after 50. Bg8

Instead, 50. Ra7 (Δ Ra8) Bd6 51. Rf7 Kg6 52. Rg7!? Kf6! wouldn’t lead to anything special for White.

50.
...
Bd6!?

Black could have tried to maintain the position a while longer by something like 50...Rh2 51. Kg1 Rh4 etc. But Morphy was quick to grab a chance to force matters a bit. And he does indeed reveal some surprising counterchances.

51. | Bd6 | Nd6
52. | Rd7 | Ne8
53. | h7 | Kg5

Position after 53...Kg5

54.
Re7

White’s predicament is that his rook can never enforce the pawn’s promotion without the bishop first moving, but in that case the pawn will be captured immediately. Therefore, Anderssen maneuvers to capture c6, hoping a passed d-pawn will provide him with one weapon more than Black can defend. But the actual effect is reminiscent of what happened at move 42: Anderssen gets his passed pawn, but Morphy gets greater activity. Black’s knight will be the direct beneficiary.

54. | ... | Nd6
55. | Re6 | Nc4
56. | Rc6 | Nd2
57. | Ke2 | Rh2
58. | Kd1 |

The critical moment is at hand.

Position after 53...Kg5

58.
...
Nf3

First, Black relieves the rook of its responsibility to defend the knight. This isn’t essential yet inasmuch as White wouldn’t win a piece even with the move, 59. h8(Q) being answerable by 59...Rh8 with both minor pieces hanging. Nonetheless, eliminating this latent threat must be numbered among the text move’s accomplishments.

Second, 58...Nf3 controls the queening square of Black’s foremost pawn. Morphy envisions ...f4, and then the e-pawn will be very hard to stop. (Rc2 will be answered ...Rh1 followed by ...Nd4, both with check.)

However, as we shall see, all this came to nothing in the face of a cold-blooded and accurate reply by Anderssen. Therefore, the spotlight of analysis shifted to alternatives to the text. Not long after the game was played, Lowenthal focused attention on 58...Nfl, which he considered sufficient to draw. For example: 59. Rc3 f4 60. ef4 Kf4 61. d5, reaching a crossroads.

Position after 61. d5 (analysis)

61...e3 62. d6! wins for White. The variations are quite interesting:

Position after 62. d6 (analysis)

(i) 62...Rd2 63. Ke1 Nh2 64. Rc4 Kg3 65. Bd5 stopping Nf3. The h-pawn promotes; or (ii) 62...Ng3 63. Re3 Ke3 64. d7 Rd2 65. Kc1 Ne2 66. Kb1 Nc3 67. Ka1 wins; or finally (iii) 62...e2 63. Ke1 Ng3 64. Rg3 Kg3 65. d7 Kf3 66. Bd5 Ke3 67. d8(Q) wins. In each case, the arrival of White’s bishop decides the battle.

61...Ne3 also falls short after the accurate 62. Re3 Ke3 63. d6 Kd3 (or 63...Kf2 64. d7 e3 65. Bc4) 64. Bc4! Kc4 65. d7 Rh7 66. d8(Q) with a winning position (although technical difficulties remain).

61...Ke5 The best try!

Position after 61...Ke5 (analysis)

Now Lowenthal gave 62. Rc6 Ne3 63. Ke1 Nd5 64. Rc5 Kf6 65. Rd5 Kg7 and draws. However, Maroczy was able to improve White’s play with 62. Ke1! With the rook still at c3, the knight’s options are limited. 62...Nd2 (62...Rh1 63. Kf2 e3 64. Kg2 e2 65. Kh1 e1(Q) 66. h8(Q) is winning for White) 63. Rc6 Nf3 (Thus returning to the same general idea Morphy pursued in the game. The loss of time Nd2-f1-d2-f3 is offset by Kd1-e1-d1 and Rc6-c3-c6) 64. Kd1 Ng5 (64...e3 65. Re6) 65. d6

Position after 65. d6 (analysis)

Now Maroczy gave 65... e3 66. Rc5 Kd6 67. Rg5 Ke7 68. Rg7 Kf8 69. Ra7 Rh3 70. Bc4 Rh2 71. Rf7 Ke8 72. Rg7 wins. It should be added that 65...Nh7 is more testing but White can still win by 66. d7 Rh1 67. Kc2 Rh2 68. Kc3 Rh3 69. Kb4! (a draw would follow 69. Kc4 Rd3 70. Bd5 Rd4! 71. Kb5 Rd5 72. Rc5 Rc5 73. Kc5 Nf8!) Rd3 70. Bd5! Rd5 (or equivalently 70...Rd4 71. Rc4 Rd5 72. Rc5) 71. Rc5 Rc5 (not check!) 72. d8(Q) wins.

It’s so easy to become immersed in the complications of Morphy’s 58...Nf3 and Lowenthal’s 58...Nf1, analysts have been too distracted to consider a third alternative, 58...f4!

Position after 58...f4 (analysis)

Depending on how play develops, the knight may hop to f1, f3, or e4. Now if 59. ef4 Kf4 60. d5, as in Lowenthal’s line, then 60...e3! leaves White’s pieces uncoordinated and incapable of containing Black’s pawn.

Position after 60...e3 (analysis)

For example, 61. Re6 Ne4 62. d6 e2 63. Ke1 Ke3 64. Re4 Ke4 65. d7 Ke3 66. Bd5 Rf2 Black even wins! Or again, 61. d6 Nf3! (a proper realization of Morphy’s unsuccessful plan from the actual game) 62. Rc4 (or 62. Rc2 Rh1 63. Ke2 Nd4) Ke5 etc. In all likelihood the best play after 60...e3! is 61. Rf6 Ke4 62. Re6 Kd3 63. Re3 Ke3 64. d6 Rh1 65. Kc2 Nf3 66. d7 Nd4 67. Kb2 Nc6 68. Bd5. But even then 68...Rh2 69. Kc3 Nd8 70. Bg8 Rh4 appears to win for Black.

It’s hard to see how White might avoid all this. Neither 60. Rf6 Ke3 61. d5 Kd3 62. Kc1 Nb3 (62...e3) 63. Kb1 Nd2; nor 60. Rc2 e3 61. Rd2 Rd2 62. Ke1 Rh2 63. d5 Ke5 improve his chances. How can it be that Black almost seems to enjoy the better game after 58...f4!, this despite White having an h-pawn on the brink of promotion?

In fact, it’s really not so strange when you step back for a moment. Black’s rook copes with the pawn rather well, and can participate in his own attack at the same time. Meanwhile White has a bishop tied to the defense of this same pawn, leaving him virtually a piece short on the other end of the board. Viewed in these terms, it becomes clear that White must look for a way to sacrifice his pawn! Perhaps he can exploit the vulnerable position of Black’s knight? 59. Rc5! improves on all the variations heretofore examined. After the forced reply 59...Kg4 White can even win a piece by 60. h8(Q) Rh8 61. Be6 Kf3 62. Kd2, but he would probably lose the game after 62...fe3. Instead, 60. Be6! Kf3 61. ef4 leads to... an unclear position!

Position after 61. ef4 (analysis)

After 61...e3 62. Re5, both 62...Rh7 and 62...Kf4 deserve consideration. Black remains a pawn down, but the strength of his own pawn is probably enough to hold the balance.

Finally, we can return to the actual game after Morphy’s 58...Nf3.

Position after 58...Nf3

59.
Rc7!

This powerful reply suddenly leaves Black without a useful move! The point is to get a little vertical checking distance between the rook and Black’s king. If now 59...f4 60. Rg7 Kf5 61. Rf7 Kg6 62. Rf4 etc.

59. | ... | Kg6
60. | d5 | f4

A final bid for counterplay, but too little and too late.

61. | ef4 | e3
62. | Re7 | e2
63. | Re2 | Rh1
64. | Kc2 | Nd4
65. | Kd2 | Ne2
66. | Ke2 | Kg7

66...Kf5 67. d6 was no better. Black is lost.

67. | Ke3 | Re1
68. | Kd4 | Rf1
69. | Ke5 | Re1
70. | Kf5 | Rd1
71. | Be6 | Rd4
72. | Ke5 | Rd1
73. | f5 | Rh1
74. | f6 | Kh7
75. | Kd6 | Ra1
76. | Ke7 | Ra7
77. | Bd7 |

Position after 77. Bd7

1-0

Morphy-Anderssen Paris, 1858 (1st Match Game)

1. | e4 | e5
2. | Nf3 | Nc6
3. | Bc4 | Bc5
4. | b4 |

Here were two of the four greatest Evans Gambit masters (alongsideTchigorin and Zukertort). Yet this was the only game in which Morphy and Anderssen debated this opening.

4. | ... | Bb4
5. | c3 | Ba5
6. | d4 | ed4
7. | 0-0 | Nf6
8. | e5? |

Position after 8. e5

8. Ba3 d6 9. e5! is much superior to the text. Morphy-Greenaway, London 1859 (four months after Morphy-Anderssen) continued 9...d5 (if 9...de5 10. Qb3 with initiative) 10. Bb5 Ne4 11. cd4 Bd7 12. Qb3 , eventually drawn. {269} Cafferty and Harding recommend 10. ef6 dc4 11. Re1 Kd7 12. fg7 Rg8 13. Nd4 ± in their Evans Gambit book.

8. | ... | d5
9. | Bb5 |

Anderssen published an analysis in which he dismissed 9. ef6 dc4 10. fg7 Rg8 11. Bg5 Qd5 12. Re1 Be6 13. Nbd2 Rg7 14. Ne4 Kf8 15. Bh6 dc3 16. Qc1 (16. Qc2 Qd3) Qh5 as good for Black. In this variation, 10. Re1 (as from an analogous position in the Max Lange Attack) doesn’t look right because after 10...Be6 11. Ng5 Qd5, White doesn’t have Nc3 available. Nevertheless, after 12. fg7 Rg8 13. Re6 fe6 14. Qh5 Kd7 15. Qf7 Ne7 16. Nh7 White’s threats aren’t exhausted. Whether this improves upon Morphy’s move is an open question but, at any rate, Black got easy play in the actual game.

9. | ... | Ne4
10. | cd4 | 0-0
11. | Bc6 | bc6
12. | Qa4 |

Clearly something has gone wrong with White’s gambit when he has nothing better than scrambling to recover his pawn this way.

12. | ... | Bb6
13. | Qc6 | Bg4

White has material equality, but he’s behind in development, d4 is weak, and his king position will be broken up by ...Bf3.

14.
Bb2?

14. Be3 was necessary, although 14...f6 would still favor Black.

14. | ... | Bf3
15. | gf3 | Ng5
16. | Nd2 | Re8

Lowenthal’s recommendation 16...Nh3! would have been quite strong. If then 17. Kg2 Qh4 18. Rae1 Rae8 ΔRe6 with a virulent attack. 17. Khl is even worse, as after 17...Qh4 18. Qd5 Nf2 White must already surrender the exchange (19. Kg2? Qg5 20. Kf2 Qd2). In all this, the consequences of Morphy’s error on move 14 are evident.

17. | Khl | Nh3
18. | f4! |

Preparing to bring his queen back to defend the kingside at the cost of a pawn. Now 18...Nf4 19. Qc3 Δ Qg3 would be letting White off easy. Anderssen finds a stronger continuation of the attack.

18.
...
Qh4

Position after 18...Qh4

19. | Qd5 | Nf2
20. | Kg1 | Nd3
21. | Bc3 | Nf4
22. | Qf3 | Nh3

Thus completing a profitable little circuit: N-h3-f2-d3-f4-h3 with a tempo gained at every step and two pawns devoured along the way!

23. | Kh1 | Ng5
24. | Qg2 | Rad8

On Maroczy’s suggestion 24...h6 (Δ 25. Nf3 Qe4) 25. Rg1 would probably transpose to the game, since Black can’t play 25...Bd4? 26. Nf3. But Anderssen could thereby have avoided some potential complications discussed in the next note.

25.
Rg1

Morphy might have tried 25. Nf3!? Nf3 26. Qf3 and then:

Position after 26. Qf3 (analysis)

26...Re7? would be a poor reply owing to 27. Bb4 Red7 28. e6 fe6 29. Qf8.

26...Rd7 is better, but it converts the active rook to a defender and could leave Black hard pressed to make progress after something simple, e.g. 27. Rad1.

26...Bd4!, Black’s best plan, despite the collapse of f7. Neither 27. Qf7 Kh8 28. Rf4 Qf4 29. Qf4 Bc3 30. Rb1 Be5 31. Qc4 Bd4 32. Rd1 Bb6 33. Rd8 Rd8; nor 27. Bd4 Qd4 28. Qf7 Kh8 solve all White’s problems.

25. | ... | h6
26. | Rafl |

26. Nf3 can also be answered 26...Qh3!

26.
...
Qh3!

Immediate 26...Bd4? fails to 27. Nf3 (or maybe even 27. e6!? e.g., 27...Ne6? 28. Nf3 Nf4 29. Qg7 Bg7 30. Rg7 Kf8 31. Nh4 Re4 32. Rg4; 27...Re6 is better, but 28. Nf3 Qh3 29. Bd4 Qg2 30. Rg2 Nf3 31. Rg7 Kf8 32. Rf3 Rd4 33. Rff7 Ke8 34. Rc7 would draw at least.)

The text move initiates a forcing maneuver to reposition Black’s queen, after which d4 falls without complications. The facts that White can’t afford to trade queens and c3 in en prise explain the sequence that follows.

27. | Qc6 | Qd7
28. | Qg2 | Bd4
29. | Bd4 | Qd4
30. | Nf3 | Qd5
31. | h4 | Ne6

Position after 31...Ne6

32.
Qg4

Still trying desperately to keep some tension in the position and work up concrete threats.

32.
...
Qc6

Anderssen’s plan is simple: Keep Nf3 pinned, and invade by ...Rd3 and ...Red8. Though even the greedy 32...Qa2!? was not out of the question; then if 33. Rg2 Qa3! Δ Rd3, and Black would have the defensive resource ...Qf8 in reserve.

33. | Rg2 | Rd3
34. | Qf5 | Red8
35. | Qf6 |

The text threatens 36. Rg7 Ng7 37. Qc6. The alternative, 35. Qf7!?, would exchange too many pieces while recovering too little material: 35...Kf7 36. Nd4 Rf3! 37. Rf3 Qf3 38. Nf3 Rd1 39. Kh2 Nd4.

35. | ... | Qd5
36. | Qf5 | Rd1
37. | Rd1 | Qd1
38. | Kh2 |

Position after 38. Kh2

38.
...
Rd3

38...Qd3! was Black’s most accurate move. For example, 39. Qg4 (39. Qf6 Kf8!) h5 40. Qg3 Qe3 (Δ Rd3 exchanging everything) 41. Qf2 Qf2 42. Rf2 Rd3 etc.

39. | Rf2 | Re3
40. | Nd2 |

If 40. Nd4? Black just takes the knight, as after 40...Nd4 41. Qf7 Kh7 White has nothing.

40. | ... | Re2
41. | Qf7 | Kh8
42. | Ne4 | Rf2

Or better yet, 42...Re4 43. Qe6 (43. Qe8 Kh7 44. Qe6 Qh5) Qd8!

Position after 43...Qd8 (analysis)

44. Kg2 Qa8 45. Kh2 Rh4 46. Kg3 Rh5. Anderssen overlooked the most incisive continuation at several junctures, so it was almost inevitable that Morphy would eventually generate counterchances.

43. | Nf2 | Qd5
44. | Ng4 | Qa2
45. | Kg3 | Qb3
46. | Kh2 | Qc2
47. | Kg3 |

If 47. Kh3 Qg6; or if 47. Kg1 Qd1.

47. | ... | Qc3
48. | Kh2 | Qc6
49. | h5 | a5

Rolling at last! However, White’s previous move did offer a tactical opportunity for Black to trade queens, had he wished to avail himself of it: 49...Qc2 50. Kg3 (if the king retreats to the first rank, White’s knight falls to a queen check) Qc3 51. Kg2 Qh3! 52. Kh3 Ng5. It’s doubtful that Anderssen overlooked this. More likely he agreed with Maroczy’s judgment that 53. Kg3 Nf7 54. e6 Nd6 would still pose a difficult practical task on account of the strong e-pawn. Or perhaps he simply was determined not to diverge from his chosen plan. But now Morphy forced the game in a completely different direction.

50. | Nf6!? | gf6
51. | Qf6 | Kg8
52. | Qg6 | Kf8
53. | Qh6 | Ke8
54. | Qg6 | Kd7
55. | h6 |

Position after 55. h6

Reviewing the game as a whole, Morphy got a bad opening and his position was difficult, even hopeless, since as early as move 16. But he kept his powder dry and reserved some threats, even in the face of debilitating exchanges. Now, finally, he managed to confront Black with genuine danger. It’s a credit to Anderssen that he kept his head in the following moves. It must have been frustrating for him suddenly to encounter a situation where extreme accuracy was necessary, just when it seemed that hours of painstaking defense and simplification were about to pay off. Morphy would have saved this game against most of the opponents he faced in his career.

55.
...
Qd5!

Contrary to Lowenthal, who said the text was the only move to win, 55...Qf3!? was good enough also thanks to the tactical “accident” 56. h7 Qh3! 57. Kh3 Nf4 58. Kg4 Ng6 59. Kg5 Nh8 (59...Ne5?? 60. Kf6) 60. Kf6 a4 61. Kg7 a3 62. Kh8 a2 63. Kg8 a1(Q) 64. h8(Q) Qa8. In this variation, White can play 57. Kg1 as well, but this would merely force Black to check around and eventually reach something akin to the actual game. 57...Qe3 58. Kh1 (58. Kf1!?) Qe1 59. Kh2 (59. Qg1 Qc4 Δ Qh7) Qe5 would be an exact transposition, for instance.

56.
h7

Black easily escapes the checks after 56. Qh5 Qd2 57. Kh1 (57. Kg1 Qg5) Qc1 58. Kh2 Qf4 59. Kh1 Ng5 60. h7 Qe4 61. Kg1 Nh7.

56. | ... | Qe5
57. | Kg1 | Ng5
58. | h8(Q) | Qh8
59. | Qg5 | Qd4

The pawns afford good cover for Black’s king as they creep ahead. And since there are two of them, and White’s king is far off, Black can afford to offer a sacrifice to get the queens off the board.

60. | Kf1 | a4
61. | Qf5 | Kc6
62. | Qc8 | Kb5!
63. | Ke1 |

If 63. Qc7 Qc4 etc.

63. | ... | c5
64. | Qb7 | Kc4
65. | Qf7 | Kc3
66. | Qf3 | Qd3
67. | Qf6 | Kb3
68. | Qb6 | Kc2!

A little echo of the previous note: If now 69. Qc5 Qc3 etc.

69. | Qa7 | Qc3
70. | Ke2 | a3

71. | Qa4 | Kb2
72. | Qb5 | Qb3!

1-0

After the match, Anderssen remarked wistfully, “He wins his games in seventeen moves, I win mine in seventy. But that is only natural.” And indeed, in contrast with these lengthy defeats, Morphy’s set of victories over Anderssen includes several quick crushes. Frankly, Anderssen’s play in the match was spotty. A number of games were marred by serious blunders that deprived them of sporting (much less epochal) significance. The interesting thing about these catastrophes is that they reveal a negative side of a stylistic feature that also shows up in some of Anderssen’s most famous combinations.

Anderssen-Dufresne Berlin, 1852

White to Play

Both kings sit on vulnerable files. At a glance, White’s chances can be recognized as favorable, however: first, because his pawn cover looks more reliable than Black’s pinned and thrice-attacked Ne7; second, because it is White’s move. In such a tinderbox, that alone may be decisive.

Yet Anderssen eschewed immediate violence. Instead, he seemingly passed the first shot to Black by playing 19. Rad1. The effect of such a consciously non-forcing approach was to confront Black with a wide choice. For many years, analysts debated the various plausible candidate moves: 19...Bc5; 19...d6; 19...Nb4; 19...Nd4; 19...Ne5; 19...Rg2; 19...Qg4; 19...Qh3; and especially 19...Rg4 all attracted attention. Reti claimed that the latter move would have drawn, and Lasker allowed that at least it “causes difficulties.”

Be that as it may, Dufresne actually chose 19...Qf3, after which Anderssen’s attack mechanism unwound with full force: 20. Re7 Ne7 (20...Kd8 21. Rd7 Kc8 (if 21...Kd7 22. Be2 and takes the queen) 22. Rd8! wins after either 22...Rd8 23. gf3; 22...Kd8 23. Be2; or 22...Nd8 23. Qd7! Kd7 24. Bf5 and Bd7 gives mate next move.) 21. Qd7! Kd7 22. Bf5 Ke8 23. Bd7 Kf8 24. Be7# 1-0

Anderssen’s 19th move resembles the coiling up of a spring, increasing the pent up energy in White’s position prior to its release by the ensuing sacrifice. Another example:

Rosanes-Anderssen Breslau 1862

Black to Play

14...Bd4 15. c3 Rab8 16. b3. There may be some “blunt instrument” that would suffice for Black to win here, but Anderssen preferred another “coiling” move, 16...Red8. The continuation was 17. Nf3? (17. Kb2 was the only try, but even then Black would be much better, probably winning) Qb3! 18. ab3 Rb3 19. Be1 Be3! 0-1

Anderssen was a problem composer as well as a player. He brought a composer’s instincts to the board, a taste for elegance in the midst of violence, for the surprising effect of a quiet move in a loud position. Perhaps this is what prompted Reti (himself a great composer of endgame studies) to judge Anderssen as Morphy’s superior in the area of “imagination.”

Anderssen, 1848 Mate in 3

1.
Kb1!

Now Black’s knight can’t move (Rg8#); the rook can’t move (Bg7#); and the bishop must maintain coverage against Nf7 or Ng6. 1. Rg6 would not have worked due to 1...Rh1.

1. | ... | Bh5
2. | Rg6! |

and mate next move.

In over the board play, such a quirk of style has its advantages. A quiet move preparing a combination may deceive the opponent, lull his vigilance. Moreover, the defender is made to face a broad choice, and denied the luxury of choosing moves by method of exclusion. Against Morphy, however, it was precisely this manner of play that degenerated into something like a succession of traps. Anderssen would envisage a possible combination and try to build towards it with innocuous looking moves. But when Morphy anticipated or otherwise defused the plan, positions arose in which many of these preparatory moves served little purpose. Rather than allow himself to be gradually outplayed, Anderssen’s reflex was to plunge ahead with his basic idea. Many mistakes resulted from Anderssen’s using the theme of a half-realized combination to set off a storm of uncertain tactics. And despite the pronouncements of Reti, Morphy proved himself to be Anderssen’s match in critical, tactical situations.

Morphy-Anderssen Paris 1858

(an offhand game, not from the formal match)

1. | e4 | e5
2. | f4 | ef4
3. | Nf3 | g5
4. | Bc4 | Bg7

5. | 0-0 | d6
6. | c3 | Nc6
7. | Qb3 | Qe7
8. | d4 |

Position after 8. d4

Now 8...h6 would reach the central position of Bobby Fischer’s famous “A Bust to the King’s Gambit” article, which appeared a century after this game (American Chess Quarterly, Summer 1961). The main line of Fischer’s analysis continues 9. h4 Nf6 (Fischer thought 9...g4 was also good for Black) 10. hg5 hg5 11. Ng5 Ne4. Fischer wrote: “A wild position, but Black is still master.” 12. Bf7 Kd8 13. Ne4 Qe4 14. Bf4 Nd4! and Black wins. “Of course White can always play differently in which case he merely loses differently.”

Strictly speaking, this is not really Fischer’s analysis. Fischer’s contribution pertained to move order in the early going. He observed that 3...d6! could force White into something akin to the last diagram (classically arrived at via 1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4) while avoiding the Kieseritsky Gambit (4. h4).

While Anderssen’s next move is ultimately exposed as a mistake, it would be unjust to characterize it as rash, or careless, or a mere blunder. Anderssen’s idea falls short of equaling “Fischer’s Defense” by just a tiny tactical margin.

8.
...
Nf6?

8...h6 is “obviously” a necessary preparation for ...Nf6, in order to defend g5. But the problemist in Anderssen was drawn to consider such “impossible” moves. No doubt he already envisioned Black’s vain but spectacular 12th turn.

9. |  | Ng5 | Ne4
10. | Bf7 | Kd8 |
11. | Ne4 | Qe4 |

If a player is counting on the shock effect of some bombshell move, he needs to consider how far in advance his opponent will cross the line of no return. In this instance Anderssen’s plan really isn’t up to standard because even now, just one move from “detonation,” Morphy could still defuse the complications if he desired. Even worse, in this case he doesn’t need to avoid what Anderssen had in mind...

12.
Bf4

The play is identical to what happened in Fischer’s article except both h-pawns are still on the board. Unfortunately for Anderssen, that little detail is decisive. Fischer’s open h-file favored Black and, indeed, it was central to the winning shot ...Nd4! Anderssen had prepared a different (and more startling) idea in which it matters that the pawn deprives White’s king of the h2 square. But Morphy had seen farther into the position.

Position after 12. Bf4

12.
...
Bh3!?

The spring uncoils, but it does Morphy no harm.

13. | gh3 | Nd4
14. | Nd2! | Ne2

If 14...Nb3 15. Ne4 Na1 16. Ra1 Rf8, White saves everything by 17. Bg5 Kd7 18. Bh5.

15. | Kf2 | Qf4
16. | Ke2 | Qg5
17. | Rae1 | Bh6
18. | Qd5 | Re8
19. | Kd1 |

1-0

It’s hard to figure which of Morphy’s natural moves Anderssen overlooked. Most likely, the piquant 12...Bh3 skewed his judgment about the whole attack.

Even the most devastating-looking of Morphy’s short wins conceal genuine substance beneath the surface. But annotators, anxious to herald a new epoch in chess, portrayed these games as one-sided brilliancies in which Anderssen stood no chance against Morphy’s new-age methods.

Morphy-Anderssen Paris, 1858

(9th Match Game)

1. | e4 | c5
2. | Nf3 | Nc6
3. | d4 | cd4
4. | Nd4 | e6
5. | Nb5 | d6
6. | Bf4 | e5

In Morphy’s day, it was popular to play the Sicilian Defense with an early advance of Black’s e-pawn. Against this, Morphy often achieved a powerful bind, even occupying d6. (The chapter supplement contains a drastic example.) Morphy’s 5. Nb5 was therefore quite characteristic of his approach to such positions, more so than a simple developing move like 5. Nc3 would have been.

A later generation considered these games and became skeptical of Black’s pawn structure. Sergeant went so far as to query 4...e6 in his 1919 book! Similarly, Reuben Fine criticized 6...e5 in The World’s Great Chess Games: “Anderssen thinks nothing of weakening his pawn structure. 6...Ne5 was sounder.”

Actually, this suggestion of Fine’s doesn’t look very good after 7. N1a3! a6 8. Be5 de5 9. Qd8 Kd8 10. 0-0-0 Bd7 11. Nc4! So, 6...e5 is not only preferable to 6...Ne5, but practically forced. That means 4...e6 all but commits Black to a pawn formation with d6+e5 if White chooses to force it. Presumably then, Fine would have joined Sergeant in criticizing 4...e6, had he known the refutation of 6...Ne5, for he was quite consistent in advising that “in all variations [of the open Sicilian] Black must not move ...e5, leaving his d-pawn backward on an open file.” (from Ideas Behind the Chess Openings)

This was the state-of-the-art view in the 1940s, when Fine was acknowledged as one of the world’s preeminent opening theoreticians. But a few years later, some Soviet masters rehabilitated Black’s pawn structure. Thanks not so much to specific new variations, but rather to a general appreciation for the hidden strength of Black’s formation, this defense became a staple in many grandmasters’ repertoires. By 1971, theory had “evolved” so far that the exact sequence played in Morphy-Anderssen was on the board again in some of Bobby Fischer’s candidate’s match games versus Taimanov and Petrosian.

7.
Be3
f5?

This was too ambitious. The exposed diagonals, a2-g8 and h5-e8, and the tempo lost for development will all tell against Black in the ensuing complications. Either 7...Nf6 (as in Fischer-Petrosian, Buenos Aires 1971) or 7...a6 (Szen-Anderssen, London 1851!) would have been better.

8.
N1c3
f4

Position after 8...f4

Everyone queries this move, but how much better are the alternatives? If 8...fe4 9. Ne4 d5 10. Qd5. Or if 8...Nf6 9. Bg5 a6 10. Bf6 gf6 11. Qh5, underscoring one of 7...f5’s drawbacks.

Perhaps Black could make something out of 8...Be6 9. ef5 Bf5 10. Nd5 Rc8 11. c3, although if then 11...a6 12. Nbc7 he cannot take the knight. (12...Rc7 13. Bb6 etc.) Or again, maybe his pawn center gives hope for counterplay after 8...a6 9. Nd5! ab5 10. Bb6 Qh4 11. Nc7 Kf7 12. Na8 Qe4.

Position after 12...Qe4 (analysis)

Still, Black is an exchange behind and b5 is weak. In short, White stands better in all lines. So the question becomes one of practical chances, and in this connection the text move does not compare badly. In fact, Morphy was not up to the challenge it posed. Anderssen had some good opportunities later in the game. So all in all, the criticism of 8...f4 seems misplaced.

9. | Nd5! | fe3
10. | Nbc7 | Kf7
11. | Qf3 |

A slip! 11. Na8! ef2 12. Kf2 Qh4 13. g3 Qe4 14. Bg2 was the way to go. “For once the attacker should have taken his booty and defended.” [Reinfeld & Soltis]

11. | ... | Nf6
12. | Bc4 | Nd4!
13. | Nf6 | d5

14.
Bd5

Position after 14. Bd5

14.
...
Kg6?

Sergeant quotes a long analysis by Zukertort purporting to show that Black could defend by 14...Ke7! 15. Qh5 gf6 16. Qf7 Kd6 17. Na8 Nc2 18. Ke2 Qe7 19. Qe7 Be7 20. Rac1 Nd4 21. Ke3 Bd7 22. Rc7 (or 22. Bb7 Rb8 23. Bd5 Rb2) Ra8 23. Rb7 Bc6 24. Bc6 Nc6 25. Rc1 Nd8 26. Rd1 Ke6 27. Rc7 Rb8 28. b3.

Position after 28. b3 (analysis)

In view of all this, Reinfeld and Soltis recommended the wild alternative (after 14...Ke7) 15. Ng8!? Kd6 (15...Rg8 16. Qf7 Kd6 17. Ne8 Kc5 18. fe3 is a mess too) 16. Nb5!? Nb5 17. 0-0-0 Nd4 18. Rd4 ed4 19. fe3 “with tactical chances for the sacrificed rook.” If this really is White’s best chance, Black has no reason to complain either, especially considering the state of his position ten moves ago.

For those who distrust such long variations, Black had a simpler alternative to the text move: 14...Qd5! 15. Nfd5 Nf3 16. gf3 ef2 17. Kf2 Bc5 18. Ke2 Rb8.

Position after 18...Rb8 (analysis)

The bishop pair ought to show well against the knights in such a position. Black is fine despite the pawn minus. It would have been easy enough for Anderssen to calculate this variation, wherein all of White’s moves are forced. Therefore, the best explanation for the text move is that he hoped to do still better, but overlooked Morphy’s sacrificial response.

15. | Qh5 | Kf6
16. | fe3! |

Maybe Anderssen expected 16. Ne8? Qe8 17. Qe8 Bb4. That’s rather much to hope for, however. More likely he anticipated 16. Qf7!? Kg5 and Black’s king is remarkably hard to get at.

Position after 16...Kg5 (analysis)

As for the text move, Anderssen intended to continue 16...Qc7 17. 0-0 Nf5 18. Rf5 Bf5 19. Qf5 Ke7 20. Qe6 (20. Rd1!?) Kd8 21. Bb7! Qc2! 22. Ba8 Bc5 . Too late, he noticed that Morphy would actually answer 16...Qc7 with 17. ed4! and Black will be done in by his exposed king position. For example, 17...Ke7 18. 0-0-0 with irresistible threats; or 17...g6 18. Qh4 Kg7 19. 0-0 etc; or finally 17 ... Bb4 18. c3 Bc3 19. Ke2 Ke7 20. Rhf1 etc.

16.
...
Nc2

There’s nothing else to try.

17.
Ke2

Position after 17. Ke2

1-0

If 17...Na1 18. Ne8 Ke7 19. Qf7#; or if 17...Qc7 18. Rhf1 Ke7 19. Rf7 Kd6 20. Rc7 Kc7 21. Rc1 wins the knight as well.

Supplement to Chapter 2

(i) Anderssen’s Reverse Sicilian Formation

Anderssen’s games with MacDonnell and Wyville, and the game Morphy-Avery, all feature the formation that Anderssen used in three match games versus Morphy. The first two examples show Black executing the plan that Anderssen later adopted as White, with an extra tempo, by means of 1. a3!? The Avery game was actually played a few months prior to the Anderssen match. Even against an opponent far beneath Anderssen’s class, Morphy achieved little against this opening.

Anderssen-Wyville London 1851

1. e4 c5 2. d4 cd4 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. Nd4 e6 5. Be3 Nf6 6. Bd3 Be7 7. 0-0 0-0 8. Nd2 d5 9. Nc6 bc6 10. e5 Nd7 11. f4 f5 12. Rf3 c5 13. Rh3 Rf7 14. b3 g6 15. Nf3 Nb6 16. Bf2 d4 17. Bh4 Nd5 18. Qd2 a5 19. Be7 Re7 20. Ng5 Ne3 21. Qf2 Bb7 22. Bf1 Ng4 23. Qh4 Qd7 24. Rd1 (If 24. Bc4 [ΔBe6] Qc6 is good for Black.) Rc8 25. Be2 h5 26. Rg3 Qe8 27. Rd2 Rg7 28. c3 Ne3 29. cd4 cd4 30. Rd4 Rc1 31. Kf2 Nd5 (White has won a pawn but his position is most difficult, if not altogether lost, with his king awkwardly situated and so much of his army bogged down on the kingside.) 32. Rgd3 Qc6 33. Rd2? (33. Bf3 was the only try) Qb6! (Surprisingly, the pin against Rd4 is already decisive.) 34. Bc4 Rc2! 35. Ke1 Rd2 36. Rd2 Qg1 37. Bf1 Rc7 38. Rd1 Rc2 39. Qg3 Ba6 40. Qf3 Bf1 0-1

MacDonnell-Anderssen London 1862

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cd4 4. Nd4 Nf6 5. Bd3 Nc6 6. Be3 d5 7. Nc6 bc6 8. e5 Nd7 9. f4 f5 10. 0-0 Bc5 11. Qe2 0-0 12. Rf3 Be3 13. Re3 Nc5 14. Nd2 Ne4 15. Rf1 a5 16. Rff3 Ra7 17. Rh3 Qb6 18. Nf1 g6 19. g4 Rg7 20. Kg2 c5 21. Be4 fe4 22. Rb3 Qc7 (Black never got around to capturing b2, but his mobile center pawns constitute a great advantage.) 23. Kg3 c4 24. Ra3 g5 25. fg5 Qe5 26. Kg2 d4 27. Rh5 e3 28. Ng3 Qd5 29. Kg1 Rf2 30. Qf2 ef2 31. Kf2 Rf7 0-1

Position after 26...d4

Morphy-Avery Birmingham 1858

1. e4 c5 2. d4 cd4 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. Nd4 e6 5. Be3 Nf6 6. Bd3 d5 7. Nc6 bc6 8. e5 Nd7 9. f4 Ba6 (A resource not available to Anderssen, who played the opening with an extra tempo and thus had a pawn already on this square! Avery exchanges his “bad bishop” thanks to the tactic 10. Ba6 Qa5.) 10. 0-0 Bd3 11. Qd3 Bc5 12. Nd2 Be3 13. Qe3 Qb6 (Such bald play for simplification must have frustrated Morphy, but he was used to it. In every age, champions must contend with weaker challengers who are more than happy to “chop wood,” and aim for a draw from move one. And to be fair, the “threat” to move towards a draw seems a fair and legitimate weapon in the hands of the underdog. In this case, Morphy’s opponent may even have been doing him a favor. The positional basis for a middlegame attack by White is so poor, it’s just as well that an early reduction of forces dissuaded Morphy from unbalancing himself with an unjustified concentration on the kingside.) 14. Rae1 (It was an easy bet that Black would pass on 14...Qb2, rightly or not.) 0-0 15. b3 f6 16. ef6 Rf6 17. g3 Raf8 18. Kg2 Qe3 19. Re3 g6 20. Rfe1 (20. Nf3 would prevent Black’s next move.) e5 21. R1e2 (Of course not 21. fe5? Rf2.) ef4 22. Re7 R8f7 (Clearly 22...fg3 23. Rd7 Rf2 24. Rf2 Rf2 25. Kg3 Rd2 would violate Black’s “safety first” credo. He would win a pawn but leave his king nailed against the back rank, while White’s king would roam the board.) 23. gf4 Rf4 24. Re8 Kg7 (24...Nf8! 25. Rc8 R4f6 offered winning chances.) 25. Rc8 R4f6 26. Rc7 Nf8 27. Ree7 Re7 28. Re7 Rf7 29. Re8 Nd7 30. Nf3 Rf8 31. Re7 Rf7 32. Re8 Rf8 33. Re7 Rf7 draw (Black could have played on.)

(ii) Occupying Sicilian Defense Weak Points

The following game is a harsh example of Morphy’s technique for clamping down on the Sicilian Defense as it was typically handled in the mid-1800.

Morphy-Paulsen New York 1857

1. e4 c5 2. d4 cd4 3. Nf3 (White doesn’t accomplish anything special by this move order, but Morphy himself declared 2. d4 superior to the more common 2. Nf3 with d4 to follow. One idea was to tempt Black into 2...cd4 3. Nf3 e5?! (Δ4. Ne5? Qa5), when White would happily complete his gambit offer with 4. Bc4 (to prevent...d5) and 5. c3!) e6 4. Nd4 Bc5 5. Nb3 Bb6 6. Nc3 Ne7 7. Bf4 0-0 8. Bd6 f5 9. e5 a6 10. Be2 Nbc6 11. 0-0 Rf7 12. Kh1 f4 13. Ne4 Nf5 14. Bh5 g6 15. Bg4 Ng7 (Black’s game looks disastrous, but many players of that day were so convinced of White’s advantage in an open game that they were ready to give such cramped, defensive crouches a try. In fact, Paulsen seems to have had a genuine fondness for this type position. Black is strong on all points where his pieces stand. It’s on the empty squares in between that he suffers.) 16. Qf3 h5 17. Bh3 Qh4 18. Nf6 Kh8 19. Qe4 Qg5 20. g3 f3 (Paulsen realized his pawn was immune to capture for the time being (21. Qf3 Ne5) and he hoped gradually to root White’s pieces out of his ranks, beginning by ...bad8. He didn’t count on Morphy’s alert reply.) 21. Nd2! Bd8 (Impossible is 21...Qd2 22. Qg6 etc; or 21...Ne5 22. Be5 Rf6 23. Nf3) 22. Nf3 Qh6 23. Rg1 Bf6 24. ef6 Ne8 25. Bf4 Nf6 (Black’s strategy backfired and now his attempt at tactical repartee results in the outright loss of a piece.) 26. Qc6 Qf4 (Or 26...bc6 27. Bh6 Ne4 28. Ne5 Nf2 29. Kg2 Rf6 30. Rgf1.) 27. Qc8 Rc8 28. gf4 Rc2 29. Rae1 Rf2 30. Rc8 Ng8 31. Ne5 Rg7 32. Ng6 Kh7 33. Nf8 Kh6 34. Nd7 Rd7 35. Rcg8 Rf4 36. Be6 Re7 37. R8g6 Kh7 38. Bg8 Kh8 39. Rh6 1-0

Position after 20...f3

Paul Morphy, New Orleans, 1870

3

Wilhelm Steinitz, Father of the “Modern School”

Paul Morphy and Wilhelm Steinitz never met over the board. Nevertheless, the contrast between their respective conceptions of chess, the popular image of them manning opposite sides of an epochal barrier separating “romantic” and “modern” strategy, constitutes a kind of rivalry in the minds of chess enthusiasts.

It’s an indication of their status as icons for different eras that the actual chronological relationship between Morphy and Steinitz is unknown to most modem players. Steinitz’s “Modern School” followed Morphy’s “Romantic” age of course, so people naturally assume that a generation separated the players themselves, or at least that Steinitz was the younger of the two men. In fact, Steinitz was born a year before Morphy. But Morphy was a genuine prodigy, and his career was effectively finished long before Steinitz matured as a player. Thus when Morphy was in London and Paris conquering the world’s strongest masters, Steinitz, a year older, was neglecting his studies at Vienna Polytechnic Institute and finishing runner-up in club tournaments. Had he not retired prematurely, Morphy would have been in his prime at the same time Steinitz was most influential in promulgating his Modern School. How might Morphy’s playing style have developed had he continued his competitive career? And how might chess have evolved differently, had Morphy stayed on as an active rival of “the great law-giver”?

By following Morphy as the world’s preeminent player, Steinitz enjoyed the “positional advantage” of having the last word between them. He subjected Morphy’s chess to lengthy analysis and criticism. (Morphy’s only direct counterblow came in 1883. A friend informed him that Steinitz had come to New Orleans and desired a meeting with the reclusive former champion. Morphy is supposed to have replied obliquely, “Yes, I know. His gambit is not good.”) Steinitz’s essay “Paul Morphy and the Play of His Time” appeared in serial form in the January through April, 1885 issues of The International Chess Magazine. At that time, Steinitz was 49 years old and widely acknowledged as the world’s best player for a decade already. The essay betrays Steinitz’s irritation with what he saw as the public’s fawning over Morphy’s ghost, especially as he felt his own accomplishments were insufficiently appreciated.

“We shall not argue with pseudo critics, who endeavor to obtain a cheap popularity by sacrificing the living to the dead,” he imperiously began, “but there are undoubtably some able and conscientious chess writers, especially among his countrymen, who earnestly believe in the indisputable superiority of Morphy over all his successors.” Steinitz then proceeds with his best Mark Anthony routine, chopping away at Morphy’s reputation and all the while claiming to praise him.

The essay’s basic line of attack, as its title suggests, was to elaborate the advances in chess technique since Morphy’s time.

It would be misleading to represent Morphy’s play as a model for our time, when, as a matter of fact, the game has made progress since his period in all directions, and on the other hand we believe his reputation will shine in a more lasting light, if divested of the coloring of imagination.

Not coincidentally, the most important progress mentioned by Steinitz involved techniques closely associated with his own style and practice:

There can be no doubt that in many respects the style of our time has become almost antagonistic to that of the Morphy period. To use the ingenious contradistinction adopted by the elegant critic of the Times-Democrat, “the attacking defense” has in great measure given way to “the defensive attack.” The assault against the kingside forms the exception, whereas in former days it was made the rule. Generally at the outset the attack is directed chiefly towards the center or the queen’s wing, which is mostly the one farthest away from the adverse king... All this is only in accordance with principles which are firmly established in the practice of our time, while they were little known in the Morphy period. The main idea underlying the change of method is the recognition of the fact that the king is in reality a strong piece, which not alone possesses great powers for defensive purposes, but can even be made use of for the attack early in the game.

Turning to specific examples, Steinitz selects some positions from Morphy’s games and refutes the master’s handling of them. (See Chapter 5). All the while he keeps reminding his readers that,

Morphy’s genius is no more affected by acknowledging the progress since his time than it would diminish the glory of Columbus to state that millions of people know more about America nowadays than its first discoverer.

But if Morphy received too much credit for “discovering” the Principle of Development, it’s equally the case that Steinitz, and later Reti, et al. chose to overlook many instances where Morphy’s play demonstrates his command of other ideas, ideas that were supposedly unknown until much later.

As an illustration, consider the theme of a strategic flank attack with pawns. In general, such attacks go back at least to Philidor. But as a systematic positional device, they are often attributed to Steinitz. In fact, Reti took pains to contrast Steinitz with Morphy in this regard:

...I propose to consider here the difference in the scheme of Morphy’s and Steinitz’s games respectively. Morphy tried his utmost at the commencement to press forward in the center, so that his game became open quite early...Steinitz readily chose openings in which he obtained in the center a more defensive, but strong and unassailable position. The assured center position afforded him the possibility to prepare a wing attack... With Morphy, who always brought about an open game, that kind of maneuver was impossible as he dared not permit himself in open positions to lose so much time.

[Modern Ideas in Chess]

A game Dubois-Steinitz, London 1862 began 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. 0-0 Nf6 5. d3 d6 6. Bg5 h6 7. Bh4 g5 8. Bg3 h5.

Position after 8...h5

Textbooks frequently cite this game as a prototype for the flank attack theme, as well as an illustration of Steinitz’s “revolutionary” theories. The inconvenient reality is that Steinitz in 1862 was still a self-proclaimed disciple of Morphy’s romantic style, with no special theories of his own. In fact, his nickname at that time was “the Austrian Morphy.” Morphy himself was still assumed to be an active force in competitive chess. In short, the Dubois-Steinitz game is completely a product of the “Morphy Period,” and not “The Modern School.” But commentators prefer to exaggerate the chronological and theoretical distance between Morphy and Steinitz. Thus Reti’s remarks on the diagram position in Masters of the Chessboard:

We would vainly look for such an attack which is today accepted as a matter of course, in an offensive player of Morphy’s type. This is due to the fact that such an advance is appropriate only when the center is fully protected and if possible closed up, while Morphy, as we have seen, always endeavored to open the game as quickly as possible.

If this is not willful misrepresentation, then what collection of Morphy games did Reti consult? His search would not have been in vain had he seen Morphy’s first official tournament game - the very first! - featuring as it does the opening moves 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. d3 Nf6 5. Nc3 h6 6. Ne2 d6 7. c3 0-0 8. h3 Kh8 9. Ng3 Nh7 10. Qc2 f5 (Thompson-Morphy, New York 1857). {1} It’s true the remainder of that game is a poor example of the flank attack theme. Thompson, with weak play, allowed Morphy to overrun him in the center after all. And while it’s also true that the flank attack was never a Morphy favorite, he did play several games that make fine companion pieces for those very Steinitz efforts that Reti highlighted.

Stanley-Morphy New York 1857

1. | e4 | e5
2. | Nf3 | Nc6
3. | Bc4 | Bc5
4. | c3 | Nf6
5. | d3 |

For a long time, 5. d4 ed4 6. cd4 Bb4 7. Nc3 (or 7. Bd2) Ne4 8. 0-0 Bc3 9. d5 represented the “dynamic” approach, while the older 5. d3 was considered tame and unsophisticated. Nowadays, avoiding a “premature opening of the center” is thought to be a more promising way of handling the variation. And so the wheel of opening theory turns. For example, Nunn-Pinter, Helsinki 1983 went 5. d3 a6 6. 0-0 d6 7. Bb3 0-0 8. Bg5 h6 9. Bh4 g5 10. Bg3 Bg4 11. Nbd2 Nh5 12. Kh1 Qf6 13. h3 Bd7 14. d4. Here Nunn gave 14...ed4 15. e5! (in the actual game he played 15. Nd4!? and drew shortly) de5 16. Ne4 Qe7 17. Nfg5 Ng3 18. fg3 hg5 19. Qh5 White wins.

5. | ... | d6
6. | h3 | 0-0
7. | Bg5 | Bb6
8. | Nbd2 | Be6
9. | 0-0 |

Position after 9. 0-0

9.
...
h6

Morphy held this back until White had committed to 9.0-0 out of concern over a possible flank pawn attack by White (g2-g4-g5).

10.
Bh4?!

After this, the White pawn at h3 and the opportunities to drive back White’s bishop with tempo are enough to persuade Morphy to launch his own flank attack, even after himself castling kingside. 10. Be3 would have been less provocative.

10. | ... | Kh8
11. | Nh2 |

Stanley must have been worried about 11...g5 12. Bg3 g4 13. hg4 Bg4 Δ Nh5, f4, etc.

11. | ... | g5
12. | Bg3 | h5

Position after 12...h5

Compare this position with Dubois-Steinitz! It’s not unlikely that Steinitz had even studied this game prior to playing his own, since Stanley-Morphy appears in Lowenthal’s 1860 book.

13.
Nhf3?!

The point of the text is to answer 13...g4 with 14. Ng5. Against 13...h4, on the other hand, White envisions a piece sacrifice to punish Black for pushing the pawns in front of his own king. Since Morphy had no trouble proving the sacrifice insufficient however, Stanley should have preferred 13. h4. The normal reply, 13...g4, would have led to double-edged play, probably favorable for White: 14. Be6 fe6 15. Nc4! Now a move like 15...Qe7 or 15...Rg8 would be answered 16. a4! forcing a weakening of Black’s pawn structure. If instead 15...Ne7 (preparing ...c6 if necessary) the game might continue 16. Qd2 Neg8 17. Qg5 (White could equally choose to play in the center, e.g. 17 Rave1 Δ d4 with a plus) Qe7 18. Kh1 Qg7 19. f3 and it’s hard to say which side is attacking.

In view of all this, perhaps Morphy intended 13...Rg8!?

Position after 13...Rg8 (analysis)

For example, 14. Be6 fe6 15. hg5 Rg5 16. Bh4 Rg6 (16...Rg7 17. Qf3) 17. Bf6 Qf6 18. Qh5 Rh6 . But here too White has an improvement at hand, 17. Nc4! Qe7 (conceding a tempo lost, but it’s hard to suggest anything else useful) 18. Nb6 ab6 19. Bf6 Qf6 20. Qh5 Rh6 21. Ng4! Rh5 22. Nf6 and White is for choice. (If now 22...Rg5, hoping to snare the knight, 23. f4 ef4 24. Rf4 Rf8 25. Raf 1 Ne5 26. d4 Ng6 27. Rg4!)

13. | ... | h4
14. | Nh4?! |

14. Bh2 g4 hands Black an attack. But on the other hand, the text doesn’t work.

14. | ... | gh4
15. | Bh4 | Kg7

Position after 15...Kg7

As compensation for his sacrifice, White must exploit the pinned Nf6. Black’s last move defends the knight and threatens to step out of the pin (e.g. Qd7). Therefore, White has no time for 16. Kh1 Δ f4; to maintain the pressure on f6, he is compelled to play 16. Qf3. But then the clumsiness of his “attack” is manifest: The queen blocks the f-pawn and the knight. In short, Stanley’s sacrifice was ill-considered. The final moves were a rout:

16. Qf3 Rh8 17. Qg3 Kf8 18. Qg5 Nd7 19. Be6 fe6 20. Qd8 Nd8 21. Nf3 Kg7 22. g4 Nf8 23. Kg2 Ng6 24. Bg5 Nf7 25. h4 Ng5 26. hg5 Nf4 27. Kg3 (Preferring immediate death to the mate that would soon follow 27. Kg1 Rh3) Rh3# 0-1.

Morphy-Lichtenhein New York 1857

1. | e4 | e5
2. | Nf3 | Nf6
3. | Bc4!? |

For a thorough discussion of this old gambit, see Chapter 8. Maroczy gave a different move order for the opening moves of this particular game, White’s 2nd and 3rd moves transposed. Lowenthal and Sergeant give the moves as they appear here. Such minor discrepancies are common in the record of Morphy’s games. In this case 2. Nf3 is much more likely to be correct. Morphy personally oversaw the preparation of Lowenthal’s book and, besides, he played 2. Nf3 much more often than 2. Bc4.

3. | ... | Ne4
4. | Nc3 | d5

5. | Bd5 | Nf6
6. | Bb3 | Bd6

If 6...Nc6? 7. Ng5.

7. | d3 | 0-0
8. | h3 | h6?

Unnecessary and very hazardous with his king already committed to the kingside and White free to launch a pawn attack there.

9. | Be3 | Nc6
10. | Qd2 |

Steinitz recommended 10. g4 Na5 11. g5 hg5 12. Ng5 “with a strong attack.”

Position after 12. Ng5 (analysis)

However, after 12...Nb3 13. ab3 Bf5 neither 14. Qf3 Bg6 15. Nce4 (15. 0-0-0? Bh5) Nc4 16. de4 Qe7 Δf6, nor 14. h4 Bg4! convincingly improve upon Morphy’s handling of the position.

10.
...
Na5

Hunting down the bishop is more than a mere luxury for Black. White’s 10. Qd2 raised the danger of an effective Bh6 followed by Qh6 and Qg6! in the near future.

11.
g4!?

Position after 11. g4

11. | ... | Nb3
12. | ab3 | Bd7

12...Nh7 13. Rg1 probably transposes, but that may be a more accurate move order. As played, White got an additional option, 13. g5.

13. | Rg1 | Nh7
14. | Ne4 | Kh8
15. | g5 | h5
16. | Nh4 |

If 16. g6? fg6 White’s knight would hang.

16. | ... | g6
17. | Qe2 | Bc6

Position after 17...Bc6

The removal of his own g5 pawn could strengthen White’s attack. At present this pawn obstructs the Rg1, the Be3, and the Ne4. One way White might liquidate his pawn is by an eventual Nf6!?, when Black could hardly avoid exchanging this knight for long. Another scenario is Ng3xh5!? followed by g6. The text creates a third possibility, Nf5!? This seems an attractive option since it utilizes the offsides Nh4 instead of the centralized Ne4. Perhaps this is why Sergeant branded 17...Bc6 with a “?” (but offered no alternative!)

17...Qe7 was possible. Then if Morphy had continued to build his position by 18 0-0-0, Black could launch an unclear counterattack 18...a5!? For all that, however, it’s not clear that 17...Bc6 was wrong. White’s attack doesn’t “play itself” in any event, and there is something to be said for preparing to eliminate Ne4.

18.
f4

Steinitz called this “hazardous and in fact unsound.” In contrast, Lowenthal reflects the popular infatuation with Morphy circa 1857:

When Mr Morphy ventures a sacrifice, it is almost invariably made on sound principles, and the combination of which it forms the key is seldom otherwise than perfectly accurate. This is a marked feature of the game of the young American master, and calls for our highest appreciation and commendation.

Whatever, the alternative 18. 0-0-0 a5!? would give Black counterchances too. Reinfeld and Soltis echo Steinitz’s condemnation of the “unsound” text, but then they go and recommend 19. Nf5?! gf5 20. Qh5. It’s so easy to sacrifice someone else’s pieces.

18.
...
ef4?!

18...Be4 would have been more effective, besides justifying Black’s previous move. The point is to eliminate a defender of g5, so that if 19. de4 ef4 20. Bd4 Kg8 21. Nf5 Ng5! becomes possible. Under the right circumstances, Black can grab this pawn after all.

19. | Bd4! | Kg8
20. | Nf5 | Re8

If 20...gf5? 21. Nf6 wins outright.

21. | Nh6 | Kf8
22. | 0-0-0 |

Position after 22. 0-0-0

22.
...
Be4?!

22...Ba3?! might work out in the event of 23. Bf6 Nf6 24. gf6 Bd6 25. Qh5 Be4 26. de4 Qf6. However, simply 23. Qf2 embarrasses Black.

22...Ng5!? is another story. With his rook at e8, Black doesn’t need ...Be4 to capture g5. This is significant because by avoiding the preliminary exchange on e4, Black denies White’s queen access to c4. Black does well after 23. Rg5 Qg5, or 23. Bf6 Re4! etc. But Maroczy muddies the waters with his remarkable 23. Nf7 Nf7 24. Rg6. Presumably his objection to 23...Kf7 was that White can win an exchange by 24. Ng5 Qg5 25. Qe8. Even so, after 25...Re8 26. Rg5 f3 Black would be at least equal.

Position after 26...f3 (analysis)

Finally, Reinfeld and Soltis’s 22...Be5 looks good for Black also. 23. Bc5 Bd6 (why not 23...Kg7?) 24. Qf2 (“White does better to play for the draw” - Reinfeld and Soltis) Be4 25. Qf4? Bf5.

To sum up: Lichtenhein’s 18th and 22nd moves are each open to second guessing, but neither is demonstrably incorrect. Together, however, they fan the flames of an otherwise problematic attack.

23.
de4
Qe7

Here again 23...Ng5 was possible. True, after 24. Qc4 (ΔRg5) Ne6 25. e5!

Position after 25. e5 (analysis)

25...Be7 26. Rg6! fg6 27. Qe6 Kg7 28. Nf5! (better than both 28. Rg1 Bg5!; and 28. Nf7 Qc8, which are unclear) gf5 29. Rg1 Bg5 30. Qf5 would win for White.

But Black can improve his play with the clever 25...b5! 26. Qb5 (26. Qd5 Bb4) Nd4 27. Rd4 Re5 28. Qc4 Qe7 and he should be able to withstand the attack.

Even after the text, it’s unclear whether or not White has anything!

24.
e5
Be5?!

Why should Black open the floodgates? 24...Bc5! leads to a position with chances to both sides, e.g. 25. Nf5!? gf5 26. Bc5 (26. Qh5? Bd4 27. Qh7 Qe5 28. g6 might work against 28...Qg7 29. Rd4!; or even 28...Be3?! 29. Kb1 Qg7 30. Rd7!; but not 28...Bb2! 29. Kb1 Qg7 30. Rd7 Re7) Qc5 27. Qh5 Qe5 (27...Kg8? 28. g6) 28. Qh7 Rad8.

Position after 28..Rad8 (analysis)

25. | Be5 | Qe5
26. | Rd7! | Qg7?

Only after this mistake is Morphy’s victory assured. Also inadequate were 26...Re7? 27. Qe5 Re5 28. Rf7 Ke8 29. Rh7; and 26...Kg727. Rf7 Kh8 28. Rf8 Kg7 29. Rg8 Rg8 30. Qe5 Kf8 31. Qf4.

The best defense as given by Sergeant (actually a correction of Lowenthal’s analysis) is once again 26...Ng5! 27. Rg5 Qf6 (not 27...Qe3? 28. Qe3 Re3 29. Rf7 Ke8 30. Rg6 etc.) 28. Qc4 (If 28. Qh5 Rad8! 29. Rd8 Qd8 30. Qh4 Re7; or if 28. Qg2 f3) Re1 29. Kd2 (maybe 29. Rd1 Rd1 30. Kd1 Rd8) Re7 30. Re7 Qe7 (inserting 30...Rd8 would make sense) 31. Re5 Qf6.

After the text move, Black’s queen is unable to help out with defense in the center.

Position after 26...Qg7

27. | Qc4 | Re7
28. | Re7 | Ke7
29. | Re1 |

1-0

Supplement to Chapter 3

(i) “The Austrian Morphy”

At approximately the same time Morphy was dazzling crowds in Paris, Steinitz was also attracting attention, albeit on the more modest stage of Vienna’s Cafe Romer. Thanks to games such as the Hamppe contest given here, he even acquired the nickname, “The Austrian Morphy.” Stylistically, this game is certainly closer to Morphy than to Steinitz’s own signature pieces from later in his career, after he became known as “The Father of Modern Chess.”

Hamppe-Steinitz Vienna 1859

1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. f4 d5 4. ed5 (4. fe5 is better.) Nd5 5. fe5 Nc3 6. bc3 Qh4 7. Ke2 Bg4 8. Nf3 Nc6 9. d4 0-00 10. Bd2 (Blocking the d-file in a vain attempt to stop ...Ne5) Bf3 11. gf3 Ne5!? 12. de5 Bc5 13. Qe1 Qc4 14. Kd1 Qc3 15. Rb1 Qf3 16. Qe2 Rd2! 17. Kd2 Rd8 18. Kc1 Ba3 19. Rb2 Qc3 20. Bh3 Kb8 21. Qb5 Qd2 22. Kb1 Qd1 23. Rd1 Rd1# 0-1

Position after 23...Rd1 mate

(ii) Flank Attacks

The games below help put the strategic flank attack in historical perspective. Smith-Philidor is an attack with pawns that was played a century before Steinitz. Steinitz-MacDonnell is one of Reti’s selections for illustrating the flank attack theme in Masters of the Chessboard. Based on this and a few other games, Reti credited Steinitz with authoring a new and revolutionary approach. The reader may judge for himself in light of Morphy-Lowenthal.

Steinitz-Blackburne echoes Morphy’s game versus Lichtenhein from the main part of the chapter, with a charging g-pawn that pries open just the right lines when it reaches the enemy bulwarks. LaRoche-Morphy features a flank attack in a “closed” opening setting, relatively uncommon in Morphy’s practice.

Smith-Philidor London, 1790

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 c6 4. Bg5 h6 5. Bf6 Qf6 6. Nc3 b5 7. Bb3 a5 8. a3 Bc5 9. Nf3 d6 10. Qd2 Be6 11. Be6 fe6 12. 0-0 g5 13. h3 (Rather than creating targets on the kingside, White ought to open the game to take advantage of his superior development. True,13. d4 hoping for 13...ed4 14. e5 de5? 15. Ne4 Qe7 16. Ne5, can be refuted by 14...dc3! 15. Qc3 Qg7.) Nd7 14. Nh2 h5 15. g3 Ke7 16. Kg2 d5 17. f3 Nf8 18. Ne2 Ng6 19. c3 Rag8 20. d4 Bb6 21. de5 Qe5 22. Nd4 Kd7 23. Rae1 h4 (Just when it appeared Smith might challenge Philidor’s initiative, the Black attack hits home. From here on, White faces a succession of threats.) 24. Qf2 Bc7 25. Ne2 hg3 26. Qg3 Qg3 27. Ng3 Nf4 28. Kh1 Rh3 29. Rg1 Rh2 30. Kh2 Rh8 31. Nh5 Rh5 32. Kg3 Nh3 33. Kg4 Rh4# 0-1

Steinitz-MacDonnell Dublin 1865

(Italicized comments from Masters of the Chessboard, by Richard Reti)

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bc4 (Very characteristically Steinitz is working towards the following structure: A fully secured, rather defensive position in the center, in preparation and execution of a flank attack undisturbed by counterattacks in the center.) Be7 4. c3 Nf6 5. d3 0-0 6. 0-0 Bg4 7. h3 Bf3 8. Qf3 c6 9. Bb3 Nbd7 10. Qe2 Nc5 11. Bc2 (White’s light square bishop looks passive, but it is destined to strike the killing blow on move 27.) Ne6 12. g3! Qc7 13. f4 Rfe8 14. Nd2 Rad8 15. Nf3 Kh8 16. f5 Nf8 17. g4 h6 18. g5 (In all these flank attacks, the defender’s eventual downfall is partly due to some line that he helped to open himself, by advancing a pawn in the castle formation. The attacker is almost always better able to exploit whatever lines open when the pawn attack finally reaches the proffered target. Here for example, White’s can obviously put the g-file to use, whereas there is no concern about what Black might do on the h-file.) hg5 19. Ng5 Kg8 20. Kh1 N6h7 21. Nf3 Rd7 22. Rg1 Bd8 23. Bh6 f6 24. Rg2 d5 25. Rag1 Ree7 26. ed5 cd5 27. Ba4 Rd6 28. Rg7 Rg7 29. Rg7 Qg7 30. Bg7 (Reti stopped his annotations here, dismissing the position as won for White. In fact, twenty further moves were played. The concluding play gets a bit messy, which would have distracted from Reti’s lesson plan.) Kg7 31. Qg2 Kh8 32. Nd2 Bb6 33. Be8 Be3 34. Nf1 Bf4 35. Bf7 Ng5 36. Bh5 Rd7 37. Bg4 (Black almost succeeds in wresting the initiative, but a queen is a queen. Sooner or later, maneuvering must give way to tactics. Then the queen’s superior mobility will allow White to pocket still more material.) e4 38. Qf2 Bb8 39. Qd4 Be5 40. Qa7 ed3 41. Kg2 d4 42. c4 Kg7 43. Qa3 Ne4 44. Qd3 Nc5 45. Qa3 Bd6 46. Ng3 d3 47. Nh5 Kf7 48. b4 Na6 49. c5 Be5 50. c6 1-0

Position after 17...h6

Morphy-Lowenthal London 1858

1. e4 e5 2. f4 Bc5 3. Nf3 d6 4. c3 Bg4 5. Bc4 Bf3 6. Qf3 Nf6 7. b4 Bb6 8. d3 Nbd7 9. f5 Qe7 10. g4 h6 11. Ke2 (Steinitz admired this move!) c6 (In the large, this game follows the pattern of Smith-Philidor above. That is, the attacker’s king is safest in the center because that is the most stable region, as far as pawn action is concerned. However, in this case the defender has not yet committed to kingside castling either.) 12. g5 hg5 13. Bg5 d5 14. Bb3 (14. ed5 e4! is bad for White, e.g. 15. de4 (or 15. Qe4 Ne4 16. Be7 Ng3!) Ne5) Qd6 15. Nd2 a5 16. ba5 Ra5 17. h4 Nh5 18. Nf1 Nc5 19. Bc2 Rb5 20. Bc1 de4 21. de4 Rb2? (A faulty combination. Lowenthal probably underestimated White’s 25th move.) 22. Bb2 Nf4 23. Ke1 Ncd3 24. Bd3 Nd3 25. Kd2! Nb2 26. Kc2 (Now Morphy’s king is safe enough, he has a material advantage, and he takes over the initiative by counterattacking Black’s knight. Dazed by the turn of events, Lowenthal did not resist well.) Qa3 (26...Nc4 was better) 27. Nd2 Bc7? 28. Nb1 1-0

Position after 10...h6

Steinitz-Blackburne London 1876

(Italicized comments from Masters of the Chessboard, by Richard Reti)

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. d3 d6 6. c3 (Building up the defensive position in the center so typical of Steinitz and with which we are already familiar.) Be7 7. h3 (This move, usually implying loss of time and strength, especially when made by less experienced players, is very fine in this instance. It has not been made, as might be imagined, to prevent ...Bg4; which is usually the intention of less experienced players, but to prepare for g4, in case Black should, after castling, threaten to disengage his game by ...f5; g4 being at the same time the beginning of White’s intended attack against the kingside.) 0-0 8. Qe2 Ne8 9. g4 9...b5 10. Bc2 Bb7 11. Nbd2 Qd7 12. Nf1 Nd8 13. Ne3 Ne6 14. Nf5 g6 15. Ne7 Qe7 16. Be3 N8g7 17. 0-0-0 c5 18. d4 ed4 19. cd4 c4 20. d5 Nc7 21. Qd2 a5 22. Bd4 f6 23. Qh6 b4 24. g5 f5 25. Bf6 Qf7 26. ef5 gf5 27. g6! Qg6 28. Bg7 Qh6 (28...Qg7 29. Rhg1) 29. Bh6 and 1-0 after some further moves.

Position after 9. g4

LaRoche-Morphy Paris 1859

1. f4 e6 2. e4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. c4 d4 6. d3 Nh6 7. Be2 Be7 8. Nbd2 0-0 9. Ne4 f5 10. Neg5 Nf7 11. Nf7 Rf7 12. 0-0 b6 13. Bd2 Bb7 14. h3 h6 (Despite White’s advanced e-pawn, which would normally convey a natural initiative on the kingside, Morphy assesses that it is he who’s better prepared to try a flank attack. His justification is the strong Bb7.) 15. Nh2 g5 16. Bf3 Rg7 17. a3 Qc7 18. Qe2 gf4 19. Bf4 Bg5 20. Bg5 Rg5 (Even in closed positions, Morphy’s forte was to play with pieces rather than pawns. Thus the open g-line interested him more than the structural merits of 20...hg5.) 21. Rae1 Kh7 22. Kh1 Rag8 23. Rf2 Ne7 24. Bb7 Qb7 25. Qf3 Qc7 26. g4? Ng6 27. Qe2 Nh4 28. Nf3 Qb7 29. Kh2 Nf3 30. Qf3 Qf3 31. Rf3 fg4 32. Rf6 Rh5! 33. Re6 Rh3 34. Kg2 Rd3 35. Rf1 g3 36. Rff6 Rd2 37. Kg1 Rh2 38. Rf7 Rg7 39. Rg7 Kg7 40. Rf6 Re2 41. Rf3 Re3 (Accurately neutralizing the only possible source of future counterplay.) 42. Rf1 d3 43. Kg2 d2 44. Rd1 Rd3 45. Kf1 Kf7 46. Ke2 Rd4 47. Kf3 Ke6 48. Kg3 Ke5 49. Kf3 Rd3 0-1

4

Thomas Barnes

London and Paris were world capitals of 19th century chess. During his visits, Morphy met and played nearly all the leading masters. Anderssen was the strongest of these, based on his tournament and match career, but he was not the most successful in one-on-one encounters with Morphy. Thomas Wilson Barnes is all but forgotten today but with at least eight wins to his credit, he took more full points off Morphy than any other European master.

Morphy - Barnes London 1859

1. | e4 | e5
2. | Nf3 | Nf6
3. | Bc4 |

Another example of this Morphy favorite against the Petroff Defense. In the previous chapter, Lichtenhein sidestepped a theoretical debate by 3...Ne4 4. Nc3 d5!? Barnes heads right down the main line. For now we will pass over the opening lightly, however, reserving a detailed examination of the variation until Chapter8.

3. | ... | Ne4
4. | Nc3 | Nc3

5.
dc3
f6

If 5...d6? 6. Ng5 (not so good is 6. Ne5? Qe7, e.g. 7. Bf7 Kd8 8. Bf4 Nd7) Be6 7. Be6 fe6 8. Qf3 etc. Black must play the text if he wants to keep his extra pawn.

Position after 5...f6

6.
0-0

Of course 6. Ne5? Qe7 is even worse now.

6. | ... | Qe7
7. | Nh4 | d6
8. | Qh5 | Kd8
9. | f4 |

Not 9. Ng6? Qe8.

9. | ... | Be6
10. | Be6 | Qe6
11. | fe5 | de5
12. | Ng6 | Bc5

12...Qf7? fails to 13. Qd1.

13. | Kh1 | Re8
14. | Qh7 | Qg8

Position after 14...Qg8

White regained the pawn with Black’s king stuck in the center. But Black has the better pawn structure (a healthy kingside majority) plus attack chances on the h-file, and White’s bishop is hard to activate. All things considered, Black is for choice.

15. | Qh5 | Nd7
16. | b4?! |

Barnes goes on to make good use of the light squares, particularly c4, weakened by this pawn thrust. Alternatives like 16. Bd2 or 16. b3!? are not very exciting, but they would have been preferable. White could set up a pawn lattice on light squares (b3, c4, maybe a4) to make his structure solid and in harmony with his bishop. Black’s knight would be somewhat circumscribed, and there would still be the problem of finding a permanent home for the Black king.

16. | ... | Bd6
17. | Bd2 | Qf7
18. | Qg4 | Qe6
19. | Qe4 | Nb6!

If 19...c6 (or Kc8) 20. c4 with initiative. By offering up the b7 pawn, Black takes control of the strong point c4.

20.
Qb7
Qg4

Position after 20...Qg4

Now the Ng6 is in great danger. Nonetheless, had Morphy played 21. c4!? (Δ 21...Qg6 22. c5) Qc4 22. Be3 (ΔBb6), he could have contested Black’s initiative.

21. Rad1!? also deserved consideration, with the point that 21...Qg6 22. c4 recovers the piece thanks to the threatened pawn fork, the latent pin or discovered check on the d-line, and the uncertain defense of Ra8. (Black can’t break through with his own attack: 22...Rh8 23. c5 Qg3 24. h3 Rh3? 25. gh3 Qh3 26. Kg1 Qg3 27. Qg2.) In reply to 21. Rad1, Black might try 21...Rc8 22. c4 Nc4 (22...Qc4 23. Qf3 saves the piece) 23. Qc6.

Position after 23. Qc6 (analysis)

To some degree, the exposed Black king would offset any material White loses. At the very least White would be virtually a tempo ahead of the actual game, so Morphy’s next move is unquestionably wrong.

21.
a4?

Morphy actually wants to force ...Rc8, inspired by some mating motifs in which Black’s king is suffocated by its fellow pieces. But in the end, the merits of ...Rc8 outweigh its defects. Meanwhile the pawn at a4 plays no role in the further course of the game.

21. | ... | Rc8
22. | Rad1 | Qg6
23. | Be3 |

Now if 23. c4, simply 23...Nc4 since Black’s rook is no longer en prise. Morphy’s piece sacrifice is consistent but dubious.

23. | ... | Nc4
24. | Qc6 | Qf7

Not 24...Ne3? 25. Rd6 Ke7 (25...cd6 26. Qd6#) 26. Rd7 Kf8 27. Qc5 Kg8 28. Qe3.

25.
Ba7

Position after 25. Ba7

Intending 26. Rd4 or Rd5! In either case, any move by Black’s threatened knight would open the door to the winning combination, 27. Rd6 cd6 28. Qd6 Qd7 29.Bb6 Rc7 30. Bc7 etc.

25. | ... | e4!
26. | Rd4 |

In view of Black’s reply, 26. Rd5! was worth considering. The point would be that if 26...Re5 (for 26...Ne5? see the next note), only then 27. Rd4 and Black’s rook interferes with the bishop.

26.
...
Qh5!

26...Ne5? runs into 27. Rd6 Ke7 (27...cd6 28. Qd6 Qd7 29. Bb6 Rc7 30. Bc7) 28. Bc5! Nc6 29. Rdf6 followed by Rf7. White finishes up several pawns to the good.

After the text, on the other hand, White is in desperate straits. 27. h3 runs into 27...Qe5. Also, if 27. g3 27...Rh8. Morphy finds the only move.

27. | Rf4! | e3!
28. | g4 | e2

28...Qh4 was probably winning as well.

29. | gh5 | e1(Q)
30. | Kg2 | Re2
31. | Kh3 | f5?!

It’s always charming to see such “quiet moves” punctuate an attack, especially when they entail a sacrifice. Many commentators award the text a “!!” in view of Black’s next move and the ultimate result of the game. But in truth, 31...f5 is inaccurate. Vukovich’s 31...Qc3! was undoubtably better. Then Black would be winning in all variations. For example:

Position after 31...Qc3 (analysis)

If 32. Kh4 Rh2; or if 32. Kg4 Ne5; or if 32. Rf3 Rh2 33. Kg4 Ne5.

If 32. Qf3 Qf3 (but not 32...Rh2? 33. Kh2 Qf3 34. Rd6. Also inferior is 32...Re3?! although it might still be good enough, e.g. 33. Rd6 cd6 34. Be3) 33. Rf3 Rh2 34. Kg4 Ne5.

Finally, if 32. Rd3 Qe5 (threatens both ...Qf4 and ...Qh5, while preventing Rc4 due to ...Rh2 etc.) 33. Qf3 Ke7!

Position after 33...Ke7 (analysis)

Black’s attack (...Rh8 etc.) is irresistible. On the other hand, the “brilliant” text might be sufficient to win, but only after great complications.

Position after 31...f5

32.
Qc4
Qf1!

The point of Black’s previous move. If 33. Rf1 Rh2 checkmate.

33.
Kh4
Rh2

34.
Kg5
Qg2?

To make up for his previous indulgence, Barnes had to find 34...Qg1! 35. Rg4 (35. Kf5 Rh5 36. Ke6 Qg6 and mates) Qe3 with a very strong attack. After the text, he was fortunate not to lose.

35.
Rg4
fg4

Position after 35...fg4

36.
Qf7?

Morphy blunders in turn, and mystifyingly so. 36. Rd6! was precisely what he’d been trying to set up all along. Then 36...cd6 37. Qg8 (Originally Sergeant gave only 37. Bb6? Ke7-+ in his book, although he later published a corrected analysis. Maroczy doesn’t mention 36. Rd6 at all! We see the widespread assumption: Even in games that Morphy ultimately lost, annotators are prone to trust him, to assume that any sacrifice he rejected must have been incorrect.) Ke7 (or 37...Kc7 38. Qf7 Kc6 39. b5#) 38. Qg7! Ke8!

Position after 38...Ke8 (analysis)

(Black dare not venture forward: 38...Ke6 39. Qf6 Kd5 (or 39...Kd7 40. Qf7 Kc6 41. b5#) 40. Qf5 and White will capture the c8 rook with check. Then he can give another check from a8 and trade queens. His pawns will be too much for the rook to handle.) 39. Qg6 Ke7 (39...Kd7 40. Qf7 Kd8 41. Bb6 Rc7 42. Qc7 Ke8 43. Qd8 Kf7 44. Qf6 Ke8 45. Qg6 Kf8 46. Qd6) 40. Qf6 Ke8 41. Qe6 Kd8 42. Bb6 Rc7 43. Qd6 winning. A very delicate attack, during which White’s offsides bishop, queen, and queenside pawns coordinate miraculously.

Having dodged a bullet, Barnes wraps up a fully deserved victory.

36. | ... | Qc6
37. | b5 |

If 37. Qf8 Qe8 38. Rd6 cd6 39. Qd6 Qd7 40. Bb6 Ke8 41. Qh2 Qe7 and Black will win the bishop and the game. For example, 42. Kg4 Qe6 43. Kg5 Qb6 44. Qe5 Kd8, Black escapes the checks and his queen and rook will hunt down White’s king in short order. Should White trade queens, the rook can gobble up the pawns before White’s king can get over to support them. (45. Qd4 Qd4 46. cd4 Rc2 47. Kg6 Rg2 Δ Rg5) Still, this was a better try for White than the text, which is essentially a mere trap as revealed in the final note.

37. | ... | Qd7
38. | Rd6 | Qd6

Even the very last move was not too late to lose: 38...cd6? 39. Bb6 Rc7 40. Qf8 Qe8 41. Qd6 Qd7 42. Bc7 Kc8 43. Qd7 Kd7 44. Bh2.

0-1

Barnes - Morphy London 1858

1. | e4 | e5
2. | Nf3 | Nc6
3. | Bb5 | Nf6

It’s hard to justify the name “Morphy Defense” for such a fundamental move as 3...a6. We might just as well call 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 the “Morphy Attack.” The name derives from Morphy’s use of 3...a6 in two games of the high-profile Anderssen match. But it wasn’t Morphy’s only way of defending the Lopez (the present game being a case in point), nor was Morphy the first strong player to use 3...a6. In fact, his earliest recorded 3...a6 Lopez came vs Lowenthal in a game where Morphy played White. {35}

4. | d4 | ed4
5. | e5 | Ne4
6. | 0-0 | a6
7. | Ba4 | Nc5
8. | Bc6 | dc6
9. | Nd4 | Be7
10. | Nc3 | 0-0
11. | Be3 |

11. Re1 was more accurate - see the next note.

11.
...
f6

Liquidating the e-pawn, which was impinging on Black’s space and preventing his bishop pair from turning against the kingside. A natural enough decision, but White’s pawn might have provided an attractive target if Black could just stand to leave it on the board a little longer. It’s unlikely White would be able to use the pawn to spearhead an early kingside attack, what with the “Lopez Bishop” already off the board and Black’s development not inferior to White’s.

Accordingly, Morphy might have tried 11...Re8 Δ Bf8. Should White secure his pawn with f4, he weakens himself on the e-file so that ...f6 could come with enhanced effect. For example, 12. Re1 Bf8 13. f4 f6 14. ef6 Qf6 15. Qf3 Bf5 16. Bf2 Rad8 was pleasant for Black in Alekhine-Keres, Kemeri 1937.

If, on the other hand, White supports e5 solely with pieces, Black can follow the model of Lasker-Tchigorin, St Petersburg 1895: 12. Re1 Bf8 13. Bf4 Ne6 14. Ne6 Qd1 15. Rad1 Be6 16. a3 Rad8 17. h3 Rd1 18. Nd1 Rd8 19. Ne3 Rd4 with excellent activity.

Position after 19...Rd4 (analysis)

Thanks to the inaccuracy of Barnes’s 11th move, Black would be even a tempo ahead of the Lasker-Tchigorin game. (Lasker had played Bc1-f4 in a single move instead of Bc1-e3-f4, and Tchigorin’s bishop was still on e7.)

Position after 11...f6

12. | ef6 | Rf6
13. | Qe2 | Rg6
14. | Kh1 | Bd6
15. | Rad1 | Qh4
16. | f4 |

Superior to 16. Nf3?, which Morphy could have answered 16...Qg4 or 16...Qh5, thinking of ...Bg4 and moreover threatening 17...Rg2 18. Kg2 Qh3 19. Kh1 Bg4 and mates.

16.
...
Bg4

The attack 16...Rh6 runs into 17. Nf3 Qh5 18. Bc5 and then either 19. Rd8 or 19. Qe8 depending on how Black recaptures.

17. | Nf3 | Qh5
18. | Bc5 | Bc5
19. | Ne4 | Bb6
20. | Neg5 |

Threatening Qc4 leading to Philidor’s smother mate.

20. | ... | h6
21. | Qc4 | Kh8
22. | Nf7 | Kh7
23. | N7e5 | Rf6
24. | Ng4 | Qg4
25. | Ne5 | Qe6
26. | Qe4 |

Barnes doesn’t object to trading queens, but he wants to exchange on his own terms. The text draws Black’s rook to f5 so that White gains a tempo on move 28.

26. | ... | Qf5
27. | Qf5 | Rf5
28. | g4! |

White plans to anchor the knight at g6, where it combines nicely with his rooks.

28. | ... | Rf6
29. | f5 | Re8
30. | Ng6 |

Position after 30. Ng6

30.
...
Re2?

Exposing his back rank this way is too risky. Having already decided to dilute White’s attack by means of an exchange sacrifice at g6, Morphy underestimated the dangers. Black should have gone on the defensive by 30...Rd6 31. Rde1 Rdd8, perhaps followed by B-c5-d6.

31.
Rd8?

Too direct! As Maroczy observed, the subtle 31. Rfe1! was correct. If then 31...Rc2 32. Rd8 Rg6 33. Ree8! Rc1 34. Kg2 Rg4 35. Kh3 White wins.

Position after 35. Kh3 (analysis)

Also, 31...Rd6!? 32. Re2 Rd1 33. Kg2 Rd8 34. Re7 favors White, although this is a better defense than the above line. Finally, the main point behind 31. Rfe1 appears after 31...Rf2 32. Rd8 Rg6. Black hopes for 33. Ree8, by analogy with the first variation, in which case 33...Rf1 34. Kg2 Rg4 35. Kf1 Rf4 and ...Rf5 would escape. But instead, White would play 33. fg6 Kg6 34. Rd7 Rc2 35. Ree7.

Position after 35. Ree7 (analysis)

As we shall see, the position resembles what happens in the actual game except for a small (but significant!) difference.

31. | ... | Rg6
32. | fg6 | Kg6
33. | Rd7 | Rc2
34. | Rff7 | Bd4!

This essential defense was impossible in the variation noted above because White could simply take the bishop, his rook being safe on e7 instead of hanging at f7.

35. | Rc7 | Rb2
36. | Rb7 | Ra2
37. | h4 | a5

Not only with an eye toward promotion but also, according to Lowenthal, “a most important link in the chain of combination [that] brings the game to a speedy and successful conclusion.” Actually, this is another bit of romanticizing. Lowenthal’s vision comes true only if White cooperates in forging the chain.

38.
h5?

Barnes cooperates. The text envisages 38...Kg5 39. Rg7 Bg7 40. Rg7 Δ Rg6 with distinct counterchances. However, in view of Morphy’s surprise 39th move, White should have regrouped his rooks for attack by 38. Rfd7! If 38...c5 39. Rd6 Kh7 40. g5 and Black will lose his a-pawn, since his rook is forced into passive defense (R-al-g1 or R-f2-f8). Therefore Black should try 38...Bf6 39. Rb6 Ra4 (39...c5 40. Rd5 Δg5, Black will drop his queenside pawns) retaining some winning chances.

38. | ... | Kg5
39. | Rg7 | Kh4!

Of course the bishop is stronger than White’s rook here.

40.
Rge7
a4!

Position after 40...a4

...and mates! Black’s last move prevented Rb3. Now, surprisingly, there is no defense against Kg3 followed by Rh2 or Ra1. A picture of coordinated effort!

1-0

Barnes has another noteworthy connection with Morphy: He served as the American’s partner in two consultation games involving Howard Staunton. (Consultation play was popular in the 19th century and Morphy participated in several such contests.) Morphy went to Europe with the specific aim of playing Staunton but these were their only recorded meetings over the board. One of these games appears in Chapter 8. Here is the other:

Morphy & Barnes - Staunton & Owen London 1858

1. | e4 | d5
2. | ed5 | Qd5
3. | Nc3 | Qd8
4. | d4 | Nf6
5. | Bd3 | Nc6
6. | Be3 | e6
7. | Nf3 | Bd6

7...Be7 was a little better. (See the loss of time at move 11.) But in the 19th century, minor pieces developed to the third rank!

Position after 7...Bd6

8. | 0-0 | 0-0
9. | Qe2 | b6
10. | Bg5 | Bb7
11. | Ne4 | Be7
12. | Nf6 | Bf6
13. | Qe4 | g6
14. | Qh4 | Bg5

14...Kg7! was a better defense.

15. | Ng5 | h5
16. | c3 | Qf6
17. | Rae1 | Ne7

Maroczyrecommended 17...e5!?

18. | f4 | Nf5
19. | Qh3 | Rfe8
20. | Re5 | Rad8
21. | Rfe1 | Ng7
22. | g4! |

Finely judging first, that exposing of the a8-h1 diagonal will not be White’s undoing; second, that 17...Qf4 can be answered effectively by 18. Rf1 Qg4 19. Qg4 hg4 20. Rf7; and finally, that White can indeed break down the point h5.

22. | ... | c5
23. | Be4 | Ba6

Black loses material in the event of 23...Be4 24. Ne4 Qf4 25. Rf1 Qg4 26. Qg4 hg4 27. Nf6 followed by capturing the rook and then dc5. Remarkably, Black’s bishop is destined to get around to the kingside and help cement the defense.

24. | gh5 | Nh5
25. | Bf3 | cd4

On 25...Nf4, Sergeant gave 26. Qh7 Kf8 27. Bc6 Re7 28. Qh6 Kg8 29. Nh7 Qg7 (29...Ne2 30. R1e2 Qh8 31. Qh4) 30. Qf4 Qh7 31. Qf6.

26. | Bh5 | gh5
27. | Qh5 |

The threat is Nh7 ΔRg5.

27. | ... | Qg7
28. | Kf2 | Qf6
29. | Qh4 | Bd3!
30. | Qg3 | Bg6
31. | f5! |

White dares to attack even with his own king in the crossfire. Now he threatens Ne4 etc.

31. | ... | Bf5
32. | Ne4 | Qg6
33. | Nf6 | Kf8
34. | Qg6 | Bg6
35. | Ne8 | Ke8

Position after 35...Ke8

The White team has won the exchange for just one pawn, but of course the ending is not trivial. Right away they face a fundamental decision: whether or not to allow ...d3. The passed pawn can be conveniently blockaded (K-e3-d2) and White acquires a pawn majority of his own. But still, a far advanced passed pawn with a fairly secure defender in Bg6 is not something to dismiss lightly, especially since there is at least a faint hope of its being joined by the e- and f-pawns someday. 36. cd4 would be therefore safer. But that would also activate Black’s rook and reduce White’s winning chances. Naturally Morphy and Barnes opted for the more dynamic, if riskier, course.

36. | h4 | d3
37. | Ke3 | Ke7
38. | Kd2 | Rd6

Maroczy wrote, “This move costs the game, whereas 38...Rh8 would play towards a draw.” It would be difficult to confirm this judgment analytically, but at least Maroczy’s suggestion seems better than the text, which envisages 39. h5 f6 40. R5e3 (40. Rb5 a6) Bh5 41. Rd3 Rc6 (or perhaps 41...Rd3 42. Kd3 Kd6). However, Morphy and Barnes exploit the fact that h4 is not en prise to introduce a different plan. White’s rook penetrates, h5 follows in short order anyhow, and Black’s defenses collapse.

39. | Rg5! | Kf6
40. | Rf1 | Bf5
41. | Rg8 | Rd5

Black’s pieces are no longer doing much. 41...e5? loses the bishop to 42. Rg5.

42. | h5 | Re5
43. | Rf2 | Re4

With the vain hope of getting behind White’s pawn.

44. | Rh2 | Bh7
45. | Rh8 | Kg7
46. | Ra8 |

Decisive, as White threatens not only to capture the queenside pawns, but also 47. h6 Δ Rh8 etc.

46. | ... | Kh6
47. | Ra7 | Rf4
48. | Rb7 | e5

Too late!

49. | Rb6 | f6
50. | a4 | e4
51. | Re6 | Rf3
52. | a5 |

1-0

5

Blunders and Omissions

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 farther from the truth. In a set match, Morphy could beat anybody alive today ... Morphy was perhaps the most accurate player who ever lived. He had compete sight of the board and never blundered, in spite of the fact that he played quite rapidly, rarely taking more than five minutes to decide a move.

[Bobby Fischer, 1964]

There’s a tendency among modern players to denigrate the old-time masters, and to consider it our good fortune that we are living in an era of superior positional insight. Fischer intended his remarks to be a reaction against this conceit. At the same time, his claim that Morphy never blundered was of course an exaggeration. We will look at some notable lapses by Morphy, since they occurred in games that his biographers have naturally tended to exclude. Besides, blunders by a great champion can lend special interest to otherwise routine contests. The master’s desperate efforts to recover from the catastrophe can be riveting and instructive.

As both a contradiction of Fischer and a sort of tribute to him, we begin with a shocking case where Morphy lost an elementary drawn ending by trying too hard to squeeze out a win. (Fischer suffered a remarkably similar catastrophe one century later, versus Letelier at Mar del Plata 1959.)

Morphy-Lowenthal London 1858

{29}

Position after 46...a5

To put what follows in context, it should be understood that Morphy had been grinding away in this pawn ending for some twenty moves already. His position was always a shade better (more forward king) but Black’s pawns were unassailable and White had no passed pawn or usable majority.

47. | Kf3 | Kf6
48. | Kf2 | Kf7

We can only hope Maroczy was being facetious when he asked, “Why not to g5?” 48...Kg5? would have been just the sort of mistake White was playing for: 49. Kg3 Kf6 (or 49...Kg6 50. Kg4; or 49...Kh6 50. Kh4 Kg6 51. Kg4) 50. Kh4! Kg6 51. Kg4 recreates the original diagram position, except with Black to move. Then 51...Kf6 52. Kh5 followed by K-g5-f5 inevitably wins the e-pawn and the game.

49. | Kg3 | Kg7
50. | Kf2 | Kf6
51. | Kg1? |

While “composing” a study on the theme of distant opposition, Morphy “discovers” that pawns can move too.

51. | ... | Kg5!
52. | Kg2 | Kf4
53. | Kf2 | c4!

Position after 53...c4

54. | dc4 | Ke4
55. | Ke2 | Kd4
56. | Kf3 | Kc4
57. | Ke4 | Kb4
58. | Ke5 | Ka4
59. | Kd4 | Kb4

1-0

Before proceeding, we must forestall any tendency to draw general conclusions about the relative strength of 19th and 20th century masters from such an example. In games involving world-class players, blunders of this sort are exceptional in any era. But they also do indeed occur in every era. They have less to do with theoretical knowledge or skill than with human frailty and ill-defined, “extraneous” factors, which don’t change much over time. Besides the above-mentioned Fischer-Letelier game, Bronstein’s endgame blunder in the 6th game of the 1951 world championship match is a notorious modem example. But for variety’s sake, and because Bronstein deserves a break after forty-odd years, we’ll pass over that in. favor of an even more recent illustration.

Short-Belyavsky Linares, 1992

White to Play

With adequate time on his clock, White inexplicably self-mated, 58. Ke6?? Bc8 mate.

The following game was ticketed for a spot among Morphy’s anthology pieces until he blundered. Mid-way through his decisive combination, a faulty transposition of moves converted the mating attack into a plain material deficit. Then, however, Morphy’s under-appreciated defensive skill took over. He held the draw in a strange and difficult ending.

Paulsen - Morphy New York 1857

1. | e4 | e5
2. | Nf3 | Nc6
3. | Bb5 | Nf6
4. | 0-0 | Ne4
5. | d4 | a6

An almost forgotten move, 5...Be7 and S...Nd6 being modem theory’s choices. But the text is not bad. In fact, White’s best answer is probably 6. Ba4 b5 7. Bb3 d5 with a transposition to the normal Open Variation. 6. Bc6 wouldn’t accomplish much, as Black achieves equality after 6...dc6 7. Re1 (7. Qe2 Bf5 8. Rd1 Be7 9. de5 Qc8 was also equal in Speelman-Bogolyubov, Stockholm 1919) Nf6 8. Ne5 Be7 followed by Be6.

6.
Bd3

Neither does this move promise White anything special.

6. | ... | d5
7. | Ne5 |

7. c4!? would be a consistent attempt at exploiting Black’s king in the center. However, 7...Nd4 8. Nd4 ed4 9. cd5 Nf6 10. Re1 Be7 11. Bc4 0-0 is not advantageous for White.

7. | ... | Nd4
8. | Re1 |

8. c3!? directly was worth considering.

8. | ... | Be6
9. | c3 |

White winds up on the short end after 9. Be4 de4 10. Re4 Nb3! For example, 11. Qf3 Na1 12. Nf7 Qd7 13. Nh8 0-0-0. [Maroczy]

9. | ... | Nc6
10. | Nc6 | bc6
11. | Qa4 | Qd7
12. | Be4 | de4
13. | Qe4 | Bd6

The situation in the center has clarified dramatically over the last few moves. In this quintessential open game,

Black’s bishop pair outweighs his pawn weaknesses. Maroczy recommended that White play 14. Bf4 now. Instead, Paulsen anticipated Lasker’s maxim (“knights before bishops”), which was fine, but then his following move was an error.

14. | Nd2 | 0-0
15. | Nf3? |

15. Nf1 was correct. White’s first thought should be to protect his kingside, for which the knight is an important defensive piece. It merits a secure spot towards the rear, safe from possible exchange.

15. | ... | Bd5
16. | Qd3 | Rae8

Position after 16...Rae8

17.
Bg5?!

Sergeant dismissed 17. Bd2 on the grounds that it would lose a pawn to 17...Bf3 18. Qf3 Bh2 19. Kh2 Qd2 e.g. 20. Re8 (20. Qd1!?) Qh6 21 Kg1 Re8. However, in that case White could have resisted owing to Black’s broken pawns. The text leaves White’s bishop tactically insecure and Morphy exploits this condition to whip up a decisive attack.

17. | ... | Qg4
18. | h3 | Qh5
19. | Bd2 | Re6
20. | Ng5 |

20. Re6 was also unappetizing. After 20...fe6 Black’s pawns are horrible but his pieces enjoy terrific activity The immediate threat would be 21...Rf3 22. gf3 Qh3 winning. If 21. Ng5 Qh4 22. Be3 (22. Rf1? Bc4) Rf5, White is in difficulties.

20. | ... | Rg6
21. | Ne4 |

Position after 21. Ne4

21.
...
Rg2

This pseudo sacrifice is too obvious to earn an exclamation mark, but it makes a very nice impression all the same.

22. | Kg2 | f5
23. | f3 | Qg6?

Not only does this throw away a certain victory but it lands Morphy in a critical situation. Lowenthal reported:

As soon as the second player had touched the queen, he remarked that, had he taken the knight, the contest could not have been prolonged a dozen moves.

And indeed, 23... fe4! 24. Re4 (or 24. fe4 Qg6 25. Kh1 Rf2) Qg6 25. Kh1 Rf3 would have left White utterly defenseless.

24.
Ng5!

While intending to transpose into the above variation, Morphy simply forgot about the text move!

24. | ... | h6
25. | c4 | Bf7
26. | h4 | Rd8

As in the first match game versus Anderssen, Morphy’s reaction to trouble is to press the opponent with latent threats while avoiding any true forcing play, which might ease the defender’s practical task by cutting down on his choices.

For the moment, Black’s dream continuation would be to play 27...hg5 26. hg5 Be7 followed by ...Rd2! and, after the recapture Qd2,...Bxg5-e3 etc.

27. | Qc2 | hg5
28. | hg5 | Be6

Position after 28...Be6

White is an exchange to the good, with a better structure as well. Surely he ought to win. For the next few moves both sides drift a bit, groping for the thread of the game.

29. | Rh1 | Be7
30. | f4 | c5
31. | Rae1 | Kf7
32. | Rh3 | Bc8!

The light square bishop will set up shop on the long diagonal, unopposed by any minor piece and capable of either blocking a center file (...Be4) or forming a battery with the queen (e.g....Qc6). Neither of White’s rooks can boast as much.

33. | Kg1 | Bb7
34. | Bc1 | Rd4
35. | b3 | Bd6

Position after 35...Bd6

Morphy has accomplished much since the last diagram. His play has a purposeful feel about it, whereas Paulsen seems to be merely shifting wood.

36. | Qe2 | Re4
37. | Qf2 | Qe6
38. | Rhe3 | Qd7

Threatening ...Rf4. Had White now traded rooks, we’d get a position similar to what actually arose later in the game.

39.
Qh4!

Finally detecting a soft spot in Black’s game.

39.
...
Kg6

White threatened g6! The text is anything but secure, of course - Black may be participating in a helpmate - but what else was he to do? If 39...Rf4? 40. g6 Kg8 41. Qh8! (or 41. Qh7, more prosaic) mating. Or if 39...Bf4? 40. Re4 wins a piece.

40.
Qh3

Threatening to capture twice at e4, since Black’s queen is undefended.

Sergeant commented, “White had 40. Rh3, much superior to his actual move, and it is hard to see how Black could have avoided loss.” He gave no supporting analysis, but this is a very interesting claim. Black would defend the threat Qh5 by 40...Re1 no doubt, since 40...Kf7 41. g6 (41. Qh5 is also strong) Ke8 (still worse is 41...Kg6 42. Qh5 Kf6 43. Bb2; 41...Ke6 should be hopeless also.) 42. Rd1 Qc6 43. Rd5 looks grim. Thus, 40...Rel 41. Qe1.

Now White’s plan is Q-e2-h5. For example, if 41...Kf7 42. Qe2 Qc6 43. Qh5 Kg8 (43...Ke7 44. Re3 Kd8 45. Qh8 and Qg7 with check) 44. Qh7 Kf7 45. Qf5 etc.). But 41...Bƒ8 is more stubborn. The move serves at least three purposes: defending the g-pawn; clearing the d-line (to introducing possible counterplay by e.g., ...Qd4); and clearing the third rank (Black can discourage g6 by ...Qc6 in some variations.)

Position aƒter 41...BJB (analysis)

42. Bb2 Kf7 43. Qe2 Qc6 44. Qh5 (44. Rh7!?) Ke7 (if 44...Kg8 45. Qh7 Kf7 46. Qf5; or if 44...Ke6 45. Qg6; finally if 44...Qg6 a queen swap favors White since it puts an end to annoying mate threats on the long diagonal.) 45. Re3 Kd8 46. Rd3 Kc8 (46...Bd6 47. Qh8 is clearly bad, and 46...Ke7 47. Rd5 seems more awkward for Black than the text.) 47. Rd5 Kb8.

Position after 47...Kb8 (analysis)

Little by little, White makes progress. A plausible continuation: 48. Qh8 (48. Qf7 Bd6 49. Qf5 Qe8! sets up annoying counterplay) Qe8 49. Re5 Qd8 50. Qh5! Qd2 (even here 50...g6!? may defend) 51. Qe2 Qf4 52. Re8 Ka7 53. Rf8 Qg3 54. Kf1 Be4 (54...Qh3 55. Ke1 Qg3 56. Kd2 is no better) 55. Qf2 and White escapes the checks.

Nothing is certain, but it’s fair to say that Black would face an uphill task after 40. Rh3. It’s hard to find a reliable defense against the plan of putting White’s rook on the h-line, the bishop on b2, and maneuvering the queen into position to strike at h5. Black can counter by harassing measures only. On the other hand, the move Paulsen actually played spoils nothing. The plan outlined above remains more or less in the position to the end of the game.

Position after 40. Qh3

40.
...
Be7

Now the double capture on e4 would appear to fail because Black interpolates ...Qd1 check.

41. | Re4 | Be4
42. | Qe3 |

Maroczy indicated that White should go ahead with 42. Re4 anyway, reckoning that 42...Qd1 43. Kf2 fe4 44. Qe6 Kh5 45. Qe7 is promising.

Position after 45. Qe7 (analysis)

However, in that case 45...Qc2! would force a draw. Black gets to either capture the bishop with check or deliver a perpetual (46. Kg3 Qd3 etc.)

Before leaving this exchange sacrifice, note that 45. Qh3 (instead of taking the bishop) Kg6 46. f5 looks interesting also, but after 46...Kf7 47. g6 Ke8 the attack runs out of steam.

42. | ... | Qd8
43. | Qh3 |

Paulsen reasonably prevents ...Qh8. For instance, 43. Bb2 Qh8 44. Qg3 Bd6 would permit unwarranted counterplay.

43. | ... | Qd4
44. | Be3 | Qc3
45. | Qf1 | Qa5
46. | Qf2 | Qb6
47. | Re2 | Qc6
48. | Bc1 | Qd7

It doesn’t appear White is achieving much with these maneuvers.

49. | Rd2 | Qe6
50. | Qe3 | Qc6
51. | Bb2 | Kf7
52. | Qh3 | Qg6
53. | Rh2 | Qd6

Position after 53...Qd6

And now... a little mystery. According to Sergeant, three more moves were played but not recorded (?!) whereupon the game was abandoned as a Draw! The tone with which he made this announcement, and the fact that he gave no further analysis, suggests that Sergeant and his sources found nothing amiss with the result.

It’s true that Paulsen’s play over the last several moves was not very purposeful. Nonetheless, there is still nothing to be done against the idea laid out in the lengthy note at move 40. For instance, by continuing 54. Qf1 White could guard against checks. Next, by Be5 he could repel the threats against f4. The resulting position would not differ substantially from one where, in Sergeant’s own words, it’s hard to see how Black can avoid loss.

Such “failures to record” the final moves mar the records of several Morphy games. Sometimes it’s understandable that a score was truncated, e.g. when the loser drags out a hopeless position. But other cases are bizarre.

Lichtenhein-Morphy New York 1857

{10}

White to Play

In reply to 30. Nd1 Morphy sacrificed a piece, 30...Ba2 31. Kc2 Kc5 32. Nc3 Bb3. Sergeant opined that the sacrifice “deprives White of all hopes to save a draw.” Lowenthal was less categorical:

It would require a lengthy analysis to determine whether, in thus giving up the bishop for two pawns, Black opened a certain path to victory. White, at any rate, could not hope for more than a drawn game. The two combatants afterwards played several back games from this point, some of which were won by Black, and some were drawn.

In any event, the real game continued 33. Kb3 c6 34.Ne2 and then, shockingly, the official record ends!

Position after 34. Ne2

Sergeant: “Black eventually won, though there is no further score of the game. The advance of the Q side pawns must decide the issue, enabling Black to turn the hostile center.” And now Lowenthal is likewise certain: “Mr. Morphy wins.”

A quick sampling of concrete variations demonstrates that Black does indeed enjoy all the chances. One possible continuation is 34...b5 35. Kc3!? (35. cb5 cb5 K-d5xe5-f4etc.) bc4 36. Nd4 Kd5 4. Nf3 c5! (4...Ke4 5. Nd4 Ke5 6. Nc6 Kf4 is also good enough, but why waste pawns?) 5. h3 (5. h4 gh4 6. Nh4 Ke5 is hopeless as well.) a5!, underscoring White’s helplessness.

Still, the position isn’t so transparent as to merit an unadorned dismissal, “Mr. Morphy wins.” And what about these “unrecorded” moves at the conclusion of several Morphy games? It’s remarkable to think of someone scrupulously recording the entire game, right up to the climax, then not bothering to keep track of the decisive phase. Maybe the hour was late and the game “secretary” had to go home? This all seems a bit incredible.

Most likely, the explanation has something to do with a particular delicacy of 19th century life. According to the etiquette of the day, maybe it was unseemly for those who had been honored with an opportunity to observe masters in combat to then turn around and embarrass the players by publicizing moves clearly below their normal standard. In the present case, perhaps Lichtenhein collapsed with an immediate blunder that deprived the ending of interest and spoiled an otherwise noble effort. Likewise in the Paulsen game, it’s a reasonable conjecture that White carelessly overlooked some forced draw. Maybe he left f4 en prise, or allowed a perpetual check. In any event, the gentlemen present all agreed: It would be best to release only the most concise report (“Mr. Morphy wins”) and leave it at that.

Harrwitz-Morphy Paris 1858

This was the seventh game from Morphy’s first match in Paris. Relations between Morphy and Harrwitz were poor. Harrwitz was a bad loser and a worse winner, publicly rubbing Morphy’s face in it after taking a 2-0 lead. Later he delayed the match with unauthorized time-outs, and ultimately quit after falling three points behind. He was obsessively jealous of Morphy, to the point of vainly attempting to mimic Morphy’s blindfold displays. Harrwitz also spread the story that he had not actually lost this match, but rather that he and Morphy had agreed to an annulment. Morphy’s counter was to offer a new match, spotting Harrwitz pawn and move odds. Harrwitz declined this challenge and every other effort to pair him against Morphy, ever again.

1.
d4
f5

While on the subject of errors, it’s interesting to note Morphy’s stated reason for choosing the Dutch Defense. After 1...d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6, he believed 4. Bf4 to be advantageous for White.

Position after 4. Bf4 (analysis)

While 4. Bf4 is not a bad move, the odd thing is Morphy’s explanation, in one of his annotations, that he feared the impending Nb5. Though this isn’t even a real threat yet (5. Nb5 Bb4), for some reason Morphy felt Black is compelled to play 4...a6?!, as he in fact did in the first game of the Harrwitz match. {43}

It’s very strange that Morphy would worry about such an obviously premature attack. How many of his own famous games refute just this sort of misadventure? The following little analysis by Steinitz demonstrates the groundlessness of Morphy’s fears: 4...c5! 5. Nb5? cd4! 6. Nc7 (or 6. Qa4 Bd7; or 6. Qd4 Nc6 Bb4) Qc7! 7. Bc7 Bb4.

2. | c4 | e6
3. | Nc3 | Nf6

4. | Bg5 | Be7
5. | e3 | 0-0
6. | Bd3 | b6
7. | Nge2 | Bb7
8. | Bf6 |

An attempt to improve on the fifth game of the match. On that occasion Harrwitz played the more obvious 8. 0-0 but Morphy equalized after 8...Nh5!? {47}

8. | ... | Bf6
9. | 0-0 | Qe7
10. | Qd2 | d6
11. | f4!? | c5

Position after 11...c5

Not the sort of position that people normally associate with Paul Morphy.

12. | d5 | Na6
13. | de6 | Qe6

14. | Rae1 | Bh4
15. | Ng3 |

15. g3 would leave his kingside more vulnerable to the effects of Black’s queen bishop.

15. | ... | Qg6
16. | Nd5 | Bd5
17. | cd5 | Bg3
18. | hg3 | Nc7
19. | Kf2 | Rae8
20. | Rh1 | Re7
21. | Rh4 |

Planning 22. g4. White needs to open up the position for his bishop if he is to make something real out of his h-file.

21. | ... | Qf7
22. | Be2 |

Immediate 22. g4 g5! would boomerang.

22. | ... | Ne8
23. | Qd3 | Nf6
24. | Bf3 | g6
25. | Re2 | Rfe8

Lowenthal. pointed out the difficulties 25...g5! could have posed for White, e.g. 26. fg5 Ne4 27. Kg1 Ng3 28. Re1 Qg7. Maroczy recommended a similar continuation on Black’s next move as well. But Morphy preferred to improve his position some more before embarking on tactics, confident that White can’t undertake much in the meantime.

26. | b3 | Qg7
27. | Rh1 | h6
28. | Kg1 |

Stepping beyond the knight’s checking range. To close in the rook looks a bit odd, but it isn’t a problem for White since the prospects on the h-file are fine. Still, White has failed to achieve a favorable breakthrough. Now Black takes over the initiative by opening the game on his own terms.

28. | ... | g5
29. | fg5 | hg5
30. | Bh5 |

Position after 30. Bh5

White’s game has gradually slipped downhill to the point where he has real difficulties meeting ...g4. Allowing Black’s knight into e4 is a terrible concession. Now White loses g3 with a bad position to boot.

30. | ... | Ne4
31. | Re1 |

Of course not 31. Be8? Qa1 and mate next move.

31. | ... | Rf8
32. | Bf3 | Ng3
33. | Rh3 | Qe5
34. | Rh6 | g4
35. | Bd1 | Kg7
36. | Rh4 |

Retreat on all fronts.

36. | ... | Rh8
37. | Rh8 | Kh8
38. | Bc2 | Rh7
39. | Qd2 | Qb2

39...Ne4! was also strong. After 40. Be4 fe4 Black gets irresistible pressure.

Position after 40...fe4 (analysis)

For example, 41. Qf2 (41.Rfl can’t withstand 41...g3, threatening Qh5 or Rh1) Qh2 42. Kf1 Kg8! and White is hard pressed to defend against ...Rf7. (43. Ke2 Rf7 44. Qg1 g3 45. Qh2 Rf2 46. Kd1 gh2 and ...R-g2-g1 wins.)

40. | Rd1 | Rh1
41. | Kf2 |

Position after 41. Kf2

41.
...
Rf1?

A terrible mistake! The winning line was 41...Rd1 42 Qd1 Ne4 43. Kg1 Nc3 44. Qd3 g3! 45. Qf5 Qc1 46. Qf1 Ne2. Morphy probably saw this but selected what he believed to be a more direct win.

42.
Kg3

Not 42. Rf1? Ne4.

42. | ... | Qe5
43. | Kh4 | Qf6

Morphy foresaw this position when choosing his 41st move and intended 43...Kg7 44. Rf1 Qh2 45. Kg5 Qh6 “mate,” overlooking that f5 would be undefended. Now he had no choice but to force a draw. In fact, he was lucky to have that available.

44.
Kg3
Qe5

draw

Chapter 3 mentioned that Steinitz was only too happy to discuss errors by Morphy. Steinitz bristled under the oft-heard suggestion that he needed to thank Morphy’s early retirement for his own world champion mantel. Anatoly Karpov endured similar criticism after he accepted Fischer’s title by forfeit in 1975. But whereas Karpov relied on competitive success to answer his detractors, Steinitz used his pen as well. Some of his most acerbic (and entertaining) columns addressed “the Morphy question,” as he called it. For instance, the Nov. 1886 International Chess Magazine contained this counterattack under the heading “Personal and General”:

From a notice in the Philadelphia Times I perceive that a self-appointed tribunal consisting of Messrs. Delmar, Loyd, and Captain Michaelis have sat in judgment on the Morphy question, and have unanimously decided that the great master could have defeated me, while giving me the odds of Pawn and move. “Ignorance is bold, but knowledge is reserved” says Thucydides. Mr. Delmar is the strongest of the conceited trio, which publicly pronounces the above arrogant verdict, and he was handicapped at the Manhattan Chess Club to receive the odds of Pawn and move from Captain Mackenzie. He has also lost a match against Mr. Ryan, who, I am sure, will admit that as far as I have played with him I have been very successful in giving him the same odds. Having arrived at such a high standard from the study of both the old and modern schools, Mr. Delmar and his two coadjutors naturally derive some satisfaction from their vivid imagination, which would place me somewhat into their own rank, if only in comparison with a dead master whom fortunately or unfortunately I never met over the board, though without any fault of my own.

For all that, Steinitz raised some interesting and objective points with regard to many positions from Morphy’s games. In yet another of the Morphy-Lowenthal match games, the opening moves were 1. e4 c5 2. d4 cd4 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. Nd4 e5 (the variation bearing Lowenthal’s name) 5. Nc6?! (Why not 5. Nb5, which is considered best nowadays, and would be consistent with Morphy’s usual treatment of such positions?) bc6 6. Bc4 Nf6. Here Morphy offered a pawn:

7.
0-0

Position after 7. 0-0

In the actual game, Lowenthal declined the offer by 7...d5, but after 8. ed5 cd5 9. Bb5 Bd7 10. Bd7 Qd7 11. Re1 Bd6 12. Nc3 his center came under pressure and Morphy won shortly. {27}

In his book, Lowenthal explained the decision not to capture the pawn by the variation 7...Ne4 8. Re1 d5 9. Re4 (for if then 9...de4? 10. Bf7). But Steinitz begged to differ:

Any first-class player [in 1885] would grasp at [the pawn] without wasting much of his time allowance, and probably a second-rate man, who has followed the notes of modern analysts, would not hesitate much.

To justify the pawn grab, Steinitz continued Lowenthal’s variation a few moves, beginning with:

9.
...
f6!

Position after 9...f6

A very clever resource! Despite Steinitz’s claims for his Modern School and its methods, it’s an open question how many players would find this without a careful analysis, even today. Moreover, the situation is more complicated than Steinitz realized.

Steinitz thought White’s best answer was 10. Bd5 cd5 11. Re1 (“a strong center and two bishops that can be brought into excellent play, while White’s undeveloped two minor pieces have not much scope of action.”) He also dismissed the tries 10. b3 ( de4? 11. Bf7 Ke7 12. Ba3) Be7 ; 10. Re5 fe5 11. Qh5 Kd7 ; and 10. Qh5 g6 11. Re5 Be7! -+. But Sergeant called attention to still another possibility that Steinitz had overlooked:

10. | Re1! | dc4
11. | Qh5 | g6

If 11...Ke7 12. Re5.

12.
Qf3

Position after 12. Qf3

Sergeant considered White for choice after either 12...Qd6 13. Nd2 Qe6 (13...Ba6 14. Ne4) 14. Nc4! Qc4 15. Qf6; or 12...Bb7 13. Nd2. That’s been the final word until now. Certainly 10. Re1 improved Steinitz’s original analysis, but it’s still not so simple. Suppose Black doesn’t labor to hold all his pawns?

12. | ... | Be6!
13. | Qc6 | Kf7

Now Black’s bishop pair and superior development predominate. To sum up, 12...Be6 appears to rehabilitate Steinitz’s 9...f6! suggestion.

Morphy-Freeman Birmingham 1858

1. | e4 | e5
2. | Bc4 | Bc5
3. | b4!? | Bb6

Morphy as Black faced this same gambit against Mongredian, Paris 1859. After 3...Bb4 there followed 4. f4!? The game was drawn in 25 moves. {62}

4. | Nf3 | d6
5. | d4 | ed4
6. | Nd4 | Nf6
7. | Nc3 | 0-0
8. | 0-0 |

Steinitz said White should play 8. f3 because of what follows after the text:

8. | ... | Ne4!
9. | Ne4 | d5

Position after 9...d5

10.
Bg5!

Blow for blow! Still, Black could have gotten the upper hand now by Steinitz’s 10...Qd7! (“An unorthodox move at the time, for it blocks the pieces on the queenside temporarily, but nevertheless it was the correct play.”) Steinitz’s improvements over Morphy’s play often hinge on just this sort of unnatural looking resource, as Steinitz wanted to emphasize his Modern School’s revolutionary qualities.

10.
...
Qe8?

Actually, this error is more a failing of simple tactics than strategic understanding. Freeman overlooked Morphy’s 12th move. It was a fortunate mistake from the spectator’s perspective, however. The text introduces some delightful complications in which both Morphy and Steinitz (three decade after the fact) lost their way.

11.
Bd5
c6

Position after 11...c6

Black relied on this to recover his piece. But Morphy still managed to keep him off balance with tactical threats.

12. | Re1 | Qd7
13. | Nf6! | gf6
14. | Bf6 | Qd6

If 14...cd5 (or 14...Qd5) 15. Re5 yields a winning attack. For example, 15...h6 16. Rg5! hg5 17. Qh5.

Position after 17. Qh5 (analysis)

Freeman’s move is designed to forestall Re5 by means of the threat ...Qf6. Meanwhile, White’s other bishop sits en prise as well. Now 15. Be7? Qd5 would lose material, as would 15. Qf3? Bd4 16. Bd4 cd5.

15.
Ne6!

Position after 15. Ne6

Beautiful! But Steinitz didn’t think much of it. After “refuting” Morphy’s move, he offered 15. Be6! in its stead. It turns out that this wins too, but it’s not so elegant, nor is it necessary - there is a flaw in Steinitz’s refutation of the text.

15.
...
Be6

If 15...fe6 16. Qg4 (winning the queen by 16. Be6? Qe6 17. Re6 Be6 is no bargain) Kf7 17. Qg7 Ke8 18. Be6!

Position after 18. Be6 (analysis)

Now 18...Be6 19. Rad1 leaves Black without hope. His queen can’t defend e6 and e7 both, and 19...Bf2 20. Kh1 Be1 21. Rd6 doesn’t help.

18...Bf2 stirs up considerably more dust, since at this moment White has no choice but to take the bishop. Still, after 19. Kf2 Qd4 (19...Qf4 20. Kg1 -+) 20. Kg3 the checks are over. So 20...Qf6 21. Bg4 Kd8 22. Rad1 Bd7 23. Rd7 Kc8 24. Rb7 and it will be mate next move.

16.
Qh5?

After this Black has the resource Steinitz discovered, namely 16...Qf4! and now:

17. Re6 Nd7! 18. Be4 (best, according to Steinitz. Reinfeld and Soltis mention the alternative 18. Bb2, which is also insufficient: 18...cd5 19. Rh6 Rfe8! 20. Rf1 Qf2!) Nf6 19. Rf6 Qe4 -+

17. Be5 Qf2 18. Kh1 Qf5 consolidating.

17. Be4 h6 18. Be5 Qg5 and once again, Black beats off the attack.

All of which would be academic, had Morphy just played the “simple” 16. Qd2! (Maroczy). In that case, Black is defenseless! In seeking to “correct” this game, even Steinitz fell into the standard trap of focusing his search for errors on the opponent’s moves while too readily accepting Morphy’s play.

16.
...
Bf2?

Good idea, but bad execution!

17. | Kh1 | Qf4
18. | Re6 | Nd7

Position after 18...Nd7

19.
Bb2!

And not 19. Bg5? Qd4! 20. Rd1 fe6! 21. Be6 Kh8 22. Rd4 Bd4. After the text, on the other hand, it becomes clear how the insertion of Bf2 and Kh1 hurts Black’s chances. If now 19...cd5, White coolly prods the queen: 20. g3! She can’t budge without permitting a fatal check. Meanwhile, White threatens 20. Rg6!

19.
...
Bd4?

Even now Black has good survival prospects, but 19...fe6! was necessary. After 20. Be6 Rf7 21. Qf7 Qf7 22. Bf7 Kf7 23. Rf1, Black would remain with a pawn less, but a defensible position.

20.
g3!
Nf6

Forced.

21. | gf4 | Nh5
22. | Bd4 |

Since Black can’t go 22...fe6 23. Be6 Rf7 24. Rg1 Kf8 25. Bc5 followed by Rg8 mate, he has little choice the rest of the way.

22. ... Nf4 23. Rg1 Ng6 24. Rgg6! hg6 25. Rg6 Kh7 26. Rg7 Kh6 27. Be4 (At last! This bishop sat en prise since move 11.) f5 28. Bd3 b6 29. Rg3 Rf7 30. Be5 Re8 31. Bf4 Kh7 32. Rg5 Re1 33. Kg2 Rg7 34. Bf5 Kh8 35. h4 Rg5 36. Bg5 Re8 37. Kf3 1-0

Position after 37. Kf3

Supplement to Chapter 5

A Poetic Description

The situation after 15. Ne6! in Morphy-Kennedy is somehow suggestive of the 4th game of the 1990 world championship match.

Kasparov-Karpov New York 1990

Position after 23. Re6!

With several pieces already under fire, Kasparov played 23 Re1-e6! to produce the amazing position in the diagram. Later, Kasparov likened the game to “playing without a board...the pieces were as if suspended in space.” Chess lovers will empathize with this description. The same poetic image could be applied to the Morphy position, with an extra twist: Morphy actually did play without a board. Morphy-Kennedy was one of eight simultaneous blindfold games!

Morphy’s law card November, 1864

6

Odds

Steinitz rightly asserted that games played at odds are inherently less useful than normal games for assessing Morphy’s chess. After all, any game that commenced with one side having a “lost” position must be of dubious theoretical value. In the final analysis, these games say more about the opponents’ weakness than Morphy’s strength.

Still, about 15% of all known Morphy games have him offering odds. Such a percentage doesn’t exist in the record of any other major player. When we consider the brevity of Morphy’s career, the games at odds constitute too significant a portion of the available study material to ignore. And we ought not to forget that his phenomenal blindfold and oddsgiving displays played no small role in shaping the Morphy legend.

Morphy’s practice was to offer anything from Pawn and Move, to Knight (very popular), to Rook and Knight, depending on the opponent. After winning the American Chess Congress in 1857, Morphy challenged any American opponent to come forward and meet him at pawn and move odds. A couple years later, he extended this offer to anyone in the world.

What kind of game should we expect when the opposition was weak enough to warrant a rook and knight handicap? Not much, frankly, but even here the hand of the master shows though:

Morphy - Knight New Orleans 1856

Remove White’s Queen Rook and Queen Knight

1. | e4 | e5
2. | f4 | ef4
3. | Nf3 | g5
4. | Bc4 | Qe7
5. | d4 | d5
6. | Bd5 | c6
7. | Bf7!? | Qf7

Probably there was nothing wrong with 7...Kf7 8. Ne5 Kg7.

8. | Ne5 | Qf6
9. | Qh5 | Ke7
10. | h4 | gh4
11. | 0-0 | Bh6
12. | b3 | Nd7
13. | Ba3 | c5

Position after 13...c5

14.
Rd1!

Coiling up, in the style of Anderssen.

14. | ... | Ne5?
15. | Bc5 | Ke6
16. | Qe8 | Ne7
17. | d5# |

1-0

As expected, Black didn’t play well. By definition he must have played terribly to lose at those odds, a miniature no less. But his moves don’t make that bad an impression on the surface. Plenty of 20th century amateurs could lose such a game.

Which raises the question, why has odds chess all but disappeared today? In fact, odds games by older masters like Morphy evoke a peculiar response in modern players, part disdain and part uneasiness. Many students will automatically skip past any odds games they happen to encounter in books. Even very weak players might take offense at being offered material handicaps nowadays.

In Morphy’s day chess was a gambling game, albeit a “contest of pure skill” rather than a game of chance. Individual matches for stakes were the focus of organized play. Matches between the leading players attracted a wide following so masters often succeeded in finding sponsors to back their personal wagers. But the available sums were relatively meager in general. If we consider also the arduousness of 19th century travel, it’s easy to understand that there were never enough “big money” matches to support a class of professional players.

Thus it was a matter of survival for them to find a way to tap into the mass of local amateurs. Oddsgiving was the natural solution, and it became an intrinsic part of organized chess in the 19th century, not just a stunt for exhibitions. In fact, oddsgiving comprised the first chess rating system. If a town or club had a recognized master, amateurs were more or less graded according to what handicap they needed to compete against him. Old books apply to designations like “a Rook player” or “Pawn and Move players” exactly the same usage as we today give, for example, “a 1200 player” or “Class A players.”

To appreciate how serious a matter odds chess was to the 19th century chess public, it’s only necessary to note how the published opening theory of the day reserved space for the popular “Knight Odds Game,” the “Pawn and Move Game,” etc. At one time Louis Paulsen was devoting hours a day to the study of pawn and move openings in preparation for a match against Morphy. (Unfortunately, the match never came off.)

Morphy had a pathological (literally) aversion to anything that tended to mark him a professional player. Thus he generally declined to play for stakes, which made him unique among 19th century masters. (Sometimes he was obliged to place bets in order to prompt his strongest rivals into playing with him.) Still, his fame became such that every public game attracted great interest and, often enough, side betting. Under these circumstances, Morphy’s fastidious sense of honor assured that he treated all such games as serious contests.

It’s widely supposed that the evolution of theory and technique somehow accounts for the disappearance of oddsgiving from modem chess. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Chess remarks offhandedly, for instance, that “in 1860 Morphy offered pawn and move to any player in the world. None of his strongest rivals responded, nor is it likely that he could have defeated them on these terms, so far had the standard of play improved by this time. The last important match at pawn and move, offered by Steinitz to De Vere, took place in London, 1865-6. De Vere won (+7 =2 -3).” [Emphasis added]

However, it’s not clear why the absolute standard of play should be relevant, since handicapping addresses the relative disparity between two players. Nor does the possibility (or likelihood) of victory by the odds receiver invalidate the general idea of handicapping. Rather the opposite, the whole point is to give the weaker player a chance to win. The score of the Steinitz - De Vere match suggests a more interesting contest than if Steinitz had won a straight-up match by a big margin. It’s at least debatable whether the technique of players like Harrwitz, Lowenthal, et al. was so evolved as to not only make them favorites over Morphy in a pawn and move match, but to render the whole contest uninteresting. It’s more certain that these players could not defeat Morphy on even terms.

There are other factors that can explain the disappearance of odds chess, however, quite apart from any developments within the game itself:

Technological. One factor was the introduction of chess clocks, soon after Morphy departed the public arena. Today, the game’s gambling heritage is best preserved in the arena of blitz chess and, not coincidentally we can still find oddsgiving in blitz. However, time odds have replaced material as the preferred form of handicapping.

Political. One of the effects of chess’s changing role in society, specifically the Soviets’ use of chess and patronage of chess masters, was to discourage oddsgiving. The Soviets considered chess a useful tool for social engineering, but naturally they wanted to deemphasize its “decadent” gambling side. In this connection, it’s noteworthy that oddsgiving was common in exhibitions by older champions such as Lasker, Capablanca, and Alekhine. Like Morphy, they also gave showy blindfold displays. But beginning with Botvinnik, the first Soviet world champion, such demonstrations of individual superiority became less popular. A dignified simul was one thing; indeed, how else could the people’s champion efficiently commune with the proletariat masses? But a gratuitous, “unscientific” stunt was something else entirely. Soviet grandmasters were expected to be cultural icons, not hustlers. Simultaneous blindfold play was even illegal in the Soviet Union.

Philosophical. The “Scientific School” of Botvinnik, and the ever-rising estimation of science and logic in western life generally, effected a philosophical break with Morphy’s 19th century world view. Mistakes happen all the time in chess, but the instinct of chess scientists is to treat errors like aberrations. According to this view, issues of practical play are just “noise” that can only detract from a game’s “theoretical importance.” Instead, an assumption of idealized “best play” has come to underpin all analysis. From this perspective, it’s inevitable that any game commencing from a “lost” position must seem less interesting, if not downright distasteful.

Morphy’s approach to odds games was consonant with his handling of inferior positions in general, such as those in the previous chapter resulting from a serious blunder. The odds games bring a few additional points to light, however, owing to the extent of Morphy’s disadvantage and the weakness of his opponents. Steinitz made the following observations about Morphy’s oddsgiving technique:

He [Morphy] sometimes also hazards impetuously for the purpose of precipitating a crisis, especially against a player whom he knows to be below his force. To use a philosophical illustration, he employs the subjective in preference to the objective reasoning for the purposes of getting the best of the argument. This tendency towards adopting dashing and even risky sacrifices becomes more pronounced in his games at odds. Piece after piece he would throw away in order to puzzle or bewilder his much weaker opponent, and he generally succeeds in winding up with an ingenious termination, owing of course to the failure of his opponent to take proper advantage of the position. This is legitimate, though for our part, we prefer, even when giving odds, to play a sound and careful game, and to accumulate small advantages until the position is ripe for breaking in, or unless pressed desperately hard by the adverse numerical superiority

Morphy - Lichtenhein New York 1859

Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. | e4 | e5
2. | Nf3 | Nc6
3. | Bc4 | Bc5
4. | c3 | Nf6
5. | d4 | ed4

6. | 0-0 | Ne4
7. | Bf7!? |

Right away, we can see what Steinitz was talking about. Down a piece, White stands to lose if the game proceeds routinely, and the risks in sacrificing have to be weighed in that light.

7. | ... | Kf7
8. | cd4 | d5

Black is not too greedy, and returns one piece to complete his development.

9.
dc5
Bg4

Position after 9...Bg4

Black’s development seems acceptable and there’s no reason to expect that victory will not be “a matter of technique.” But Morphy proceeds to confuse the issue.

10. | Ng5! | Qg5
11. | f3 | Qg6
12. | fg4 | Ke6
13. | Bf4 | Qf6

13...Rad8 or 13...Rhf8 would have been more purposeful.

14. | Be3 | Qd8
15. | Qf3 | Rf8
16. | Qh3 |

Position after 16. Qh3

16. | ... | Ng5
17. | Qh5 | h6
18. | h4 | Ne4
19. | Qg6 | Rf6
20. | Qg7 |

Black is bound to lose either his c- or h- pawn as well.

20. | ... | Qe7
21. | Rf6 | Qf6
22. | Qc7 | Qf7

Position after 24. Bh6

This game illustrates why Pawns vs Piece Endings are a recurring trait of Morphy’s games at odds. Aiming for such positions was part of Morphy’s conscious strategy. Even if his piece sacrifices failed to produce an “ingenious termination” in the middlegame, he could often “puzzle or bewilder his much weaker opponents” by preying upon their inferior grasp of pawns’ enhanced value in endgames.

24. | ... | Kg6
25. | Bf4 | d4
26. | h5 | Kh7
27. | g5 | d3
28. | Rf1 | d2
29. | Bd2! | Nd2
30. | Rf7 | Kg8
31. | Rb7 |

Position after 31. Rb7

Even with two pieces less, White has whatever winning chances there are thanks to his pawns. But in this particular event, Black’s cavalry just managed to save the day.

31. | ... | Ne4
32. | h6 |

32. Rc7! g6 would be a better try.

32. | ... | Rc8
33. | b4 | Nb4!
34. | Rb4 | Ng5
35. | Rb7 | Rc5
36. | Ra7 | Kh8

To unburden his rook from having to defend the knight against a Rg7 fork.

37. | a4 | Rc6
38. | a5 | Rh6
39. | a6 | Ne4

40. | Ra8 | Kg7
41. | a7 | Ra6
42. | Re8 | Ra7
43. | Re4 |

draw

To get a better appreciation of how oddsgiving affects the play, we will consider the implications of offering pawn and move (i.e. remove Black’s f-pawn) for some popular King Pawn Game defenses. Generally speaking Black’s handicap in practice has more to do with the tactical disruption of his development, stemming from the vacant f7 square, than with the material weight of White’s extra pawn. Simple pawn odds (i.e. remove White’s f-pawn) was almost never used because the initiative of the first move permits White to develop normally, whereupon the missing f-pawn might even work to his advantage f opportunities arise for an attack on the f-file. On the other hand, “Pawn and Two” (remove Black’s f-pawn and allow White to begin the game with two successive moves) is an enormous handicap, hardly less than a full piece. At any rate, Remove Black’s ƒ-pawn,

1.
e4

and now:

Double King Pawn - 1. ... e5

Rare! Even in eras when open games predominated,2. Qh5! 1-0.

However, transposition to a double king pawn game can occur, as happened in Owen-Morphy, London 1858: 1. e4 Nc6!? 2. d4 e5 3. Nf3 (“Theory” recommended 3. de5 Ne5 4. Qh5 Nf7!) 3...ed4 4. Bc4

Position after 4. Bc4

It looked for a long while as if Black would never survive the weaknesses around his king in this game. Somehow Morphy hung on and even won after Owen overlooked a tactical shot: 4...Qf6 5. 0-0 d6 6. Ng5 Nh6 7. c3 Bg4 8. f3 Bd7 9. Bd5 dc3 10. Nc3 Be7 11. Nb5 Bd8 12. f4 Ne7 13. Nc3 Bg4 14. Qb3 c6 15. e5 de5 16. Nce4 Bb6 17. Kh1 Qg6 18. Bf7 Nf7 19. Nf7 Nd5 20. Ned6 Ke7 21. f5 (21. Nh8) Qh5 22. Bg5 Kd7 23. Qg3 Bc7 24. Qe5 Rae8 25. Qg7

Position after 25. Qg7

25...Bd6 26. Ne5 Kc8 27. Qd7 Kb8 28. Qd6 Ka8 29. Bf4? (29. Nc6! =) Qf5 30. Nc6 Bh3! 31. gh3 Qe4 32. Kg1 Nf4 33. Rf4 Rhg8 0-1 A cruel jungle, this Pawn and Move.

French - 1.... e6

Very popular. Black opens lines for development while blocking the exposed a2-g8 diagonal. On the minus side, lacking an f-pawn means Black can’t challenge White’s pawn center by ...f6 or block the bl-h7 diagonal by ...f5.

Here too we can refer to established theory from the 19th century. The main line of the pawn and move French was, believe it or not, 1...e6 2. d4 d5 3. Qh5 g6 4. Qe5 Nf6 5. Bg5 Be7 6. Bb5 c6 7. ed5 0-0! (and not 7...cb58. d6)

Position after 7...0-0 (analysis)

Be that as it may, in practice White often preferred 3. e5 Bd3. This is altogether logical, considering the particular burden that is on Black due to the missing f-pawn. Fraser-Steinitz, Dundee 1867 continued 3...c5 4. Bd3 cd4 5. Qh5 Kd7 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. c3 dc3 8. Nc3 Bb4 9. 0-0 Nge7 10. Ne2 g6 11. Qg4 Nf5 12. a3 Be7 13. Bd2 Qf8 14. Rac1 Kd8 15. Bb5 Bd7 16. Qa4 Bc5 17. Rc5! Qc5 18. Re1 Qb6 19. Rc6 bc6 20. Ba5 Kc7 21. Bb6 1-0. So much for playing a “sound and careful game.”

Sicilian - 1. ... c5

Also a good move. Black gambits another pawn (2. Qh5?! x c5), but he shouldn’t let that worry him. In fact, a non-developing pawn grab is precisely the sort of thing an oddsgiver wants to see his opponent indulge in.

White played more sensibly in Fernandez-Capablanca, Havana 1941: 1...c5 2. Nf3 g6 3. d4 Bg7 4. Nc3 Nc6 5. Be3 Qa5 6. Qd2 Nf6 7. Bc4 cd4 8. Nd4 Ng4 9. Nc6 bc6 10. Bd4 Bh6 11. Qe2 e5 12. Be3 Ne3 13. fe3 Qc5 14. 0-0 Qe3 15. Qe3 Be3 16. Kh1 Rb8 17. Na4 Bg5 18. b3 d6 19. Rad1 Be7 20. Bf7 Kd8 21. Nc5 Bg4 22. Ne6 Kd7 23. Nc5 Kc8 24. Be6 Be6 25. Ne6 Rb5 26. a4 Rb4 27. Rf7 Kd7 28. Nc5 Ke8 29. Nd3 Re4 30. Rdf1 Rf8 31. Rf8 Bf8 32. Kg1 Bh6 33. Re1 Rd4 34. Kf1 Kd7 35. Ke2 e4 36. Nf2 Rd2 37. Kf1 d5 38. Re2 Kd6 39. Rd2 Bd2 40. Ke2 Ba5 41. Nh3 Ke5 42. Ng5 h5 43. Nh3 Kf5 44. Nf2 Bb6 45. Nd1 Bg1 46. h3 Ke5 47. Kf1 Bc5 48. Ke2 a5 49. Nb2 Ba3 50. Nd1 Bc1 51. Kf2 Kd4 52. Ke2 c5 53. g3 g5 54. c3 Ke5 55. Nf2 d4 56. Nd1 d3 57. Kf2 Kd5 58. g4 h4 59. Ne3 Be3 60. Ke3

Position after 10...Bh6

Position after 60. Ke3

60...c4 61. b4 ab4 62. cb4 c3 63. a5 c2 64. Kd2 Kd4 65. a6 e3 0-1

Pirc - 1. ... d6

A Morphy favorite, although he didn’t have the modern Pirc plan in mind. The basic rationale for defending this way is: Black needs Nf6 to secure the tender kingside; he also needs to prevent White from disturbing this knight by e5; he doesn’t want to commit to ...e5, for reasons discussed previously; thus 1...d6!

After 2. d4 Nf6 Black will adapt his center to White’s development. If, for example, 3. Nc3 Nc6 (still waiting) 4. Bc4, he plays 4...e6! d5. On the other hand, if 3. Bd3 e5! immobilizing White’s e-pawn.

Position after 3...e5

Black has achieved a relatively acceptable double king pawn game where White must suffer a passive bishop or lose a tempo moving it a second time. Devinck-Morphy, Paris 1858 continued 4. de5 de5 5. Bg5 Bc5 6. Nf3 h6 7. Bh4 Bg4 8. 0-0 Nbd7 9. Nbd2 g5 10. Bg3 h5 (Flank attack!) 11. Qe1 Qe7 12. h4 Nh7 13. c3 0-0-0 14. b4 Bb6 15. a4 a6 16. Qb1 Rhf8 17. a5 (17. c4) Ba7 18. b5 Bf3 19. Nf3 19...Rf3 20. gf3 gh4 21. b6? (21. Bh2; 21. ba6) cb6 22. ab6 Bb6 23. Ra6 ba6 24. Ba6 Kc7 25. Qb5 hg3 0-1

Position after 19. Nf3

All in all, oddsgiving adds some interesting twists to the general problem of opening selection.

The next game comes from a Knight Odds match that Morphy won, +5 -3 =1. His opponent was one of the leading New York players and a participant in the 1st American Chess Congress.

Morphy-Thompson New York 1859

Remove White’s Queen Knight

1.
f4

Even up, Morphy was a loyal 1. e4 man and many times he played that way giving Knight Odds too. But in that case 1...d5! would have been an annoying defense. Bird’s Opening is a very sensible choice under the circumstances. It avoids premature simplification and it’s an opening where the normal development of White’s Queen Knight can be awkward. Thus, White makes some small virtue of his handicap.

1. | ... | d5
2. | e3 | Nf6
3. | Nf3 | Bg4
4. | h3 | Bf3
5. | Qf3 | c5
6. | b3 | e6
7. | Bb2 | Ne4?

A waste of time, especially since White can castle at once (no Nb1!). A possible explanation is that Thompson intended pressure on the dark squares by 8. 0-0-0 Qh4, and too late noticed the futility of this in view of, e.g., 9. Bb5 Nc6 10. d3 Nf2? 11. g3.

8. | 0-0-0 | Nc6
9. | d3 | Nd6
10. | g4 | d4
11. | Bg2 | Qc7
12. | Rhe1 |

White’s game resembles a Nimzowitsch conception. Of course, Aron Nimzowitsch’s father was born at approximately the time Morphy played this.

12. | ... | Rc8
13. | c4 | b5

Position after 13...b5

White is still a piece down with “nothing” to show for it. But in fact, Black faced a strategic dilemma: where to put his king? The center will open sooner or later, White’s pawn front hovered menacingly on the kingside, and the queenside was awkward to reach.

It’s always easy to dismiss such questions after the fact, in annotations. But over the board, it can be very difficult to work out a fully reliable, concrete solution, and nearly impossible to “prove” the correctness of the decision. Sometimes it’s hard to even identify what practical questions are being “asked” at a particular point in the game. The fact that every game poses a succession of these fuzzy problems, each an opportunity to slip up and maybe not even realize it, makes it possible for superior knowledge and skill to assert itself even in the face of great handicaps.

Thus it would be hard to prove analytically that 13...b5 was incorrect. But with Rh8 sitting home, any dream of a queenside attack is poorly founded. White has material superiority on the queenside, despite his overall piece minus.

14. | Kb1 | a5
15. | ed4 | cd4
16. | cb5 | Nb5
17. | Rel1 | Nba7
18. | Rc4 | Qd6

Maroczy found a defense in 18...Bb4 19. Rec1 Bc3! 20. Bc3 (if 20. Ba3 Black can untangle by 20...Qd7 followed by ...Nb5) dc3 21. R4c3 0-0 22. Rc6 Nc6 23. Rc6 Qc6 24. Qc6 Rc6 25. Bc6 Rd8.

19.
Rec1
Kd7

19...Ne7 fails on account of 20. Qb7.

20.
Bd4!

Position after 20. Bd4

White has too many attacking pieces for Black to contain. If now 20...Nd4 21. Qb7 and the defense collapses. Thompson’s reply appears forced.

20. | ... | Qb8
21. | Rc6 | Nc6
22. | Rc6 | Ba3
23. | f5 | Rhe8
24. | fe6 | fe6
25. | Bg7 | Qh2

This hint of “activity” meets an abrupt refutation. 25...Re7 should have been tried.

26.
Qf2!

Position after 26. Qf2

26. | ... | Qb8
27. | Qd4 | Bd6
28. | Rb6 | Qc7
29. | Rb7 | Qb7
30. | Bb7 | Rc7
31. | Be5 |

and 1-0 after a few moves.

Supplement to Chapter 6

(i) An Odds Anecdote

Shortly after capturing the World Championship, young Emanuel Lasker turned up unrecognized at a foreign chess club. Without revealing his identity he challenged the club’s best player. The local hotshot sized up the stranger and offered him knight odds. Lasker accepted and contrived to lose the game.

“Very good!” he conceded, “but of course you tricked me with your ‘handicap’ ruse.”

“What do you mean ‘ruse’?,” his opponent asked.

“Our game demonstrates,” Lasker explained, “that the so-called handicap was really advantageous for White because it permitted you to get your queen rook onto the center files faster.”

The club champion tried to explain to the world champion that a mere tempo for connecting White’s rooks is not sufficient compensation for a knight. Lasker was adamant, however, and to prove his point he suggested a further series of games in which he would get the “advantage” of playing minus a knight. Needless to say, Lasker won all these games, and his opponent went home that night with something to think about.

(ii) A Small Sampler of Morphy Odds Games

Morphy-Michaelis New York, 1859

Remove White’s Queen Rook

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 ed4 4. Nd4 Nc6 5. Nc3 Nd4 6. Qd4 c6 7. Be3 Nf6 8. Be2 Be6 9. 0-0 (It’s unclear whether 9. 0-0-0!? was good here.) Be7 10. f4 0-0 11. f5 Bd7 (ll...Nd7 Δ Ne5 and Bf6) 12. g4 c5 13. Qd2 Bc6 14. Bf3 Nd7 15. g5 Ne5 16. Be2 f6 17. h4 a6 18. Rf2 b5 19. Rg2 fg5 20. hg5 Nc4 21. Bc4 bc4 22. Qe2 d5 23. Qh5 (Threatening 24. g6 h6 25. Bh6, White’s attack is very strong.) Rf5 (The best defense, although it ought not succeed.) 24. ef5 d4 25. g6? (The correct line of attack was 25. Rh2 de3 26. Qh7 Kf8 27. Qg6! The key 27th move was overlooked by Maroczy and others, and was only discovered years later. In view of its strength (27...Kg8 28. Qe6 Kf8 29. Rh8#; or 27...Bg5 28. Rh8Ke7 29. Qe6#) Alexander Alekhine went back and tried analyzing 25...dc3 instead of ...de3. But still, 26. Qh7 Kf8 27. Qh8 Kf7 28. g6 Kf6 29. Qh4 can only favor White.) h6 26. Bh6 dc3 27. Bg7

Position after 27. Bg7

(Morphy probably expected to win this position.) 27...Kg7 28. Qh7 Kf6 29. Qf7 Ke5 30. Qe6 Kf4 31. Rf2 Bf3 32. Qe2 Qd5 33. Qe7 Rh8 34. Qc7 Kg4 35. Qh7 Qd1 36. Rf1 Qf1 37. Kf1 Rh7 38. gh7 cb2 (Oops!) 39. h8(Q) b1(Q) 0-1 Morphy’s opponent was only sixteen years old.

Morphy-Thomas Philadelphia, 1859

Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 f5 (Learn more about this variation in Chapter 8.) 4. Bc4 fe4 5. Ne5 de5 6. Qh5 g6 7. Qe5 Qe7 8. Bb5! (If 8. Qh8 Qb4 9. c3 Qc4 protects Black’s knight. Were this not an odds game, White would have 9. Nd2.) Bd7 9. Qh8 (9. Bd7 Nd7 10. Qh8 Nf6 and White’s queen gets into trouble. After the text, if 9...Nf6 10. Bg5) Bb5 10. Qg8 Qb4 11. Bd2 Qc4 12. Qc4 Bc4 13. b3 Ba6 14. c4 Nc6 15. d5 Nd4 16. 0-0-0 Ba3 17. Kb1 c6? (Dropping the last shred of his material surplus.) 18. Bc1 Bc1 19. Rd4 Bg5 20. Re4 Kd7 21. dc6 bc6 22. Rd1 Kc7 23. f4 Bf6 24. Re6 Rd8 25. Kc2 Rd1 26. Kd1 Bd8 27. Re8 Bc8 28. Rh8 h5 29. Rh7 Kb6 30. Kd2 Bf5 31. b4 a5 32. a3 ab4 33. ab4 Bf6 34. h3 (All the same, it’s hard to imagine White winning this endgame.) Bb2 35. Ke3 Bc3 36. c5 Kb5 37. Rb7 Kc4 38. Rb6 Bb4 39. Rc6 Bc5 40. Kf3 Kd4 41. Ra6 Be4 42. Kg3 Ke3 43. Re6 Bb4 44. Kh4 Kf4 45. g3 Kf5 46. Re4! Ke4 47. Kg5 Kf3 48. Kg6 (48. g4? h4 49. Kh4 Kf4 50. g5 Be1#) Kg3 49. Kh5 Kh3 draw

Position after 45...Kf5

Morphy-Montgomery New York 1859

Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 ed4 4. Bc4 Be7 5. c3 d3 6. Qb3 Be6 7. Be6 fe6 8. Nd4 (Morphy once played 8. Qb7 in a game without odds versus Barnes. {177}) Bf6 9. Ne6 Qc8 10. f4 Nc6 11. e5! de5 12. fe5 Be5 13. 0-0 Nf6 (Even 13...Nge7 would not prevent White’s following move: 14. Ng7! Bg7 15. Qf7) 14. Ng7 Kd8 15. Bg5 Qd7 16. Ne6 Ke7 17. Nc5 Nd4 (Faced with material loss at every turn, Black strikes back with some tactical tricks of his own.) 18. cd4 Qd4 19. Kh1 Qc5 20. Rf6! Bf6 21. Re1 Kf8 Morphy announced mate in seven: 22. Bh6 Bg7 23. Qe6! Bh6 24. Rf1 Qf2 25. Rf2 Bf4 26. Rf4 Kg7 27. Qf6 Kg8 28. Qf7# 1-0.

Bronze medal engraved by George H. Lovett
issued by Augustus B. Sage in New York after
his match victory over Harrwitz

7

Selected Morphy Endgames

Morphy had the inferior side in a disproportionate number of his endings! Of his games that lasted as far as an endgame, many began with Morphy conceding odds. It was a partial victory for him just to have reached an endgame that was merely difficult. The second game of his knight odds match versus James Thompson is typical. Morphy made the most of his chances, but a piece is a piece:

Morphy-Thompson New York, 1859

{71}

White to Play

32. h3 Nf6 33. Re3 Rd6 34. Kf3 Nd5 35. Re4 Nc3 36. Rh4 Nb1 37. Ke3 Na3 38. Rh7 Nc4. The extra piece certainly makes itself felt in this example. 39. Kf2 Nd2 40. Rg7 Kc6 41. Rg6 Ne4 42. Ke3 Nf6 43. Kd2 Kb5 44. g4 Kc4 45. g5 Ne4 46. Ke3 Rd7 0-1

Morphy’s endgame play has fallen through the cracks of his popular legacy, overstuffed as it is with romantic gambits and scintillating combinations. But you cannot become world champion, de facto or otherwise, without mastering the endgame. That was no less true in 1860 than today. Every indication is that Morphy was among the best endgame players of his day, probably the best. We will examine a handful of these half-forgotten efforts.

Harrwitz-Morphy Paris 1858

{45}

White to Play

For the moment the position still resembles a middlegame, but the play revolves around each side’s struggle to enter the endgame under favorable circumstances. The closed position might be expected to favor knights over bishops. But the knight lacks good outposts, and the outstanding weakness is White’s c-pawn.

21. | Rab1 | Ba6
22. | Rfc1 | Qa4
23. | Ng3 | h4

On 23...g6 24. Nh1! would create counterplay after either 24...Rab8 25. Rb8 Rb8 26. Qf6; or 24...Kf7 25. Nf2 N-h3-g5.

24.
Nf1

24. Nh5? Rf7 25. Qe1 runs into 25...g6!

24. | ... | Rab8
25. | Nd2 | Rb6
26. | Rb6 |

Otherwise Black will double rooks, whereupon White would have to surrender the file or the c-pawn (or likely both, in the long run). However, trading rooks merely pushes back the day of reckoning. From now on, the a-pawn will be vulnerable on a half-open file.

26. | ... | ab6
27. | Qb3? |

With this move, White exchanges his most effective piece. 27. g4! was a much better try.

Position after 27. g4 (analysis)

For example, 27...hg3 (27...fg4 28. Ne4, and 27...g6? 28. gf5 gf5 29. Kf2 Rg1 are no better) 28. hg3 might follow, with some hope of building a counterattack by Kf2, g4, Rg1, etc.

27. | ... | Qb3
28. | Nb3 | b5
29. | cb5 | Bb5
30. | Na5 | Ra8
31. | Nb7 | Ra6
32. | Rc3 | Kf8

Black had an interesting possibility here, 32...Bd3!? Δ 33...Rb6 34 Nd8 Rb1 35 Kf2 Rf1#. As promising as this looks, however, it is not absolutely decisive. White might try 33. Nd8 Rb6 34. h3, for instance. Morphy preferred to stick with a normal plan in which he sets out to make life difficult for the adventuresome knight. Harrwitz’s reply was forced.

33. | Nd8 | Bd7
34. | Rb3 | Ke7
35. | Rb8 | c4

The question is, has White activated his pieces or merely sent them on a suicide mission? At least he has created a situation where Black must proceed with care. Thus 35...Ra3? 36. Nc6 would have rebounded, for if then 36...Bc6? 37. dc6 the pawn cannot be stopped (37...Ra7 38. Rb7). Black would have to continue 36...Kf7 (36...Kf6 37. Rf8 Kg6 38. Rd8 is worse) 37. Rd8 Bc6 38. dc6 Ra7 39. Rd6 and White’s chances are not worse.

Position after 35...c4

36. | Kf2 | c3
37. | Ke2 | Ra3!

Now that his own c-pawn has become a factor, the time is right for Black to finish off the a-pawn. Again White has little choice in his reply, since 38. Kd1 Ba4 would be bad.

38. | Nc6 | Bc6
39. | dc6 | c2
40. | Kd2 | Rc3!
41. | Kc1 | Rc6
42. | Rb3 |

White’s burden is insurmountable. Even the best conceivable pawn endings are hopeless for him. For example 42. Rb2 (42. Rh8 Rc3-+) Ke6 43. Rc2 Rc2 44. Kc2 Kd5 45. Kc3 Kc5 46. Kb3 d5 47. Kc3 g6 48. h3 (48. g3 h3 - zugzwang - 49. Kb3 d4) d4! 49. ed4 Kd5 Black wins. The actual game concluded as follows:

42...Kf6 43. Ra3 g5 44. g3 hg3 45. hg3 gf4 46. gf4 Kg6 47. Ra5 Rc5 48. Ra6 Rc3 49. Rd6 Kh5 50. Rd2 Kg4 51. Rg2 Kf3 52. Rg5 Rc5 53. Rh5 Ke3 54. Rh4 Kf3 0-1

Morphy-de Riviere

Paris 1863

{359}

Black to Play

White’s problem in this position is the scattered disposition of his army. His knight and king are decentralized, the e-pawn is disconnected and overextended, the queenside pawns are vulnerable to a raid by Black’s rook. How could his situation be worse?

Well, for one thing, there could be more pawns on the board. With only these few, and Black’s pawns limited to the queenside, White can hope for a draw even if e6 falls. The issue will be whether White can bring his king over to the queenside in good time.

Black cannot win by the primitive 30...Rg8 31. Kf2 Rg6. For example, 32. Rg6 Ng6 33. Ke3 Kd6 (33...b5 34. Ke4 Kd6 35. Kf5) 34. Nc4 Ke6 35. Na5. To have serious winning chances, Black must strike quickly against White’s queenside pawns. Sergeant attempted to show that Morphy had the defense well in hand, citing the variation 30...Rd1 31. Kf2 Rd2 32. Kf3 Rb2 33. Rh7 Ra2 34. Nc4! Kd8 35. Rh8 with a draw.

However, the superior 30...b5! would quarantine the knight, preparing R-d2xb2 with increased effect. 31. Nb1? and 31. Nc2? both lose outright to 31...Rd1. 31. Kf2 Rd2 also looks bad for White. 31. Rh2 would be best, but then 31...Rd1 32. Kf2 Kd6 follows, with winning chances for Black. (But not 32...Rd2?! 33. Kg3 Nf5 34. Kh3 Rh2 35. Kh2 Kd6, which White could draw.)

The move de Riviere actually played is definitely worse. Black leaves himself a critical tempo behind these variations.

30. | ... | Rd5?
31. | Kf2 | b5

31...Rd2 32. Kf3 Rb2 33. Rh7 would transpose back to Sergeant’s drawing line.

32. | Kf3 | Rd2
33. | Nb1! | Rb2
34. | Nc3 | Kd6

Otherwise White plays Ne4 Rh7 and generates sufficient counterplay.

35. | Kf4 | Nd5
36. | Nd5 | cd5

36...Kd5 was also possible. If 37. Ke3 (37. e7 Re2 38. Rh7 a5 ) Kd6 38. e7 Ke7 39. Rh7 Kd6 40. Ra7 Kc5 41. Ra6 White isn’t out of the woods yet, but he’s better off than in the game.

37. | e7 | Ke7
38. | Ra6 | Re2

Cutting off the White king.

39. | a3 | Kd7
40. | Ra7 | Kc6
41. | Kf3 | Re4
42. | Ra8 | Ra4

Likewise Black’s winning chances would have been excellent after 42...Kc5, e.g. 43. Rc8 Kd4 44. Rb8 Re3! (44...Kc4 45. Rc8 Kb3 46. Rc5 makes no progress) 45. Kf2 Rb3 46. Ra8 Kd3 47. a4 ba4 48. Ra4 d4.

43. | Rc8 | Kd6
44. | Rc3 | d4
45. | Rb3 | Kc5
46. | Ke4 |

Position after 46. Ke4

46. | ... | Ra8
47. | Kd3 | Rh8
48. | Kd2 | Rh2
49. | Kc1 |

Preferable to 49. Kd1 because White must be ready to play Kb1 in answer to a possible ...Ra2.

49. | ... | Kc4
50. | Rg3 |

Position after 50. Rg3

Removing the a- and b- pawns would produce Philidor’s Position, a stone cold draw. But thanks to the additional pair of pawns, Black has decent chances. He can alternate between threats to win the a-pawn on one hand, and a campaign to force through his d-pawn on the other.

50...Re2 would be a natural way to proceed. The threat Re3 forces White’s rook off the third rank. Thus 51. Rg8 Kd3 (if 51...Kb3 3. Rb8 Black must go back) 52. Rb8 Ra2 53. Rb5 Ra3.

Position after 53...Ra3 (analysis)

But after 54. Rh5 the game should end in a draw, albeit a tricky one where White has many opportunities to go astray. One possible continuation is 54...Ra1 55. Kb2 Re1 56. Rh3 Kd2 57. Rh2 Re2 58. Rh4 d3 59. Rh1. This position is shown to be a draw in Levenfisch & Smyslov’s Rook Endings (p. 23).

However, Black has a finesse available to improve this variation: 50...Ra2! The threat is 51...d3, winning a3. White has no choice but to play 51. Kb1, and only now Black goes 51...Re2. The position is the same as in the previous variation (50...Re2 etc.) except White’s king is at b1 instead of c1. The significance is that after 52. Rg8 Kb3! White can’t play 53. Rb8 because of mate. Consequently, the a-pawn will be lost.

White’s other defenses aren’t any better, e.g. (50...Ra2 51. Kb1 Re2) 52. Rg4 Kb3! 53. Kc1 (if 53. Rg3 Re3) Kc3 54. Kd1 Ra2 55. Rg5 Ra1 56. Ke2 d3 57. Ke3 Re1 58. Kf2 d2 wins.

50.
...
d3?

Somehow the renowned endgame technician Maroczy let this slip by without comment, but from a practical standpoint advancing the pawn is completely wrong. White isn’t threatening anything, so Black should first try out less committal maneuvers. If these fail, he can always recreate the position later.

51. | Rg8 | Ra2
52. | Rc8 | Kb3
53. | Rb8 |

Not 53. Rc5? Rc2.

53. | ... | Rc2
54. | Kd1 | Rc5

Position after 54...Rc5

55.
Kd2?

After a long and difficult defense, and with the draw finally in sight, Morphy collapses. According to Sergeant, 55. Ra8! should earn the half point. After 55...Kb2, White need only avoid 56. Kd2?, when 56...Rc3! allows Black to get his rook onto the good square b3. White would quickly succumb to zugzwang in that case, since his own rook can only be on a5 in order to defend directly against ...Ka3 and also indirectly (by counterattacking the b-pawn) against ...Ra3. The finale would be 57. Ra5 Rb3 58. Kd1 Kc3 followed by 59...d2 etc.

The correct defense (after 55. Ra8! Kb2) is 56. Ra5!, e.g. 56...Kc3 57. Ra8 d2 (or 57...Rh5 58. Rc8 Kb2 59. Ra8 with no apparent progress.) 58. Rd8 Rh5 59. Rc8 Kb2 60. Ra8 Rh3 61. Rb8 Rb3 62. Kd2 Ka3 63. Kc2 Rb2 64. Kc1 b4 65. Rb7 Rh2 66. Kb1 drawing.

After the text, on the other hand, it’s all over very quickly.

55. | ... | Ka3
56. | Kd3 | b4

0-1

Morphy-Thompson New York 1857

{2}

Black to Play

In general, the presence of rooks can neutralize or even reverse the drawing tendency of opposite color bishops. But in this case the defender’s rooks are far more active. White’s extra pawn seems too slight an advantage from which to squeeze victory.

23.
...
b5

Sergeant incorrectly queried this move, writing: “Here Black misses his opportunity 23...Bg4 24. Rc1 (if 24. Rfe1 Bd1 25. Re4 Bf3!) Rd2 25. d6 Bd7 gives a draw. Similarly, if White plays 24. Rde1 Rd4 is sufficient.” These variations are fine but, in fact, there’s nothing wrong with the text move either.

24.
Rfe1
f5?

Black’s actual mistake occurs here. Morphy could hardly have hoped to win, had Thompson played 24...Re1 25. Re1 Rd2 26. d6 a5 27. Bc5 (27. Re7? Bh3 threatens either b4 or Rd1) Rb2 28. Re7 Bh3.

25. | f3 | Re1
26. | Re1 | Rd2
27. | d6 | a5
28. | Bc5 | b4

Now the problem comes to light. The interpolated moves have relieved White’s back rank weakness. Now 28...Rb2 would lose to 29. Re7, e.g. 29...Bc6 30. Rc7 Be8 31. d7 Bd7 32. Rd7 Ra2 33. Bd4 Rd5.

The panicky text move was still not the best defense, however. After 28...Bc6 29. Re7 Rd5 Black might have yet resisted.

29.
Re7
Rd5?!

Black would not cheerfully exchange the opposite color bishops. Indeed, it appeared his 28th move was to give his bishop a little air. The last minute change of plan probably indicates that Thompson decided 29...Bb5 30. Ra7 would have been hopeless anyway. White would win another pawn and Black’s king couldn’t approach the center.

30. | Bb4 | ab4
31. | Rd7 | Kf8
32. | Rb7 | Rd4

32...Rd6 saves a tempo, but to little effect. The rook ending is hopeless. Morphy finished off in the most brutal fashion.

33.
Kf2
Rd6

If 33...Rd2 (perhaps the original idea behind Black’s previous move, waiting until the White king reached the second rank) 34. Ke3 Rb2 35. Rb8 Kf7 36. d7 wins.

34. | Rb4 | Rd2
35. | Ke3 | Rh2

36. | a4 | Rc2
37. | a5 | Rc5
38. | Ra4 | Ke7
39. | b4 | Rc8
40. | b5 | Rb8
41. | a6 | Kd7
42. | b6 | Kc6
43. | b7 | Kb6
44. | a7 |

Position after 44. a7

44. | ... | Re8
45. | Kf4 | Kb7
46. | a8(Q) | Ra8
47. | Ra8 | Ka8
48. | Kf5 |

1-0

Lowenthal-Morphy London 1858

{30}

White to Play

Who stands better? From Lowenthal’s notes (see below) we learn that this question was hotly debated in London chess circles around the time the game was played.

The actual game continuation is the least interesting aspect of this example, so we’ll dispense with that first. Lowenthal played passively and got steamrollered: 58. Rf1? e4 59. Bd4 Bf6 60. Be3 Ra8 61. Bd2 (He had no choice but to surrender the key diagonal. If instead 61. Rc1 Ra5 62. Rc7 Kg6 63. Rb7 Ra1 64. Kh2 Be5.) 61...Bd4! 62. h4 Kg6 63. Kh2 Rf8 64. Kg3 f2 65. Kg2 e3 66. Be1 Kh5 67. Kg3 fe1(Q) 0-1.

Position after 61. Bd2

Returning to the original position, we will consider the superior move,

58.
a6!

Lowenthal wrote:

It was thought by some good judges of the game, that if 58. a6 had been played White would still have been able to maintain an advantage, and this was contended so strongly that two skillful amateurs were induced to give the matter more attention than it deserved. The result, however, was the able analysis that appeared at the time in Bell’s Life In London, which clearly disproved the soundness of the opinion advanced.

Unfortunately, Lowenthal didn’t reproduce any of this able analysis. Since 58. a6! looks pretty good, it’s a real puzzle to figure how Black can keep the upper hand.

Sergeant, is no help at all in this case. Borrowing from Maroczy, he proposes a variation that “seems least bad for Black” - not the most enthusiastic recommendation! And no wonder; the suggested move is 58...Bd8, which somehow doesn’t look right. After 59. ab7 Bb6 60. Rc8 Ba7 61. Bc1 Ke7 (alternatives will amount to much the same thing, e.g. 61...f2 62. Kg2 Rg8 63. Rg8 Kg8 64. Be3) 62. Be3 Bb8 63. Kh2 Kd7 64. Re8 Ke8 the position, far from being “least bad,” is lost for Black.

Position after 64...Ke8 (analysis)

For example, 65. Kg3 Kd7 66. Bb6 f2 (He can’t approach the b-pawn. If 66...e4 67. Kf4 f2 68. Bf2 Kc7, the loss of both center pawns is fatal, e.g. 69. Ke4 Kb7 70. h4 etc.) 67. Kf2 Ke7 68. Kf3 Kf6 69. Kg4 Kg6 70. Bd8 Kh6 71. Kf5 Bb6, K-e6-d7-c8 etc.

Black needs a more aggressive plan. 58...f2 59. Kg2 Bh4 threatens Rg8, but play might continue 60. Rc7 Kf6 (60...Kg6 blocks the g-file, and White can answer 61. ab7) 61. Rc4! Bg5 (61...Rg8 62. Rg4) 62. Kf2 ba6 63. Ba3

Position after 63. Ba3 (analysis)

White should win.

Some general points are emerging. For one thing, both bishops are difficult to activate. Whichever side first solves this problem has a good chance of getting the upper hand. If for no other reason than this, 58...e4, allowing 59. Bd4 directly, seems doubtful. One possible continuation is 59...Bf6 60. Rc7 Kg6 61. Be3 ba6 62. b7 ( Rc8) Rb8 63. Ba7 wins.

58...ba6 looks weak at first because after 59. b7 Rg8 (60. Rc8? f2) 60. Rf1! e4 (There is no choice - if 60...Rb8 61. Rf3 Kg6 62. Rb3 etc.) 61. Bd4 Rb8 62. Rb1 Ba7 White wins. But the situation is considerably more involved than just that. First, Black can improve his play in this variation with 59...Rb8!

Position after 59...Rb8 (analysis)

The idea is to pull White’s rook off the first rank. Only after 60. Rc7 does 60...Rg8! follow, and now White is actually in danger. His best course is to play 61. Rc1 and hope for a repetition. (61. Rc3? only leads to trouble, e.g. 61...e4 62. Rc1 Rb8 63. Rc7 f2 64. Kg2 e3 Rg8. Likewise, if 61. Ba3 f2 62. Rc1 e4) Naturally Black is not obliged to accept the implicit draw offer. But there is no point in investigating this too deeply because White can render it moot by his own improvement earlier in the variation, (58...ba6) 59. Rf1!

Position after 59. Rf1 (analysis)

It might seem strange to provoke Black’s pawns to advance. But as indicated previously, activating the bishop is of primary importance. After 59...e4 60. Bd4 Bf6 61. Be3 Rb8 (if 61...Rh8!? White can force a draw by 62. b7 Rh3 etc., or play for more by 62. Rf2!) White’s bishop pulls its weight on both defense (blockading the pawns) and offense (the idea b7 and Ba7 etc.). A comparison against the actual game continuation reveals how much the insertion of 58. a6 ba6 has improved White’s chances: 62. Rb1 Rb7 (forced, for otherwise 63. b7 Ba7) 63. Rc1! (63. Rb4 Bd8 64. Re4 is likely to end as adraw, e.g. 64...a5 (64...Bb6? 65. Rb4) 65. Rf4 (65. Ra4? Bb6 66. Bb6 Rb6 67. Ra5 Rb1 68. Kh2 f2) Kg6 66. Rf3 Bb6 etc.) Bd8 (if 63...Ke8 64. Rc4! ± Re7? 65. Rc8+—; likewise 63...Ke7 64. Rc4 etc.) 64. Rc6 Ke7 (64...a5 65. Rd6 ±) 65. h4! h5-h6.

The best answer to 58. a6 is,

58.
...
Bg5!

Position after 58...Bg5

Now both sides must walk a thin line. The immediate point of 58...Bg5, which gains time by attacking the rook, is to get Black’s bishop poised to hop into e3 or f4. After that, ...Rh8! will become a serious threat, even driving White into a mating net. White’s reply is forced.

59.
Rc7
Kg6

It would be nice to keep the g-file clear, but 59...Kf6? is actually catastrophic for Black after 60. Rc3!, cleverly winning the f-pawn.

60.
ab7
Rh8

Consistent, although 60...Rb8!? is not out of the question either.

61. | Bc1! | Bc1
62. | Rc1 | Rb8
63. | Rc7 |

Position after 63. Rc7

This is the critical position for evaluating 58...Bg5 and, by extension, the ending as a whole. As a matter of fact, Howard Staunton analyzed as far as this in his book Chess Praxis. But Staunton stopped here, evaluating that White should win. (Perhaps he was one of Lowenthal’s “good judges of the game?”) But in this case his judgment was completely wrong.

Apparently White will use his king to deal with Black’s pawns, and meanwhile advance the h-pawn. When it reaches h7, White will have a multitude of threats: Rc8; R-g7-g8; h8Q followed by Rc8; etc. This plan works well if Black wastes time, going for the irrelevant d-pawn for example. However, Black’s e- and f-pawn couplet is a dangerous enough force by itself.

63.
...
Kf5!

After the other fundamental continuation 63...e4?, Black’s king can’t support his pawns because of harassment by the White rook. For example, 64. Kg1 e3 (maybe he should still try 64...Kf5) 65. Re7 Kf5 66. Re3 (necessary, as ...Rg8 was threatened) Rb7 67. Rf3 Ke4 68. Rb3 Kd5 69. h4 Kc4 70. Rb1 Kc3 71. h5 d5 72. h6 Kc2 73. Rb5 d4 74. h7 Rh7 75. b7 Rb7 76. Rb7 d3 77. Kf2 d2 78. Rc7 Kd3 (or 78...Kb2 79. Ke2) 79. Rd7 Kc2 80. Ke2 White wins.

Position after 68...Kd5 (analysis)

64.
Kg1

64. h4?! Kg4? 65. Kg1! Kh4 66. Rg7 is probably winning for White, e.g. 66...e4 67. Kf2 Rf8 68. Rf7! But 64...Ke4! turns the tables: 65. h5 Kd3 66. Kg1 e4 67. h6 Rg8 68. Kf2 Rg2 69. Kf1 e3 70. Re7 Rb2! wins for Black. It turns out the plan of pushing the h-pawn is too slow with Black boring ahead in the center.

64. | ... | Ke4
65. | Kf2 |

Position after 65. Kf2

65.
...
Kd3!!

Black unexpectedly sacrifices his pride and joy, the f-pawn. In return, his king achieves a magnificent position for supporting the e-pawn without interference from White’s rook. After this, White is probably lost!

66. | Kf3 | e4
67. | Kg4 | e3
68. | Re7! |

The best try. 68. h4? e2 69. Re7 Rb7! is easier for Black.

68. | ... | e2
69. | Kf3! |

A tricky defense, whereby White adds his own dash of poison: 69...Rb7? 70. Re3 ±

69. | ... | Rf8
70. | Kg4 | Kd2
71. | h4 | e1(Q)
72. | Re1 | Ke1
73. | h5 |

Position after 73. h5

Black is on top by the barest of margins. Were the h-pawn already on the sixth rank, White would even win.

73.
...
Ke2

The nervous 73...Rb8? 74. h6 Rb775. Kf5 would ruin everything. The rook is ideally placed on f8, cutting White’s king off from the d-pawn. White has only one constructive plan, but Black’s king gets back just in time.

74. | h6 | Ke3
75. | h7 | Ke4

Again, a rook move would be worse than useless. 75...Rh8? doesn’t threaten to take the pawn.

76. | Kg5 | Kd5
77. | Kg6 | Kc6
78. | Kg7 | Rd8
79. | h8(Q) | Rh8
80. | Kh8 | Kb7

and Black wins.

Considering how narrow was the margin of success, it’s possible White can improve somewhere in this long analysis. But pending such a discovery, it looks like Morphy had the ending under control all along.

Paul Morphy’s uncle, Ernest Morphy

8

Selected Morphy Openings

As soon as these principles [of development] of Morphy’s had become common property of all chess players it was difficult to wrest an advantage in an open game... Morphy chose in reply to the French Defense the so-called Exchange Variation 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. ed5 ed5, which gives a more open game because the two center pawns have been got rid of. In this opening Morphy by quick development and mostly for the purpose of doubling his rooks on the only open file, used thereby to obtain command of it... This variation of the French Defense is looked upon today as a typical drawing variation for the reason that by ordinary good play Black is able to put his major pieces in opposition to those of White, and White is then driven to general exchange, should he not wish to relinquish the command of those files.

[Richard Reti,
Modern Ideas in Chess]

Subsequent developments have shown that Reti underestimated some of the older openings. Even the notoriously “drawish” French Exchange Variation has attracted renewed attention from players following the lead of Gary Kasparov. At the 1991 Interpolis tournament in Tilburg, Netherlands, Kasparov brought the Exchange Variation out of retirement and with it defeated one of the greatest French Defense experts, GM Victor Korchnoi. This proved to be only the first of several successful employments of Morphy’s preferred variation by Kasparov.

The Exchange French is not the only 19th century system to find a home in Kasparov’s repertoire. Morphy used to play the Scotch Game from time to time (usually in its gambit form, 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 ed4 4. Bc4), but modem masters abandoned it years ago. The evaluation in MCO-10 (1965) was characteristic: “Rarely seen in modem tournaments...a classic illustration that a premature center break, without mass preparation, tends to dissipate rather than generate White’s initiative.” Thus it was that Kasparov’s use of the Scotch, to score a win and a draw versus Karpov in the 1990 World Championship match, caused a minor sensation. But in chess, world champions set the fashion trends. Nowadays the Scotch has secured an important spot in the repertoires of several world class grandmasters.

The aim of this chapter is not to dissect Morphy’s entire repertoire, nor to exhaustively analyze any particular variation. What follows is an overview of Morphy’s experience in a few selected openings that were somehow conspicuous in his practice or representative of his style.

The Boden Kieseritsky Gambit

1. | e4 | e5
2. | Bc4 | Nf6
3. | Nf3!? |

Position after 3. Nf3

Morphy used this variation throughout his career as a favorite anti-Petroff system, via the alternate move order 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bc4!?

Morphy-Barnes London 1858

3. | ... | Ne4
4. | Nc3 |

4. Ne5? Qe7 is bad for White, of course. Besides, to gambit the pawn and then simply recapture it (which is possible, by 4. Qe2) was never White’s intention.

In Morphy’s own words, the text “affords scope for positions of peculiar interest.” Black’s knight is urged to move a third time and to exchange itself for a knight that moved but once. In addition, White gets another open center file. All this constitutes a significant gain of time in return for the pawn.

4.
...
Nc3

Accepting a pawn with an eye towards returning it later is a standard motif for defending gambits. This is especially apt to succeed if the original gambit mechanism involved artificial or non-developing moves whose meaning is closely tied to the acceptance of the gambit. To give a simple illustration, in the opening 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 ed4 4. c3, White’s last move contributes to development only if Black swallows the pawn, 4...dc3 5. Nc3. If, on the other hand, 4...d3!?, the c3 pawn actually hinders White’s development by blocking his knight’s natural square.

A noteworthy feature of the Boden Kieseritsky Gambit is its resistance to this popular strategy of returning the pawn. White restricts himself to the most basic developing moves, which are apt to prove useful in any event. In exchanging knights, Black irreversibly sacrifices two tempi. He will have a hard time recouping their full value by returning the pawn later.

That having been said, it’s still hard to condemn a natural move like 4...d5. This was played in the previously-examined Morphy - Lichtenhein game (p. 77), with the continuation 5. Bd5 Nf6 6. Bb3 Bd6 7. d3 0-0 8. h3 h6 9. Be3 Nc6 10. Qd2 Na5 11. g4 etc. Even if White can maintain a slight initiative against 4...d5, it may be little more than he could expect in a main line of the Petroff Defense.

4...Nf6 also avoids the main thrust of White’s plan. But after 5. Ne5 d5 6. Bb3 Be7 7. d4 c6 8. 0-0 Nbd7 9. f4 Nb6 10. Qf3 White was better in Morphy-Potier, Paris 1858. {243}

Position after 10. Qf3 (Morphy-Potier)

Finally, 4...Nd6!? and 4...Nc6 5. Ne4 d5 are both also possible, but neither figured into Morphy’s practice.

5.
dc3
f6

Position after 5...f6

Not 5...d6? 6. Ng5 Be6 7. Be6 fe6 8. Qf3 +—; 5...Be76. Ne5 0-0 7. Qh5 is not too pleasant for Black either. However, Black does have alternatives to the antipositional text move. In a game where Morphy defended the Black side of this variation, he chose 5...c6. Boden-Morphy, London 1858 then continued 6. Ne5 d5 7. 0-0 Bd6 (7...dc4 8. Qd8 Kd8 9. Nf7 Ke8 10. Nh8 Be7 11. Re1 ↑ ) 8. Re1 Be6 9. Bd3 Nd7 10. f4 Ne5 (10...0-0) 11. fe5 Bc5 12. Kh1 Qh4 13. Be3 Be3 14. Re3 0-0 15. Qe1 ±

Position after 15. Qe1 (Boden-Morphy)

This was another of those mysterious games whose final moves were not recorded. The last known position (after Morphy’s 41st move) appeared to be a forced win for White. But somehow the game ended in a draw. {194}

6.
0-0

This may be regarded as the basic position of the Boden Kieseritsky Gambit. In one sense the resulting middlegames have an almost hypermodern quality: White permits his opponent to form a pawn center and then counters by piece pressure and pawn blows from the flank. However, the Boden Kieseritsky is fully romantic rather than hypermodern in spirit. Its overall theme is opening lines to attack the king right from the outset. The target of White’s attack is not so much the pawn center as the Black monarch behind the pawns.

White’s plan is Nh4 followed by f4 and/or Qh5. It’s difficult for Black to get castled or to avoid loosening his pawn structure. In many cases, White will sacrifice a piece to completely clear the center.

A different Morphy-Barnes game, already seen in chapter 4, saw Black cope successfully by 6...Qe7 7. Nh4 d6 (Also possible, 7...c6!? d5, a common theme for Black.) 8. Qh5 Kd8 9. f4 Be6 10. Be6 Qe6 11. fe5 de5 12. Ng6 Bc5 13. Kh1 Re8 14. Qh7 Qg8 15. Qh5 Nd7 . (p. 87) Among the candidate improvements for White, 7. Re1 deserves attention. Black would still probably reply 7...d6 or 7...c6. An old analysis continues 7...c6 8. Re5!? (8. Bg5?! d6! 9. Bh4 Nd7 10. Nd4 d5 11. Nf5 Qf7 12. Bd3 Nc5 ) fe5 9. Bg5 Qc5 10. Qe2 d5 11. Ne5 Be7, good for Black.

It’s understandable that a move like 6...Qe7 will not appeal to everyone. Black may instead play the more natural 6...d6, although his position is less solid than it might appear. There can follow 7. Nh4 g6 8. f4 and now:

Position after 8. f4 (analysis)

Black decided on 8...Qe7 after all in Tchigorin - Sabsoley, St. Petersburg 1904. White proceeded to crash through after 9. f5 g5? (9...Qg7) 10. Qh5 Kd8 11. Bg5! fg5 12. f6 Qe8 13. Qg5.

Another old game (analysis?) ran 8...f5 9. Nf3 Qf6 10. fe5 de5 11. Bg5 Qb6 12. Kh1 Qd6 13. Ne5! Qd1 14. Bf7#.

Returning to the main game, Black has yet another normal-looking move at his disposal:

6. | ... | Nc6
7. | Nh4 | Qe7

Something must be done about the threatened Qh5. 7...Ne7!? was played in an old Staunton-Horwitz (not Harrwitz!) game, but that hardly seems more appealing than the text. 7...g6 would offer a target for f4-f5.

8. | Nf5 | Qc5
9. | Bb3 | d5
10. | Be3 | Qa5
11. | Nh4 | Be6
12. | Qh5 | g6?!

Position after 12...g6

All but forcing White to sacrifice. 12...Bf7 would have been more reliable, when Black’s position is loose but a pawn is a pawn. Maroczy then continues 13. Qg4 (to hinder castling) h5 g5, unafraid of ghosts. After the text, Morphy obliterated the pawns shielding Black’s king.

13. | Ng6 | Bf7
14. | Qh4 | Bg6
15. | Qf6 | Rg8
16. | Rad1 |

It would be an overstatement it to claim that White’s attack wins by force, but the initiative is certainly difficult to contain. The remaining moves were:

16...Be7 17. Qe6 Bf7 18. Qh3 Nd8 (18...Rb8 Rd6) 19. f4 e4 20. Rd5! Bd5 21. Qh5 Kf8 22. Bd5 Rg7 23. b4 Qa6 (23...Qb5 Qe8 seems better) 24.f5 Nf7 25. f6 Bf6

Position after 25...Bf6

26. b5! Qd6 27. Bf7 b6 28. Bh6 Ke7 (28...Qe7! was forced. Even then, however, 29. Bb3 Rd8 30. Qh4 Rd6 31. Bg7 Kg7 32. Qg4 Kh6 33. Re1 would be better for White.) 29. Bg7 Bg7 30. Bb3 Rf8 31. Rf7 Rf7 32. Qf7 Kd8 33. Qg7 Qd1 34. Kf2 Qd2 35. Kg3 e3 36. Qf6 Kc8 37. Be6 Kb7 38. Qf3 1-0 in view of 38...Kb8 39. Bd5 etc.

The King’s Gambit

Every generation includes players who are drawn to this most “romantic” of openings. Still, there’s no question the King’s Gambit has lost the stature it enjoyed in Morphy’s day, when it was a fundamental weapon in every master’s arsenal. Today, many otherwise knowledgeable opening specialists are ignorant of the King’s Gambit Accepted, one of the oldest and most “theoretical” openings!

Morphy’s experiences came equally from both sides of the King’s Gambit. As White he definitely favored the Knight’s Gambit (3. Nf3), which he tried out even in the earliest contests of his youth. Morphy didn’t employ this opening in his official tournament games at New York, 1857, and even among his offhand games on that occasion we find only a couple King’s Gambits at knight or rook odds, plus one blindfold game versus Lichtenhein {131}. But he played the gambit quite frequently the following year during his first visit to England. Once he moved on to Paris, he all but dropped it from his White repertoire except for some offhand games played with Anderssen. Then, upon his returning England in 1859, it again shows up frequently among his games. Perhaps Morphy had a low regard for the defenses that were popular among his British opponents.

As Black against 1. e4 Morphy almost always defended 1...e5, so naturally he encountered his share of King’s Gambits. One particularly famous game (see the note to move 2 below) has fueled a popular belief that Morphy favored the Falkbeer Countergambit (2...d5). In fact, that game was an anomaly. In the overwhelming majority of cases, and in all serious tournament and match games, Morphy accepted the King’s Gambit, 2...ef4.

Against the Bishop’s Gambit (3. Bc4) he used 3...Qh4 at New York in 1857, but later he favored 3...Nf6 or 3...d5. One of his published annotations includes the opinion that the latter move is best.

Against the Knight’s Gambit (2. Nf3), Morphy always played the classical 3...g5. The following game and notes chart Morphy’s experiences on both sides of this variation.

Morphy-Bird London 1858

1. | e4 | e5
2. | f4 | ef4

Against the ever-popular 2...Bc5, Morphy’s favorite system was 3. Nf3 d6 4. c3 (The Evans-like treatment 4. b4!? was tried out in a couple Morphy games, including a loss versus Barnes. {178}) 4...Bg4 (Today 4...Nf6 is considered good for Black. On that account, attention has shifted completely away from Morphy’s 4. c3) 5. Bc4 Nc6 6. b4 Bb6 7. a4 a6 8. h3 Bf3 9. Qf3 Nf6 10. d3 (Morphy-Bird London 1858). {185}

Schulten-Morphy, New York 1857 was the well-known Falkbeer Countergambit mentioned above. The game was weakly defended by Schulten, but it was very much the kind of performance that built Morphy’s reputation: 2...d5 3. ed5 e4 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. d3 Bb4 6. Bd2 e3!

Position after 6...e3 (Schulten-Morphy)

7. Be3 0-0 8. Bd2 Bc3 9. bc3 Re8 10. Be2 Bg4 11. c4 c6 12. dc6 Nc6 13. Kf1 Re2 14. Ne2 Nd4 15. Qb1 Be2 16. Kf2 Ng4 17. Kg1 Nf3 18. gf3 Qd4 19. Kg2 Qf2 20. Kh3 Qf3 21. Kh4 Nh6 0-1. Morphy played one other Falkbeer game against Schulten, which he lost. {133}

3. | Nf3 | g5
4. | h4 |

Morphy’s tastes alternated between the text and 4. Bc4, with nearly equal frequency. If 4. Bc4, then 4...Bg7 5. 0-0 h6 6. c3 d6 7. d4 reaches by transposition a centerpiece of modem theory, the Fischer Defense. Then 7...Ne7 8. h4 (8. g3) Ng6 9. h5 Ne7 10. g3 Bg4 11. gf4 Bh5 12. fg5 Qd7 was Morphy - de Riviere, Paris 1863. {359} See also the Morphy-Anderssen offhand game on p. 61.

For unadorned elegance, it would be hard to top a game played by Morphy while yet a teenager, in which he varied from the above with a delayed 5. h4 (the “Philidor Gambit”) and Black (Meek) offered up the inconsistent reply 5...g4? (inconsistent because the whole point of Black’s setup is to maintain his pawn chain by 5...h6 now that his king rook is defended) 6. Ng5 Nh6 7. d4 f6 (Highly unnatural, but Black has little choice but to grab material. Otherwise White will inevitably recapture f4 and achieve all the positional bounty of the King’s Gambit - classic pawn center, pressure on the f-file, Black’s kingside structure compromised - without even sacrificing.) 8. Bf4! fg5 9. Bg5 Bf6 (Banking on 10. Bh6? Bh4 ) 10. Qd2! Bg5 11. hg5 Nf7 12. Bf7! (“Sudden clarity. White’s superiority of attacking force becomes more pronounced with exchanges.” - R. G. Thimann, in his little-known gem of a book King’s Gambit) Kf7 13. Qf4 Kg8 14. 0-0 Qe7 15. Nc3 c6 16. Rael d6 17. Nd5 cd5 18. ed5 1-0 (Morphy-Meek, Mobile 1855)

Position after 16...d6 (Morphy-Meek)

4. | ... | g4
5. | Ne5 | Nf6

Most common today, but certainly not the only move. For instance, there’s nothing definitely wrong with 5...h5!? The twelve-year-old Morphy had a game that went 6. Bc4 Rh7 7. d4 d6 8. Nd3 f3 9. g3 ∞ (Morphy-McConnell, New Orleans 1849). {83}

5...d6 is another common sense choice. After 6. Ng4 Be7 7. d4 Bh4 8. Nf2, it could have led to a good position for Black (e.g. 8...Qg5 9. Qf3 Nc6) in Morphy-Lyttelton, Birmingham 1858 but instead there followed 8...BJ2? 9. Kf2 Nf6 10. Nc3 Qe7 11. Bf4 Ne4 12. Ne4 Qe4 13. Bb5 Kf8 14. Bh6 Kg8 15. Rh5 Bf5 16. Qd2 Bg6 17. Rel 1-0.

6.
Bc4

6. Ng4 got a real workout in Paris 1858, where Morphy played both sides of the position. First the wildly unbalanced 6...Ne4 7. d3 Ng3 8. Bf4 Nh1 9. Qe2 Qe7 10. Nf6 Kd8 11. Bc7 Kc7 12. Nd5 Kd8 13. Ne7 Be7 led to his winning as Black against Baucher. {221} But Morphy must have found White’s position acceptable because shortly thereafter he repeated all these moves against Anderssen and won again, this time as White. {226}

Next came Anderssen’s turn to try out the White side. Morphy varied with 6...d5 7. Nf6 Qf6 in two games.

Position after 7...Qf6 (analysis)

In one case Black got the advantage after 8. Nc3 Qg6 9. Qf3 Bd6 10. Bd3!? Bg4 11. Qf2 Nd7. {227} But in the other, Anderssen scored his most crushing victory over Morphy: 8. Qe2 Bd6 9. Nc3 c610. d4 Qd4 11. Bd2 Rg8 12. ed5 Kd8 13. 0-0-0 Bg4 14. Qe4 Qe4 15. Ne4 Bd1 16. Nd6 Bh5 17. Bf4 cd5 18. Nb7 Ke7 19. Bb5 Rg2 20. Re1 Kf6 21. Re8 Bg6 22. Nd6 Nc6 23. Ra8 Rc2 24. Kd1 Nd4 25. Re8 Bh5 26. Ke1 Nf3 27. Kf1 Rb2 28. Be2 Ra2 29. Bg5 Ng5 30. hg5 Kg5 31. Re5 Kf6 32. Rh5 1-0.

6. | ... | d5
7. | ed5 | Bd6

The natural text was likewise Morphy’s choice when he was Black in this position. But it’s considered old fashioned today. The modern preference is 7...Bg7 so that if White plays 8. d4 Nh5 9. Nc3, the fianchettoed bishop secures Black’s castle position and pressures White’s center (Δ...c5!).

8. | d4 | Nh5
9. | Nc3 |

Morphy’s very first game in Paris went 9. Bb5 c6 10. dc6 and now 10...0-0? (10...bc6 is better, e.g. 11. Nc6 Nc6 12. Bc6 Kf8 13. Ba8 Ng3 14. Rh2 Qe7 15. Kf2 Ne4 16. Be4 g3) 11. cb7 Bb7 12. Qg4 Ng7 13. Bf4 led to a win for White (Harrwitz-Morphy, Paris 1858). {220}

Elkin-Morphy New York 1857 was weird: 9. Qd2?! Qe7 10. Kd1 0-0 11. Qe1. Morphy won eventually after 11...Re8 12. Nd3 Qd8 13. Qc3 g3 14. Nd2 Bg4 15. Nf3 Nd7. {104}

9. | ... | Bf5
10. | Ne2 | Be5?!

Played with a concrete purpose in mind, but this exchange doesn’t lead to the desired result. Morphy had another game in which he faced 10...Qf6 (10...Qe7!?) 11. Nf4 Ng3 12. Nh5! Nh5 13. Bg5 Bb4 (13...Qg7 14. 0-0 Ng3 15. Bb5 Kf8 16. Rf5 Nf5 17. Qg4 Ne7 18. Rf1 Be5 19. de5 wins - analysis by Sergeant) 14. c3 Qd6 15. 0-0 Ng7 16. Rf5 Nf5 17. Qg4 Ne7 18. Re1 and White won shortly (Morphy-Medley, London 1858). {203}

11.
de5

Position after 11. de5

11.
...
f3

He kicks open the door to White’s king but at too steep a price: the dubious exchange on move 10.

12. | gf3 | gf3
13. | Bg5! |

Decisive. The conclusion of the game was a rapid downhill slide for Black:

13...f6 (13...fe2 14. Qe2) 14. ef6 Qd6 15. Qd4 fe2 (Still hoping to get at White’s king with something like 16. f7 Kf7 17. Qh8 Qg3) 16. Be2 Qg3 17. Kid2 0-0 18. Rag1 1-0

The Philidor Counterattack

1. | e4 | e5
2. | Nf3 | d6
3. | d4 | f5!?

Modern opening theory takes a surprisingly dim view of Philidor’s Defense. Half cousins like the Old Indian and Pirc Defenses are the height of fashion, but the Philidor seems inextricably linked to the past.

In open games, the central thrust ...d5 often constitutes Black’s “freeing move.” Philidor’s early 2...d6 may render ...d5 more difficult because of the tempo loss it entails. Consequently, certain straightforward attacking schemes that might be premature against 2...Nc6 acquire new energy versus the Philidor. Still, these are abstract arguments. 2...d6 is a common sense move that can’t be as inconsequential as its modern reputation suggests.

Morphy didn’t use the Philidor as Black prior to his first swing through Europe. But it suddenly emerged as a clear favorite among his king pawn defenses during a string of terrific games in England, 1858. After 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 Morphy actually used two different systems, 3...f5!? and 3...ed4.

3...ed4 can be met by either 4. Nd4 or 4. Qd4. For example, 4. Nd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Be7 6. Be2 0-0 7. 0-0 c5!? 8. Nf3 Nc6 was Lowenthal-Morphy London 1858. {22} As an example of 4.Qd4, Morphy’s own preference when playing White, we can cite Boden-Morphy, London 1858, which proceeded 4...Bd7 5. Be3 Nc6 6. Qd2 Nf6 7. Bd3 Be7 8. Nc3 0-0 9. 0-0. We see here another case of the development pattern with all four minor pieces aligned on the third rank, very common in the 19th century. The game had an odd continuation: 9...h6 10. h3 Nh7 11. g4 h5 12. Nh2 hg4 13. hg4 Ne5 14. f3 g5 15. Kg2 c5 16. Rh1 Kg7 17. Nf1 Δ N-g3-h5. White won in 41 moves. {197}

But 3...ed4 was definitely second string in Morphy’s repertoire. His favorite line was the so-called Philidor Counterattack, 3...f5!? To wit, this was the variation Morphy chose when he finally got to sit down opposite the rival he hungered for most, Howard Staunton. That game serves as the basis for the survey below.

Position after 3...f5

An unusually large amount of Morphy material is available pertaining to the Philidor Counterattack. In addition to his games, Morphy coauthored (with Jules Arnous de Riviere) a detailed analysis that La Nouvelle Regence introduced in December, 1863 as “the deepest and most complete treatment of this opening we have ever seen.” (Morphy was back in Paris at that time, riding out the American Civil War.)

3...f5!? opens bottomless complexities. If White wants to seriously pursue an opening advantage, he cannot shrink from tactical complications. On the downside, there’s no denying Black takes his life in his hands when he selects this opening! Steinitz stated flatly, “Modern researches have proved [3...f5] absolutely unsound.” Even as adventuresome an authority as Larsen dismissed 3...f5 as “weakening Black’s king position and contributing nothing to Black’s development.” And indeed, theory offers a choice of supposed refutations. But in every case, Black can show that the situation isn’t absolutely clear.

Staunton & Owen-Morphy & Barnes London 1858

This consultation game was played just a couple weeks after Morphy’s arrival in England. The exact terms of the consultation are not known. Under the circumstances, however, it’s inconceivable that Staunton and Morphy didn’t each take the lead for their respective sides. This and one other consultation game, played on the same occasion, were the only over-the-board contests between Morphy and Staunton.

4.
de5

This is the main theoretical line. But there are several critical alternatives:

4. Bc4. This subvariation also can arise via the sequence 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bc4 f5 4. d4. Black has two important responses, 4...Nc6 and 4...ed4. (The older 4...fe4 5. Ne5 de5 6. Qh5 Kd7 is too dangerous.)

Morphy favored 4...Nc6, but today this does not seem the most dynamic approach.

Position after 4....Nc6 (analysis)

From here the game Boden-Morphy, London 1858 and a consultation game, Lowenthal & Medley - Morphy & Mongredian, London 1858, both went 5. de5 (5. Ng5) de5 6. Qd8 Nd8. The latter continued 7. Ne5 fe4 8. Bd2 Bd6 9. Bc3 Nf6 10. h3 Be6 {175}; while the former continued 7. 0-0 fe4 8. Ne5 Nf6 9. Re1 Bd6 10. f4 Be6 {198}. Both games ended in draws.

Morphy analyzed 4...ed4 at length, but he never played it.

Position after 4...ed4 (analysis)

However, there are a couple modem examples available, both good illustrations of this strange and difficult opening. 5. Ng5 (5. Nd4; 5. Qd4; 5. 0-0; and 5. Bg5 are all respectable candidates) Nh6 6. Nh7?! (6. 0-0) Ng4! 7. Nf8 Kf8

Position after 7...Kf8 (analysis)

Now Nurmi-Mestel, Tjentiste 1975 continued 8. ef5 Qe7 9. Kf1 Bf5 10. Qd4 Nh2 11. Rh2 Rh2 12. Be3 Qe4 13. Qe4 Rh1 14. Ke2 Be4 0-1.

Sorokin-Maliutin, USSR Ch. 1991 went 8. Qd4 Nc6 9. Qd5 Qe8 10. Nc3 Nf6 11. Qd1 Ne4 12. Ne2 Ne5 13. Bd3 Ng4 14. Be4 fe4 15. Bf4 Qg6 16. Qd2 Bd7 17. Nd4 Kg8 18. 0-0-0 Rf8 19. h3 Qf7 20. g3 Qa2 21. Nb3 Nf6 22. Qc3 Be6 23. Qc7 Bb3 0-1 (24. cb3 Kh7!). The Philidor Counterattack lives!

4. Nc3. This has a good reputation. Morphy didn’t analyze it in his manuscript, but he faced it in one of his most celebrated games. Bird-Morphy, London 1858: 4...fe4 5. Ne4 d5.

Position after 5...d5 (Bird-Morphy)

20th century theory rejects Black’s last move (S...Nf6!? is the recommended alternative) because of what Steinitz called “Zukertort’s winning attack,” 6. Ne5 de4 7. Qh5. However, in that case after 7... g6 8. Ng6 Black has at least two ways to confuse the issue:

8...Nf6 9. Qe5 Be7 10. Nh8 Nc6. 11. Bb5 Qd5! with chances to consolidate Black’s king and round up the knight. Or,

8...hg6 9. Qh8 (9. Qg6!?) Qd5! (Δ Be6, Nc6, and 0-0-0, ideally). This seems an apt place to observe that the sacrifice of Black’s king rook is, in one form or another, a recurring feature in the Philidor Counterattack.

Getting back to Bird-Morphy, Bird played the less critical 6. Ng3. This looked decent enough after 6...e4 7. Ne5 Nf6 8. Bg5 (8. f3 - Keres) Bd6 9. Nh5 0-0 10. Qd2 Qe8. But now, panicking in the face of Black’s double attack on e5 and h5, White selected an ugly move, 11. g4? (11. Nf6 gf6 12. Bf6 Rf6 13. Qg5 Rg6 14. Ng6 hg6 15. Qd5 would have been better, with chances for both sides) Ng4 12. Ng4 Qh5 13. Ne5 Nc6 14. Be2 Qh3 15. Nc6 bc6 16. Be3 Rb8 17. 0-0-0

Position after 17. 0-0-0 (Bird-Morphy)

Morphy uncorked the surprising 17...Rf2!?, with the even more startling point 18. Bf2 Qa3! Now Steinitz claimed 19. Qg5 would have won for White, but Maroczy’s continuation 19...Qb2 20. Kd2 Bb4 21. Ke3 Qa3 22. Bd3 Ba6 23. Rhg1 Bf8 seems to answer that. Bird actually chose 19. c3 Qa2 20. b4 Qa1 21. Kc2 Qa4 22. Kb2

Position after 22. Kb2 (Bird-Morphy)

(22. Kc1!? is a controversial possibility, widely trumpeted as sufficient to force Black to accept a perpetual check. The universally-cited proof runs 22. Kc1 Bb4? 23. cb4 Rb4 24. Qg5 Qa3 25. Kd2 Rb2 26. Ke1 Re2 27. Ke2 Qf3 28. Ke1 Qh1 29. Qg1 . But New Jersey master Jim West, writing in Atlantic Chess News, demonstrates that this analysis is flawed in both directions. First, Black can improve by 28...Bg4! instead of taking the rook. For example 29. Qd8? (surrendering the queen is best) Kf7 30. Qc7 Kg6 31. Qc6 Kh5 32. Qd5 g5 and wins. Unfortunately, there is a mistake in White’s play earlier, which renders this fine variation irrelevant: 28. Kd2! is better than Ke1. If then 28...Qf2 29. Kc1 or if 28...Bg4 29. Qe3; or finally, 28...Ba6 29. Qd8 Kf7 30. Qc7 and the queen will fork the bishop. In every case, White wins. But that still doesn’t mean Black must necessarily take a draw after 22. Kc1 It’s remarkable how someone can keep finding new moves that upset established judgments, even with respect to seemingly forced sequences from one of the best-known games in chess history. West shows that 22...Bf5! (instead of 22...Bb4) opens new vistas. Black aims to force White to block the e3 square, e.g. 23. Qe3? Bb4 24. cb4 Qb4 25. Rdg1 Qb1 26. Kd2 Rb2#; or 23. Be3 Bb4 24. cb4 Rb4 25. Qc2 Qa3 26. Kd2 Rb2 27. Qb2 Qb2 28. Ke1 ∞. If White tries 23. Qc2 Qa3! (not 23...Qc2 24. Kc2 e3 25. Bd3 Bd3 26. Kd3 ef2 27. Rdf1) 24. Qb2 (24. Kb1 Bb4 is strong) Bf4 25. Kb1 e3 26. Bd3 Bd3 27. Rd3 Qb2 28. Kb2 ef2, Black threatens both ...a5 and ...Bh2! Now, back to the position in the previous diagram.) 22...Bb4 23. cb4 Rb4 24. Qb4 Qb4 25. Kc2 (If 25. Ka2!? c5! 26. Rb1 (26. dc5 d4!) Qa5 27. Kb3 Bd7! and Black wins.) 25...e3! -+ 26. Be3 Bf5 27. Rd3 (27. Bd3 Qc4) Qc4 28. Kd2 Qa2 29. Kd1 Qb1 0-1.

4. ef5. Largely untested, this could be a good move. Players as White have tended to distrust it because 4...e4 5. Ng5 Bf5 appears to be just what Black was aiming for. But then 6. f3 is possible, with a slight edge. Black has alternatives, notably 5...Nf6 or, earlier, 4...ed4. But there are no Morphy examples related to 4. ef5.

Position after 4. de5

Finally back to the main game and 4. de5:

4. | ... | fe4
5. | Ng5 | d5
6. | e6 |

6. Nc3 and 6. c4!? are noteworthy too. But as Morphy never had to face either of them, we will move on.

6.
...
Nh6

The main line according to theory. But due to White’s many dangerous attacking ideas, the alternatives are critical as well:

6...Nf6!? 7. Nf7 Qe7 8. Nh8 Be6 is untested. The exchange sacrifice is certainly in the spirit of the variation.

6...Bc5!? led to another glamourous victory in Barnes-Morphy, London 1858.

Position after 6...Bc5 (Barnes-Morphy)

7. Nf7 (7. Ne4 is another “refutation” of Black’s defense. For example, 7...de4 8. Qh5 g6 9. Qc5 Be6 10. Qe5 Qf6 11. Qe4 is good for White. Or 7...Bb6 8. Bg5 Ne7 9. Qh5 g6 10. Nf6 Kf8 11. Bh6 is mate. But West points out that 7...Be7! 8. Qg4 (supposedly more dangerous than 8. Qh5 g6 9. Qe5 Nf6) g6 9. Ng5 Nf6 10. Qa4 c6 11. Nf7 Qb6 12. Nh8 Ne4! produces unclear complications.) 7...Qf6 8. Be3 d4 9. Bg5 (If 9. Qh5 de3 10. Nd6 (or 10. Nh8 g6 11. Qc5? Qf2 12. Kd1 e2 -+) Ke7 11. Nc8 Kd8) 9...Q/5 10. Nh8 Qg5 11. Bc4 Nc6 12. Nf7 (12.0-0) Qg2 13. Rf1 Nf6 14. f3? (14. Nd2 Ke7! Δ Be6) 14...Nb4 15. Na3 Be6! 16. Be6 Nd3! 17. Qd3 (17. cd3 Bb4 and mates next move) ed3 18. 0-0-0 Ba3 19. Bb3 d2 20. Kb1 Bc5 21. Ne5 Kf8 22. Nd3 Re8 23. Nc5 Qf1 24. Ne6 Re6 0-1

Position after 14, f3 (Barnes-Morphy)

6...Bb4?! is supposed to be a refinement of the 6...Bc5 idea. The point is to prompt 7. c3, and after 7...Bc5 White’s queen knight cannot develop to this square. But if White plays 8. Ne4, Black can no longer rely on defending as in the analogous variation above (8...Be7 etc.) because White has the convenient Qc2! at the tail end of the variation.

7.
Nc3

Yet another critical juncture. In his published analysis, Morphy examined several moves besides the text: 7. c4; 7. f3; 7. Qh5; and his main line, 7. Nh7!

Position after 7. Nh7 (analysis)

7...Rh7 (7...Be6!? 8. Nf8 Kf8 9. Bh6 Rh6 =) 8. Qh5 g6 9. Qg6 Rf7 10. Bh6 Be6 11. Qe6 Re7 12. Qg6 ±

7. | ... | c6
8. | Nge4 |

Here too Morphy liked 8. Nh7 Be6 9. Nf8 Kf8 10. Ne4. Maroczy judged the text “more elegant,” but in reality it is just less clear.

8. | ... | de4
9. | Qh5 | g6
10. | Qe5 | Rg8

Position after 10...Rg8

11.
Bh6

11. Bg5! is yet another alleged refutation. In the critical line 11...Bg7 12. e7, Morphy analyzed only 12...Qd7 and 12...Qb6. Instead 12...Qd2! 13. Kd2 (or 13. Bd2 Be5 14. Bh6 Bc3 15. bc3 Ke7) Be5 14. Bh6 is the improvement, but still assessed as good for White. However, West continues 14...Bc3 15. Kc3 g5 threatening to trap the bishop by Ke7 and Rg6.

11. | ... | Bh6
12. | Rd1 | Qg5

Theoretical novelty, 1858 style. The older move was 12..Qe7.

13.
Qc7

Not 13. Qe4 because White hopes to gain a tempo by taking this pawn with his knight.

13. | ... | Be6
14. | Qb7 |

It turns out 14. Ne4 is not as dangerous as it looks because Black can give up his queen, 14...Qe7 15. Rd8 Qd8 16. Nd6 Qd6.

14. | ... | e3!
15. | f3 |

According to Sergeant, 15. fe3 Qe3 16. Be2 Qb6 17. Qh7 (17. Qa8 Ke7 18. Na4 Qb4 19. Nc3 Qb6 would be a draw) is better for White. This is correct, but we ought to extend the analysis a few more moves: 17...Be3 18. Rd6! (18. Ne4 Qb4) Bf7 19. Rf1 Rf8 (19...Qc7 20. Re6! Δ Re3) 20. Rf7! Rf7 21. Re6 Kd8 22. Qg8! - always with check! - White wins. Black must interpolate 18...Bf2, but 19. Kd1 Bf7 20. Rf1 still gives White a dangerous attack.

15. | ... | Qe7
16. | Qa8 | Kf7
17. | Ne4 |

Staunton sought to compensate for losing the game by winning the post mortem. This demonstrates another sense in which chess players haven’t changed much since the 19th century! In this position his claim was that 17. Rd4 Rc8 18. Bc4 would have won for White. But 18...Bc4 19. Rc4 Qd7 remains unclear.

After the text, White maintains a significant material advantage, but Black’s positional compensation is obvious, deriving from the misplaced White queen, the passed e-pawn, and the White king still in the center. These factors all played a role in the concluding phase of the game:

Position after 17. Ne4

17.... Bf4 18. Be2 (18. Rd4 Kg7! [West - “A key move in many variations ... the idea is to enable Black to bring his king to safety with an eventual ...Kh8. It also prevents knight checks at d6, as well as bishop pins on c4.”] and now: 19. Bc4 Bc4 20. Rc4 Rd8 ; or 19. Ra4 e2 20. Be2 Be3 ) Kg7! (Black gradually actualizes the threat to trap White’s queen. In the end, White will have to make serious concessions to free her. But 18...Qc7 19. g3 Na6 would have been worse on account of 20. Rd7! (20...Qd7 21. Qg8; or 20...Bd7 21. Bc4.) 19. 0-0 Qc7 20. Nc5 Bh2 21. Kh1 Bc8 22. Rd4 Bg3 23. Re4 (23. Rg4!? [Maroczy] is interesting. 23...Bg4?! 24. fg4 Kh8 25. Qb7 with advantage for White; but 23...Bd6! [West] 24. Ne4 Be7 keeps the White queen bottled up.) Kh8 24. Rd1 Qg7 25. Rh4 Bh4 26. Qb8 Ba6 27. Qh2? (The losing move. Correct was 27. Qf4! Be2 28. Rd7 Be7 29. Ne6. If 29...Bg5? 30. Ng5! Qd7 31. Qf6 Rg7 32. Qf8 Rg8 33. Nf7. So it seems Black would have nothing better than 29...Qf6 30. Re7 Qe7 31. Qe5 Rg7 32. Qb8 with a draw.) Be2 28. Rd7 Qh6 29. Ne4 Bc4 30. Nf6 e2 31. Re7 Qc1 32. Qg1 Qg1 33. Kg1 el(Q) 34. Re1 Be1 0-1

Position after 26...Ba6

The Evans Gambit

1. | e4 | e5
2. | Nf3 | Nc6
3. | Bc4 | Bc5
4. | b4 |

“Makes for enterprising chess.”

[Bobby Fischer]

Position after 4. b4

The Evans Gambit is widely assumed to have been Morphy’s favorite opening. While it’s true he played it frequently and even described it as the “most beautiful of openings” in an annotation, he also mostly limited his use of the Evans Gambit to offhand and exhibition games. Zukertort claimed that Morphy even vowed to never risk the Evans again in serious play following a defeat by Anderssen (p. 52).

Like most 19th century gambits, the Evans is unrefuted but rarely seen today. Among contemporary players, the so-called Lasker Defense is widely (and incorrectly) believed to be a complete answer for Black. In fact, there are promising anti-Lasker move orders by which White can avoid or compromise Lasker’s system. Moreover, the last word has not been spoken on the Lasker Defense proper. The following game has theoretical significance in that regard.

Morphy-Bryan New York 1859

4. | ... | Bb4
5. | c3 | Bc5

Morphy wrote, “There has long existed a difference of opinion among good players as to the relative advantages of 5...Ba5 and 5...Bc5. The latter move, in our opinion, affords a more satisfactory defense than any at the second player’s choice.”

The differences between the two bishop retreats are rather arcane, and bound up in potential transpositions to less usual sidelines. For example, 5... Ba5 6. d4 ed4 7. 0-0 d6 and now 8. Qb3!? got an occasional workout from Morphy.

Position after 8. Qb3 (analysis)

Morphy-Kipping, Birmingham 1858 was a violent case in point: 8...Qf6 9. e5 de5 10. Re1 Bb6 11. Bg5 Qf5 12. Ne5 Ne5 13. f4 dc3 14. Kh1 Bd4 15. Nc3 Kf8 16. Rad1. {201}

Again, 5... Ba5 6. d4 ed4 7. 0-0 Nf6?! 8. Ba3 (8. e5?! d5 9. Bb5 Ne4 10. cd4 0-0 was the ill-fated Morphy-Anderssen game) d6 9. e5 Black got pried open in Morphy-Greenaway London 1859. {269} Morphy analyzed this variation in Chess Monthly, declaring it favorable for White overall.

In practice, 5...Bc5 and 5...Ba5 usually amount to the same thing. (See the next note.)

6. | 0-0 | d6
7. | d4 | Bb6

7...ed4 8. cd4 Bb6 is the Normal Position, starting point for most 19th century Evans Gambits.

Position after 8...Bb6 (analysis)

An important crossroad. As mentioned previously, White has a choice between 9. d5 and 9. Nc3. Reti gives the impression that the former was chosen invariably by pre-Morphy masters, while the latter was Morphy’s own patent. In fact Morphy played both moves with about equal frequency and, moreover, he alternated between them throughout his career. 9. Nc3 had been played as early as 1835 in a Labour-donnais - MacDonnell match game. Morphy would have been aware of this, since he is known to have studied that match and he annotated selected games from it for his New York Ledger column. Still, it is also true that Morphy’s example was responsible for popularizing 9. Nc3.

After 9.d5 Na5 is thought to be the best reply today. One of Morphy’s games with Bird, London 1858, continued 10. e5?! (10. Bb2 Ne7 11. Bd3 0-0) Nc4 11. Qa4 Bd7 12. Qc4 de5? (12...Ne7 13. e6 fe6 14. de6 Bc6 15. Ng5 0-0) 13. Ne5 Qf6 14. Nd7 Kd7 (if 14...Qa1 15. Re1) 15. Qg4 and the decisive king hunt had begun. {186}

Morphy’s opponents more often replied to 9. d5 with 9...Nce7. Morphy’s favorite then was 10. e5?!, which was already examined in connection with a game versus Lowenthal (p.16). Another example was Morphy - de Riviere, Paris 1859: 10...de5 11. Ne5 Nf6 12. Bb5 c6 13. dc6 0-0 14. Ba3 with a suffocating bind. {252} Finally, 10...Bg4 produced a most interesting fight in Morphy-Schulten, New York 1857: 11. h3 (11. Bb2) Bf3 12. Qf3 Bd4 13. Nc3 Be5 14. Bb5 Kf8 15. Bb2 c6 16. Bd3 Nf6 17. Rael Bc3!? 18. Bc3 Nfd5 (Shamelessly materialistic, but not without positional merit as well. Now White has no pawn ‘levers’ with which to tear open lines.) 19. Bal

Position after 19. Bal (Morphy-Schulten)

(One, two, three... Black has a lot of pawns! Also, there are no chronic structural weaknesses, and no direct threat hanging over him. For all that, his game is not easy to play. Schulten’s next move was almost surely wrong, but in any case White’s bishop pair would be very active, whereas Black would lack space to coordinate his back rank.) 19...f6? (Maybe 19...h5!? Rh6, although White can reply 20. Qg3 with initiative)20. Re6 Qd7 21. Rfe1 b5 22. Re7 Ne7 23. Bf6 Nd5 24. Be7 Kg8 25. Bf5 1-0.

Turning now to 9. Nc3, the so-called Morphy Attack, amateurs often played the weak 9...Nf6?. Morphy punished this after 10. e5 de5 11. Ba3 in a great many short games. 9...Bg4 is much better Then after 10. Bb5 Bf3 (or 10...Kf8 11. Be3 Nce7 12. h3 Bh5 13. Bd3 as in Morphy - de Riviere, Paris 1863 {357}; or again, Morphy’s own preference as Black in this position, 10...Bd7 ) 11. gf3 Kf8 12. Be3 Nce7 13. Kh1 c6 14. Ba4 d5 15. Rb1 Rb8 16. Qd3 Bc7 17. Rg1 Ng6 18. e5, White won in 34 moves (Morphy-Schulten, New York 1857). {115}

It’s worth noting Morphy had a third move in the Normal Position that he tried from time to time, 9. Bb2!? For instance, a game versus Mongredian, Paris 1859 went 9...Nf6 (9...Na5) 10. Nbd2 0-0 11. d5 Ne5? (11...Na5) 12. Ne5 de5 13. Be5 Rc8 14. Bf6 Qf6 15. Kh1 ± {63}

The fighting power of White’s pawn center is evident in all these examples. But since 7. d4 threatened not only the bishop but also to recover of the pawn (by swapping at e5, then trading queens, and finally capturing e5 or f7), the surrender of the center by 7...ed4 was played as a matter of course for many years.

Which brings us back to Morphy-Bryan. 7...Bb6 introduces the notorious Lasker Defense.

Position after 7...Bb6

7...Bb6 was noticed even before Morphy’s time, of course, but it had a poor reputation. The respected authorities, including both Staunton and Morphy himself, considered it plainly advantageous for White. So when Emanuel Lasker recommended the move in 1895, he was not so much inventing a new idea as reevaluating an old one. It would be interesting to learn whether Lasker knew of the present game. He did not mention it when sharing his thoughts on the variation in Common Sense in Chess:

If you want to simplify matters, I advise you to play 7...Bb6 at once, with the object of converting your extra material into positional advantage. If then 8. de5 de5 11. Qd8 Nd8 10. Ne5 Nf6. Black’s solid pawns and good, sound development will make it hard for White to keep up the equilibrium, as his a-pawn and, more so, the c-pawn require constant care. If, on the other hand, 8. de5 de5 9. Qb3 Qf6 10. Bg5 Qg6 11. Bd5 Nge7 12. Be7 Ke7 13. Bc6 Qc6 14. Ne5 Qe6 15. Qa3 c5 or Kf6, with two bishops, a healthy development of forces and a solid position.

Later Tchigorin demonstrated promising attack methods against Lasker’s suggestions 15...c5 or 15...Kf6. But on the other hand, Levenfisch’s 15...Qd6 looks fine for Black.

8. | de5 | de5
9. | Qb3 | Qf6
10. | Bb5!? |

Position after 10. Bb5

This alternative to Lasker’s 10. Bg5 remains unexplored even today.

Morphy tried 10. Bg5 as well, in a knight odds game versus Lichtenhein. After 10...Qg6 he played 11. Bb5 instead of Lasker’s 10. Bd5. {313}

10.
...
Be6

11..Bd7 [Maroczy] is the place to begin looking for improvements for Black. The conclusion:

11. Qa4 Nge7 12. Bg5 Qg6 13. Be7 Ke7 14. Bc6 bc6 15. Ne5 Qf6 16. Nc6 Kf8 17. e5 Qg5 18. h4 (White plays to drive the queen out of contact with e7.) Qg4 19. Qa3 Kg8 20. Ne7 Kf8 21. Ng6 Kg8 22. Qf8 Rf8 23. Ne7# 1-0

Position after 23. Ne7 mate

A smothered mate with the king not in the comer, known among problemists as “Morphy’s Mate.”

Another example of Morphy’s Mate occurred in Morphy-Schrufer, Paris 1859: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d4 ed4 5. 0-0 Ne4 6. Re1 d5 7. Bd5 Qd5 8. Nc3 Qh5 9. Ne4 Be6 10. Neg5 Bb4 11. Re6 fe612. Ne6 Qf7 13. Nfg5 Qe7 14. Qe2 Bd6 15. Ng7 Kd7 16. Qg4 Kd817. Nf7 Qf718. Bg5 Be7 19. Ne6 Kc8 20. Nc5 Kb8 21. Nd7 Kc8 22. Nb6 Kb8 23. Qc8 Rc8 24. Nd7 mate, 1-0)

Morphy-Bryan was actually played at Queen Knight odds! As it happens, this effects neither the game nor any of its principal variations.

Howard Staunton

Paul Morphy, New York, 1859

PART II - Complete Games

9

Tournament and Match Games

The 1st American Chess Congress October 5 - November 10, 1857

The 1st American Chess Congress was the only tournament in which Morphy ever competed. The event used a “knockout” match format. Morphy defeated J. Thompson (+3 -0 =0); A.B. Meek (+3 -0 =0); T. Lichtenhein (+3 -0 =1); and L. Paulsen (+5 -1 =2). Thus his overall score en route to first prize was +14 -1 =3.

1

Thompson - Morphy
New York, 1857
Giuoco Piano

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. d3 Nf6 5. Nc3 h6 6. Ne2 d6 7. c3 0-0 8. h3 Kh8 9. Ng3 Nh7 10. Qc2 f5 11. ef5 d5 12. Bb3 e4 13. de4 de4 14. Ng1 Ne5 15. Be3 Nd3 16. Ke2 Be3 17. fe3 Qh4 18. Ne4 Qe4 19. Qd3 Qg2 20. Kd1 Bf5 21. Qe2 Qh1 0-1

2

Morphy - Thompson
New York,1857
Sicilian

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cd4 4. Nd4 e6 5. Be3 Be7 6. Nc3 h6 7. Bd3 d5 8. Bb5 Bd7 9. ed5 ed5 10. Nd5 Nf6 11. Nf6 Bf6 12. c3 0-0 13. 0-0 Qc7 14. Qa4 Rfe8 15. Rad1 Re4 16. Bc6 Bc6 17. Qc2 Be5 18. g3 Bd4 19. cd4 Qe7 20. d5 Bd7 21. Bc5 Rc8 22. Be7 Rc2 23. Ba3

23...b5 24. Rfe1 f5 25. f3 Re1 26. Re1 Rd2 27. d6 a5 28. Bc5 b4 29. Re7 Rd5 30. Bb4 ab4 31. Rd7 Kf8 32. Rb7 Rd4 33. Kf2 Rd6 34. Rb4 Rd2 35. Ke3 Rh2 36. a4 Rc2 37. a5 Rc5 38. Ra4 Ke7 39. b4 Rc8 40. b5 Rb8 41. a6 Kd7 42. b6 Kc6 43. b7 Kb6 44. a7 Re8 45. Kf4 Kb7 46. a8(Q) Ra8 47. Ra8 Ka8 48. Kf5 1-0

3

Thompson - Morphy
New York, 1857
Giuoco Piano

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d3 d6 6. h3 Be6 7. Bb3 d5 8. ed5 Bd5 9. 0-0 0-0 10. Bg5 Bb3 11. ab3 h6 12. Bh4 g5 13. Bg3 e4 14. Ne5 Ne5 15. Be5 ed3 16. Bf6 Qf6 17. Qd3 Rad8 18. Qc2 Rfe8 19. b4 Bb6 20. Na3 Qf4 21. Rad1 c6 22. Rd3 Bf2 23. Kh1 Rd3 24. Qd3 Re3 25. Qd8 Kg7 26. Qd4 Qd4 27. cd4 Re2 28. Nc4 Re1 29. Re1 Be1 30. Na5 Bb4 31. Nb7 Kf6 32. Nd8 c5 33. Nc6 Ke6 34. dc5 Bc5 35. g4 Kd5 36. Nd8 f6 37. Kg2 a5 38. Kf3 a4 39. Ke2 Bd4 40. Kd3 Bb2 41. Nf7 Be5 42. Kc2 Kc4 43. Nd8 a3 44. Nb7 a2 45. Na5 Kb4 46. Nb3 Ka3 0-1

4

Meek - Morphy
New York, 1857
Ruy Lopez

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. d3 Bc5 5. c3 d6 6. b4 Bb6 7. a4 a6 8. Bc4 Be6 9. Be6 fe6 10. 0-0 0-0 11. Ng5 Qe7 12. Kh1 h6 13. Nh3 d5 14. Ba3 Nd8 15. b5 Bc5 16. Bb2 de4 17. d4 ed4 18. cd4 Bd6 19. Nc3 ab5 20. ab5 Nf7 21. Qe2 Qd7 22. Ne4 Ne4 23. Qe4 Qb5 24. Rab1 Qd5 25. Qg4 Ra4 26. Nf4 Qe4 27. Bc1 Bf4 28. Bf4 Rd4 29. Qh3 Qf4 0-1

5

Morphy - Meek
New York, 1857
Irregular

1. e4 e6 2. d4 g6 3. Bd3 Bg7 4. Be3 Ne7 5. Ne2 b6 6. Nd2 Bb7 7. 0-0 d5 8. e5 0-0 9. f4 f5 10. h3 Nd7 11. Kh2 c5 12. c3 c4 13. Bc2 a6 14. Nf3 h6 15. g4 Kh7 16. Rg1 Rg8 17. Qe1 Nc6 18. Nh4 Qf8

19. Ng6 Kg6 20. gf5 Kf7 21. fe6 Ke6 22. f5 Ke7 23. Qh4 Ke8 24. f6 Bf6 25. ef6 Rg1 26. Rg1 Nf6 27. Bg6 Kd7 28. Bf5 Ke8 29. Bh6 Qh8 30. Rg7 Ng8 1-0

6

Meek - Morphy
New York, 1857
Scotch

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 ed4 4. c3 dc3 5. Nc3 Bc5 6. Bc4 d6 7. h3 Be6 8. Bb5 Nge7 9. Ng5 0-0 10. Qh5 h6 11. Nf3 Ng6 12. g4 Nce5 13. Ne5 de5 14. g5 Qd4 15. Be3 Qb4 16. Bc5 Qb2

17. 0-0 Qc3 18. Bf8 Rf8 19. Rac1 Qb2 20. Bc4 Nf4 21. Qd1 Nh3 22. Kg2 Nf4 23. Kh1 Qb6 24. gh6 Bc4 25. h7 Kh7 26. Qg4 Qh6 27. Kg1 Bf1 28. Rf1 Rd8 29. a4 Rd6 30. f3 Rg6 31. Kf2 0-1

7

Lichtenhein - Morphy
New York, 1857
Scotch

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 ed4 4. Bc4 Nf6 5. e5 d5 6. Bb5 Ne4 7. Nd4 Bd7 8. Nc6 bc6 9. Bd3 Bc5 10. Be4 Qh4

11. Qc2 de4 12. Be3 Bg4 13. Qc4 Be3 14. g3 Qd8 15. fe3 Qd1 16. Kf2 Qf3 17. Kg1 Bh3 18. Qc6 Kf8 19. Qa8 Ke7 1-0

8

Morphy - Lichtenhein
New York, 1857
Boden Kieseritsky Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bc4 Ne4 4. Nc3 d5 5. Bd5 Nf6 6. Bb3 Bd6 7. d3 0-0 8. h3 h6 9. Be3 Nc6 10. Qd2 Na5 11. g4 Nb3 12. ab3 Bd7 13. Rg1 Nh7 14. Ne4 Kh8 15. g5 h5 16. Nh4 g6 17. Qe2 Bc6 18. f4 ef4 19. Bd4 Kg8 20. Nf5 Re8 21. Nh6 Kf8 22. 0-0-0 Be4 23. de4 Qe7

24. e5 Be5 25. Be5 Qe5 26. Rd7 Qg7 27. Qc4 Re7 28. Re7 Ke7 29. Re1 1-0

9

Lichtenhein - Morphy
New York, 1857
Queen’s Gambit Declined

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 c5 5. e3 Nc6 6. a3 Bd6 7. dc5 Bc5 8. b4 Bd6 9. Bb2 0-0 10. Nb5 Be7 11. Nbd4 Ne4 12. Nc6 bc6 13. Bd3 c5 14. Nd2 Nd2 15. Qd2 dc4 16. Be4 Qd2 17. Kd2 Rb8 18. Be5 Rb5 19. Bc6 Rb6 20. b5 Bb7 21. Bc7 c3 22. Kc3 Bc6 23. Bb6 Bf6 24. Kd2 ab6 25. bc6 Ba1 26. Ra1 Rc8 27. a4 Rc6 28. a5 ba5 29. Ra5 g6 30. f3 Rb6 31. Rc5 draw

10

Lichtenhein - Morphy
New York, 1857
Dutch

1. d4 f5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Bg5 e6 4. e4 fe4 5. Ne4 Be7 6. Bf6 Bf6 7. Qh5 g6 8. Nf6 Qf6 9. Qe5 Qe5 10. de5 b6 11. 0-0-0 Bb7 12. Nh3 Rf8 13. Rg1 Nc6 14. f4 Ke7 15. g3 d6 16. Bg2 de5 17. fe5 Rf5 18. Rge1 Rd8 19. g4 Rd1 20. Kd1 Rf8 21. Bc6 Bc6 22. Kd2 h6 23. Re3 g5 24. b3 Rf1 25. Re1 Re1 26. Ke1 Be4 27. Kd2 Kd7 28. c4 Kc6 29. Nf2 Bb1 30. Nd1 Ba2 31. Kc2 Kc5 32. Nc3 Bb3 33. Kb3 c6 34. Ne2 0-1 after some further, unrecorded moves

11

Morphy - Paulsen
New York, 1857
Sicilian

1. e4 c5 2. d4 cd4 3. Nf3 e6 4. Nd4 Bc5 5. Nb3 Bb6 6. Nc3 Ne7 7. Bf4 0-0 8. Bd6 f5 9. e5 a6 10. Be2 Nbc6 11. 0-0 Rf7 12. Kh1 f4 13. Ne4 Nf5 14. Bh5 g6 15. Bg4 Ng7 16. Qf3 h5 17. Bh3 Qh4 18. Nf6 Kh8 19. Qe4 Qg5 20. g3 f3 21. Nd2 Bd8 22. Nf3 Qh6 23. Rg1 Bf6 24. ef6 Ne8 25. Bf4 Nf6 26. Qc6 Qf4 27. Qc8 Rc8 28. gf4 Rc2 29. Rac1 Rf2 30. Rc8 Ng8 31. Ne5 Rg7 32. Ng6 Kh7 33. Nf8 Kh6 34. Nd7 Rd7 35. Rcg8 Rf4 36. Be6 Re7 37. R8g6 Kh7 38. Bg8 Kh8 39. Rh6 1-0

12

Paulsen - Morphy
New York, 1857
Ruy Lopez

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. 0-0 Ne4 5. d4 a6 6. Bd3 d5 7. Ne5 Nd4 8. Re1 Be6 9. c3 Nc6 10. Nc6 bc6 11. Qa4 Qd7 12. Be4 de4 13. Qe4 Bd6 14. Nd2 0-0 15. Nf3 Bd5 16. Qd3 Rae8 17. Bg5 Qg4 18. h3 Qh5 19. Bd2 Re6 20. Ng5 Rg6 21. Ne4

21...Rg2 22. Kg2 f5 23. f3 Qg6 24. Ng5 h6 25. c4 Bf7 26. h4 Rd8 27. Qc2 hg5 28. hg5 Be6 29. Rh1 Be7 30. f4 c5 31. Rae1 Kf7 32. Rh3 Bc8 33. Kg1 Bb7 34. Bc1 Rd4 35. b3 Bd6 36. Qe2 Re4 37. Qf2 Qc6 38. Rhe3 Qd7 39. Qh4 Kg6 40. Qh3 Be7 41. Re4 Be4 42. Qe3 Qd8 43. Qh3 Qd4 44. Be3 Qc3 45. Qf1 Qa5 46. Qf2 Qb6 47. Re2 Qc6 48. Bc1 Qd7 49. Rd2 Qe6 50. Qe3 Qc6 51. Bb2 Kf7 52. Qh3 Qg6 53. Rh2 Qd6 draw, after three further, unrecorded moves.

13

Paulsen - Morphy
New York, 1857
Three Knights

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Bc5 4. Bb5 d6 5. d4 ed4 6. Nd4 Bd7 7. Nc6 bc6 8. Ba4 Qh4

9. 0-0 Nf6 10. Qf3 Ng4 11. Bf4 Ne5 12. Qg3 Qf6 13. Rad1 h6 14. Kh1 g5 15. Be5 de5 16. b4 Bd6 17. Rd3 h5 18. Rfd1 a6 19. Ne2 Rd8 20. a3 g4 21. c4 Qh6 22. c5 h4 23. Qe3 Be7 24. f4 ef4 25. Qf4 Qf4 26. Nf4 Rh6 27. Ne2 f5 28. e5 Re6 29. Nf4 Re5 30. Rd7 Rd7 31. Bc6 Bd6 32. cd6 cd6 33. Kg1 Kd8 34. Bd7 1-0

14

Morphy - Paulsen
New York, 1857
Sicilian

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cd4 4. Nd4 Bc5 5. Nb3 Bb6 6. Nc3 Nc6 7. Bf4 e5 8. Bg3 Nge7 9. Bc4 0-0 10. Nb5 a6 11. Nd6 Bc7 12. a4 Ng6 13. Qd2 Qf6 14. Rd1 Nf4 15. 0-0 h5 16. Nc8 Rac8 17. Qd7 Nd4 18. Nd4 ed4 19. Qf5 Qf5 20. ef5 Be5 21. Bf4 Bf4 22. Rd4 Be5 23. Re4 Bb2 24. Rb1 Rfd8 25. g3 Rd4 26. Bd3 Re4 27. Be4 Rc4 28. Bb7 Rc2 29. Ba6 Bd4 30. Rf1 Ra2 31. Bb5 Kh7 32. Bc4 Ra4 33. Bf7 h4 34. Kg2 Ra1 35. Bg6 Kg836. Ra1 Ba1 draw

15

Morphy - Paulsen
New York, 1857
Sicilian

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cd4 4. Nd4 Bc5 5. Be3 Qb6 6. Nb5 Nf6 7. Bc5 Qc5 8. Nd6 Ke7 9. Nc8 Rc8 10. Bd3 Nc6 11. 0-0 h5 12. Nd2 h4 13. h3 g5 14. a3 Rg8 15. b4 Qb6 16. Nc4 Qc7 17. f3 Ne5 18. Ne5 Qe5 19. Qd2 Rg7 20. Rad1 Rd8 21. Qf2 b6 22. f4 gf4 23. Qf4 Qg5 24. Rf2 Qf4 25. Rf4 Rdg8 26. Rd2 Rh8 27. e5 Nd5 28. Rd4 f6 29. ef6 Nf6 30. Rc4 Kd8 31. a4 Nd5 32. Be4 Nc7 33. Bf3 d5 34. Rc6 Rd7 35. Bg4 Rh6 36. Re2 Ke7 37. Kh2 Kf7 38. g3 hg3 39. Kg3 Re7 40. h4 Ne8 41. h5 Nf6 42. Rce6 Re6 43. Be6 Kg7 44. Bg4 Nh5 45. Bh5 Rh5 46. Re7 Kf6 47. Ra7 Ke5 48. Ra6 Rg5 49. Kf3 Rf5 50. Ke2 b5 51. ab5 Rf4 52. c3 d4 53. c4 Rh4 54. c5 Rh2 55. Kd3 Rh3 56. Kc2 Rh2 57. Kb3 Rh3 58. Ka4 Kd5 59. Rd6 Kc4 60. c6 Rh1 61. Rd4 Kd4 62. c7 Rh8 63. b6 Kc4 64. b7 1-0

16

Paulsen - Morphy
New York, 1857
Four Knights

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bb5 Bc5 5. 0-0 0-0 6. Ne5 Re8 7. Nc6 dc6 8. Bc4 b5 9. Be2 Ne4 10. Ne4 Re4 11. Bf3 Re6 12. c3 Qd3 13. b4 Bb6 14. a4 ba4 15. Qa4 Bd7 16. Ra2 Rae8 17. Qa6 17...Qf3 18. gf3 Rg6 19. Kh1 Bh3 20. Rd1 Bg2 21. Kg1 Bf3 22. Kf1 Bg2 23. Kg1 Bh3 24. Kh1 Bf2 25. Qf1 Bf1 26. Rf1 Re2 27. Ra1 Rh6 28. d4 Be3 0-1

17

Morphy - Paulsen
New York,1857
Sicilian

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cd4 4. Nd4 Bc5 5. Be3 Qb6 6. Nc3 Qb2 7. Ndb5 Be3 8. Rb1 Qb1 9. Nb1 Bf4 10. g3 a6 11. gf4 ab5 12. Nc3 Ne7 13. Nb5 0-0 14. Nd6 Nbc6 15. Rg1 Ra2 16. f5 f6 17. Bc4 Ra4 18. f4 b6 19. fe6 de6 20. Nc8 Nc8 21. Be6 Kh8 22. Bc8 Rc8 23. Qd7 Ne7 24. Qe7 Ra1 25. Kf2 Rc2 26. Ke3 1-0

18

Paulsen - Morphy
New York, 1857
Four Knights

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. d4 Bb4 5. Bb5 Ne4 6. Qd3 d5 7. Ne5 0-0 8. 0-0 Ne5 9. de5 Bc3 10. bc3 c6 11. Ba4 Qa5 12. Bb3 Qc3 13. Bf4 Bf5 14. Rac1 g5

15. Qc3 Nc3 16. Bg5 Ne2 17. Kh1 Nc1 18. Rc1 Rfe8 19. Bf6 b5 20. f3 a5 21. a3 Be6 22. Rd1 b4 23. ab4 ab4 24. h3 c5 25. c3 bc3 26. Bc2 Ra2 27. Rc1 Rea8 28. Bg5 Ra1 29. Bb1 c2 0-1

Handicap Match vs. C. Stanley November, 1857

While he was still in New York following the 1st American Chess Congress, Morphy contested a match versus Charles Stanley in which he ceded Pawn and Move odds. Morphy scored +4 -0 =1. The following are the only surviving game scores from this contest.

19

Stanley-Morphy
New York,1857
Remove Black’s King Bishop Pawn

1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 e6 4. Bd3 Nc6 5. Be3 e5 6. d5 Ne7 7. h3 Ng6 8. Nce2 Nh4 9. Rh2 Be7 10. g3 Ng6 11. f4 ef4 12. Nf4 Ne5 13. Nf3 0-0 14. Ne5 de5 15. Ng2 c6 16. c4 Bb4 17. Bd2 Qb6 18. Bb4 Ne4 19. Nf4 Qg1 20. Ke2 Qh2 21. Ke3 Qf2 22. Ke4 Qd4 23. Kf3 c5 24. Bc3 Rf4 25. gf4 Qf4 26. Kg2 Bh3 27. Kh3 Qh6 28. Kg2 Qg5 29. Kh2 Qh4 draw

20

Stanley-Morphy
New York, 1857
Remove Black’s King Bishop Pawn

1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Bd3 e5 4. de5 de5 5. h3 Bc5 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. Nc3 Be6 8. 0-0 Qe7 9. Bb5 0-0 10. Bc6 bc6 11. Bg5 Bc4 12. Re1 Rad8 13. Qc1 h6 14. Be3 Bd6 15. Nh4 Ne4 16. Ng6 Qf6 17. Nf8 Nc3 18. Nd7 Rd7 19. bc3 Qg6 20. Qd1 Be6 21. Kh1 Rf7 22. Rb1 e4 23. Rb8 Kh7 24. Rg1 h5 25. f4 ef3 26. gf3 Qf5 27. Qd3 Qd3 28. cd3 Rf3 29. Bd4 Rh3 30. Kg2 c5 0-1

21

Stanley - Morphy
New York, 1857
Remove Black’s King Bishop Pawn

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. Be3 Qb6 5. b3 Nc6 6. Nf3 cd4 7. Bd4 Nd4 8. Nd4 Bc5 9. c3 Ne7 10. Bb5 Nc6 11. Bc6 bc6 12. Qh5 g6 13. Qg4 0-0 14. 0-0 Ba6 15. Qe6 Kh8 16. Rd1 Rae8 17. Qg4 Re5 18. Nd2 Bc8 19. Qg3 Bd6 20. Qd3 Ba6 21. Qc2 Rh5 22. N2f3 c5 23. Ne2 Rf3 24. gf3 Qd8 25. c4 Rh2 26. Rd5 Qh4 27. Qc3 Kg8 28. Ng3 Qh3 0-1

Match vs. J. J. Lowenthal July 19 - August 22, 1858

The terms of Morphy’s first match in Europe provided that the winner would be the first to achieve nine wins, with draws not to count in the scoring.

Morphy | = 1 1 1 0 1 10 1 10 1 = 1
Lowenthal | = 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 10 = 0
| (+9 -3 =2)

22

Lowenthal - Morphy
London, 1858
Philidor

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 ed4 4. Nd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Be7 6. Be2 0-0 7. 0-0 c5

8. Nf3 Nc6 9. Bf4 Be6 10. Qd2 d5 11. ed5 Nd5 12. Rad1 Nf4 13. Qf4 Qa5 14. Bd3 Rad8 15. Ng5 Bg5 16. Qg5 h6 17. Qh4 Nd4 18. a3 Rfe8 19. Rfe1 Qb6 20. Na4 Qa5 21. Nc3 f5 22. Re5 Bf7 23. Rde1 Qb6 24. Re8 Re8 25. Re8 Be8 26. Qe7 Bf7 27. Na4 Qa5 28. Nc5 Qd2 29. f3 Nc6 30. Qe2 Qc1 31. Kf2 Qb2 32. Bf5 Qa3 33. Qb5 Qc3 34. Nb3 Qf6 35. Qb7 g6 36. Qc8 Kh7 37. Bd3 Ne5 38. Nd2 Qh4 39. Kf1 Qh2 40. Ne4 Qh1 41. Kf2 Qc1 42. Qc3 Qf4 43. Ke2 h5 44. Nf2 h4 45. Qd2 Qg3 46. Qe3 a5 47. Qe4 Be6 48. f4 Nd3 49. cd3 Bg4 50. Kf1 Bf5 51. Qe7 draw

23

Morphy - Lowenthal
London,1858
King’s Gambit Declined

1. e4 e5 2. f4 Bc5 3. Nf3 d6 4. c3 Bg4 5. Bc4 Bf3 6. Qf3 Nf6 7. b4 Bb6 8. d3 Nbd7 9. f5 Qe7 10. g4 h6 11. Ke2 c6 12. g5 hg5 13. Bg5 d5 14. Bb3 Qd6 15. Nd2 a5 16. ba5 Ra5 17. h4 Nh5 18. Nf1 Nc5 19. Bc2 Rb5 20. Bc1 de4 21. de4 Rb2 22. Bb2 Nf4 23. Ke1 Ncd3 24. Bd3 Nd3 25. Kd2 Nb2 26. Kc2 Qa3 27. Nd2 Bc7 28. Nb1 1-0

24

Lowenthal - Morphy
London,1858
Petroff

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Ne5 d6 4. Nf3 Ne4 5. d4 d5 6. Bd3 Be7 7. 0-0 Nc6 8. Re1 f5 9. c4 Be6 10. cd5 Bd5 11. Nc3 Nc3 12. bc3 0-0 13. Bf4 Bd6 14. Bd6 Qd6 15. Ne5 Rae8 16. c4 Be6 17. Nc6 bc6 18. Bf1 Bf7 19. Qd2 Re1 20. Re1 Rd8 21. Qa5 Qd4 22. Qc7 Qb6 23. Qf4 g6 24. h3 Qb2 25. Qc7 Qb6 26. Re7 Rd1 27. Qc8 Rd8 28. Qc7 Rd1 29. Qe5 Qb1 30. Qe2 Kf8 31. Re5 f4 32. f3 Qc1 33. h4 h6 34. c5 Kg7 35. Re4 Qc5 36. Kh2 Qc1 37. Kg1 Rd2 38. Qa6 Ra2 39. Qd3 Rd2 40. Qa6 Rd1 41. g3 fg3 42. Kg2 Qc5 43. Kg3 Qg1 44. Bg2 Rd2 45. Qf1 Qf1 46. Bf1 Kf6 47. Bc4 Bc4 48. Rc4 Rd6 49. Kf4 Re6 50. Rd4 Ke7 51. Ra4 Kd6 52. Ra7 c5 53. Ra1 c4 54. h5 gh5 55. Kf5 Re3 56. Kf4 Re8 57. Ra6 Kd5 58. Rh6 c3 59. Rh5 Kd4 60. Rh7 Rc8 61. Rd7 Kc4 62. Ke3 Re8 63. Kf2 c2 64. Rc7 Kd3 65. Rd7 Kc3 66. Rc7 Kd2 67. Rd7 Kc1 68. Rb7 Re5 69. f4 Re4 70. Kf3 Rc4 71. Rh7 Kd2 72. Rh1 cl(Q) 73. Rc1 Rc1 74. Ke4 Re1 75. Kd4 Ke2 76. f5 Kf3 77. Kd5 Kf4 78. f6 Kg5 79. f7 Rf1 80. Ke6 Kg6 0-1

25

Morphy - Lowenthal
London,1858
King’s Gambit Declined

1. e4 e5 2. f4 Bc5 3. Nf3 d6 4. c3 Bg4 5. Be2 Bf3 6. Bf3 Nc6 7. b4 Bb6 8. b5 Nce7 9. d4 ef4 10. Bf4 Ng6 11. Be3 Nf6 12. Nd2 0-0 13. 0-0 h6 14. a4 c6 15. Qe2 Re8 16. Qd3 d5 17. e5 Nd7 18. Bh5 Re6 19. a5 Bc7 20. Rf7

20...Kf7 21. Qf5 Ke7 22. Bg6 Qg8 23. Bf2 Ne5 24. de5 Rf8 25. Bc5 Kd8 26. Bf8 Re5 27. Qf2 Qe6 28. b6 ab6 29. ab6 Qg6 30. bc7 Kc7 31. Rb1 1-0

26

Lowenthal - Morphy
London,1858
Petroff

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Ne5 d6 4. Nf3 Ne4 5. d4 d5 6. Bd3 Be7 7. 0-0 Nc6 8. c4 Be6 9. cd5 Bd5 10. Be3 0-0 11. Nc3 f5 12. Nd5 Qd5 13. Bc2 Kh8 14. Bb3 Qd6 15. d5 Na5 16. Bd4 Bf6 17. Re1 Rad8 18. Bf6 Nf6 19. Ng5 Ng4 20. g3 Qc5 21. Qe2 Nb3 22. ab3 Rde8 23. Qf3 Ne5 24. Qh5 h6 25. Rad1 Qc2 26. Ne6 Ng4 27. Rf1 Qb2 28. Nf8 Rf8 29. h3 Nf6 30. Qf5 Qb3 31. d6 cd6 32. Rd6 Qf7 33. Rd2 a6 34. Re1 b5 35. Qc5 Re8 36. Rde2 Re2 37. Re2 Qb3 38. Qf8 Ng8 39. Re7 Qd1 40. Kh2 Qd4 41. Re8 Qc4 42. Ra8 b4 43. Ra7 Qd4 44. Ra6 b3 45. Ra8 Qd5 46. Ra7 Qd4 47. Rb7 Qc3 48. Qf7 Kh7 49. Rb3 Qe5 50. Rb7 h5 51. Rd7 Nh6 52. Qd5 Qf6 53. Qd3 Kh8 54. Rd8 Ng8 55. Qd4 Qf3 56. Kg1 Kh7 57. Qd5 Qd5 58. Rd5 Nf6 59. Re5 Kg6 60. f4 Kf7 61. Kg2 Kg6 62. Kf3 Kf7 63. Ra5 Kg6 64. Ra6 Kf7 65. f5 Nd5 66. g4 hg4 67. hg4 Ne7 68. Kf4 Nd5 69. Ke5 Nf6 70. Ra7 1-0

27

Morphy - Lowenthal
London,1858
Sicilian

1. e4 c5 2. d4 cd4 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. Nd4 e5 5. Nc6 bc6 6. Bc4 Nf6 7. 0-0 d5 8. ed5 cd5 9. Bb5 Bd7 10. Bd7 Qd7 11. Re1 Bd6 12. Nc3 e4 13. Bg5 Ng4 14. Qd5 Bh2 15. Kh1 Qd5 16. Nd5 0-0 17. f3 ef3 18. gf3 Ne5 19. Re3 f6 20. Kh2 Rad8 21. Re5 fg5 22. Kg3 h6 23. c4 Rf7 24. Rae1 Kf8 25. c5 g6 26. c6 Rc8 27. c7 Rcc7 28. Re8 Kg7 29. Nc7 1-0

28

Lowenthal - Morphy
London,1858
Philidor

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 ed4 4. Qd4 Be6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 Nc6 7. Qd2 Nf6 8. Rd1 Be7 9. Be2 0-0 10. 0-0 b5 11. a3 Ne5 12. Nd4 c5 13. Ne6 fe6 14. f4 Ng6 15. Bf3 Rb8

16. Qe2 Qc7 17. h4 Nh4 18. Bg4 Ng4 19. Qg4 Qc8 20. g3 Ng6 21. Rf2 Rf6 22. Rdf1 b4 23. ab4 cb4 24. Na4 Qc6 25. b3 Qe4 26. Ba7 Rbf8 27. Re2 Qb7 28. Bf2 Nf4 0-1

29

Morphy - Lowenthal
London,1858
Philidor

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 ed4 4. Qd4 Bd7 5. Be3 Nf6 6. Nc3 Be7 7. Bc4 Nc6 8. Qd2 Ne5 9. Ne5 de5 10. 0-0 0-0 11. f4 Bd6 12. f5 Bc6 13. Qe2 h6 14. Rad1 Qe7 15. Bd5 Bd5 16. Nd5 Nd5 17. Rd5 f6 18. Qg4 c6 19. Rd3 Bc5 20. Qg3 Rad8 21. Rfd1 Rd3 22. Rd3 Rd8 23. Bc5 Qc5 24. Qf2 Qf2 25. Kf2 Rd3 26. cd3 c5 27. g4 Kf8 28. a4 b6 29. Kg3 Kf7 30. Kh4 Kf8 31. Kh5 Kf7 32. b3 Kf8 33. Kg6 Kg8 34. h3 Kf8 35. h4 Kg8 36. g5 hg5 37. hg5 fg5 38. Kg5 Kf7 39. Kh4 Ke7 40. Kg4 Kf6 41. Kh5 a6 42. Kh4 g6 43. a5 ba5 44. fg6 Kg6 45. Kg4 a4 46. ba4 a5 47. Kf3 Kf6 48. Kf2 Kf7 49. Kg3 Kg7 50. Kf2 Kf6 51. Kg1 Kg5 52. Kg2 Kf4 53. Kf2 c4 54. dc4 Ke4 55. Ke2 Kd4 56. Kf3 Kc4 57. Ke4 Kb4 58. Ke5 Ka4 59. Kd4 Kb4 0-1

30

Lowenthal - Morphy
London,1858
Ruy Lopez

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Bc5 4. c3 Qe7 5. 0-0 f6 6. d4 Bb6 7. Na3 Nd8 8. Nc4 Nf7 9. Ne3 c6 10. Nf5 Qf8 11. Bd3 g6 12. Ng3 d6 13. a4 Bg4 14. a5 Bc7 15. h3 Bd7 16. Qb3 Nd8 17. Re1 Be6 18. Qc2 Ne7 19. b4 Qg7 20. c4 Nf7 21. Be3 0-0 22. d5 Bd7 23. Rad1 Kh8 24. Kh1 cd5 25. ed5 f5 26. Bc1 Rae8 27. Bb2 Ng8 28. Qc3 Nf6 29. Bb1 Rg8 30. Rd2 Qh6 31. Nh2 f4 32. Ne4 Ne4 33. Be4 g5 34. f3 Qh4 35. Rf1 Nh6 36. Re2 Nf5 37. Bf5 Bf5 38. c5 Qh6 39. Rfe1 Rgf8 40. b5 Rc8 41. Qa3 Kg8 42. b6 ab6 43. cb6 Bd8 44. Rc1 Rc1 45. Bc1 Qg6 46. Qb4 Bd3 47. Re1 Be7 48. Bb2 Re8 49. Ng4 h5 50. Nf2 g4 51. Qc3 Bf5 52. fg4 hg4 53. hg4 Bg4 54. Ng4 Qg4 55. Rc1 Kf7 56. Qh3 Qh3 57. gh3 f3 58. Rf1 e4 59. Bd4 Bf6 60. Be3 Ra8 61. Bd2 Bd4 62. h4 Kg6 63. Kh2 Rf8 64. Kg3 f2 65. Kg2 e3 66. Be1 Kh5 67. Kg3 fe1(Q) 0-1

31

Morphy - Lowenthal
London,1858
French

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. ed5 ed5 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. Bd3 Bd6 6. 0-0 0-0 7. Nc3 c6 8. Bg5 h6 9. Bh4 Bg4 10. h3 Bf3 11. Qf3 Nbd7 12. Bf5 Qc7 13. Rae1 Rae8 14. Re3 Bf4 15. Re2 Re2 16. Ne2 Bd6 17. Bd7 Nd7 18. Ng3 Re8 19. Nf5 Nf8 20. Bg3 Bg3 21. fg3 Re4 22. c3 Nh7 23. h4 h5 24. c4 Nf6 25. Ng7 Ng4 26. Nh5 Rd4 27. Nf6 Nf6 28. Qf6 Rc4 29. Rf5 Rg4 30. Re5 Qc8 31. Re7 Qf8 32. Qe5 Qg7 33. Re8 Kh7 34. Qh5 1-0

32

Lowenthal - Morphy
London,1858
Sicilian

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cd4 4. Nd4 Nc6 5. Nb5 a6 6. Nd6 Bd6 7. Qd6 Qe7 8. Qg3 Nf6 9. Nc3 d5 10. e5 Nh5 11. Qf3 g6 12. g4 Ne5 13. Qe2 Ng4 14. Qg4 e5 15. Qa4 Bd7 16. Qb3 d4 17. Qb7 0-0 18. Nd5 Qd6 19. Bg2 e4 20. c4 f5 21. Qb4 Qe5 22. Qe7 Be6 23. Qc7 Qg7 24. Qg7 Ng7 25. Nb6 Rab8 26. c5 Nh5 27. b4 Kf7 28. 0-0 g5 29. Rd1 Rfd8 30. Bg5 Rg8 31. h4 Rg6 32. Rd4 Rbg8 33. Nd7 Rg5 34. hg5 Rg5 35. Kh2 Nf4 36. Bf1 Rh5 37. Kg3 Nd5 38. f4 ef3 39. Ne5 Kf6 40. Nf3 Rh6 41. Re1 Rg6 42. Kf2 Nc3 43. Bd3 Bd5 44. Bf5 Rg7 45. Rf4 1-0

33

Morphy - Lowenthal
London,1858
French

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. ed5 ed5 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. Bd3 Be6 6. 0-0 Bd6 7. Nc3 c6 8. Ne5 Qb6 9. Be3 Nbd7 10. f4 Be5 11. fe5 Ng4 12. Qd2 Ne3 13. Qe3 Qb2

14. Ne2 Qa3 15. Nf4 Qe7 16. Rab1 0-0-0 17. Be2 Nb6 18. Qb3 Rd7 19. Nd3 Nc4 20. Nc5 Rc7 21. Qa4 b6 22. Bc4 bc5 23. Ba6 Kd7 24. Bb7 Rd8 25. Bc6 1-0

34

Lowenthal - Morphy
London, 1858
Petroff

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Ne5 d6 4. Nf3 Ne4 5. d4 d5 6. Bd3 Be7 7. 0-0 Nc6 8. c4 Be6 9. cd5 Bd5 10. Nc3 Nc3 11. bc3 0-0 12. Bf4 Bd6 13. Bd6 Qd6 14. Ng5 f5 15. c4 Bg2

16. Kg2 Qg6 17. f4 h6 18. d5 Nd8 19. h4 hg5 20. hg5 Nf7 21. Qf3 Nh6 22. Qg3 Nf7 23. c5 Rad8 24. Bc4 b5 25. Bb3 a5 26. Rae1 Rfe8 27. Re6 Re6 28. de6 a4 29. ef7 Kf8 30. Rd1 Rd1 31. Bd1 Qc6 32. Bf3 Qc5 33. g6 Qd6 34. Qg5 Qd2 35. Kh3 Qd3 36. Qh5 Ke7 37. Qh4 Kd7 38. Kg3 Qd6 39. Qh8 Qg6 40. Kf2 Qf7 41. a3 Qe7 42. Kg3 Qe1 43. Kg2 Qd2 44. Kg3 Qe1 draw

35

Morphy - Lowenthal
London,1858
Ruy Lopez

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. d4 cd4 6. e5 Ne4 7. 0-0 Nc5 8. Bc6 dc6 9. Nd4 Ne6 10. Ne6 Be6 11. Qe2 Bc5 12. Nc3 Qe7 13. Ne4 h6 14. Be3 Be3 15. Qe3 Bf5 16. Ng3 Bc2 17. f4 g6 18. e6

18...Bf5 19. Nf5 gf5 20. ef7 Kf7 21. Qh3 Qf6 22. Rae1 Rhe8 23. Re5 Kg6 24. Rfe1 Re5 25. Re5 Rd8 26. Qg3 Kh7 27. h3 Rd7 28. Qe3 b6 29. Kh2 c5 30. Qe2 Qg6 31. Re6 Qg7 32. Qh5 Rd5 33. b3 b5 34. Ra6 Rd6 35. Qf5 Qg6 36. Qg6 Kg6 37. Ra5 Rb6 38. g4 c6 39. Kg3 h5 40. Ra7 hg4 41. hg4 Kf6 42. f5 Ke5 43. Re7 Kd6 44. f6 Rb8 45. g5 Rf8 46. Kf4 c4 47. bc4 bc4 48. Kf5 c3 49. Re3 1-0

Handicap Match vs. J. Owen August, 1858

Morphy’s annoyance at losing an offhand game to Rev. J. Owen, a strong London amateur, led to their contesting a match in which Morphy gave pawn and move odds.

Morphy | 1 = 1 1 1 = 1
Owen | 0 = 0 0 0 = 0
| (+5 -0 =2)

36

Owen - Morphy
London, 1858
Remove Black’s King Bishop Pawn

1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Bc4 Nc6 4. Nc3 e6 5. Nf3 d5 6. Bd3 Bb4 7. Bg5 h6 8. e5 hg5 9. Bg6 Kf8 10. Ng5 Rh6 11. Bd3 Kg8 12. ef6 Qf6 13. Nf3 e5 14. de5 Ne5 15. 0-0 Qf4 16. h4 Nf3 17. Qf3 Qh418. Qd5 Be6 1-0

37

Owen - Morphy
London,1858
Remove Black’s King Bishop Pawn

1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Bc4 Nc6 4. Nc3 e6 5. Nf3 d5 6. Bd3 Bb4 7. Bg5 de4 8. Be4 Bd7 9. 0-0 0-0 10. Ne5 Qe8 11. Bf6 Rf6 12. Ng4 Rf8 13. f4 Qe7 14. Rf3 Nd4 15. Rh3 Nf5 16. Ne5 Be8 17. g4 Nh4 18. Qe1 Ng6 19. Ng6 hg6 20. Qg3 Rd8 21. Rf1 Rd2 22. Kh1 Qd8 23. Qe1 Bb5 24. Nb5 Rf4 25. Rf4 Rd1 26. Qf1 Rf1 27. Rf1 Qg5 28. Bd3 Qd5 29. Rhf3 Kh7 30. a3 Bd2 31. Kg2 e5 32. Rd1 e4 33. Rh3 Kg8 34. c4 Qg5 35. Be2 e3 36. Nc7 Qf4 37. Bf3 Qc7 38. Bd5 Kf8 39. Rf1 Ke7 40. Rf7 Kd6 41. Re3 Be3 42. Rc7 Kc7 43. Kf3 Bc1 44. b4 Ba3 draw

38

Owen - Morphy
London,1858
Remove Black’s King Bishop Pawn

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nh3 cd4 6. Bb5 dc3 7. bc3 Bc5 8. 0-0 Nge7 9. Ng5 0-0 10. Qh5 h6 11. Nf3 Bd7 12. Bd3 Qe8 13. Qg4 Rf3 14. Qf3 Ne5 15. Qg3 Nd3 16. Qd3 Bb5 17. Qh3 Bf1 18. Qe6 Kh7 19. Kf1 Qh5 20. Bf4 Rf8 21. Bg3 Nf5 0-1

39

Owen - Morphy
London, 1858
Remove Black’s King Bishop Pawn

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Qb6 6. Bd3 g6 7. 0-0 Bd7 8. a4 a5 9. Na3 c4 10. Bc2 Nh6 11. Nb5 Nf7 12. b3 cb3 13. Bb3 Be7 14. Re1 0-0 15. Bd5 ed5 16. e6 Be8 17. ef7 Rf7 18. Bg5 Bd7 19. Rb1 Qd8 20. Be7 Re7 21. Qb3 Bf5 22. Rbc1 Bd3 23. Na3 Be2 24. c4 Bf3 25. Re7 Qe7 26. Qf3 dc4 27. Qc3 Re8 28. Qc4 Kg7 29. Nc2 Qg5 30. Rd1 Re4 31. Qc3 Qf6 32. Qd2 Qd6 33. g3 h5 34. f3 Re7 35. Qg5 Ne5 36. Kf2 Nf3 37. Kf3 Qc6 38. d5 Rf7 39. Kg2 Qc2 40. Rd2 Qe4 41. Kh3 Qe1 42. d6 Qf1 43. Rg2 Rd7 44. Qe5 Qf6 45. Qb2 Rd6 46. Qb7 Kh6 47. Qb5 g5 0-1

40

Owen - Morphy
London, 1858
Remove Black’s King Bishop Pawn

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Bd3 g6 4. Nf3 c5 5. c3 Nc6 6. 0-0 Qb6 7. ed5 ed5 8. Re1 Be7 9. Ng5 Nf6 10. Nh7 Rh7 11. Bg6 Rf7 12. Bg5 Bg4 13. Qc2 Kf8 14. Bf7 Kf7 15. h3 Bh5 16. Bf6 Bg6 17. Qe2 Bf6 18. Qe6 Kg7 19. Qd7 Kh8 20. Qd6 Kg7 21. Nd2 cd4 22. Nf3 Ne5 23. Qa3 Nf3 24. gf3 dc3 25. bc3 Rg8 26. Re3 Kh8 27. Kh1 d4 28. cd4 Bd4 29. Rae1 Be3 30. Re3 Qb1 31. Kh2 Be4 32. Qc3 Rg7 33. Re1 Qb6 34. Re3 Qd6 35. Kh1 Bf3 36. Rf3 Qd1 37. Kh2 Qg1# 0-1

41

Owen - Morphy
London,1858
Remove Black’s King Bishop Pawn

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Bd3 g6 4. Nf3 c5 5. c3 Nc6 6. e5 Qb6 7. 0-0 Bd7 8. Be3 c4 9. Bc2 Qb2 10. Nbd2 Qc3 11. Rb1 Nb4 12. Ne1 Bh6 13. Bh6 Nh6 14. Rc1 Qd4 15. Nef3 Qc5 16. Be4 0-0 17. Nc4 de4 18. Qd7 ef3 19. Qe6 Kh8 20. Nd6 Qb6 21. g3 Rae8 22. Qh3 Nf5 23. Ne8 Re8 24. Rfd1 Rd8 25. g4 Nd4 26. Kh1 Ne2 27. Qf3 Nc1 28. Rd6 Nc6 29. Qf6 Kg8 30. Qe6 draw

42

Owen - Morphy
London,1858
Remove Black’s King Bishop Pawn

1. e4 Nc6 2. d4 e5 3. Nf3 ed4 4. Bc4 Qf6 5. 0-0 d6 6. Ng5 Nh6 7. c3 Bg4 8. f3 Bd7 9. Bd5 dc3 10. Nc3 Be7 11. Nb5 Bd8 12. f4 Ne7 13. Nc3 Bg4 14. Qb3 c6 15. e5 de5 16. Nce4 Bb6 17. Kh1 Qg6 18. Bf7 Nf7 19. Nf7 Nd5 20. Ned6 Ke7 21. f5 Qh5 22. Bg5 Kd7 23. Qg3 Bc7 24. Qe5 Rae8 25. Qg7 Bd6 26. Ne5 Kc8 27. Qd7 Kb8 28. Qd6 Ka8 29. Bf4 Qf5 30. Nc6 Bh3 31. gh3 Qe4 32. Kg1 Nf4 33. Rf4 Rhg8 0-1

Match vs. D. Harrwitz September, 1858

The terms of Morphy’s match versus D. Harrwitz provided that the winner would be the first to score seven wins, with draws not counting in the decision. But Harrwitz, after winning the first two games, retired in the face of five unanswered victories by Morphy.

Morphy | 0 0 1 1 1 1 = 1
Harrwitz | 1 1 0 0 0 0 = 0
| (+5 -2 =1)

43

Harrwitz- Morphy
Paris, 1858
Queen’s Gambit Declined

1. d4 e6 2. c4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bf4 a6 5. e3 c5 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. a3 cd4 8. ed4 dc4 9. Bc4 b5 10. Bd3 Bb7 11. 0-0 Be7 12. Be5 0-0 13. Qe2 Nd5 14. Bg3 Kh8 15. Rfe1 Bf6 16. Qe4 g6 17. Nd5 Qd5 18. Qd5 ed5 19. Ne5 Rad8 20. Nc6 Bc6 21. Rac1 Rc8 22. Bd6 Rg8 23. Be5 Kg7 24. f4 Bd7 25. Kf2 h6 26. Ke3 Rc1 27. Rc1 Rc8 28. Rc5 Be5 29. fe5 Be6

30. a4 ba4 31. Ba6 Rb8 32. Rb5 Rd8 33. Rb6 Ra8 34. Kd2 Bc8 35. Bc8 Rc8 36. Rb5 Ra8 37. Rd5 a3 38. ba3 Ra3 39. Rc5 Kf8 40. Ke2 Ke7 41. d5 Kd7 42. Rc6 h5 43. Rf6 Ke7 44. d6 Ke8 45. e6 fe6 46. Re6 Kf7 47. d7 Ra8 48. Rd6 Ke7 49. Rg6 Kd7 50. Rg5 Rh8 51. Kf3 Ke6 52. Kg3 h4 53. Kg4 h3 54. g3 Kf6 55. Rh5 1-0

44

Morphy - Harrwitz
Paris, 1858
Philidor

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 ed4 4. Qd4 Nc6 5. Bb5 Bd7 6. Bc6 Bc6 7. Bg5 Nf6 8. Nc3 Be7 9. 0-0-0 0-0 10. Rhe1 h6 11. Bh4 Ne8 12. Be7 Qe7 13. e5 Bf3 14. gf3 Qg5 15. Kb1 de5 16. Re5 Qg2 17. Nd5 Qh2 18. Ree1 Qd6 19. Rg1 Kh7 20. Qe3 f5 21. Nf4 Qb6 22. Qe2 Rf7 23. Qc4 Qf6 24. Nh5 Qe7 25. Rde1 Qd7 26. a3 Nd6 27. Qd4 Rg8 28. Rg2 Ne8 29. Qc3 f4 30. Rh1 g6 31. Rhg1

31...Qd5 32. Qe1 Qh5 33. Rg5 Qf3 34. Qe6 Rf6 35. Qe7 Rg7 36. Qe8 hg5 37. Qel Qc6 0-1

45

Harrwitz - Morphy
Paris, 1858
Dutch

1. d4 f5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Bb4 5. Qb3 c5 6. d5 e5 7. e3 0-0 8. Bd3 d6 9. Nge2 h6 10. Bf6 Qf6 11. a3 Bc3 12. Qc3 Qg6 13. 0-0 Nd7 14. b4 b6 15. f3 h5 16. Bc2 Bb7 17. Ba4 Qf7 18. Bd7 Qd7 19. bc5 bc5 20. f4 e4 21. Rab1 Ba6 22. Rfc1 Qa4 23. Ng3 h4 24. Nf1 Rab8 25. Nd2 Rb6 26. Rb6 ab6 27. Qb3 Qb3 28. Nb3 b5 29. cb5 Bb5 30. Na5 Ra8 31. Nb7 Ra6 32. Rc3 Kf8 33. Nd8 Bd7 34. Rb3 Ke7 35. Rb8 c4 36. Kf2 c3 37. Ke2 Ra3 38. Nc6 Bc6 39. dc6 c2 40. Kd2 Rc3 41. Kc1 Rc6 42. Rb3 Kf6 43. Ra3 g5 44. g3 hg3 45. hg3 gf4 46. gf4 Kg6 47. Ra5 Rc5 48. Ra6 Rc3 49. Rd6 Kh5 50. Rd2 Kg4 51. Rg2 Kf3 52. Rg5 Rc5 53. Rh5 Ke3 54. Rh4 Kf3 0-1

46

Morphy - Harrwitz
Paris, 1858
Philidor

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 ed4 4. Qd4 Nc6 5. Bb5 Bd7 6. Bc6 Bc6 7. Bg5 f6 8. Bh4 Nh6 9. Nc3 Qd7 10. 0-0 Be7 11. Rad1 0-0 12. Qc4 Rf7 13. Nd4 Ng4 14. h3 Ne5 15. Qe2 g5 16. Bg3 Rg7 17. Nf5 Rg6 18. f4 gf4 19. Rf4 Kh8 20. Rh4 Bf8 21. Be5 fe5 22. Rf1 Qe6 23. Nb5 Qg8 24. Rf2 a6 25. Nc7 Rc8 26. Nd5 Bd5 27. ed5 Rc7 28. c4 Be7 29. Rh5 Qe8 30. c5 Rc5

31. Rh7 Kh7 32. Qh5 Kg8 33. Ne7 Kg7 34. Nf5 Kg8 35. Nd6 1-0

47

Harrwitz - Morphy
Paris, 1858
Dutch

1. d4 f5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e3 0-0 6. Bd3 b6 7. Nge2 Bb7 8. 0-0 Nh5 9. Be7 Qe7 10. Ng3 Ng3 11. hg3 d6 12. f4 Nc6 13. g4 Nb4 14. gf5 ef5 15. Qd2 Rae8 16. Rae1 Qh4 17. Bb1 Re6 18. Qf2 Qh5 19. d5 Rh6 20. Qf3 Qh4 21. a3 Na6 22. b4 Nb8 23. Ne2 Nd7 24. Ng3 g6 25. Kf2 Nf6 26. Rh1 Ng4 27. Kg1 Qf6 28. Rh6 Nh6 29. Qd1 Ng4 30. Qd2 Qh4 31. Nf1 Re8 32. g3 Qh3 33. b5 Nf6 34. Qg2 Qg2 35. Kg2 a6 36. a4 ab5 37. ab5 Ra8 38. Nd2 Ra3 39. e4 fe4 40. Ne4 Ne4 41. Be4 Rc3 42. Bf3 Kf7 43. Re4 Bc8 44. Be2 Bf5 45. Rd4 h5 46. Kf2 Kf6 47. Rd2 Bc2 48. Ke1 Be4 49. Kf2 Kf5 50. Ra2 h4 51. gh4 Kf4 52. Ra7 Rh3 53. Rc7 Rh2 54. Ke1 Ke3 0-1

48

Morphy - Harrwitz
Paris, 1858
Philidor

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 ed4 4. Qd4 Nf6 5. e5 de5 6. Qd8 Kd8 7. Ne5 Be6 8. Nc3 Bd6 9. Nc4 Bc4 10. Bc4 Re8 11. Be3 Ke7 12. 0-0-0 a6 13. Bg5 Nbd7 14. Ne4 h6 15. Bf6 Nf6 16. Nd6 cd6 17. Rhe1 Kf8 18. Re8 Ne8 19. Bd5 Rb8

20. Bf3 g6 21. c3 Ke7 22. Re1 Kf8 23. Kc2 Nc7 24. Kb3 Ne6 25. Ka4 b6 26. b4 h5 27. h4 Ke7 28. Re3 Kd7 29. Bd5 Re8 30. Kb3 Rg8 31. Rf3 Ke7 32. a4 a5 33. Be6 Ke6 34. Kc4 g5 35. Kb5 ab4 36. cb4 gh4 37. Kb6 Rb8 38. Ka5 Kd5 39. Rd3 Kc4 40. Rd6 Rb4 41. Rd4 Kd4 42. Kb4 f5 43. f4 Ke3 44. a5 Kf2 45. a6 Kg2 46. a7 h3 47. a8(Q) Kg1 48. Qf3 1-0

49

Harrwitz - Morphy
Paris, 1858
Dutch

1. d4 f5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e3 0-0 6. Bd3 b6 7. Nge2 Bb7 8. Bf6 Bf6 9. 0-0 Qe7 10. Qd2 d6 11. f4 c5 12. d5 Na6 13. de6 Qe6 14. Rae1 Bh4 15. Ng3 Qg6 16. Nd5 Bd5 17. cd5 Bg3 18. hg3 Nc7 19. Kf2 Rae8 20. Rh1 Re7 21. Rh4 Qf7 22. Be2 Ne8 23. Qd3 Nf6 24. Bf3 g6 25. Re2 Rfe8 26. b3 Qg7 27. Rh1 h6 28. Kg1 g5 29. fg5 hg5 30. Bh5 Ne4 31. Re1 Rf8 32. Bf3 Ng3 33. Rh3 Qe5 34. Rh6 g4 35. Bd1 Kg7 36. Rh4 Rh8 37. Rh8 Kh8 38. Bc2 Rh7 39. Qd2 Qb2 40. Rd1 Rh1 41. Kf2 Rf1 42. Kg3 Qe5 43. Kh4 Qf6 44. Kg3 Qe5 draw

50

Morphy - Harrwitz
Paris, 1858
Philidor

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 Bg4 4. de5 Bf3 5. Qf3 de5 6. Bc4 Nf6 7. Qb3 Bd6 8. Bf7 Kf8 9. Bg5 Nbd7 10. Bh5 g6 11. Bh6 Ke7 12. Bf3 Nc5 13. Qc4 b5 14. Qe2 Ne6 15. Be3 a6 16. Nd2 Kf7 17. 0-0-0 Qe7 18. g3 Rhb8 19. Bg2 a5 20. Rhf1 a4 21. f4 a3 22. b3 Kg7 23. f5 Nf8 24. g4 Qe8 25. Bf3 Qc6 26. Nb1 b4 27. Qf2 N8d7 28. g5 Ng8 29. f6 Kh8 30. f7 Nc5 31. fg8(Q) Kg8 32. Bc5 Bc5 33. Qe2 Qe6 34. Nd2 Kh8 35. Bg4 Qe7 36. Nf3 Rd8 37. h4 Rd6 38. Rd6 cd6 39. Qc4 Rf8 40. Qe6 Be3 41. Kd1 Qc7 42. Nd2 Bf4 43. Nc4 Qc5 44. Qd5 Qd5 45. ed5 Rd8 46. Rf3 Kg7 47. c3 Rb8 48. cb4 Rb4 49. Kc2 Kf8 50. Kc3 Rb5 51. Bc6 Rc5 52. b4 Rc7 53. b5 Ke7 54. b6 Rb7 55. Bc8 Rb8 56. b7 Kd8 57. Nd6 Ke7 58. Nb5 h6 59. d6 1-0

Match vs. A. Anderssen December 20 - 28, 1858

Again the winner would be the first to score seven wins, with draws not counting in the decision. Anderssen, a university professor, used his Christmas vacation to visit Paris to meet Morphy. This imposed an exceptionally compressed schedule on the match. Games seven and eight were both played on Christmas day!

Morphy | 0 = 1 1 1 1 = 1 0 1
Anderssen 1 | = 0 0 0 0 0 = 0 1 0
| (+7 -2 =2)

51

Morphy - Anderssen
Paris, 1858
Evans Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. d4 ed4 7. 0-0 Nf6 8. e5 d5 9. Bb5 Ne4 10. cd4 0-0 11. Bc6 bc6 12. Qa4 Bb6 13. Qc6 Bg4 14. Bb2 Bf3 15. gf3 Ng5 16. Nd2 Re8 17. Kh1 Nh3 18. f4 Qh4 19. Qd5 Nf2 20. Kg1 Nd3 21. Bc3 Nf4 22. Qf3 Nh3 23. Kh1 Ng5 24. Qg2 Rad8 25. Rg1 h6 26. Raf1 Qh3 27. Qc6 Qd7 28. Qg2 Bd4 29. Bd4 Qd4 30. Nf3 Qd5 31. h4 Ne6

32. Qg4 Qc6 33. Rg2 Rd3 34. Qf5 Red8 35. Qf6 Qd5 36. Qf5 Rd1 37. Rd1 Qd1 38. Kh2 Rd3 39. Rf2 Re3 40. Nd2 Re2 41. Qf7 Kh8 42. Ne4 Rf2 43. Nf2 Qd5 44. Ng4 Qa2 45. Kg3 Qb3 46. Kh2 Qc2 47. Kg3 Qc3 48. Kh2 Qc6 49. h5 a5 50. Nf6 gf6 51. Qf6 Kg8 52. Qg6 Kf8 53. Qh6 Ke8 54. Qg6 Kd7 55. h6 Qd5 56. h7 Qe5 57. Kg1 Ng5 58. h8(Q) Qh8 59. Qg5 Qd4 60. Kf1 a4 61. Qf5 Kc6 62. Qc8 Kb5 63. Ke1 c5 64. Qb7 Kc4 65. Qf7 Kc3 66. Qf3 Qd3 67. Qf6 Kb3 68. Qb6 Kc2 69. Qa7 Qc3 70. Ke2 a3 71. Qa4 Kb2 72. Qb5 Qb3 0-1

52

Anderssen - Morphy
Paris, 1858
Ruy Lopez

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. d3 Bc5 6. c3 b5 7. Bc2 d5 8. ed5 Nd5 9. h3 0-0 10. 0-0 h6 11. d4 ed4 12. cd4 Bb6 13. Nc3 Ndb4 14. Bb1 Be6 15. a3 Nd5 16. Ne2 Nf6 17. Be3 Re8 18. Ng3 Bc4 19. Nf5 Bf1 20. Qf1 Ne7 21. N3h4 Nf5 22. Nf5 Qd7

23. Bh6 gh6 24. Qc1 Bd4 25. Qh6 Re1 26. Kh2 Ne4 27. Be4 Re4 28. Qg5 Kf8 29. Qh6 Ke8 30. Nd4 Qd6 31. Qd6 cd6 32. Rd1 Kf8 33. Rd2 Rae8 34. g4 R8e5 35. f3 Re1 36. h4 Rd5 37. Kg3 a5 38. h5 Kg8 39. Kf2 Re8 40. Kg3 Re7 41. Kf4 Kh7 42. Kg3 Re3 43. Kf4 Re8 44. Kg3 Re3 draw

53

Morphy - Anderssen
Paris, 1858
Ruy Lopez

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. d4 Nd4 5. Nd4 ed4 6. e5 c6 7. 0-0 cb5 8. Bg5 Be7 9. ef6 Bf6 10. Bf6 Qf6 11. Re1 Kf8 12. c3 d5 13. cd4 Be6 14. Nc3 a6 15. Re5 Rd8 16. Qb3 Qe7 17. Rae1 g5 18. Qd1 Qf6 19. R1e3 Rg8 20. Re6 1-0

54

Anderssen - Morphy
Paris, 1858
Ruy Lopez

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. d3 Bc5 6. c3 b5 7. Bc2 d5 8. ed5 Nd5 9. h3 0-0 10. 0-0 h6 11. d4 ed4 12. cd4 Bb6 13. Nc3 Ndb4 14. Bb1 Be6 15. a3 Nd5 16. Be3 Nf6 17. Qd2 Re8 18. Rd1 Bd5 19. Ne5 Qd6 20. Qc2

20...Nd4 21. Bd4 Bd4 22. Nd5 Qe5 23. Nf6 Qf6 24. Qh7 Kf8 25. Be4 Rad8 26. Kh1 Bb2 27. Rab1 Rd1 28. Rd1 Qf2 29. Qh8 Ke7 30. Qh7 Be5 31. Bf3 Qg3 32. Kg1 Qg6 33. Qg6 fg6 34. Bb7 Rb8 35. Ba6 c6 36. Kf2 Bd6 37. Rd3 Kd7 38. Ke2 Ra8 39. Bb7 Ra3 40. Rd1 Kc7 41. Bc8 Ra2 42. Kf3 Bc5 43. Be6 Rf2 44. Kg3 Rf6 45. Rd7 Kb6 46. Bg4 Bd6 47. Kh4 c5 48. Bf3 c4 49. Rg7 Rf4 50. Bg4 c3 51. g3 Rg4 0-1

55

Morphy - Anderssen
Paris, 1858
Center Counter

1. e4 d5 2. ed5 Nf6 3. d4 Nd5 4. c4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Bf5 6. Nf3 e6 7. Be3 Bb4 8. Qb3 Bc3 9. bc3 Be4 10. Nd2 Bc6 11. Bd3 Nbd7 12. Qc2 h6 13. 0-0 0-0 14. Rae1 b6 15. h3 Qc8 16. Kh2 Kh8 17. Rg1 Rg8 18. g4 g5 19. f4 Qf8 20. Rg3 Rd8 21. Nf3 Bf3 22. Rf3 Qd6 23. Kg2 Nh5

24. fg5 hg5 25. gh5 g4 26. hg4 Rg4 27. Kf1 f5 28. Qf2 Ne5 29. de5 Qd3 30. Qe2 Qe4 31. Bf2 Qc6 32. Rd1 Rd1 33. Qd1 Qc4 34. Qd3 Qa2 35. Rg3 Qc4 36. Qc4 Rc4 37. Rg6 Rc6 38. c4 a5 39. Ke2 Rc4 40. Re6 Rc2 41. Kf3 a4 42. Rg6 Rc4 43. Rg 1 a3 44. e6 a2 45. Ra1 Re4 46. Ra2 Re6 47. Kf4 Rd6 48. Kf5 Rd5 49. Kg4 b5 50. Ra8 Kh7 51. Ra7 Rd7 52. Bg3 Rg7 53. Kh3 1-0

56

Anderssen - Morphy
Paris, 1858
Anderssen

1. a3 e5 2. c4 Nf6 3. Nc3 d5 4. cd5 Nd5 5. e3 Be6 6. Nf3 Bd6 7. Be2 0-0 8. d4 Nc3 9. bc3 e4 10. Nd2 f5 11. f4 g5 12. Bc4 Bc4 13. Nc4 gf4 14. ef4 Qe8 15. 0-0 Qc6 16. Qb3 Qd5 17. Rb1 b6 18. Qa2 c6 19. Qe2 Nd7 20. Ne3 Qe6 21. c4 Nf6 22. Rb3 Kf7 23. Bb2 Rac8 24. Kh1 Rg8 25. d5 cd5 26. cd5 Qd7 27. Nc4 Ke7 28. Bf6 Kf6 29. Qb2 Kf7

30. Rh3 Rg7 31. Qd4 Kg8 32. Rh6 Bf8 33. d6 Rf7 34. Rh3 Qa4 35. Rc1 Rc5 36. Rg3 Bg7 37. h3 Kh8 38. Rg7 Rg7 39. Rc3 e3 40. Re3 Rc4 41. Qf6 Rc1 42. Kh2 Qf4 0-1

57

Morphy - Anderssen
Pafis, 1858
Center Counter

1. e4 d5 2. ed5 Qd5 3. Nc3 Qa5 4. d4 e5 5. de5 Qe5 6. Be2 Bb4 7. Nf3 Bc3 8. bc3 Qc3 9. Bd2

9...QcS 10. Rb1 Nc6 11. 0-0 Nf6 12. Bf4 0-0 13. Bc7 Nd4 14. Qd4 Qc7 15. Bd3 Bg4 16. Ng5 Rfd8 17. Qb4 Bc8 18. Rfe1 a5 19. Qe7 Qe7 20. Re7 Nd5 21. Bh7 Kh8 22. Rf7 Nc3 23. Re1 Na2 24. Rf4 Ra6 25. Bd3 1-0

58

Anderssen - Morphy
Paris, 1858
Anderssen

1. a3 e5 2. c4 Nf6 3. Nc3 d5 4. cd5 Nd5 5. e3 Be6 6. Nf3 Bd6 7. Be2 0-0 8. d4 Nc3 9. bc3 e4 10. Nd2 f5 11. f4 Qh4 12. g3 Qh3 13. Bf1 Qh6 14. c4 c6 15. c5 Bc7 16. Bc4 Nd7 17. 0-0 b5 18. cb6 ab6 19. Qb3 Rfe8 20. Bb2 b5 21. Bc6 Qe6 22. Qc2 Qd5 23. Rfc1 Ra6 24. a4 Rea8 25. ab5 Qb5 26. Qc4 Qc4 27. Nc4 Ra1 28. Ba1 Nf6

29. Bc3 Ra2 30. Bd2 Nd5 31. Kf1 Bd8 32. Ke1 Be7 33. Rb1 h6 34. Ne5 c5 35. dc5 Bc5 36. Rb5 Ne3 37. Rc5 Ng2 38. Ke2 e3 39. Nf3 g6 40. Rd5 Kf7 41. Rd6 Kg7 42. h4 ed2 43. Rd2 Ra4 44. Kf2 Nf4 45. gf4 Rf4 46. Rd4 Rd4 47. Nd4 Kf6 48. Ke3 g5 49. h5 Ke5 50. Nf3 Kf6 51. Nd4 Ke5 draw

59

Morphy - Anderssen
Paris, 1858
Sicilian

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cd4 4. Nd4 e6 5. Nb5 d6 6. Bf4 e5 7. Be3 f5 8. N1c3 f4 9. Nd5 fe3 10. Nbc7 Kf7 11. Qf3 Nf6 12. Bc4

12...Nd4 13. Nf6 d5 14. Bd5 Kg6 15. Qh5 Kf6 16. fe3 Nc2 17. Ke2 1-0

60

Anderssen - Morphy
Paris, 1858
Anderssen

1. a3 e5 2. c4 Nf6 3. Nc3 d5 4. cd5 Nd5 5. e3 Be6 6. Nf3 Bd6 7. Be2 0-0 8. 0-0 Nc3 9. bc3 f5 10. d4 e4 11. Nd2 Rf6 12. f4 Rh6 13. g3 Nd7 14. Nc4 Bc4 15. Bc4 Kh8 16. Ra2 Qe7 17. a4 Nf6 18. Qb3 c6 19. Be6 Re8 20. Bc4 Ng4 21. Rg2 Rb8 22. Be2 Nf6 23. c4 b6 24. Bb2 Qf7 25. Qc2 Be7 26. Bc3 Rg8 27. a5 Bd6 28. ab6 ab6 29. Ra1 g5 30. fg5 Rg5 31. Ra8 Rg8 32. Qa4 Ra8 33. Qa8 Qe8 34. Qe8 Ne8 35. c5 Bc7 36. Bc4 Kg7 37. cb6 Bb6 38. Rb2 Bc7 39. Rb7 Kf6 40. Bb4 Rg6 41. Bf8 h5 42. Kf2 h4 43. gh4 Rg4 44. h5 Rh4 45. h6 Rh2 46. Kg1 Rh3 47. Bf1 Rg3 48. Kf2 Rg4 49. Bc4 Rh4 50. Bg8 Bd6 51. Bd6 Nd6 52. Rd7 Ne8 53. h7 Kg5 54. Re7 Nd6 55. Re6 Nc4 56. Rc6 Nd2 57. Ke2 Rh2 58. Kd1

58...Nf3 59. Rc7 Kg6 60. d5 f4 61. ef4 e3 62. Re7 e2 63. Re2 Rh1 64. Kc2 Nd4 65. Kd2 Ne2 66. Ke2 Kg7 67. Ke3 Re1 68. Kd4 Rf1 69. Ke5 Re1 70. Kf5 Rd1 71. Be6 Rd4 72. Ke5 Rd1 73. f5 Rh1 74. f6 Kh7 75. Kd6 Ra1 76. Ke7 Ra7 77. Bd7 1-0

61

Morphy - Anderssen
Paris, 1858
French

1. e4 e6 2. d4 g6 3. Bd3 Bg7 4. Be3 c5 5. c3 cd4 6. cd4 Nc6 7. Ne2 Nge7 8. 0-0 0-0 9. Nbc3 d5 10. e5 f6 11. f4 fe5 12. fe5 a6 13. Qd2 Nb4 14. Bg5 Nd3 15. Qd3 Bd7 16. Qh3 Qe8 17. Ng3 Rc8 18. Rf8 Qf8 19. Rf1 Qe8 20. Qh4 Nf5 21. Nf5 gf5 22. Rf3 Bb5 23. Rg3 Rc7 24. Bf6 f4 25. Qf4 Qf8 26. Nb5 ab5 27. Qh6 Kh8 28. Rg7 Rg7 29. Kf2 Kg8 30. Qg7 Qg7 31. Bg7 Kg7 32. g4 b4 33. h4 b5 34. Ke3 b3 35. a3 1-0

Match vs. A. Mongredian February - March, 1859

Morphy’s match against A. Mongredian was played along lines similar to his Harrwitz and Anderssen contests: seven victories would determine the winner, with draws not counting. However, as the score indicates, Mongredian was not the same class of opponent as in the previous two matches.

Morphy | = 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Mongredian | = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
| (+7 -0 =1)

62

Mongredian - Morphy
Paris, 1858
Bishop’s Opening

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Bc5 3. b4 Bb4 4. f4 d5

5. ed5 e4 6. Ne2 Nf6 7. c3 Bc5 8. d4 ed3 9. Qd3 0-0 10. Ba3 Ba3 11. Na3 Bg4 12. 0-0 Be2 13. Qe2 Nd5 14. Qf3 c6 15. Rab1 Qe7 16. Bd5 cd5 17. c4 dc4 18. Rb7 Nd7 19. Kh1 Rfe8 20. Nc4 Qe6 21. Ne5 Ne5 22. fe5 Rf8 23. Qb3 Qb3 24. ab3 Rab8 25. Ra7 Rb3 draw

63

Morphy - Mongredian
Paris, 1858
Evans Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Bc5 6. 0-0 d6 7. d4 ed4 8. cd4 Bb6 9. Bb2 Nf6 10. Nbd2 0-0 11. d5 Ne5 12. Ne5 de5 13. Be5 Re8 14. Bf6 Qf6 15. Kh1 Ba5 16. Qa4 b5 17. Qb5 Ba6 18. Qa5 Bc4 19. Nc4 Re4 20. Qc7 Rae8 21. Nd6 Qal 22. Qf7 1-0

64

Mongredian - Morphy
Paris, 1858
Dutch

1. d4 e6 2. c4 f5 3. f4 Nf6 4. Nf3 b6 5. a3 a5 6. Nc3 Bb7 7. e3 Be7 8. Be2 0-0 9. 0-0 h6 10. b3 d6 11. Bb2 Nbd7 12. Rc1 Kh7 13. Bd3 g6 14. h3 Qe8 15. Qe1 Ne4 16. Be4 fe4 17. Nd2 Nf6 18. Kh2 Qd7 19. Rg1 d5 20. Rc2 g5 21. Nf1 gf4 22. ef4 Bd6 23. g3 c6 24. Ne3 Rg8 25. Rcg2 Raf8 26. Ne2 Bc8 27. g4 Qc7 28. Rf2 Ne8 29. Qf1 Rf7 30. Kh1 Rgf8 31. Ng2 Ba6 32. Qc1 Qe7 33. Ng3 Ng7 34. Re1 c5 35. Ne2 Bb7 36. cd5 ed5 37. f5 Ne6 38. Ngf4 Nf4 39. Nf4 Rc8 40. Qe3 cd4 41. Bd4 Ba3 42. Bb6 Bb4 43. Rd1 Rc3 44. Qd4 Qh4 45. Rg1 Rg7 46. Qe5 Re7 47. Qd4 Bd6 48. Qc3 d4 49. Qd4 Bf4 50. Kg2 e3 0-1

65

Morphy - Mongredian
Paris, 1858
Two Knights

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. ed5 Na5 6. d3 h6 7. Nf3 Bg4 8. h3 Bf3 9. Qf3 Bd6 10. Bb5 c6 11. dc6 bc6 12. Bc6 Nc6 13. Qc6 Ke7 14. Nc3 Rc8 15. Qf3 Re8 16. 0-0 Kf8 17. Bd2 g5 18. h4 Nh7 19. Qf5 Kg7 20. hg5 hg5 21. g3 f6 22. Kg2 Rh8 23. Rh1 Rc7 24. Rh2 Qc8 25. Qc8 Rhc8 26. Rah1 Nf8 27. Nb5 Rd7 28. Nd6 Rd6 29. Bb4 1-0

66

Mongredian - Morphy
Paris, 1858
King’s Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Bc4 d5 4. Bd5 Nf6 5. d3 Nd5 6. ed5 Qd5 7. Qe2 Be6 8. Bf4 Nc6 9. Nf3 0-0-0 10. Nc3 Bb4 11. 0-0 Qh5 12. a3 Bc5 13. Kh1 Bg4 14. Qd2 Rhe8 15. Rae1 Bf3 16. Rf3 Re1 17. Qe1 Nd4 18. Rf1 Nc2 19. Qc1 Nd4 20. b4 Bd6 21. Bd6 Rd6 22. Qe3 Nf5 23. Qf3 Qf3 24. Rf3 Rc6 25. Ne2 Nd4 0-1

67

Morphy - Mongredian
Paris, 1858
Queen Pawn Countergambit

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d5 3. ed5 e4 4. Qe2 Qe7 5. Nd4 Qe5 6. Nb5 Bd6 7. d4 Qe7 8. c4 Bb4 9. Bd2 Bd2 10. Nd2 a6 11. Nc3 f5 12. 0-0-0 Nf6 13. Re1 0-0 14. f3 b5 15. fe4 fe4 16. Nce4 bc4 17. Qc4 Kh8 18. Bd3 Bb7 19. Nf6 Qf6 20. Rhf1 Qd8 21. Rf8 Qf8 22. Qb4 1-0

68

Mongredian - Morphy
Paris, 1858
Evans Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. 0-0 Nf6 7. d4 0-0 8. d5 Ne7 9. Qd3 d6 10. h3 Ng6 11. Nh2 Nh5 12. Bb3 Nhf4 13. Bf4 Nf4 14. Qf3 f5 15. ef5 Bf5 16. g4 Bd3 17. Qe3 Bb6 18. Qd2 Qh4 0-1

69

Morphy - Mongredian
Paris,1858
Philidor

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 ed4 4. Qd4 a6 5. Bg5 f6 6. Be3 Be6 7. Nc3 Ne7 8. Be2 Nec6 9. Qd2 Be7 10. 0-0 0-0 11. Rad1 Nd7 12. Nd4 Nd4 13. Bd4 f5 14. ef5 Bf5 15. Bc4 Kh8 16. Nd5 Nf6 17. Ne7 Qe7 18. Rfe1 Qd7 19. Qg5 h6 20. Qh4 Rae8 21. c3 Re4 22. Re4 Ne4 23. Qh6 Bh7 24. Re1 c5 25. Re4 cd4 26. Qh5 g6 27. Qh6 Re8 28. Qf4 Kg7 29. Re8 Qe8 30. Qd4 1-0

Handicap Match vs. Thompson May, 1859

Morphy had desired a handicap match against J. Thompson ever since the 1st American Chess Congress. He was offended that Thompson, who lost every game the two had ever played on even terms, still considered himself enough of a peer of Morphy’s to refuse odds from him in 1857. Upon Morphy’s triumphant return to America in 1859, Thompson was finally persuaded to accept Knight odds in a match to go to the first player to score five wins, draws not counting. The scores of only the first six games have survived, plus the concluding moves of one other game. However, the final tally is known.

Morphy | 0 0 0 1 1 1 ? ? ?
Thompson | 1 1 10 0 0 ? ? ?
| (+5 -3 =1)

70

Morphy - Thompson
New York, 1859
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 c5 2. f4 e6 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. c3 d5 5. e5 Qc7 6. Bd3 Be7 7. Bc2 d4 8. Qe2 h6 9. 0-0 Bd7 10. b3 Qb6 11. Kh1 g5 12. fg5 hg5 13. d3 g4 14. Ng5 f5 15. ef6 Nf6 16. Ne6 Be6 17. Qe6 Nd8 18. Qf5 Qe6 19. Qg6 Nf7 20. cd4 Qe2 21. Ba3 Rh6 22. Qg7 Qc2 23. Rfe1 0-0-0 24. Rac1 Qf2 25. Bc5 Bc5 26. Rf1 Qd4 27. Rf5 b6 28. Qf7 Rh2 29. Kh2 g3 30. Kg3 Qg4 31. Kh2 Qh4# 0-1

71

Morphy - Thompson
New York, 1859
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 c5 2. f4 e6 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. c3 d5 5. e5 d4 6. Bb5 Bd7 7. Qe2 Qb6 8. Bd3 f6 9. b3 Be7 10. f5 Ne5 11. Ne5 fe5 12. Qh5 Kd8 13. cd4 Nf6 14. Qe2 ed4 15. 0-0 e5 16. Qe5 Bd6 17. Qe1 Re8 18. Qh4 Bb5 19. Qh3 Bd3 20. Qd3 Kd7 21. b4 c4 22. Qc4 d3 23. Kh1 Ne4 24. g3 Rac8 25. Qd5 Qc6 26. Qc6 Rc6 27. Bb2 Be5 28. Be5 Re5 29. Rae1 Nf2 30. Kg2 Re1 31. Re1 Ng4 32. h3 Nf6 33. Re3 Rd6 34. Kf3 Nd5 35. Re4 Nc3 36. Rh4 Nb1 37. Ke3 Na3 38. Rh7 Nc4 39. Kf2 Nd2 40. Rg7 Kc6 41. Rg6 Ne4 42. Ke3 Nf6 43. Kd2 Kb5 44. g4 Kc4 45. g5 Ne4 46. Ke3 Rd7 0-1

72

Morphy - Thompson
New York, 1859
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. Qb3 Qf6 7. d4 Bb6 8. de5 Ne5 9. Ne5 Qe5 10. Bf7 Kf8 11. 0-0 Nf6 12. Ba3 d6 13. Rael Ng4 14. g3 Qf6 15. Bc4 Ne5 16. Be2 Nf3 17. Kh1 Bh3 18. Rd1 Bf1 19. Bf1 Qh6 20. h3 Nd2 21. Qb5 Nf1 22. Qf1 Ke7 23. e5 Kd7 24. Bd6 Rae8 25. Kg2 Kc8 26. c4 cd6 27. ed6 Ref8 28. c5 Bc5 29. Qc4 Qg5 0-1

73

Morphy - Thompson
New York, 1859
Remove White Queen Knight

1. f4 d5 2. e3 Nf6 3. Nf3 Bg4 4. h3 Bf3 5. Qf3 c5 6. b3 e6 7. Bb2 Ne4 8. 0-0-0 Nc6 9. d3 Nd6 10. g4 d4 11. Bg2 Qc7 12. Rhe1 Rc8 13. c4 b5 14. Kb1 a5 15. ed4 cd4 16. cb5 Nb5 17. Rc1 Nba7 18. Rc4 Qd6 19. Ree1 Kd7 20. Bd4 Qb8 21. Rc6 Nc6 22. Rc6 Ba3 23. f5 Rhe8 24. fe6 fe6 25. Bg7 Qh2 26. Qf2 Qb8 27. Qd4 Bd6 28. Rb6 Qc7 29. Rb7 Qb7 30. Bb7 Rc7 31. Be5 1-0

74

Morphy - Thompson
New York, 1859
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. f4 d5 2. e3 Nf6 3. Nf3 Bg4 4. Be2 c5 5. 0-0 Nc6 6. b3 e6 7. Bb2 Be7 8. h3 Bf3 9. Bf3 d4 10. Qe1 Qb6 11. Rb1 Nb4 12. Qe2 Rd8 13. a3 Nbd5 14. Kh1 de3 15. de3 h5 16. c4 Nc7 17. b4 cb4 18. ab4 Bb4 19. Bd4 Rd4 20. ed4 a5 21. c5 Qa7 22. Qe5 Ncd5 23. Bd5 Nd5 24. Qg7 Rf8 25. f5 Qa6 26. Qe5 f6 27. Qg3 Qc6 28. fe6 Ne7 29. Qb8 Qc8 30. Qd6 Qc6 31. Rb4 ab4 32. Ra1 1-0

75

Morphy - Thompson
New York, 1859
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. f4 f5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e3 e6 4. Be2 Be7 5. 0-0 b6 6. b3 d5 7. Bb2 Ba6 8. c4 0-0 9. Rc1 c5 10. Qe1 Nc6 11. Ng5 Qd7 12. cd5 Be2 13. dc6 Qc6 14. Qe2 Rad8 15. Rfd1 h6 16. Nf3 Rd5 17. Ne5 Qe8 18. d3 Bd6 19. e4 fe4 20. de4 Rd1 21. Rd1 Bc7 22. g3 b5 23. Kg2 Qa8 24. Nd7 Ne4 25. Nf8 Nc3 26. Qf3 Qf3 27. Kf3 Nd1 28. Ne6 Bb6 29. Bg7 c4 30. bc4 bc4 31. Bd4 Kf7 32. Bb6 ab6 33. Nd4 Nc3 34. a3 Nb1 35. Nc2 b5 36. Ke3 Kf6 37. g4 Nc3 38. h4 Nd5 39. Ke4 Nc3 40. Kf3 Nb1 41. g5 hg5 42. fg5 Kg6 43. Kg4 c3 44. h5 Kg7 45. Kf5 Na3 46. h6 Kh8 47. Na3 b4 48. g6 ba3 49. Kf6 Kg8 50. h7 Kh8 51. Kf7 1-0

76

Morphy - Thompson
New York, 1859
White gave Knight Odds

Only the final moves of this game are known

White to Play

1. Re6 Be6 2. h7 Nf5 3. Kf6 1-0

10

Other Games

Games Played Prior to the 1st American Chess Congress

77

P. Morphy - A. Morphy
New Orleans, 1847
King’s Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Bc4 Qh4 4. Kf1 Bc5 5. d4 Bb6 6. Nf3 Qe7 7. Nc3 Nf6 8. Qd3 c6 9. Bf4 d5 10. ed5 0-0 11. d6 Qd8 12. Re1 Re8 13. Ng5 Re1 14. Ke1 Qe8 15. Kd2 Be6 16. Re1 Nbd7 17. Ne6 fe6 18. Re6 1-0

78

P. Morphy - A. Morphy
New Orleans, 1848
Bishop’s Opening

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 f5 3. ef5 Nf6 4. Nc3 d5 5. Nd5 Bc5 6. Nf6 Qf6 7. d3 Bf5 8. Nf3 Bg4 9. Bd5 c6 10. Be4 Nd7 11. 0-0 h6 12. c3 0-0-0 13. b4 Bb6 14. a4 a6 15. Qb3 Bf3 16. Bf3 g5 17. Be3 g4 18. Bg4 Bc7 19. Bf3 Rhg8 20. Be4 Rg4 21. f3 Rg7 22. b5 ab5 23. ab5 Nb6 24. bc6 Rdg8 25. Rf2 Qd8 26. Ra8 Bb8 27. Bb6 Rg2 28. Rg2 Rg2 29. Kg2 Qg5 30. Kh1 Qc1 31. Bg1 1-0

79

P. Morphy - A. Morphy
New Orleans, 1849
Evans Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Bc5 6. d4 ed4 7. cd4 Bb6 8. 0-0 Na5 9. Bd3 Ne7 10. Nc3 0-0 11. Ba3 d6 12. e5 Bf5 13. ed6 cd6 14. Ne4 d5 15. Nf6 gf6 16. Be7 Qe7 17. Bf5 Nc4 18. Re1 Qd6 19. Ne5 fe5 20. Qg4 Kh8 21. Qh5 Kg7 22. Qg4 Kh8 23. Qh5 h6 24. Re5 Ne5 25. de5 Qc6 26. e6 Kg7 27. g4 Qc3 28. g5 Qa1 29. Kg2 Qf6 30. gf6 Kf6 31. ef7 Rf7 32. Qg6 Ke7 33. Qe6 Kf8 34. Qh6 Rg7 35. Bg6 Kg8 36. h4 d4 37. h5 d3 38. Qg5 Rd8 39. h6 d2

40. Qf6 Rgd7 41. Bf5 d1(Q) 42. h7 Rh7 43. Be6 Rf7 44. Bf7 1-0

80

P. Morphy - A. Morphy
New Orleans, 1849
Evans Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Bc5 6. d4 ed4 7. cd4 Bb6 8. 0-0 Na5 9. Bd3 d5 10. ed5 Qd5 11. Ba3 Be6 12. Nc3 Qd7 13. d5 Bd5 14. Nd5 Qd5 15. Bb5 Qb5 16. Re1 Ne7 17. Rb1 Qa6 18. Re7 Kf8 19. Qd5 Qc4 20. Rf7 Kg8 21. Rf8# 1-0

81

P. Morphy - E. Morphy
New Orleans, 1849
Giuoco Piano

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 d6 5. 0-0 Nf6 6. d4 ed4 7. cd4 Bb6 8. h3 h6 9. Nc3 0-0 10. Be3 Re8 11. d5 Be3 12. dc6 Bb6 13. e5 de5 14. Qb3 Re7 15. Bf7 Rf7 16. Ne5 Qe8 17. cb7 Bb7 18. Rae1 Ba6 19. Ng6 Qd8 20. Re7 1-0

82

Morphy - Rousseau
New Orleans, 1849
Irregular

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 f5 4. d3 Nf6 5. 0-0 d6 6. Ng5 d5 7. ed5 Nd5 8. Nc3 Nce7 9. Qf3 c6 10. Nce4 fe4 11. Qf7 Kd7 12. Qe6 Kc7 13. Qe5 Qd6 14. Qd6 Kd6 15. Nf7 Ke6 16. Nh8 ed3 17. cd3 Kf6 18. b4 Be6 19. Re1 Bg8 20. Bb2 Kg5 21. Re5 Kh6 22. Bc1 g5 23. Rg5 1-0

83

Morphy - McConnell
New Orleans, 1849
King’s Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 g5 4. h4 g4 5. Ne5 h5 6. Bc4 Rh7 7. d4 d6 8. Nd3 f3 9. g3 Nf6 10. Nf4 Bd7 11. Nc3 Nc6 12. Be3 Ne7 13. Kf2 c6 14. Re1 Bg7 15. e5 de5 16. de5 Nfd5 17. Bd5 cd5 18. Bc5 Bc6 19. b4 b6 20. Be7 Qe7 21. Nfd5 Qb7 22. Nf6 Bf6 23. ef6 Kf8 24. Qd6 Kg8 25. Re7 Qc8 26. Rc7 Qf5 27. Qc6 Qc2 28. Ke3 Rd8 29. Rd1 1-0

84

Morphy - Lowenthal
New Orleans, 1850
Petroff

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Ne5 d6 4. Nf3 Ne4 5. Qe2 Qe7 6. d3 Nf6 7. Nc3 Be6 8. Bg5 h6 9. Bf6 Qf6 10. d4 c6 11. 0-0-0 d5 12. Ne5 Bb4

13. Nd5 Bd5 14. Ng6 Qe6 15. Nh8 Qe2 16. Be2 Kf8 17. a3 Bd6 18. Bd3 Kg8 19. Nf7 Kf7 20. f3 b5 21. Be4 Nd7 22. Rde1 Nf6 23. Re2 Re8 24. Bd5 cd5 25. Re8 Ne8 26. g3 g5 27. Kd2 Ng7 28. Ra1 a5 29. Kd3 Ke6 30. a4 b4 31. c4 Bc7 32. Re1 Kd6 33. Re5 dc4 34. Kc4 Ne6 35. Rb5 Nf8 36. Rd5 Ke6 37. Rc5 Kd6 38. d5 Kd7 39. Rc6 Bd6 40. Ra6 Ng6 41. Ra5 Ne5 42. Kb5 b3 43. Ra7 Kd8 44. f4 gf4 45. gf4 Nd3 46. Kc4 Nf4 47. Rh7 Be5 48. Rh6 Bb2 49. Kb3 Bg7 50. Rh7 Be5 51. a5 Nd5 52. Rh5 Bh2 53. Rd5 Kc8 54. Rb5 Kc7 55. a6 1-0

85

Morphy - Lowenthal
New Orleans, 1850
Sicilian

1. e4 c5 2. f4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. ed5 ed5 5. d4 Bg4 6. Be2 Bf3 7. Bf3 Nf6 8. 0-0 Be7 9. Be3 cd4 10. Bd4 0-0 11. Nc3 Nc6 12. Bf6 Bf6 13. Nd5 Bb2 14. Rb1 Bd4 15. Kh1 Rb8 16. c3 Bc5 17. f5 Qh4 18. g3 Qg5 19. f6 Ne5 20. fg7 Rfd8 21. Be4 Qg7 22. Qh5 Rd6 23. Bh7 Kf8 24. Be4 Rh6 25. Qf5 Qg3 26. Rb2 Re8 27. Nf6 Re6 28. Rg2 Qg2 29. Bg2 Rhf6 30. Qf6 Rf6 31. Rf6 Ng4 32. Rf5 b6 33. Bd5 Nh6 34. Rf6 Kg7 35. Rc6 a5 36. Rc7 Kg6 37. Kg2 f6 38. Kf3 Nf5 39. Be4 Kg5 40. Bf5 Kf5 41. h4 Kg6 42. Rc6 Kh5 43. Kg3 f5 44. Rf6 f4 45. Kf4 Bf2 46. Ke4 Bc5 47. Rf5 Kh4 48. Rc5 bc5 49. Kd5 1-0

86

McConnell - Morphy
New Orleans, 1850
French

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. f4 Qb6 6. Nf3 Bd7 7. a3 Nh6 8. b4 cd4 9. cd4 Rc8 10. Bb2 Nf5 11. Qd3 Bb4 12. ab4 Nb4 13. Qd2 Rc2 14. Qd1 Ne3 0-1

87

McConnell - Morphy
New Orleans, 1850
Evans Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. 0-0 Nf6 7. d4 0-0 8. de5 Ne4 9. Ba3 d6 10. ed6 Nd6 11. Bb3 Bg4 12. h3 Bh5 13. Qd5 Bg6 14. Ne5 Ne5 15. Qa5 Qg5 16. Kh1 Be4 17. f3

17...Bf3 18. gf3 Qg3 19. Nd2 Nf5 20. Rae1 Qh3 21. Kg1 Rfe8 22. Rf2 Qg3 23. Kf1 Nd3 24. Re8 Re8 25. Bf7 Kh8 0-1

88

P. Morphy - E. Morphy
New Orleans 1850
Evans Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. d4 ed4 7. 0-0 Bc3 8. Nc3 dc3 9. Ba3 d6 10. Qb3 Nh6 11. Qc3 Qf6 12. e5 de5 13. Rfe1 Bd7 14. Rab1 0-0-0 15. Ba6

15...Na5 16. Rec1 Bc6 17. Qa5 ba6 18. Qa6 Kd7 19. Rc6 Qf5 20. Rc7 Ke8 21. Qc6 Qd7 22. Rb8 Qc6 23. Re7 Kf8 24. Rd8 Qe8 25. Ree8 1-0

89

Morphy - A. Morphy
New Orleans, 1854
Remove White’s Queen Rook

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. ed5 Nd5 6. Nf7 Kf7 7. Qf3 Ke6 8. Nc3 Nd4 9. Bd5 Kd6 10. Qf7 Be6 11. Be6 Ne6 12. Ne4 Kd5 13. c4 Ke4 14. Qe6 Qd4 15. Qg4 Kd3 16. Qe2 Kc2 17. d3 Kc1 18. 0-0# 1-0

90

E. Morphy - P. Morphy
New Orleans, 1854
Evans Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. 0-0 Nf6 5. b4 Bb4 6. c3 Bd6 7. d4 Qe7 8. Bg5 0-0 9. Re1 a6 10. Qc2 h6 11. Bf6 Qf6 12. Nbd2 g5 13. de5 Be5 14. Rac1 g4 15. Ne5 Ne5 16. Bb3 h5 17. Re3 h4 18. Rf1 Kg7 19. f4 Qb6 20. Rfe1 Ng6 21. g3 hg3 22. hg3 Rh8 23. Nc4 Qc5 24. e5 b5 25. Nd2 Rh3 26. Ne4 Qb6 27. Bf7 Bb7 28. Nf2 Nf4 29. Qf5 Rf8 30. e6 de6 31. Qg4 Kh8 32. Qf4 Qc6 33. Qf6 Kh7 34. Ne4 Rf7 35. Ng5 Kg8 36. Qf7 Kh8 37. Qf8# 1-0

91

Maurian-Morphy
New Orleans, 1854
Remove Black’s
Queen Rook and King Bishop Pawn

1. e4 Nh6 2. d4 Nf7 3. Bc4 e6 4. Nc3 c6 5. Bd3 Bb4 6. Nf3 d5 7. 0-0 Nd7 8. a3 Ba5 9. b4 Bc7 10. e5 g5 11. Ne1 Qe7 12. f4 Bb6 13. Be2 gf4 14. Bf4 Nde5 15. Be5 Ne5 16. Kh1 Ng6 17. Bh5 Qg5 18. Qg4 Qg4 19. Bg4 Bd4 20. Rf3 h5

21. Be6 Be6 22. Rd3 Bb6 23. Nf3 Nf4 24. Rd2 Be3 25. Rdd1 Rg8 26. Re1 d4 27. Rad1 Ng2 28. Re3 de3 29. Rg1 Bg4 0-1

92

Maurian-Morphy
New Orleans, 1854
Remove Black’s
Queen Rook and King Bishop Pawn

1. e4 g6 2. d4 c5 3. d5 Bg7 4. Bd3 b5 5. c4 b4 6. a3 Qa5 7. Qd2 d6 8. Ne2 Nh6 9. 0-0 0-0 10. Qc2 Ng4 11. Bg5 Be5 12. h3 Nh2 13. Bh6 Rf7 14. Rd1 Bh3 15. gh3 Nf3 16. Kh1 Qd8 17. Nd2 Qd7 18. Ng1 Ng1 19. Kg1 Qh3 0-1

93

Morphy - Maurian
Springhill, 1855
Remove White’s Queen Rook

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 Bg7 5. 0-0 h6 6. c3 d6 7. Qb3 Qe7 8. d4 c6 9. a4 Be6 10. Be6 fe6 11. e5 d5 12. g3 Na6 13. gf4 gf4 14. Bf4 0-0-0 15. Qc2 Qe8 16. b4 Ne7 17. Qe2 Nb8 18. b5 Rg8 19. Kh1 Qg6 20. Nbd2 Rdf8 21. Bg3 Nf5 22. bc6 Ng3 23. hg3 Nc6 24. Rg1 b6 25. Qb5 Kb7 26. c4 Rf3 27. Nf3 Qe4 28. Rf1 Nd4 29. Qd7 Kb8 30. cd5 Be5 31. Qf7 Rg7 32. Qe8 Kb7 33. a5 Qd5 34. a6 Ka6 35. Qc8 Ka5 36. Qc3 Ka6 37. Qc8 Rb7 38. Qc3 Rc7 39. Qa3 Kb7 40. Kh2 Nf3 41. Rf3 Rc2 42. Kh3 Bd6 0-1

94

Morphy - Ayers
Mobile, 1855
Evans Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. d4 d6 7. Qb3 Qe7 8. d5 Nd4 9. Bb5 c6 10. Nd4 ed4 11. dc6 Qe4 12. Kd1 Bg4 13. f3 Bf3 14. gf3 Qf3 15. Kc2 Qe4 16. Kb2 Bc3 17. Nc3 dc3 18. Qc3 0-0-0 19. Re1 Qd5 20. cb7 Kb7 21. Rb1 Nf6 22. Bc6 Qc6 23. Ka1 Kc7 24. Qa5 Kc8 25. Qa7 Nd7 26. Bd2 1-0

95

Morphy - Meek
Mobile, 1855
King’s Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 Bg7 5. h4 g4 6. Ng5 Nh6 7. d4 f6 8. Bf4 fg5 9. Bg5 Bf6 10. Qd2 Bg5 11. hg5 Nf7 12. Bf7 Kf7 13. Qf4 Kg8 14. 0-0 Qe7 15. Nc3 c6 16. Rae1 d6

17. Nd5 cd5 18. ed5 1-0

96

Meek - Morphy
Mobile, 1855
Scotch

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 ed4 4. Bc4 Bc5 5. Ng5 Nh6 6. Nf7 Nf7 7. Bf7 Kf7 8. Qh5 g6 9. Qc5 d6 10. Qb5 Re8 11. Qb3 d5 12. f3 Na5 13. Qd3 de4 14. fe4 Qh4 15. g3 Re4 16. Kf2 Qe7 17. Nd2 Re3 18. Qb5 c6 19. Qf1 Bh3 20. Qd1 Rf8 21. Nf3 Ke8 0-1

97

Meek - Morphy
New Orleans, 1855
Scotch

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 ed4 4. Bc4 Bc5 5. Ng5 Nh6 6. 0-0 d6 7. c3 0-0 8. cd4 Bd4 9. Nc3 Ng4 10. h3 Nge5 11. Qh5 h6 12. Nf7 Nf7 13. Qg6 Nce5 14. Bf7 Rf7 15. Qg3 Rf6 16. Nd5 Rg6 17. Qb3 Be6 18. Qb7 Bh3 19. Ne7 Qe7 20. Qa8 Kh7 21. Kh2 Rg2 22. Kh3 Qe6 23. Kg2 Qg4 24. Kh1 Qh3 25. Kg1 Nf3# 0-1

98

Morphy - Maurian & Le Carp
New Orleans, 1855
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. 0-0 Nf6 7. Ng5 0-0 8. f4 d5 9. ed5 Nd5 10. Ba3 Nf4 11. Nf7 Rf7 12. Qb3 Qd2 13. Bf7 Kh8 14. Rf2 Bb6

15. Qb6 Nh3 16. gh3 Qg5 17. Rg2 Qg2 18. Kg2 ab6 19. Bb2 Bf5 20. Rf1 Be4 21. Kg3 Rd8 22. Be6 h6 23. Rf7 Rd3 24. Kg4 Rd8 25. Rc7 Re8 26. Bd7 Rf8 27. Bc6 Rf4 28. Kg3 bc6 29. c4 Rf3 30. Kg4 Rf4 draw

99

Morphy - NN
New Orleans, 1855
Remove White’s Queen Rook

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Bc5 6. d4 ed4 7. cd4 Bb6 8. 0-0 d6 9. Nc3 Na5 10. Bd3 Bg4 11. Be3 Qf6 12. Nd5 Qd8 13. h3 Bf3 14. Qf3 Nf6 15. Bg5 Bd4

16. e5 Be5 17. Re1 0-0 18. Re5 de5 19. Nf6 gf6 20. Bf6 1-0

100

Morphy - Maurian
Springhill, 1855
Remove White’s Queen Rook

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Bc4 Qh4 4. Kf1 b5 5. Bd5 Nc6 6. Nf3 Qh5 7. d4 Nf6 8. Bb3 Ba6 9. Qe2

9...Nd4 10. Nd4 b4 11. Qa6 Qd1 12. Kf2 Ng4# 0-1

101

Morphy - Knight
New Orleans, 1856
Remove White’s Queen Rook
and Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 Qe7 5. d4 d5 6. Bd5 c6 7. Bf7 Qf7 8. Ne5 Qf6 9. Qh5 Ke7 10. h4 gh4 11. 0-0 Bh6 12. b3 Nd7 13. Ba3 c5 14. Rd1 Ne5 15. Bc5 Ke6 16. Qe8 Ne7 17. d5# 1-0

102

P. Morphy - E. Morphy
New Orleans, 1856
Ruy Lopez

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Bc5 4. c3 Qe7 5. 0-0 Nf6 6. d4 Bb6 7. Bg5 h6 8. Bf6 gf6 9. d5 Nd8 10. Nh4 c6 11. Nf5 Qc5 12. b4 Qf8 13. dc6 dc6 14. Nd6 Ke7

15. Qd3 cb5 16. Nc8 Rc8 17. Rd1 Qg7 18. Qd7 Kf8 19. Qc8 1-0

103

Morphy - Meek
New Orleans, 1857
Evans Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. 0-0 Nf6 7. d4 Ne4 8. Ba3 d6 9. d5 Nc3 10. Nc3 Bc3 11. Rc1 Bb4 12. Bb4 Nb4 13. Qa4 Nc6 14. dc6 b6 15. Rcd1 Qf6 16. Rfe1 a6 17. Qa3 0-0 18. Qb3 b5 19. Bd5 Bg4 20. h3 Be6 21. Re3 Rae8 22. Nd2 Qh6 23. Ne4 Kh8 24. Qa3 f5 25. Be6 Re6 26. Nd6 Rd6 27. Red3 Rfd8 28. Rd6 Rd6 29. Rd6 cd6 30. c7 Qe6 31. Qd6 Qc8 32. Qd8 Qd8 33. cd8(Q)# 1-0

Unofficial Games Played at the 1st American Chess Congress

104

Elkin - Morphy
New York, 1857
King’s Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 g5 4. h4 g4 5. Ne5 Nf6 6. Bc4 d5 7. ed5 Bd6 8. d4 Nh5 9. Qd2 Qe7 10. Kd1 0-0 11. Qe1 Re8 12. Nd3 Qd8 13. Qc3 g3 14. Nd2 Bg4 15. Nf3 Nd7 16. Bb5 Re7 17. Bd7 Qd7 18. Bd2 Rae8

19. Re1 Bf3 20. gf3 Qh3 21. Ne5 g2 22. Bf4 Nf4 23. Qe3 Be5 24. de5 Re5 25. Qf4 Rd5 0-1

105

Hammond - Morphy
New York, 1857
Giuoco Piano

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d4 ed4 6. e5 d5 7. Bb3 Ne4 8. cd4 Bb6 9. 0-0 Bg4 10. Be3 0-0 11. Qd3 Bf3 12. gf3 Ng5 13. Qf5 Nd4 14. Bd4 Bd4 15. Nc3 g6 16. Qg4 h5 17. Qg2 Be5 18. Nd5 c6 19. Rfe1 Re8 20. f4 cd5 21. fe5 Ne6 22. Qd5 Qd5 23. Bd5 Nf4 24. Bb7 Rab8 25. Bc6 Re6 26. Bd7 Re7 27. Rad1 Rb2 28. Re4 Rd7 0-1

106

Kennicott - Morphy
New York, 1857
Scotch

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 ed4 4. Bc4 Bc5 5. Ng5 Nh6 6. Nf7 Nf7 7. Bf7 Kf7 8. Qh5 g6 9. Qc5 d6 10. Qb5 Re8 11. 0-0 Re4 12. Qd5 Re6 13. Bg5 Qe8 14. f4 Kg7 15. f5 gf5 16. Qf5 Rg6 17. Bf6 Kg8 18. Qf4 Bh3 19. Bg5 Qe3 20. Qe3 de3 21. gh3 Rg5 22. Kh1 e2 23. Re1 Nd4 24. Na3 Re8 0-1

107

Morphy - Lichtenhein
New York, 1857
Evans Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Bc5 6. 0-0 Nf6 7. d4 ed4 8. cd4 Bb6 9. e5 d5 10. ef6 dc4 11. fg7 Rg8 12. Re1 Ne7 13. Bg5 Be6 14. Nc3 Ba5 15. Ne4 Rg7 16. Nf6 Kf8 17. Re5 c6 18. Bh6 Nf5

19. Re6 fe6 20. Ng5 Ke7 21. Bg7 Ng7 22. Qf3 Qd4 23. Rd1 Bd2 24. Ng8 Rg8 25. Qf7 Kd8 26. Nf3 1-0

108

Marache - Morphy
New York, 1857
Evans Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. d4 ed4 7. e5 d5 8. ed6 Qd6 9. 0-0 Nge7 10. Ng5 0-0 11. Bd3 Bf5 12. Bf5 Nf5 13. Ba3 Qg6 14. Bf8 Qg5 15. Ba3 dc3 16. Bc1 Qg6 17. Bf4 Rd8 18. Qc2 Ncd4 19. Qe4 Ng3 0-1

109

Mead - Morphy
New York, 1857
Evans GambitReversed

1. h3 e5 2. e4 Nf6 3. Nc3 Bc5 4. Bc4 b5 5. Bb5 c6 6. Ba4 0-0 7. Nge2 d5 8. ed5 cd5 9. d4 ed4 10. Nd4 Qb6 11. Nce2 Ba6 12. c3 Be2 13. Ke2 Bd4 14. Qd4 Qa6 15. Kf3 Rc8 16. b3 Ne4 17. Bb2 Nc6 18. Bc6 Rc6 19. Ke3 Re8 20. Rhe1 Nc3 21. Kf3 Rf6 22. Kg3 Qd6 23. f4 Ne2 24. Re2 Re2 25. Rf1 Rg6 26. Kf3 Rgg2 0-1

110

Morphy - Meek
New York, 1857
Benoni

1. e4 e6 2. d4 c5 3. d5 e5 4. f4 d6 5. Nf3 Bg4 6. fe5 Bf3 7. Qf3 de5 8. Bb5 Nd7 9. Nc3 Ngf6 10. Bg5 Be7

11. d6 Bd6 12. 0-0-0 1-0

III

Montgomery - Morphy
New York, 1857
Evans Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. 0-0 Nf6 7. d4 0-0 8. d5 Ne7 9. Qc2 d6 10. h3 Ng6 11. Bd3 Nh5 12. Kh2 Nhf4 13. Rg1 Bb6 14. Be3 Nh4 15. Nbd2 Qf6 16. Nh4 Qh4 17. Nf3 Qh6 18. Bf1 f5 19. g3 fe4 20. Bf4 ef4 21. Nd4 e3 22. f3 Bd4 23. cd4 Bf5 24. Qg2 fg3 25. Qg3 Rf6 26. f4 Re8 27. Re1 Re4 28. Re3 Qf4 29. Bd3 Rd4 30. Bf5 Rf5 31. Re7 Rd2 32. Kh1 Qg3 33. Rg3 Rf1 34. Rg1 Rg1 35. Kg1 Rd5 36. Rc7 Rd1 37. Kg2 Rd2 38. Kf3 Ra2 39. Rb7 Ra3 40. Kg4 a5 41. Rd7 a4 42. Rd6 Ra1 0-1

112

Morphy - Perrin
New York, 1857
Sicilian

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cd4 4. Nd4 Nc6 5. Be3 Nf6 6. Bd3 Bb4 7. c3 Ba5 8. 0-0 Bb6 9. Nd2 Ne5 10. Be2 d5 11. f4 Nc6 12. e5 Bd4 13. cd4 Nd7 14. Bd3 f5 15. g4 g6 16. gf5 ef5 17. Kh1 Nf8 18. Rc1 Ne6 19. Bf5

19...Ned4 20. Bc8 Rc8 21. f5 Nf5 22. Rf5 gf5 23. Qh5 Kd7 24. Qf7 Qe7 25. e6 Kd8 26. Bg5 1-0

113

Perrin - Morphy
New York, 1857
Giuoco Piano

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d4 ed4 6. c5 d5 7. Bb3 Ne4 8. cd4 Bb6 9. 0-0 Bg4 10. Be3 0-0 11. Nc3 Ne7 12. h3 Bf3 13. Qf3 Nc3 14. bc3 f6 15. e6 c6 16. Bc1 Bc7 17. Ba3 Bd6 18. Bd6 Qd6 19. Rfe1 Rfe8 20. Bc2 Ng6 21. Bg6 hg6 22. Qg4 g5 23. Qf5 Re7 24. Re3 Rae8 25. Rae1 Qf4 26. Qg6 Qh4 27. Qf5 Qh7 28. Qg4 g6 29. f4 Qh4 30. f5 Kg7 31. Qh4 gh4 32. g4 Kh6 33. Rf3 Kg5 34. Kf2 Rc7 35. Re2 draw

114

Raphael - Morphy
New York, 1857
King’s Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Bc4 Qh4 4. Kf1 b5 5. Bb5 Nf6 6. Nf3 Qh6 7. Nc3 g5 8, d4 Bg7 9. e5 Nh5 10. Kg1 Bb7 11. Be2 Rg8 12. Ne1 f3 13. Bf3 Bf3 14. Qf3 Nc6 15. Nd5 0-0-0 16. Ne7 Kb8 17. Ng8 Rg8 18. Qf7 Rf8 19. Qb3 Kc8 20. Nf3 Qg6 21. c3 g4 22. Nh4 Qd3 23. Bg5 Nf4 24. Bf4 Rf4 25. Re1 Qd2 26. Nf3 gf3 0-1

115

Morphy - Schulten
New York, 1857
Evans Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Bc5 6. 0-0 d6 7. d4 ed4 8. cd4 Bb6 9. Nc3 Bg4 10. Bb5 Bf3 11. gf3 Kf8 12. Be3 Nce7 13. Kh1 c6 14. Ba4 d5 15. Rb1 Rb8 16. Qd3 Bc7 17. Rg1 Ng6 18. e5 Qh4 19. Bg5 Qh3 20. Ne2 f6 21. Nf4 Nf4 22. Bf4 g5 23. Qa3 Ke8

24. Rb7 Rb7 25. Bc6 Kf7 26. Bd5 Kg6 27. Qf8 Qd7 28. Bb7 Bd8 29. ef6 Bf6 30. Be4 Kh5 31. Be3 h6 32. Rg3 Bg7 33. Qf7 Qf7 34. Rh3# 1-0

116

Schulten - Morphy
New York, 1857
Falkbeer Counter Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. f4 d5 3. ed5 e4 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. d3 Bb4 6. Bd2 e3 7. Be3 0-0 8. Bd2 Bc3 9. bc3 Re8 10. Be2 Bg4 11. c4 c6 12. dc6 Nc6 13. Kf1 Re2 14. Ne2 Nd4 15. Qb1 Be2 16. Kf2 Ng4 17. Kg1 Nf3 18. gf3 Qd4 19. Kg2 Qf2 20. Kh3 Qf3 0-1

117

Morphy - Schulten
New York, 1857
Ruy Lopez

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Bc5 4. c3 Nge7 5. 0-0 0-0 6. d4 ed4 7. cd4 Bb6 8. d5 Nb8 9. d6

9...cd6 10. Bf4 Bc7 11. Nc3 a6 12. Bc4 b5 13. Bb3 Bb7 14. Bd6 Bd6 15. Qd6 h6 16. Rad1 Nc8 17. Qf4 Nb6 18. Ne5 Qf6 19. Qf6 gf6 20. Ng4 Kg7 21. Nf6 Bc6 22. e5 a5 23. Rd3 Rh8 24. Ncd5 Nc4 25. Bc4 bc4 26. Rg3 Kf8 27. Nb6 Ra7 28. Rd1 Bb5 29. Rd4 Rc7 30. Rdg4 1-0

118

Schul ten - Morphy
New York, 1857
King’s Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Nc3 Bb4 5. e5 d5 6. ef6 dc4 7. fg7 Rg8 8. Qe2 Be6 9. a3 Bc5 10. Nf3 Nc6 11. Ne4 Nd4 12. Nd4 Bd4 13. c3 Qh4 14. Kf1 Bb6 15. d4 cd3 16. Qd3 Rd8 17. Qe2 Rd1 0-1

119

Schulten - Morphy
New York, 1857
King’s Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Bc4 d5 4. ed5 Nf6 5. Nc3 Bd6 6. d4 0-0 7. Nge2 f3 8. gf3 Nh5 9. h4 Re8 10. Ne4 Bg3 11. Kd2 Bd6 12. Kc3 b5 13. Bb5 c6 14. Nd6 Qd6 15. Ba4 Ba6 16. Re1 Nd7 17. b3 Nb6 18. Bc6 Rac8 19. Kd2

19...Rc6 20. dc6 Be2 21. Re2 Qd4 22. Ke1 Qg1 23. Kd2 Rd8 24. Kc3 Qc5 25. Kb2 Na4 0-1

120

Morphy - Schulten
New York, 1857
Evans Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Bc5 6. 0-0 d6 7. d4 ed4 8. cd4 Bb6 9. d5 Nce7 10. e5 Bg4 11. h3 Bf3 12. Qf3 Bd4 13. Nc3 Be5 14. Bb5 Kf8 15. Bb2 c6 16. Bd3 Nf6 17. Rae1 Bc3 18. Bc3 Nfd5 19. Ba1 f6 20. Re6 Qd7 21. Rfe1 b5 22. Re7 Ne7 23. Bf6 Nd5 24. Be7 Kg8 25. Bf5 1-0

121

Morphy - Stanley
New York, 1857
Evans Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. d4 ed4 7. 0-0 d6 8. cd4 Bb6 9. Nc3 Nf6 10. e5 de5 11. Ba3 Bd4 12. Qb3 Be6 13. Be6 fe6 14. Qe6 Ne7 15. Nd4 ed4 16. Rfe1 Nfg8 17. Nd5 Qd7 18. Be7 Qe6 19. Re6 Kd7 20. Rae1 Re8 21. R6e4 c6 22. Rd4 cd5 23. Rd5 Kc6 24. Rd6 Kc7 25. Rc1 Kb8 26. Bh4 Nh6 27. Bg3 Ka8 28. h3 Nf5 29. Rd7 g6 30. Rcc7 Ng3 31. fg3 Rb8 32. Rh7 Rh7 33. Rh7 a5 34. h4 Rg8 35. g4 b5 36. h5 a4 37. h6 b4 38. Rg7 Rh8 39. h7 b3 40. Rg8 Kb7 41. Rh8 b2 42. Rb8 Kb8 43. h8(Q) 1-0

122

Stanley - Morphy
New York, 1857
Giuoco Piano

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d3 d6 6. h3 0-0 7. Bg5 Bb6 8. Nbd2 Be6 9. 0-0 h6 10. Bh4 Kh8 11. Nh2 g5 12. Bg3 h5 13. Nhf3 h4 14. Nh4 gh4 15. Bh4 Kg7 16. Qf3 Rh8 17. Qg3 Kf8 18. Qg5 Nd7 19. Be6 fe6 20. Qd8 Nd8 21. Nf3 Kg7 22. g4 Nf8 23. Kg2 Ng6 24. Bg5 Nf7 25. h4 Ng5 26. hg5 Nf4 27. Kg3 Rh3# 0-1

123

Stanley - Morphy
New York, 1857
King’s Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Bc4 Qh4 4. Kf1 b5 5. Bb3 Nf6 6. Nf3 Qh6 7. Nc3 b4 8. Nb5 Ba6 9. Bc4 Bb5 10. Bb5 Nh5 11. Ke2 g5 12. Ne5 Bg7 13. Ng4 f3 14. Kf3 Qb6 15. Qe2 0-0 16. Bc4 Nc6 17. c3 Kh8 18. Qe3 f5 19. Qb6 fg4 20. Kg4 Nf6 0-1

124

Stanley - Morphy
New York, 1857
King’s Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Bc4 Qh4 4. Kf1 b5 5. Bb3 Nf6 6. Nf3 Qh6 7. Nc3 b4 8. Nb5 Ba6 9. Bc4 Bb5 10. Bb5 Nh5

11. d4 Ng3 12. Kg1 Nh1 13. Kh1 c6 14. Bc4 d6 15. a3 g5 16. ab4 g4 17. Ng1 g3 18. h3 Be7 19. Ra5 Bg5 20. Qg4 1-0

125

Thompson - Morphy
New York, 1857
Evans Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. d4 ed4 7. Qb3 Qf6 8. 0-0 d6 9. e5 de5 10. cd4 ed4 11. Nbd2 Nge7 12. Bb2 0-0 13. Ne4 Qg6 14. Bd3 Bf5 15. Nh4 Qh5 16. Nf5 Nf5 17. f4 Rfe8 18. Rf3 Nb4 19. Ng5 Nd3 20. Qd3 Qg6 21. Rh3 Re3 22. Qb5 Rh3 23. Qb7 Re8 24. Nh3 Bb6 25. Rf1 Ne3 26. f5 Qg4 27. Nf2 Qe2 28. Rb1 Nd1 0-1

126

Thompson - Morphy
New York, 1857
Evans Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. d4 ed4 7. Qb3 Qf6 8. 0-0 d6 9. cd4 Bb6 10. e5 de5 11. de5 Qg6 12. Ba3 Be6 13. Nbd2 Nge7 14. Be6 fe6 15. Rae1 0-0 16. Ne4 Rad8 17. Neg5

17...Rf3 18. Nf3 Rd3 19. Qb2 Rf3 20. Kh1 Bd4 21. Qc1 Rc3 22. Qb2 Rg3 23. Qc1 Rg2 24. Qf4 Nf5 25. Qf3 Rh2 26. Kh2 Be5 27. Re5 Ne5 28. Qh3 Nh4 29. f3 Qc2 30. Kh1 Nf5 31. Bc1 Qe2 32. Bf4 Nd3 33. Bc7 e5 34. Kg1 Nf4 35. Qh2 Qc4 36. Bb8 Ne2 37. Kf2 Qd4 38. Ke1 Nfg3 39. Qh3 Qc3 40. Kf2 Ne4 41. fe4 Qh3 42. Ke2 Qg2 0-1

127

Thompson - Morphy
New York, 1857
Evans Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. d4 ed4 7. 0-0 d6 8. cd4 Bb6 9. d5 Nce7 10. e5 Ng6 11. Ng5 N8e7 12. Re1 0-0 13. Qh5 h6 14. Ne4 Ne5 15. Bh6 gh6 16. Nf6 Kg7 17. Re5 de5 18. Qe5 Kh8 19. Bd3 Qd6 20. Qb2 Qf4 21. Ne4 f6 22. g3 Qe5 23. Qd2 Ng8 24. Nbc3 f5 25. Re1 fe4 26. Re4 Rf2 0-1

128

Paulsen - Morphy
New York, 1857
Three Knights
Both players blindfolded

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Bc5 4. Bb5 d6 5. d4 ed4 6. Nd4 Bd7 7. Nc6 bc6 8. Ba4 Qf6 9. 0-0 Ne7 10. Be3 Be3 11. fe3 Qh6 12. Qd3 Ng6 13. Rae1 Ne5 14. Qe2 0-0 15. h3 Kh8 16. Nd1

16...g5 17. Nf2 Rg8 18. Nd3 g4 19. Ne5 de5 20. hg4 Bg4 21. Qf2 Rg6 22. Qf7 Be6 23. Qc7 Rg2 0-1

129

Morphy - Paulsen
New York, 1857
Queen Pawn Countergambit
Both players blindfolded

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d5 3. ed5 e4 4. Qe2 f5 5. d3 Bb4 6. c3 Be7 7. de4 fe4 8. Qe4 Nf6 9. Bb5 Bd7 10. Qe2 Nd5 11. Bc4 c6 12. Bg5 Bg4 13. Nbd2 Nd7 14. 0-0 N7b6 15. Rfe1 Bf3 16. Nf3 Nc4 17. Qc4 Qc7 18. Be7 Ne7 19. Re7 Qe7 20. Re1 Qe1 21. Ne1 0-0-0 22. Qg4 Rd7 23. Nd3 h5 24. Qe6 Rh6 25. Qe4 Rhd6 26. Ne1 Rd1 27. g3 Kd8 28. Qe5 Re7 29. Qb8 Kd7 30. Qb7 Kd6 31. Qb8 Kd7 32. Qa7 Kd6 33. Qb8 Kd7 34. Kg2 Rde1 35. a4 Ra1 36. Qb7 Kd6 37. Qb4 Kd7 38. a5 g6 39. a6 g5 40. Qb7 Kd6 41. Qb8 Ke6 42. b4 g4 43. c4 Kf7 44. Qb7 Kf8 45. h3 Ree1 46. hg4 hg4 47. Qc8 Ke7 48. Qg4 Rg1 49. Kf3 Ra6 50. Qg7 Ke6 51. Qc7 Rga1 52. Kg4 R1a4 53. Kg5 Ra2 54. f4 1-0

130

Morphy - Paulsen
New York, 1857
Queen Pawn Countergambit
Both players blindfolded

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d5 3. ed5 e4 4. Qe2 Be7 5. Qe4 Nf6 6. Bb5 Bd7 7. Qe2 Nd5 8. Bd7 Qd7 9. d4 0-0 10. 0-0 Nc6 11. c4 Nf6 12. d5 Nb4 13. Ne5 Qf5 14. Nc3 Nc2 15. g4 Ng4 16. Qg4 Qg4 17. Ng4 Na1 18. Bf4 Nc2 19. Bc7 Rac8 20. d6 Bd8 21. Nd5 Kh8 22. Rd1 Bc7 23. Nc7 Rfd8 24. a3 Kg8 25. c5 f6 26. Rd2 Ne1 27. Kf1 Nf3 28. Rd3 Ng5 29. b4 Rd7 30. f4 Nf7 31. Ne3 Nh6 32. b5 Kf7 33. Ke2 g6 34. a4 Ng8 35. Nc4 Ne7 36. b6 ab6 37. Nb6 Rcc7 38. Nd7 Rd7 39. de7 Ke7 40. Re3 Kf7 41. Rb3 Ke6 42. Rb6 Kd5 43. Rf6 Kc5 44. f5 gf5 45. Rf5 Kb4 46. a5 Rc7 47. Rh5 Kc4 48. Ke3 Kb4 49. h4 Rc3 50. Kd4 draw

131

Morphy - Lichtenhein
New York, 1857
King’s Gambit
Morphy blindfolded

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 d5 4. ed5 Be7 5. Bb5 c6 6. dc6 bc6 7. Bc4 Bh4 8. g3 fg3 9. 0-0 gh2 10. Kh1 Bf6 11. Ne5 Nh6 12. d4 Be5 13. Qh5 Qd4 14. Bf7 Nf7 15. Qf7 Kd8 16. Bg5 Bf6 17. Nc3 Bd7 18. Rf6 Kc7 19. Bf4 Kb7 20. Rd6 Qc5 21. Ne4 Qc2 22. Rd7 Nd7 23. Qd7 Ka6 24. Nd6 Rhd8 25. Qb7 Ka5 26. Bd2 Qd2 27. Nc4 Ka4 28. b3# 1-0

132

Morphy - Schulten
New York, 1857
Giuoco Piano

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. 0-0 f5 5. d4 ed4 6. e5 d6 7. ed6 Qd6 8. Re1 Nge7 9. Ng5 Ne5 10. Bf4 N7g6 11. Be5 Ne5 12. Nf7 1-0

133

Schulten - Morphy
New York, 1857
Falkbeer Counter Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. f4 d5 3. ed5 e4 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. Bc4 c6 6. d3 Bb4 7. de4 Ne4 8. Bd2 Bc3 9. Bc3 0-0 10. Qh5 Re8 11. 0-0-0 Nc3 12. bc3 Qa5 13. Kb2 g6 14. Qh6 Bg4 15. Nf3 Bf3 16. gf3 b5 17. f5 bc4 18. f6 1-0

134

Morphy - Hammond
New York, 1857
Evans Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. d4 ed4 7. 0-0 Bb6 8. cd4 Nge7 9. Ng5 d5 10. ed5 Na5 11. d6 Nc4 12. Qa4 c6 13. Qc4 Qd6 14. Qf7 Kd8 15. Ba3 Qf6 16. Qf6 gf6 17. Nf7 Kc7 18. Nh8 Bd4 19. Be7 Ba1 20. Nd2 Be5 21. Nf7 Be6 22. Ne5 fe5 23. a3 h5 24. Re1 Rg8 25. Re5 Bd5 26. Ne4 Re8 27. Nf6 Rh8 28. Bc5 Rd8 29. h3 b6 30. Re7 Kb8 31. Be3 c5 32. Bf4 Ka8 33. Ne8 Bc6 34. Nc7 Kb7 35. Ne6 Rd7 36. Nd8 Ka6 37. Nc6 Rd1 38. Kh2 b5 39. Nb4 cb4 40. Be3 1-0

135

Marache - Morphy
New York, 1857
Remove Black’s King Bishop Pawn

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. ed5 ed5 4. Bd3 Nf6 5. Nf3 Bd6 6. 0-0 0-0 7. c4 c6 8. c5 Bc7 9. Ne5 Be5 10. de5 Ng4 11. h3 Ne5 12. Bh7 Kh7 13. Qh5 Kg8 14. Qe5 Nd7 15. Qg3 Nc5 16. Bg5 Qe8 17. Nd2 Bd7 18. Rae1 Qg6 19. Be7 Qg3 20. fg3 Rf1 21. Kf1 Nd3 22. Re3 c5 23. b3 Re8 24. a4 d4 25. Rd3 Re7 26. Nf3 a5 27. Kf2 b5 28. ab5 Bb5 29. Rd2 Re3 30. Rb2 Rc3 31. g4 a4 32. ba4 Ba4 33. g5 Rc2 34. Rc2 Bc2 35. Ke1 Be4 36. Kd2 Bf3 37. gf3 Kf7 38. Kd3 Kg6 39. h4 Kh5 40. Ke4 Kh4 41. f4 g6 42. Kd3 Kg4 43. Ke4 d3 44. Kd3 Kf4 45. Kc4 Kg5 46. Kc5 Kf4 47. Kd4 g5 0-1

136

Morphy - Perrin
New York, 1857
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. f4 d5 3. ed5 Qd5 4. Nf3 e4 5. Ne5 Be6 6. Bc4 Qd6 7. Qe2 Nf6 8. d4 Bc4 9. Nc4 Qe6 10. 0-0 Nc6 11. c3 Bd6 12. f5 Qe7 13. Bg5 0-0-0 14. b4 Nb8 15. a4 c6 16. b5 Qc7 17. h3 Rde8 18. Bf6 gf6 19. Rfb1 b6 20. a5 cb5 21. ab6 Bh2 22. Kh1 ab6 23. Rb5 Nc6 24. Rab1 Bf4 25. Nb6 Kd8 26. Nd5 Qd6 27. Qa2 1-0

137

Morphy - NN
New York, 1857
Remove White’s Queen Rook

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. d4 ed4 7. 0-0 Nf6 8. Ba3 Bb6 9. Qb3 d5 10. ed5 Na5 11. Re1 Be6

12. de6 Nb3 13. ef7 Kd7 14. Be6 Kc6 15. Ne5 Kb5 16. Bc4 Ka5 17. Bb4 Ka4 18. ab3# 1-0

138

Fiske, Fuller & Perrin - Morphy
New York, 1857
Two Knights

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. ed5 Na5 6. d3 h6 7. Nf3 e4 8. Qe2 Nc4 9. dc4 Bc5 10. h3 0-0 11. Nh2 Nh7 12. Be3 Bd6 13. 0-0 Qh4 14. f4 ef3 15. Nf3 Qh5 16. Nc3 Re8 17. Qf2 Nf6 18. Bd4 Ne4 19. Ne4 Re4 20. Rae1 Bf5 21. Re4 Be4 22. Nh4 Rf8 23. c5 Be5 24. Be5 Qe5 25. c4 g5 26. Nf3 Bf3 27. gf3 Re8 28. f4 Qe3 29. fg5 hg5 30. Qe3 Re3 31. Kg2 Kg7 32. d6 cd6 33. cd6 Rd3 34. c5 Kg6 35. Rf3 Rd2 36. Kg3 f5 37. Rb3 f4 38. Kf3 Rh2 39. d7 Rh3 40. Ke4 Rh8 41. Rb7 Kf6 42. Rc7 Ke7 43. Rc8 Rd8 44. Rd8 Kd8 45. c6 a5 46. b3 Ke7 47. a3 Kd8 48. b4 ab4 49. ab41-0

139

Morphy - NN
New York, 1857
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. 0-0 d6 7. d4 ed4 8. Qb3 Be6 9. Be6 fe6 10. cd4 Bb6 11. d5 Na5 12. Qc3 e5 13. Ng5 h6 14. Ne6 Qe7 15. Be3 Nf6 16. Bb6 ab6 17. Rae1 Rc8 18. f4 Kd7 19. fe5 de5 20. Qe5 Nc4 21. Qc3 b5 22. Qh3 Ke8 23. e5 Ne5 24. Re5 Kf7 25. Ng5 hg5 26. Re7 Ke7 27. Qe6 1-0

140

Richardson - Morphy
New York, 1857
Remove Black’s King Bishop Pawn;
White moves twice to begin the game

1. e4 ... 2. d4 e6 3. Bd3 c5 4. e5 g6 5. c3 Nc6 6. Nf3 d5 7. Be3 Qb6 8. Qc2 Bd7 9. Bg5 Nge7 10. Be3 c4 11. Be2 Nf5 12. Nbd2 Ne3 13. fe3 Bh6 14. Nf1 0-0 15. Qd2 Rf7 16. Ng3 Raf8 17. 0-0 Qd8 18. Rae1 b5 19. Bd1 a5 20. a3 Qb6 21. b4 ab4 22. cb4 Ra8 23. Qb2 Qa7 24. a4 ba4 25. Ba4 Nb4 26. Qb4 Qa4 27. Qa4 Ra4 28. Rf2 Ra3 29. Nf1 Ba4 30. g4 Rb7 31. g5 Bf8 32. Rc1 c3 33. Ne1 c2 34. Nd2 Rc3 35. Nef3 Rbc7 0-1

141

Perrin - Morphy
New York, 1857
Remove Black’s King Bishop Pawn;
White moves twice to begin the game

1. e4 ... 2. d4 d6 3. Bd3 Be6 4. Qh5 Bf7 5. Qb5 Nd7 6. Qb7 e5 7. d5 Ngf6 8. Nc3 Be7 9. Nb5 0-0 10. Qc7 Qe8 11. Nd6 Bd6 12. Qd6 Kh8 13. Nf3

13...Bd5 14. ed5 e4 15. Qe6 Qh5 16. Be4 Rae8 17. Qc6 Ne4 18. Be3 Nf2 19. Kf2 Ne5 20. Qe8 Qe8 21. h3 Qh5 22. Rhe1 Nf3 23. gf3 Qf3 24. Kg1 Qg3 25. Kh1 Qh3 26. Kg1 Qg3 27. Kh1 Rf5 0-1

142

Morphy - Julien
New York, 1857
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 Bg7 5. 0-0 h6 6. c3 d6 7. Qb3 Qe7 8. d4 c6 9. Bd2 Nd7 10. Rae1 Nb6 11. Bd3 Bg4 12. a4 Bf3 13. Rf3 Nd7 14. Qb7 Rb8 15. Qc6 Rb2 16. e5 Rd2 17. Qc8 Qd8 18. ed6 Be5 19. Re5 Ne5 20. Bb5 Nd7 21. Bd7 1-0

143

Morphy - Julien
New York, 1857
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 ed4 4. Bc4 c5 5. c3 dc3 6. 0-0 Be6 7. Be6 fe6 8. Qb3 Qd7 9. Ng5 e5 10. f4 Nc6 11. fe5 Ne5 12. Bf4 Nf6 13. Be5 de5 14. Rad1 Bd6 15. Rd6 Qd6 16. Qf7 Kd8 17. Qb7 Qd7 18. Qa8 Qc8 19. Nf7 Ke7 20. Qa7 Nd7 21. Nh8 Qh8 22. Rd1 Qc8 23. bc3 1-0

144

Morphy - Perrin
New York, 1857
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Bc5 6. 0-0 Nf6 7. d4 ed4 8. cd4 Bb6 9. Ba3 d6 10. e5 de5 11. Qb3 Qd7 12. de5 Ne4 13. Rad1 Nd4 14. Nd4 Bd4 15. Rd4 Qd4 16. Bf7 Kd8 17. Rd1 Nd2 18. Qc2 Bd7 19. e6 Ba4 20. Rd2 Bc2 21. Rd4 Kc8 22. e7 b6 23. e8(Q) Re8 24. Be8 Kb7 25. Bc6 Kc6 26. Rc4 Kb5 27. Rc2 1-0

145

Morphy - NN
New York, 1857
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 g4 5. 0-0 gf3 6. Qf3 Qf6 7. e5 Qe5 8. Bf7 Kf7 9. d4 Qd4 10. Be3 Qf6 11. Qh5 Qg6 12. Rf4 Nf6 13. Rf6 Kf6 14. Bd4 Ke7 15. Re1 Kf7 16. Qd5 Qe6 17. Qf3 Ke8 18. Qh5 Kd8 19. Re6 de6 20. Bh8 1-0

146

Morphy - NN
New York, 1857
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 g4 5. d4 gf3 6. 0-0 Bh6 7. Qf3 Nc6 8. Bf7 Kf7 9. Qh5 Kg7 10. Bf4 Bf4 11. Rf4 Nh6 12. Raf1 Qe8 13. Qh4 d6 14. Qf6 Kg8 15. Qh6 Bd7 16. R4f3 Ne7 17. h4 Ng6 18. h5 Bg4 19. hg6 hg6 20. Rf8 Qf8 21. Rf8 Rf8 22. Qg6# 1-0

147

Morphy - NN
New York, 1857
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 Nd4 4. Ne5 Nc6 5. Bc4 Nf6 6. Nf7 Kf7 7. Be6 Ke6 8. e5 Bc5 9. 0-0 Nd5 10. Qg4 Ke5 11. Bg5 Qf8 12. Rad1 Kd6 13. Qe4 Qf7 14. c4 Kc6 15. Rd5 Kb6 16. Rc5 c6 17. Qe5 Re8 18. Rb5 Ka6 19. Ra5 Kb6 20. Be3 c5 21. Qc5# 1-0

148

Morphy - NN
New York, 1857
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Bc5 6. 0-0 Nf6 7. d4 ed4 8. cd4 Bb6 9. Ba3 d6 10. e5 Ne4 11. Re1 d5 12. Bb5 Bg4 13. Rc1 Qd7 14. Qa4 Bf3 15. Rc6 0-0-0

16. e6 fe6 17. Rb6 c6 18. Bc6 bc6 19. Qa6 1-0

149

Morphy - NN
New York, 1857
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Bc5 6. 0-0 d6 7. d4 ed4 8. cd4 Bb6 9. Bb2 Bg4 10. Bb5 Bd7 11. d5 Ne5 12. Bd7 Qd7 13. Be5 de5 14. Ne5 Qb5 15. Rb1 Qa5 16. Qg4 Ne7 17. Qd7 Kf8 18. Rb3 Bd4 19. Nf3 Bc5 20. Rc1 c6 21. d6 Bd6 22. Qd6 Rd8 23. Qg3 b6 24. Qc7 Rc8 25. Rd3 Re8 26. Rd8 Qa6 27.Rcd1 1-0

150

Morphy - NN
New York, 1857
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. d4 ed4 4. e5 Qe7 5. Be2 Ne4 6. 0-0 d5 7. ed6 Nd6 8. Re1 Be6 9. Bg5 Qd7 10. Ne5 Qc8 11. Bh5 Be7 12. Be7 Ke7

13. Nf7 Nf7 14. Bg4 Nd8 15. Qd4 Rg8 16. Re6 Ne6 17. Re1 Nc6 18. Qc5 Kf6 19. Qf5 Ke7 20. Re6 1-0

151

Morphy - Perrin
New York, 1857
Remove White’s Queen Rook

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 d5 4. ed5 Qd5 5. Nc3 Qe6 6. Kf2 Qf6 7. Bc4 c6 8. Ne4 Qf5 9. Re1 Be6 10. d4 Be7 11. Nfg5 Nd7 12. Nf7 Ngf6 13. Nfd6 Kf8 14. Nf5 Ne4 15. Re4 Bf5 16. Qh5 g6 17. Qh6 Ke8 18. Re7 Ke7 19. Qg7 Kd6 20. Bf4 Ne5 21. Be5# 1-0

152

Morphy - Fuller
New York, 1857(?)

Only the final moves of this game are known.

White to Play

1. Rg6 Qg6 2. Qg6 hg6 3. h7 Re1 4. Ke1 Ke7 5. Bg8 Kf6 6. h8(Q) Ne7 7. Qh4 1-0

153

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1857
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 g4 5. d4 gf3 6. Qf3 d5 7. Bd5 c6 8. Bf7 Kf7 9. Qh5 Kg7 10. Bf4 Be7 11. 0-0 Qd4 12. Kh1 Qe4 13. Rae1 Qg6 14. Re7 Kf8 15. Bd6 1-0

154

Maurian - Morphy
New Orleans, 1857
Remove Black’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 g5 4. h4 g4 5. Ne5 Nf6 6. Bc4 d5 7. Bd5 Nd5 8. ed5 f3 9. 0-0 Qh4 10. d4 f2 11. Rf2 g3 12. Rf4 Qh2 13. Kf1 Qh1 14. Ke2 Qg2 15. Kd3 Qh3 16. Qe1 Bf5 17. Kc4 0-0-0 18. Qa5 a6 19. Nc3 Bc2 20. Rf7 Bd6 21. Nb5 ab5 22. Kb5 Kb8 23. Bg5 Be5 24. Bd8 Rd8 25. Qc3 Rd5 26. Kc4 Rd4 27. Qd4 Qe6 28. Qd5 Bd3 0-1

155

Morphy-Maurian
New Orleans, 1857
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 g4 5. d4 gf3 6. Qf3 d5 7. Bd5 c6 8. Bf7 Kf7 9. Qh5 Kg7 10. Bf4 Be7 11. 0-0 Qd4 12. Kh1 Qe4 13. Rae1 Qg6 14. Re7 Kf8 15. Bd6 Nf6 16. Rf6 Qf6 17. Qe8# 1-0

156

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1858
Remove White’s Queen Rook

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. d4 ed4 7. 0-0 d3 8. Qb3 Qf6 9. e5 Qg6 10. Re1 b6 11. Ba3 Bb7 12. Bf7 Qf7 13. e6 Qf5 14. Nh4 Qh5 15. ed7 Kd7 16. Qe6 Kd8 17. Nf5 Nf6 18. Be7 Ne7 19. Qe7 Kc8 20. Qg7 Re8 21. Ne7 Re7 22. Qe7 Qe8 23. Qe8 Ne8 24. Re8 Kd7 25. Re3 Ba6 26. f4 Re8 27. Kf2 Re3 28. Ke3 Ke6 29. g4 c5 30. Ke4 d2 31. Nd2 Bc3 32. Nb3 Bf1 33. h4 a5 34. a4 Bc4 35. Nc1 Bd2 0-1

157

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1858
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Ne5 d6 4. Nf7 Kf7 5. Bc4 Be6 6. Be6 Ke6 7. d4 Be7 8. 0-0 Rf8 9. Qd3 Kf7 10. Qb3 d5 11. e5 Nbd7 12. Qb7 Rb8 13. Qa7 Ne4 14. f3 Ng5 15. Bg5 Bg5 16. f4 Be7 17. Qa6 Rb6 18. Qe2 g6 19. c4 Nb8 20. c5 Rb4 21. f5 gf5 22. Rf5 Kg8 23. Qg4 Kh8 24. Rf8 Qf8 25. Qe6 Rd4 26. Rf1 Qe8 27. Kh1 Rd2 28. Qh6 Qf7 29. Rg1 Qf2 30. b4 Rd4 31. Qe6 Qf8 32. a3 c6 33. h3 Rf4 34. Kh2 Rf2 35. Kh1 Rf1 36. Qg4 Na6 37. Rf1 Qf1 38. Kh2 Qf8 39. Qe6 Bh4 40. Qc6 Qf4 41. Kh1 Qe5 42. Qc8 Kg7 43. Qd7 Qe7 44. Qg4 Kh6 45. g3 Bf6 46. Kh2 Qc4 47. Qd1 d4 48. Qf1 Kg7 49. Qa6 d3 50. Qa7 Kg6 51. h4 Qe2 52. Kh3 d2 53. g4 d1(Q) 0-1

158

Morphy - NN
New Orleans, 1858
Evans Gambit
Morphy blindfolded

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. d4 ed4 7. 0-0 h6 8. Qb3 Qf6 9. e5 Qg6 10. cd4 Nge7 11. d5 Nd8 12. d6 Nec6 13. Ba3 Ne6 14. Be6 fe6 15. dc7 Bc7 16. Nc3 a6 17. Rad1 Ne5 18. Ne5 Be5 19. f4 Bc3 20. Qc3 Qf6 21. Qc5 Qf8 22. Rd6 Qf5 23. Rd5 Qf8 24. Qa5 Qf6 25. f5 b6 26. Qe1 e5 27. Re5 Kf7 28. Qe4 Qc6 29. Re7 Kg8 30. Rg7 Kg7 31. Qe7 Kg8 32. Qf8 Kh7 33. Qf7# 1-0

159

Morphy - NN
New Orleans, 1858
Evans Gambit
Morphy blindfolded

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. 0-0 d6 7. d4 ed4 8. Qb3 Qf6 9. e5 de5 10. Re1 Nge7 11. Bg5 Qg6 12. Be7 Ne7 13. Ne5 Qb6 14. Bb5 c6 15. Qf7 Kd8 16. Nc6 Nc6 17. Bc6 Qc5 18. cd4 Qd6 19. Qg7 Be1 20. Qh8 Kc7 21. Qh7 Bd7 22. Bd7 Qd4 23. Bb5 Kb6 24. Nc3 Bc3 25. Rb1 Rd8 26. Ba6 Ka5 27. Rb5 Ka4 28. Qc2 Ka3 29. Qb3 1-0

160

Morphy - NN
New Orleans, 1858
Evans Gambit
Morphy blindfolded

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Bc5 6. 0-0 d6 7. d4 ed4 8. cd4 Bb6 9. Nc3 Na5 10. Ng5 Nc4 11. Qa4 c6 12. Qc4 Nh6 13. Kh1 0-0 14. f4 Kh8 15. f5 f6 16. Ne6 Be6 17. fe6 Qe7 18. Bh6 gh6 19. Rf3 Rg8 20. Raf1 Rg6 21. Ne2 Rf8 22. Nf4 Rg5 23. d5 c5 24. Qc3 Bd8 25. Ne2 Qg7 26. Ng3 Qc7

27. Rf6 Bf6 28. Rf6 Rf6 29. Qf6 Qg7 30. Qd8 Qg8 31. e7 Re5 32. Nh5 Re4 33. e8(Q) Re1 34. Qe1 Qd8 35. Qc3 1-0

161

Morphy - NN
New Orleans, 1858
King’s Gambit
Morphy blindfolded

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 g4 5. 0-0 gf3 6. Qf3 Qf6 7. e5 Qe5 8. d3 Bh6 9. Nc3 Nc6 10. Bf4 Qf4 11. Qh5 Qg5 12. Rae1 Nge7 13. Qf7 Kd8 14. Ne4 Qg7 15. Qh5 d5 16. Bd5 Qd4 17. Kh1 Qd5 18. Qh6 Ng6 19. Ng5 Bf5 20. Qg7 Rf8 21. Ne6 Be6 22. Rf8 Nf8 23. Qf8 Kd7 24. Qa8 Ne5 25. Qh8 Ng4 26. Qh7 Kd6 27. Qg6 Ne5 28. Qg3 1-0 after some further, unrecorded moves

162

Morphy - NN
New Orleans, 1858
Evans Gambit
Morphy blindfolded

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. d4 ed4 7. 0-0 dc3 8. Ba3 d6 9. Qb3 Nh6 10. Nc3 Bc3 11. Qc3 0-0 12. Rad1 Ng4 13. h3 Nge5 14. Ne5 Ne5 15. Be2 f5 16. f4 Nc6 17. Bc4 Kh8 18. Bb2 Qe7 19. Rde1 Rf6 20. ef5 Qf8

21. Re8 Qe8 22. Qf6 Qe7 23. Qg7 Qg7 24. f6 Qg2 25. Kg2 Bh3 26. Kh3 h5 27. Rg1 1-0

163

Morphy - NN
New Orleans, 1858
King’s Gambit
Morphy blindfolded

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 c6 4. Nc3 Bb4 5. Bc4 Bc3 6. dc3 Ne7 7. Qd6 0-0 8. Bf4 Ng6 9. Bg5 Qe8 10. 0-0 Kh8 11. Rae1 f6 12. e5 f5 13. Nd4 f4 14. e6 de6 15. Ne6 Be6 16. Re6 Qc8 17. Rg6 hg6 18. Qg6 Qf5 19. Rf4 Qg6 20. Rf8 Kh7 21. Bg8 Kh8 22. Bf7 Kh7 23. Bg6 Kg6 24. Bf4 1-0

164

Morphy - NN
New Orleans, 1858
Two Knights
Morphy blindfolded

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d4 ed4 5. Ng5 d5 6. ed5 Nd5 7. 0-0 Be7 8. Nf7 Kf7 9. Qf3 Ke6 10. Nc3 dc3 11. Re1 Ne5 12. Bf4 Bd6 13. Be5 Be5 14. Re5 Ke5 15. Re1 Kd4 16. Bd5 Rf8 17. Qd3 Kc5 18. b4 Kb4 19. Qd4 1-0

165

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1858
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 c5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 d5 4. ed5 Qd5 5. Be2 Nf6 6. 0-0 Be7 7. d4 0-0 8. Bf4 c6 9. c4 Qd8 10. Qc2 Bg4 11. Rad1 Bh5 12. Ne5 Bg6 13. Qb3 Qb6 14. Qh3 Na6 15. c5 Qd8 16. Ba6 ba6 17. Nc6 Qe8 18. Ne7 Qe7 19. Bd6 Qe6 20. Bf8 Qh3 21. gh3 Kf8 22. d5 Rd8 23. c6 Rd5 24. c7 Rg5 25. Kf2 Rf5 26. Ke3 Re5 27. Kd4 Re8 28. Kc4 Ke7 29. Rfe1 Be4 30. Kc5 Rc8 31. Re4 Ne4 32. Kc6

32...Nc5 33. b4 Ne6 34. Rd7 Kf6 35. a4 Rc7 36. Rc7 Nc7 37. Kc7 Ke6 38. b5 ab5 39. ab5 f5 40. Kb7 f4 41. Ka7 f3 42. b6 f2 43. b7 f1(Q) 44. b8(Q) Qa1 0-1

166

Morphy - Worrall
New Orleans, 1858
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Be7 6. d4 Nf6 7. de5 Ng4 8. 0-0 Nge5 9. Ne5 Ne5 10. Bb3 0-0 11. f4 Bc5 12. Kh1 Ng6 13. f5 Ne5 14. f6 gf6 15. Bh6 d6 16. Qe1 Be6 17. Qg3 Ng6 18. h4 Kh8 19. h5 Rg8 20. hg6 Rg6 21. Qh4 Bb3 22. ab3 Qe7 23. Rf5 Re8 24. Re1 Reg8 25. Rh5 Rg2 26. Bg5 Rg7 27. Bf6 1-0

167

Morphy - Worrall
New Orleans, 1858
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. f4 d5 3. ed5 e4 4. Bc4 Bd6 5. Ne2 Bg4 6. 0-0 f5 7. d4 Nf6 8. h3 Be2 9. Qe2 0-0 10. Bb3 Kh8 11. c4 c5 12. dc6 Nc6 13. Be3 Bc7 14. Rad1 Bb6 15. c5 Bc7 16. d5 Na5 17. d6 Bb8 18. Be6 Nc6 19. Bf5 a5 20. g4 Nb4 21. a3 Nbd5 22. g5 Ne3 23. Qe3 Nh5 24. Bg4 g6 25. f5 b6 26. Qc3 Kg8 27. Qc4 Kh8 28. Qd4 Ng7 29. f6 Rf7 30. fg7 Rg7 31. Rf7 1-0

168

Morphy - Worrall
New Orleans, 1858
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e6 2. f4 d5 3. e5 Nc6 4. d4 Nh6 5. Nf3 Be7 6. c3 f6 7. Bd3 0-0 8. 0-0 Qe8 9. h3 Qh5 10. Qe1 Bd7 11. Bd2 Rae8 12. Qg3 f5 13. Rae1 Kh8 14. Be2 Qg6 15. Qh2 Nd8 16. Kh1 a6 17. b3 b6 18. Rg1 Qf7 19. g4 c5 20. g5 Ng8 21. h4 g6 22. h5 Qg7 23. Nh4 cd4 24. Ng6 hg6 25. hg6 Nh6 26. gh6 Qg8 27. g7 Kh7 28. Bh5 1-0

169

Morphy - Worrall
New Orleans, 1858
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 d6 2. f4 Nc6 3. Nf3 Bg4 4. c3 Bf3 5. Qf3 e5 6. Bc4 Nf6 7. b4 a6 8. d3 Be7 9. f5 0-0 10. g4 b5 11. Bb3 Ne8 12. h4 Kh8 13. g5 f6 14. Qh5 d5 15. g6 h6 16. Bh6 1-0

170

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1858
Remove White’s Queen Rook

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Bc4 Qh4 4. Kf1 b5 5. Bb3 Nf6 6. Nf3 Qh6 7. d4 Be7 8. e5 Nh5 9. Kf2 g5 10. g4 Ng7 11. h4 Qg6 12. hg5 Bg5 13. Ng5 Qg5 14. Qf3 Nc6 15. Bf4 Nd4 16. Bf7 Kf8 17. Qe4 Qg4 18. Bd5 Qe2 19. Qe2 Ne2 20. Bh6 c6 21. Rf1 Ba6 22. Ke3 Ke7 23. Bg5 Ke8 24. Bf7 Kf8 25. Ke2 b4 26. Bc4 1-0

171

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1858
Remove White’s Queen Rook

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Bc4 Qh4 4. Kf1 b5 5. Bb3 Nf6 6. Nf3 Qh6 7. Ne5 d5 8. Nc3 Bd6 9. d4 Ne4 10. Ne4 Be5 11. Bd5 c6 12. de5 cd5 13. Nd6 Kd7 14. Qd5 Kc7 15. c4 Qe6 16. Qa8 Nc6 17. cb5 Qd5 18. Qc6 Qc6 19. bc6 Kc6 20. Bf4 Rd8 21. Kf2 Be6 22. Rc1 Kb6 23. Be3 Ka6 24. Rc6 Ka5 25. Bd2 Ka4 26. Ra6# 1-0

172

Morphy - NN
New Orleans, 1858
Remove White’s Queen Rook

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Bc5 3. d4 ed4 4. Nf3 b5 5. Bb3 d6 6. Ng5 Nh6 7. 0-0 0-0 8. f4 a5 9. f5 Qf6 10. Qh5 a4 11. Bd5 c6 12. Nh7 Kh7 13. Bg5 Qe5 14. Nd2 cd5 15. Nf3 Qe8 16. f6 Bg4 17. Qh4 Bf3 18. fg7 d3 19. Kh1 Bg2 20. Kg2 Kg7 21. Bh6 Kh7 22. Bf8 Kg8 23. Be7 Nc6 24. Qg5 Kh7 25. Rf4 1-0

Games Played During Morphy’s First Visit to England

173

Barnes - Morphy
London,1858
Philidor

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 ed4 4. Nd4 Nf6 5. Bd3 Be7 6. Nc3 0-0 7. 0-0 c5 8. Nde2 Nc6 9. f4 a6 10. a4 Bg4 11. h3 Be2 12. Qe2 Re8 13. Qf2 Rc8 14. g4 Nb4 15. b3 d5 16. Kh1 de4 17. Ne4 Ne4 18. Be4 Bf6 19. Bb7 Ba1 20. Bc8 Qc8 21. Be3 Qc6 22. Kh2 Bd4 0-1

174

Morphy - Barnes
London, 1858
Irregular

1. e4 f6 2. d4 e6 3. Bd3 Ne7 4. Be3 d5 5. Nc3 de4 6. Ne4 Nd5 7. Nh3 Be7 8. Qh5 g6 9. Qh6 Bf8 10. Qh4 Bg7 11. 0-0 0-0 12. c4 Ne3 13. fe3 f5 14. Neg5 h6 15. Nf3

15...e5 16. Qd8 Rd8 17. Bc2 ed4 18. ed4 Bd4 19. Nd4 Rd4 20. Rfe1 Kf7 21. c5 Be6 22. Rad1 Nc6 23. Rd4 Nd4 24. Ba4 g5 25. Rd1 Rd8 26. a3 f4 27. Nf2 Ne2 28. Kf1 Rd1 29. Bd1 Nd4 30. Ke1 Kf6 31. Kd2 Nb3 32. Bb3 Bb3 33. Ng4 Kg6 34. g3 h5 35. Nf2 Kf5 36. Kc3 Bd5 37. Kd4 c6 38. b4 Bg2 39. gf4 Kf4 40. a4 Bf1 41. Ne4 h4 42. Nd2 Be2 43. Ne4 g4 44. Nf2 Kf3 45. Ne4 Bf1 46. Ke5 Bd3 47. Ng5 Kg2 48. Kd6 Kh2 49. Kc7 Kg3 50. Kb7 h3 0-1

175

Lowenthal & Medley - Morphy &
Mongredian
London,1858
Philidor

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 f5 4. Bc4 Nc6 5. de5 de5 6. Qd8 Nd8 7. Ne5 fe4 8. Bd2 Bd6 9. Bc3 Nf6 10. h3 Be6 11. Nd2 0-0 12. 0-0 Nd5 13. Bd5 Bd5 14. Ndc4 b5 15. Nd6 cd6 16. Rfd1 e3 17. fe3 Bg2 18. Kg2 de5 19. Be5 Nc6 20. Bd4 Rae8 21. Rd2 Re6 22. Re1 Rg6 23. Kh2 Rf3 24. Rg2 Nd4 25. ed4 Rh6 26. Re7 Rfh3 27. Kg1 Rh1 28. Kf2 Rf6 29. Ke2 Rf7 30. Re8 Rf8 draw

176

Morphy, Walker & Greenaway -
Lowenthal, Medley & Mongredian
London,1858
King’s Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Bc4 d5 4. Bd5 Nf6 5. Nf3 Nd5 6. ed5 Qd5 7. Nc3 Qh5 8. d4 Bd6 9. Qe2 Kd8 10. 0-0 g5 11. Qb5 f5 12. Qd5 Nc6 13. Ne5 Rf8 14. Bd2 Ne7 15. Qc4 Rf6 16. Rae1 c6 17. Na4 Bd7 18. Nc5 Bc8 19. Rf3 g4 20. Rb3 b6 Unfinished

177

Morphy - Barnes
London, 1858
Philidor

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 ed4 4. Bc4 Be7 5. c3 d3 6. Qb3 Be6 7. Be6 fe6 8. Qb7 Nd7 9. Qb5 Ngf6 10. Ng5 Rb8 11. Qa4 0-0 12. Ne6 Nc5 13. Nc5 dc5 14. Qc4 Kh8 15. 0-0 Ng4 16. f4 d2 17. Bd2 Rb2 18. h3 Rd2 19. Nd2 Ne3 20. Qe2 Nf1 21. Rf1 Qd7 22. Nc4 Qb5 23. e5 Bh4 24. f5 Be7 25. Qg4 Qd7

26. Rd1 Qf5 27. Qf5 Rf5 28. Rd7 Bf8 29. e6 1-0

178

Morphy - Barnes
London, 1858
King’s Gambit Declined

1. e4 e5 2. f4 Bc5 3. Nf3 d6 4. b4 Bb6 5. Bc4 Nf6 6. Qe2 Nc6 7. c3 0-0 8. d3 ef4 9. Bf4 d5 10. Bb3 de4 11. de4 Bg4 12. Nbd2 Nh5 13. Be3 Ne5 14. 0-0-0 Nd3 15. Kc2 Nhf4 16. Bf4 Nf4 17. Qf1 Qe7 18. h3 Bh5 19. g4 Bg6 20. Kb2 Rad8 21. Nd4 Bd4 22. Qf4 Be5 23. Qe3 Qb4 24. h4 h5 25. Nc4 Qe7 26. Rd8 Rd8 27. gh5 Bh5 28. Qg5 Qg5 29. hg5 Bf3 30. Rf1 Be2 31. Ne5 Bf1 32. g6 Kf8 33. gf7 Rd6 34. Nf3 Rf6 35. Ng5 Rf2 36. Ka3 c5 37. Bd5 b5 38. Nh7 Ke7 39. f8(Q) Rf8 40. Nf8 Kf8 41. e5 g5 42. Bf3 Bh3 43. c4 bc4 44. Kb2 g4 45. Bd5 g3 46. Kc3 Be6 47. Bc6 Ke7 48. a3 Bd7 49. Bd5 Be6 50. Bf3 Kd7 51. Kd2 Bh3 52. Ke3 Ke6 53. Be2 c3 0-1

179

Barnes - Morphy
London,1858
Philidor

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 f5 4. de5 fe4 5. Ng5 d5 6. e6 Bc5 7. Nf7 Qf6 8. Be3 d4 9. Bg5 Qf5 10. Nh8 Qg5 11. Bc4 Nc6 12. Nf7 Qg2 13. Rf1 Nf6 14. f3 Nb4 15. Na3 Be6 16. Be6

16...Nd3 17. Qd3 ed3 18. 0-0-0 Ba3 19. Bb3 d2 20. Kb1 Bc5 21. Ne5 Kf8 22. Nd3 Re8 23. Nc5 Qf1 24. Ne6 Re6 0-1

180

Morphy - Barnes
London,1858
Boden Kieseritsky Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. Nf3 Ne4 4. Nc3 Nc3 5. dc3 f6 6. 0-0 Nc6 7. Nh4 Qe7 8. Nf5 Qc5 9. Bb3 d5 10. Be3 Qa5 11. Nh4 Be6 12. Qh5 g6 13. Ng6 Bf7 14. Qh4 Bg6 15. Qf6 Rg8 16. Rad1 Be7 17. Qe6 Bf7 18. Qh3 Nd8

19. f4 e4 20. Rd5 Bd5 21. Qh5 Kf8 22. Bd5 Rg7 23. b4 Qa6 24. f5 Nf7 25. f6 Bf6 26. b5 Qd6 27. Bf7 b6 28. Bh6 Ke7 29. Bg7 Bg7 30. Bb3 Rf8 31. Rf7 Rf7 32. Qf7 Kd8 33. Qg7 Qd1 34. Kf2 Qd2 35. Kg3 e3 36. Qf6 Kc8 37. Be6 Kb7 38. Qf3 1-0

181

Barnes - Morphy
London,1858
Ruy Lopez

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Bb4 6. Nd5 b5 7. Bb3 d6 8. 0-0 Bg4 9. c3 Ba5 10. d4 ed4 11. Nf6 Qf6 12. Bd5 Ne5

13. Ba8 Nf3 14. gf3 Bf3 15. Qd2 dc3 16. Qg5 cb2 17. Bc6 Ke7 18. Qf6 gf6 19. Bf4 Rg8 20. Bg3 ba1(Q) 21. Ra1 f5 22. a4 Bb6 23. ab5 f4 24. ba6 fg3 25. hg3 Rg3 26. Kh2 Rg6 27. Rf1 Bd4 28. Kh3 Be5 29. Kh4 Bf4 30. a7 Rh6# 0-1

182

Barnes - Morphy
London,1858
Ruy Lopez

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. d4 ed4 5. e5 Ne4 6. 0-0 a6 7. Ba4 Nc5 8. Bc6 dc6 9. Nd4 Be7 10. Nc3 0-0 11. Be3 f6 12. ef6 Rf6 13. Qe2 Rg6 14. Kh1 Bd6 15. Rad1 Qh4 16. f4 Bg4 17. Nf3 Qh5 18. Bc5 Bc5 19. Ne4 Bb6 20. Neg5 h6 21. Qc4 Kh8 22. Nf7 Kh7 23. N7e5 Rf6 24. Ng4 Qg4 25. Ne5 Qe6 26. Qe4 Qf5 27. Qf5 Rf5 28. g4 Rf6 29. f5 Re8 30. Ng6 Re2 31. Rd8 Rg6 32. fg6 Kg6 33. Rd7 Rc2 34. Rff7 Bd4 35. Rc7 Rb2 36. Rb7 Ra2 37. h4 a5 38. h5 Kg5 39. Rg7 Kh4 40. Rge7 a4 0-1

183

Staunton & Owen - Morphy & Barnes
London, 1858
Philidor

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 f5 4. de5 fe4 5. Ng5 d5 6. e6 Nh6 7. Nc3 c6 8. Nge4 de4 9. Qh5 g6 10. Qe5 Rg8 11. Bh6 Bh6 12. Rd1 Qg5 13. Qc7 Be6 14. Qb7 e3 15. f3 Qe7 16. Qa8 Kf7 17. Ne4 Bf4 18. Be2 Kg7 19. 0-0 Qc7 20. Nc5 Bh2 21. Kh1 Bc8 22. Rd4 Bg3 23. Re4 Kh8 24. Rd1 Qg7 25. Rh4 Bh4 26. Qb8 Ba6 27. Qh2 Be2 28. Rd7 Qh6 29. Ne4 Bc4 30. Nf6 e2 31. Re7 Qc1 32. Qg1 Qg1 33. Kg1 e1(Q) 34. Re1 Be1 0-1

184

Morphy & Barnes - Staunton & Owen
London,1858
Center Counter

1. e4 d5 2. ed5 Qd5 3. Nc3 Qd8 4. d4 Nf6 5. Bd3 Nc6 6. Be3 e6 7. Nf3 Bd6 8. 0-0 0-0 9. Qe2 b6 10. Bg5 Bb7 11. Ne4 Be7 12. Nf6 Bf6 13. Qe4 g6 14. Qh4 Bg5 15. Ng5 h5 16. c3 Qf6 17. Rae1 Ne7 18. f4 Nf5 19. Qh3 Rfe8 20. Re5 Rad8 21. Rfe1 Ng7 22. g4 c5 23. Be4 Ba6 24. gh5 Nh5 25. Bf3 cd4 26. Bh5 gh5 27. Qh5 Qg7 28. Kf2 Qf6 29. Qh4 Bd3 30. Qg3 Bg6 31. f5 Bf5 32. Ne4 Qg6 33. Nf6 Kf8 34. Qg6 Bg6 35. Ne8 Ke8 36. h4 d3 37. Ke3 Ke7 38. Kd2 Rd6 39. Rg5 Kf6 40. Rf1 Bf5 41. Rg8 Rd5 42. h5 Re5 43. Rf2 Re4 44. Rh2 Bh7 45. Rh8 Kg7 46. Ra8 Kh6 47. Ra7 Rf4 48. Rb7 e5 49. Rb6 f6 50. a4 e4 51. Re6 Rf3 52. a5 1-0

185

Morphy - Bird
London,1858
King’s Gambit Declined

1. e4 e5 2. f4 Bc5 3. Nf3 d6 4. c3 Bg4 5. Bc4 Nc6 6. b4 Bb6 7. a4 a6 8. h3 Bf3 9. Qf3 Nf6 10. d3 Qe7 11. f5 Rd8 12. Bg5 Nb8 13. Nd2 c6 14. Nf1 d5 15. Bb3 Qd6 16. Ng3 0-0 17. Nh5 de4 18. de4 Nh5 19. Rd1 Qc7 20. Bd8 Rd8 21. Rd8 Qd8 22. Qh5 Be3 23. Qd1 Qh4 24. Ke2 Bb6 25. Kd3 Nd7 26. Qg4 Qf2 27. f6 1-0

186

Morphy - Bird
London, 1858
Evans Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Bc5 6. d4 ed4 7. cd4 Bb6 8. 0-0 d6 9. d5 Na5 10. e5 Nc4 11. Qa4 Bd7 12. Qc4 de5 13. Ne5 Qf6 14. Nd7 Kd7 15. Qg4 Ke8 16. Bg5 Qg6 17. Nc3 Nf6 18. Rae1 Kf8 19. Qb4 Kg8 20. Bf6 Qf6 21. Ne4 Qg6 22. Kh1 h5 23. f4 h4 24. f5 Qh5 25. Rf4 f6 26. Nf6 gf6 27. Rg4 Qg4 28. Qg4 Kf8 29. Re6 Rh6 30. Qf4 Kg7 31. Re7 1-0

187

Bird - Morphy
London,1858
Philidor

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 f5 4. Nc3 fe4 5. Ne4 d5 6. Ng3 e4 7. Ne5 Nf6 8. Bg5 Bd6 9. Nh5 0-0 10. Qd2 Qe8 11. g4 Ng4 12. Ng4 Qh5 13. Ne5 Nc6 14. Be2 Qh3 15. Nc6 bc6 16. Be3 Rb8 17. 0-0-0 Rf2 18. Bf2 Qa3

19. c3 Qa2 20. b4 Qal 21. Kc2 Qa4 22. Kb2 Bb4 23. cb4 Rb4 24. Qb4 Qb4 25. Kc2 e3 26. Be3 Bf5 27. Rd3 Qc4 28. Kd2 Qa2 29. Kd1 Qb1 0-1

188

Morphy - Bird
London, 1858
King’s Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 g5 4. h4 g4 5. Ne5 Nf6 6. Bc4 d5 7. ed5 Bd6 8. d4 Nh5 9. Nc3 Bf5 10. Ne2 Be5 11. de5 f3 12. gf3 gf3 13. Bg5 f6 14. ef6 Qd6 15. Qd4 fe2 16. Be2 Qg3 17. Kd2 0-0 18. Rag1 1-0

189

Morphy - Boden
London, 1858
Evans Gambit Declined

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb6 5. a4 a6 6. c3 d6 7. d3 Nf6 8. Qb3 Qe7 9. Bg5 h6 10. Bh4 Nd8 11. Nbd2 g5 12. Bg3 Nh5 13. h3 Qf6 14. 0-0-0 Ne6 15. Nh2 Nhf4 16. Ng4 Qg7 17. Kb1 h5 18. Ne3 Be3 19. fe3 Ng2 20. Bf2 Nh4 21. Bh4 gh4 22. Rhg1 Qh6 23. Nf3 Qe3 24. Nh4 Qh3 25. Nf5 Bd7

26. Qa2 Nf4 27. Rg3 Bf5 28. Rh3 Bh3 29. Bf7 Kd7 30. d4 Bg4 31. Rd2 Ke7 32. Qc4 c6 33. de5 de5 34. Rf2 Rad8 35. Qc5 Kf6 36. Bb3 Rhe8 37. a5 Rd3 38. Qc4 Rd7 39. Ka2 Red8 40. Ka3 Kg5 41. Qc5 Kf6 42. Rf4 ef4 43. e5 Kg6 44. Bc2 Rd3 45. Qe7 R8d7 46. Qf6 Kh7 47. e6 R7d6 48. Qf7 Kh6 49. Qf4 Kg7 50. Qg5 Kh8 51. Qh6 Kg8 52. Qg6 Kh8 53. Bd3 1-0

190

Morphy - Boden
London, 1858
Ruy Lopez

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Bc5 4. c3 Qe7 5. 0-0 f6 6. d4 Bb6 7. Na3 Nd8 8. Nc4 Nf7 9. Ne3 c6 10. Nf5 Qf8 11. Ba4 g6 12. Ne3 d6 13. d5 Bd7 14. dc6 bc6 15. Nc4 Rc8 16. b3 Be6 17. Qd3 Qe7 18. Ba3 Bc4 19. Qc4 Kf8 20. Rad1 c5 21. Rd3 Ngh6 22. Kh1 Kg7 23. Bc1 Rhf8 24. g4 Ng4 25. h3 Ngh6 26. Rg1 Kh8 27. Nh4 Rg8 28. Rdg3 g5 29. Nf5 Nf5 30. ef5 Qb7 31. R1g2 d5 32. Qg4 Nh6 33. Qh5 Nf5 34. Rf3 Ng7 35. Qh6 Bd8 36. Rf6 Bf6 37. Qf6 Rcf8 38. Qe5 Rf5 39. Qe3 d4 40. cd4 Rf3 41. Qe2 cd4 42. Bg5 d3 43. Qd2 Qd5 44. b4 Rgf8 45. Bh6 Rh3 46. Kg1 Rg8 47. Bg5 Qd4 48. Qf4 Qa1 49. Qc1 Qe5 50. Bh6 Ne8 51. Rg8 Kg8 52. Bb3 Kh8 53. Bf4 Qg7 54. Bg3 Rh5 55. Qd1 Re5 56. Qd3 Re1 57. Kg2 draw

191

Morphy - Boden
London,1858
King’s Gambit Declined

1. e4 e5 2. f4 Bc5 3. Nf3 d6 4. c3 Bg4 5. Bc4 Qe7 6. d4 ed47. 0-0 Nc6 8. b4 Bb6 9. a4 dc3 10. Kh1 c2 11. Qc2 Bf3 12. gf3 Nb4 13. Qb3 a5 14. Nc3 Nf6 15. e5 de5 16. fe5 Nh5 17. Ne4 0-0 18. Bb2 Nf4 19. Rg1 Rad8 20. e6 Bd4 21. ef7 Kh8 22. Rg4 Bb2 23. Qb2 Rf7 24. Bf7 Qf7 25. Ng5 Qd5 26. Rf4 Qg5 27. Rg1 Qh6 28. Rf7 Rg8 29. Rc7 Nd3 30. Qd4 1-0

192

Morphy - Boden
London,1858
King’s Gambit Declined

1. e4 e5 2. f4 Bc5 3. Nf3 d6 4. c3 Bg4 5. Be2 Nc6 6. b4 Bb6 7. b5 Na5 8. d4 Bf3 9. Bf3 ed4 10. cd4 Qf6 11. Be3 Nc4 12. Bf2 Qf4 13. 0-0 Nf6 14. Qd3 Na5 15. Nc3 0-0 16. g3 Qh6 17. Kg2 Rae8 18. Rae1 Kh8 19. Be3 Qg6 20. Ne2 h6 21. Bd2 d5 22. Nf4 Qh7 23. e5 Qd3 24. Nd3 Nc4 25. Bb4 Ne4 26. Bf8 Rf8 27. Nf4 Ncd2 28. Bd5 Nf1 29. Bc4 Nd2 30. Bd5 Bd4 31. e6 g5 32. e7 Re8 33. Bf7 gf4 34. gf4 Re7 35. Re7 1-0

193

Boden - Morphy
London,1858
Ruy Lopez

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. d4 ed4 5. e5 Nd5 6. 0-0 Bc5 7. c3 0-0 8. cd4 Bb6 9. Bc4 Nce7 10. Bg5 Qe8 11. Re1 h6 12. Bh4 Nf4 13. Nc3 Nf5 14. Qd2 Ng6 15. Ne4 d5 16. ed6 Qd7 17. Ne5 Ne5 18. de5 Nh4 19. Nf6 gf6 20. e6

20...Qd6 21. Qh6 Be6 22. Be6 fe6 23. Re4 Nf5 24. Rg4 Kf7 0-1

194

Boden - Morphy
London,1858
Boden Kieseritzsky Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. Nf3 Ne4 4. Nc3 Nc3 5. dc3 c6 6. Ne5 d5 7. 0-0 Bd6 8. Re1 Be6 9. Bd3 Nd7 10. f4 Ne5 11. fe5 Bc5 12. Kh1 Qh4 13. Be3 Be3 14. Re3 0-0 15. Qe1 Qh6 16. Qg3 Rae8 17. Rae1 c5 18. Be2 Bd7 19. Bf3 Qe6 20. Rd3 Bc6 21. b4 b6 22. a4 f6 23. b5 Bb7 24. c4 dc4 25. Rd6 Qe7 26. Bb7 Qb7 27. e6 Qc7 28. Red1 Rd8 29. Kg1 Rd6 30. Qd6 Qd6 31. Rd6 Re8 32. Kf2 Kf8 33. Kf3 Ke7 34. Rd7 Ke6 35. Ra7 Re7 36. Ra6 Rb7 37. a5 Kd6 38. ab6 Ke6 39. Ke3 g5 40. g4 Kd6 41. Ke4 Ke6 draw, after some further, unrecorded moves.

195

Morphy - Boden
London,1858
Scotch Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 ed4 4. Bc4 Bc5 5. 0-0 d6 6. c3 Nf6 7. cd4 Bb6 8. Nc3 0-0 9. d5 Na5 10. Bd3 c5 11. Bg5 h6 12. Bh4 Bg4 13. h3 Bh5 14. g4 Bg6 15. Qd2 Re8 16. Rae1 Bc7 17. Nb5 Kh7 18. Bf6 gf6 19. Nc7 Qc7 20. Qc3 Qd8 21. Nh4 b6 22. f4 Kg7 23. Ng6 fg6 24. e5 Rc8 25. Bb1 Kf7 26. e6 Kg7 27. Qd3 f5 28. gf5 Qf6 29. fg6 Qb2 30. f5 Qf6 31. e7 c4 32. Qg3 c3 33. Re6 Qd4 34. Qf2 Qd5 35. f6 1-0

196

Morphy - Boden
London,1858
Two Knights

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. ed5 Na5 6. d3 h6 7. Nf3 Nc4 8. dc4 Bd6 9. Nc3 a6 10. Be3 b6 11. h3 0-0 12. a3 Qe7 13. Qd2 Bf5 14. Qe2 Bh7 15. g4 Ne4 16. Ne4 Be4 17. Rg1 Qf6 18. Rg3 Bf3 19. Rf3 Qh4 20. Rg3 e4 21. Rg1 Qh3 22. 0-0-0 Qf3 23. Qd2 a5 24. Kb1 f6 25. Rh1 Kf7 26. Rdg1 Ke7 27. Qe1Bf4 28. Rh4 Rg8 29. Rgh1 g5 30. Rh6 Be3 31. fe3 Raf8 32. Rf1 Qg4 33. Qc3 Kd7 34. Rff6 Rf6 35. Qf6 Kc8 36. Rh7 Kb8 37. Qc6 Rc8 38. Rd7

38...Qg1 39. Ka2 Qe3 40. d6 Qc5 41. Qe4 Ka7 42. c3 a4 43. Qd5 Qd5 44. cd5 b5 45. dc7 Kb6 46. d6 g4 47. Rd8 Kb7 48. d7 Rc7 49. Rb8 Kb8 50. d8(Q) 1-0

197

Boden - Morphy
London,1858
Philidor

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 ed4 4. Qd4 Bd7 5. Be3 Nc6 6. Qd2 Nf6 7. Bd3 Be7 8. Nc3 0-0 9. 0-0 h6 10. h3 Nh7 11. g4 h5 12. Nh2 hg4 13. hg4 Ne5 14. f3 g5 15. Kg2 c5 16. Rh1 Kg7 17. Nf1 Rh8 18. Ng3 f6 19. Nd5 Nf8 20. Nh5 Kf7 21. Rad1 Nfg6 22. Be2 Nh4 23. Kf2 Bc6 24. Ne7 Qe7 25. Qd6 b6 26. Qe7 Ke7 27. Ng3 Kf7 28. Rd6 Ke7 29. Rd2 Kf7 30. f4 gf4 31. Bf4 Nhg6 32. Bh6 Rh7 33. Ke3 Rah8 34. Nf5 Ne7 35. Ne7 Ke7 36. g5 Ke6 37. Rhd1 fg5 38. Rd6 Kf7 39. Bh5 Ke7 40. Bg5 Kf8 41. Rf1 1-0

198

Boden - Morphy
London,1858
Philidor

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 f5 4. Bc4 Nc6 5. de5 de5 6. Qd8 Nd8 7. 0-0 fe4 8. Ne5 Nf6 9. Re1 Bd6 10. f4 Be6 11. Nc3 0-0 12. Ne4 Be5 13. fe5 Nd7 14. Nd2 Rf5 15. Be6 Ne6 16. Nf3 Rf3 17. gf3 Nd4 18. Bf4 Nf3 19. Kg2 Ne1 20. Re1 Re8 21. Rd1 Nf8 22. Kf3 Ng6 23. Ke4 Nf4 24. Kf4 Kf7 25. h4 Ke6 26. Ke4 Rf8 27. Rg1 g6 28. h5 gh5 29. Rg7 Rf7 30. Rg5 Rf2 31. Rh5 Rc2 32. Rh6 Ke7 33. Rh7 Ke6 34. Rh6 Ke7 35. Rh7 Ke6 draw

199

Morphy - Hampton
London,1858
Evans Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Bc5 6. 0-0 d6 7. d4 ed4 8. cd4 Bb6 9. Nc3 Nf6 10. e5 de5 11. Ba3 Bg4 12. Qb3 Bh5 13. de5 Ng4 14. Rad1 Qc8 15. e6 f6 16. Qb5 Bg6 17. Bd5 1-0

200

Kipping - Morphy
Birmingham, 1858
Evans Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Bc5 6. d4 ed4 7. cd4 Bb6 8. d5 Na5 9. Bd3 d6 10. Bb2 Nf6 11. h3 0-0 12. 0-0 Nh5 13. Qd2 f5 14. Na3 Ng3 15. Rfe1 fe4 16. Be4 Bf5 17. Bf5 Nf5 18. Re4 Qd7 19. Bc3 Bc5 20. Nc2 b6 21. Qg5 Rae8 22. Rae1 Re4 23. Re4 h6 24. Qg4 Rf7 25. Re6 c6 26. Ncd4 cd5 27. Qg6 Ne7 28. Qg3 Nac6 29. Nc6 Qe6 30. Nd8 Qg6 0-1

201

Morphy - Kipping
Birmingham, 1858
Evans Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. d4 ed4 7. 0-0 d6 8. Qb3 Qf6 9. e5 de5 10. Re1 Bb6 11. Bg5 Qf5 12. Ne5 Ne5 13. f4 dc3 14. Kh1 Bd4 15. Nc3

15...Kf8 16. Rad1 Nc4 17. Qc4 Be6 18. Qd4 f6 19. Ne4 b6 20. Ng3 Qc5 21. Qc5 bc5 22. Re6 fg5 23. fg5 g6 24. h4 Kf7 25. Re5 h6 26. Ne4 hg5 27. Ng5 Kf6 28. Re6 Kf5 29. Rd5 Kf4 30. Re4 1-0

202

Medley - Morphy
London, 1858
Ruy Lopez

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nge7 4. c3 a6 5. Ba4 b5 6. Bb3 d5 7. ed5 Nd5 8. d4 ed4 9. Nd4 Nd4 10. Qd4 Be6 11. 0-0 c5 12. Qe5 c4 13. Bc2 Bd6 14. Qd4 0-0 15. Qe4 g6 16. Qf3 Qh4 17. g3 Qh3 18. Be4 Nc7 19. Bf4 Rad8 20. Bd6 Rd6 21. Qf4 Rfd8 22. Bg2 Qh5 23. Bf3 Qc5 24. Na3 Nd5 25. Qe5 f6 26. Qe2 Nc3 27. bc3 Qa3 28. Qe3 Bh3 29. Rfd1

29...Qa2 30. Qe7 Qb2 31. Qd8 Rd8 32. Rd8 Kg7 33. Re1 Qc3 34. Re7 Kh6 35. Re3 Q62 36. Rd1 c3 37. Ree1 c2 38. Rc1 b4 39. Be4 b3 0-1

203

Morphy - Medley
L.ondon,1858
King’s Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 g5 4. h4 g4 5. Ne5 Nf6 6. Bc4 d5 7. ed5 Bd6 8. d4 Nh5 9. Nc3 Bf5 10. Ne2 Qf6 11. Nf4 Ng3 12. Nh5 Nh5 13. Bg5 Bb4 14. c3 Qd6 15. 0-0 Ng7 16. Rf5 Nf5 17. Qg4 Ne7 18. Re1 h5 19. Qf3 Rh7 20. Bb5 c6 21. dc6 bc6 22. Nc6 Nbc6 23. Bc6 Kf8 24. Be7 Qe7 25. Re7 Be7 26. Ba8 1-0

204

Morphy - Owen
London,1858
Queen Fianchetto Defense

1. e4 b6 2. d4 Bb7 3. Bd3 e6 4. Nh3 4...c5 5. c3 cd4 6. cd4 Nc6 7. Be3 Nb4 8. Nc3 Nd3 9. Qd3 Bb4 10. 0-0 Bc3 11. bc3 Nf6 12. e5 Nd5 13. c4 Ba6 14. Bd2 Rc8 15. Rac1 0-0 16. Qb3 Ne7 17. Bb4 Re8 18. Rfd1 Nf5 19. g4 Nh4 20. f4 f6 21. Be1 fe5 22. de5 Qe7 23. Ng5 h6 24. Ne4 Bb7 25. Qd3 Rf8 26. Bh4 Qh4 27. Nf6 Rf6 28. ef6 Qg4 29. Qg3 Qg3 30. hg3 Bc6 31. fg7 Kg7 32. Kf2 Kf6 33. g4 h5 34. g5 Kf5

35. Ke3 h4 36. Rd2 h3 37. Rh2 Bg2 38. Rc2 d5 39. g6 dc4 40. g7 Rg8 41. Rhg2 hg2 42. Rg2 Kf6 43. Rc2 Rg7 44. Rc4 Rg3 45. Ke4 Ra3 46. Rc2 Ra4 0-1

205

Owen - Morphy
London,1858
Queen’s Gambit Declined

1. d4 e6 2. c4 d5 3. e3 Nf6 4. Nf3 c5 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. a3 Bd6 7. dc5 Bc5 8. b4 Bd6 9. cd5 ed5 10. Be2 0-0 11. 0-0 a5 12. b5 Ne7 13. Bb2 Be6 14. Na4 Ne4 15. Nd4 Nc5 16. Ne6 fe6 17. Bg4 Nf5 18. Bf5 Rf5 19. Nc5 Bc5 20. Qg4 Qe7 21. Bd4 Bd4 22. Qd4 Rc8 23. Qb6 Rc2 24. Rac1 Rff2 25. Rc2 Rc2 26. Qa5 h6 27. Rf2 Rc1 28. Rf1 Qc5 29. Qd2 Rc3 30. Qd4 Qd4 31. ed4 Ra3 32. Rc1 Kf7 33. Rc7 Kf6 34. Rb7 Rd3 35. Kf2 Rd4 36. Ke3 e5 37. b6 Rb4 38. Rb8 Ke7 39. b7 Kd7 40. Rg8 Rb7 41. Rg7 Kc6 42. Rg6 Kc5 43. Rh6

43...Rb3 44. Ke2 e4 45. Rh8 Kd4 46. Rg8 Rb2 47. Kd1 Kd3 0-1

206

Morphy - Owen
London,1858
Queen Fianchetto Defense

1. e4 b6 2. d4 Bb7 3. Bd3 e6 4. Nh3 c5 5. c3 Nc6 6. Be3 Nf6 7. Nd2 cd4 8. cd4 Bb4 9. 0-0 Bd2 10. Qd2 Nc7 11. f3 Ng6 12. Rac1 0-0 13. Bg5 h6 14. Bf6 Qf6 15. e5 Qh4 16. Bb5 Rfd8 17. Rc7 Bc6 18. Be2 Ne7 19. Nf4 Qg5 20. Rd1 Rf8 21. Qc1 Nf5 22. g4 Nh4 23. Kf2 Qd8 24. Rc6 dc6 25. Qc6 Rc8 26. Qe4 Qg5 27. Bd3 g6 28. Rg1 Rc7 29. Ne2 f5 30. gf5 Qf5 31. Qf5 ef5 32. Nf4 Rc6 33. d5 Rc5 34. Ng6 Ng6 35. Rg6 1-0

207

Morphy - NN
London,1858
Evans Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Bc5 6. d4 ed4 7. cd4 Bb6 8. Bg5 Nge7 9. Nc3 0-0 10. d5 Na5 11. d6 cd6 12. Nd5 Nac6 13. Ne7 Ne7 14. Qd6 Re8 15. Rc1 Ba5 16. Kf1 Kf8 17. Qf4 d5 18. Bb5 Bd7 19. Ne5 Bb5 20. Kg1 f5 21. ef5 Qb6 22. f6 Ng8 23. f7 Rec8 24. fg8(Q) Kg8 25. Qf7 Kh8 26. Rc8 Rc8 27. Qd5 h6 28. Nf7 Kh7 29. Qf5 Qg6 30. Qc8 Qb1 31. Qc1 Qf5 32. Be3 Qf7 33. Qb1 1-0

208

Morphy - Lyttelton
Birmingham, 1858
King’s Gambit
Morphy blindfolded

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 g5 4. h4 g4 5. Ne5 d6 6. Ng4 Be7 7. d4 Bh4 8. Nf2 Bf2 9. Kf2 Nf6 10. Nc3 Qe7 11. Bf4 Ne4 12. Ne4 Qe4 13. Bb5 Kf8 14. Bh6 Kg8 15. Rh5 Bf5 16. Qd2 Bg6 17. Re1 1-0

209

Morphy - Freeman
Birmingham, 1858
Bishop’s Opening
Morphy blindfolded

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Bc5 3. b4 Bb6 4. Nf3 d6 5. d4 ed4 6. Nd4 Nf6 7. Nc3 0-0 8. 0-0 Ne4 9. Ne4 d5 10. Bg5 Qe8 11. Bd5 c6 12. Re1 Qd7 13. Nf6 gf6 14. Bf6 Qd6 15. Ne6 Be6 16. Qh5 Bf2 17. Kh1 Qf4 18. Re6 Nd7 19. Bb2 Bd4 20. g3 Nf6 21. gf4 Nh5 22. Bd4 Nf4 23. Rg1 Ng6 24. Rgg6 hg6 25. Rg6 Kh7 26. Rg7 Kh6 27. Be4 f5 28. Bd3 b6 29. Rg3 Rf7 30. Be5 Re8 31. Bf4 Kh7 32. Rg5 Re1 33. Kg2 Rg7 34. Bf5 Kh8 35. h4 Rg5 36. Bg5 Re8 37. Kf3 1-0

210

Morphy - Salmon
Birmingham, 1858
Evans Gambit Declined
Morphy blindfolded

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 d5

5. ed5 Nb4 6. 0-0 Ne7 7. Ne5 0-0 8. d4 Bd6 9. Nc3 Bf5 10. Bb3 a5 11. a3 a4 12. Na4 Nbd5 13. c4 Ra4 14. cd5 Ra5 15. Qf3 Bg6 16. Re1 Bb4 17. Re2 Nf5 18. Bb2 Qa8 19. g3 Qa7 20. Ng6 hg6 21. Re5 Ba3 22. d6 Bb4 23. Rea5 Ba5 24. Qd5 b6 25. d7 Qa8 26. Rc1 Qd5 27. Bd5 b5 28. Bc6 Nd6 29. d5 Bd2 30. Rd1 Bg5 31. f4 Bd8 32. Ba3 f5 33. Re1 Kf7 34. Bb5 Rh8 35. Bd6 cd6 36. Re8 Rf8 37. Kf2 g5 38. Ke3 g4 39. Kd3 g5 40. Bc6 gf4 41. gf4 Rg8 42. Kc4 Rf8 43. Kb5 Rg8 44. Ka6 Rf8 45. Kb7 Rg8 46. Kc8 Bb6 47. Rg8 Kg8 48. d8(Q) Bd8 49. Kd8 1-0

211

Morphy - Avery
Birmingham, 1858
Sicilian
Morphy blindfolded

1. e4 c5 2. d4 cd4 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. Nd4 e6 5. Be3 Nf6 6. Bd3 d5 7. Nc6 bc6 8. e5 Nd7 9. f4 Ba6 10. 0-0 Bd3 11. Qd3 Bc5 12. Nd2 Be3 13. Qe3 Qb6 14. Rae1 0-0 15. b3 f6 16. ef6 Rf6 17. g3 Raf8 18. Kg2 Qe3 19. Re3 g6 20. Rfe1 e5 21. R1e2 ef4 22. Re7 R8f7 23. gf4 Rf4 24. Re8 Kg7 25. Rc8 R4f6 26. Rc7 Nf8 27. Ree7 Re7 28. Re7 Rf7 29. Re8 Nd7 30. Nf3 Rf8 31. Re7 Rf7 32. Re8 Rf8 33. Re7 Rf7 draw

212

Morphy - Kipping
Birmingham, 1858
Scotch
Morphy blindfolded

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 ed4 4. Bc4 Bc5 5. 0-0 d6 6. c3 Qf6 7. Bg5 Qg6 8. cd4 Nd4 9. Nd4 Qg5 10. f4 Qg6 11. Kh1 Nh6 12. h3 Bh3 13. gh3 Qe4 14. Qf3 Qd4 15. Re1 Kd7 16. Na3 Ba3 17. Bb5 c6 18. ba3 Rhe8 19. Rac1 d5 20. Qb3 Kc7 21. Bd3 Re3 22. Re3 Qe3 23. Rb1 Qh3 24. Kg1 b6 25. Re1 Qg3 26. Kf1 Qf4 27. Kg2 Qg5 28. Kf1 Ng4 29. Re2 Ne3 0-1

213

Morphy - Rhodes
Birmingham, 1858
King’s Gambit Declined
Morphy blindfolded

1. e4 e5 2. f4 Bc5 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. fe5 d5 5. ed5 Qd5 6. Nc3 Qd8 7. Ne4 Bb6 8. c3 Bg4 9. d4 Qd5 10. Nf2 Ne5 11. Qe2 Bf3 12. gf3 Qf3 13. Qe5 Kf8 14. Be2 Qc6 15. Rg1 f6 16. Qg3 g6 17. Be3 Re8 18. Kd2 Ne7 19. Bd3 Qd7 20. Ng4 Nd5 21. Rae1 Ne3 22. Re3 Qf7 23. Nf6 Re3 24. Qe3 Qa2 25. Qe8 Kg7 26. Nh5 Kh6 27. Qe3 Kh5 28. Qg5# 1-0

214

Morphy - Carr
Birmingham, 1858
Irregular
Morphy blindfolded

1. e4 h6 2. d4 a5 3. Bd3 b6 4. Ne2 e6 5. 0-0 Ba6 6. c4 Nf6 7. e5 Nh7 8. f4 Be7 9. Ng3 d5 10. Qg4 0-0 11. Nh5 g5 12. fg5 hg5 13. Bh7 Kh8 14. Nf6 dc4 15. Bc2 Qd4 16. Qd4 Bc5 17. Qc5 bc5 18. Bg5 Nc6 19. Rf3 Kg7 20. Bh6 Kh6 21. Rh3 Kg5 22. Rh5 Kf4 23. Kf2 Rg8 24. g3 Rg3 25. hg3# 1-0

215

Morphy - Wills
Birmingham, 1858
Sicilian
Morphy blindfolded

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cd4 4. Nd4 e6 5. Be3 Nf6 6. Bd3 e5 7. Nc6 bc6 8. 0-0 d6 9. f4 ef4 10. Bf4 Be7 11. Nc3 Rb8 12. e5 de5 13. Be5 Rb4 14. Qf3 Qb6 15. Kh1 Bg4 16. Qf2 Qf2 17. Rf2 Bc5 18. Rff1 Be7 19. a3 Rb7 20. Ne4 Bd7 21. Nf6 gf6 22. Bf6 Bf6 23. Rf6 Rb2 24. Re1 Be6 25. Bf5 Ke7 26. Rh6 Rhb8 27. Be6 Rb1 28. Rg1 fe6 29. Rh7 Kd6 30. Ra7 Rg1 31. Kg1 rub1 32. Kf2 Rb2 33. h4 Rc2 34. Kf3 Kd5 35. h5 Kc4 36. h6 Rd2 37. h7 1-0

216

Medley - Morphy
London,1858
Ruy Lopez

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. d4 ed4 5. e5 Ne4 6. 0-0 a6 7. Bc6 dc6 8. Qd4 Bf5 9. Bf4 Bc5 10. Qd8 Rd8 11. Nbd2 0-0 12. Ne4 Be4 13. Ng5 Bd5 14. Rfe1 h6 15. Ne4 Be4 16. Re4 g5 17. Bg3 Rd2 18. Rc1 f5 19. ef6 Rf6 20. h4 Bf2 21. Bf2 Rff2 22. hg5 Rg2 23. Kf1 hg5 24. Re7 g4 25. Rc7 g3 0-1

217

Medley - Morphy
London,1858
Remove Black’s King Bishop Pawn

1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Bc4 Nc6 4. Nc3 e5 5. d5 Ne7 6. Nf3 Ng6 7. Bg5 h6 8. Bf6 Qf6 9. Bb5 Kf7 10. Nd2 Nh4 11. g3 Ng2 12. Ke2 Bh3 13. f3 Qg5 14. Qg1 a6 15. Bd3 h5 16. Qf2 g6 17. Rag1 Bh6 18. Nf1 Qc1 19. Nd1 b5 20. Rg2 Rhc8 21. Nfe3 c5 22. dc6 Rc6 23. Re1 Be3 24. Ne3 Qb2 25. Rgg1 Rac8 26. Rc1 Be6 27. Rgd1 Rc3 28. Kf1 Bh3 29. Ke1 Be6 30. Nd5 R3c5 31. c3 Qa3 32. Qd2 Bd5 33. ed5 Rc3 34. Rc3 Rc3 35. Be4 Qc5 36. Ke2 b4 37. Qh6 Ke7 38. Qg5 Kd7 39. Qd2 g5 40. Qg5 Kc7 41. Qd2 a5 42. h3 a4 43. g4 hg4 44. hg4 Kb6 45. g5 Qc4 46. Ke1 1-0

218

Morphy - Lewis
London,1858
Evans Gambit Declined

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb6 5. 0-0 Qe7 6. a4 Nb4 7. a5 Bc5 8. c3 Nc6 9. d4 ed4 10. cd4 Bb4 11. Ne5 Ne5 12. de5 Qe5 13. Qb3 Qe7 14. Bb2 Nf6 15. Nc3 Bc3 16. Qc3 0-0 17. Rae1 Ne8 18. f4 Qc5 19. Kh1 d6 20. f5 Nf6 21. Rf3 Qe5 22. Qd2 Qe7 23. Rg3 Nh5

24. f6 Ng3 25. hg3 gf6 26. Qh6 Qd7 27. Qf6 Qg4 28. Qh8# 1-0

219

Medley - Morphy
London,1858
Evans Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Bc5 6. 0-0 d6 7. d4 ed4 8. cd4 Bb6 9. Bb2 Nf6 10. Nbd2 0-0 11. e5 de5 12. de5 Ng4 13. h3 Nh6 14. Qa4 Bf5 15. Rad1 Qe7 16. Nb3 Qb4 17. Qb4 Nb4 18. Nbd4 Bd4 19. Nd4 c6 20. g4 Be4 21. f4 Kh8 22. f5 Bd5 23. Bd5 Nd5 24. g5 Ng8 25. Rf3 Rfe8 26. e6 fe6 27. Ne6 Re6 28. fe6 Nge7 29. Rf7 Rg8 30. Rdf1 1-0

Games Played During Morphy’s First Visit to France

220

Harrwitz - Morphy
Paris, 1858
King’s Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 g5 4. h4 g4 5. Ne5 Nf6 6. Bc4 d5 7. ed5 Bd6 8. d4 Nh5 9. Bb5 c6 10. dc6 0-0 11. cb7 Bb7 12. Qg4 Ng7 13. Bf4 Qb6 14. Nc3 Be5 15. Be5 f6 16. Bg3 Na6 17. 0-0 Rad8 18. Rad1 Kh8 19. Ba6 Ba6 20. Rfe1 Bc8 21. Qf3 Bb7 22. Qd3 Rd7 23. Qb5 Qd8 24. d5 Nf5 25. Bf2 Rg8 26. Qd3 Rdg7 27. Qf5 Rg2 28. Kf1 Ba6 29. Ne2 Qd6

30. Rd3 Bd3 31. cd3 Rh2 32. Nf4 Rh1 33. Ke2 Rh2 34. Ne6 Rg6 35. Rc1 Qb8 36. b3 Rgg2 37. Qf6 Kg8 38. Ke3 Rh3 39. Ke2 Rf2 40. Qf2 Rh2 41. Rg1 Kh8 42. Rg2 Qe5 43. Kf3 Qd5 44. Kg3 Rg2 45. Qg2 Qe6 46. Qa8 Kg7 47. Qa7 1-0

221

Baucher - Morphy
Paris,1858
King’s Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 g5 4. h4 g4 5. Ne5 Nf6 6. Ng4 Ne4 7. d3 Ng3 8. Bf4 Nh1 9. Qe2 Qe7 10. Nf6 Kd8 11. Bc7 Kc7 12. Nd5 Kd8 13. Ne7 Be7 14. Qg4 d6 15. Qf4 Rg8 16. Nc3 Be6 17. Be2 Nc6 18. 0-0-0 Ng3 19. Bf3 Nf5 20. d4 Nh4 21. Kb1 Nf3 22. gf3 d5 23. Nb5 Rc8 24. c4 Kd7 25. cd5 Bd5 26. Nc3 Bd6 27. Qf5 Be6 28. Qb5 Kc7 29. Ka1 Bd7 30. Nd5 Kb8 31. Nf6 Rgd8 32. d5 Ne5 33. Qe2 Bf5 34. Ne4 Be4 35. fe4 Nc4 36. Rc1 b5 37. e5 Ne5 38. Qb5 Ka8 39. Rd1 Rc2 40. Qa6 f5 41. Kb1 Rc7 42. Rf1 Nc4 43. Rf2 Rb8 44. b3 Ba3 0-1

222

St. Amant - Morphy
Paris,1858
Giuoco Piano

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d4 ed4 6. cd4 Bb4 7. Bd2 Bd2 8. Nbd2 d5 9. ed5 Nd5 10. 0-0 0-0 11. h3 Nf4 12. Kh2 Nd4 13. Nd4 Qd4 14. Qc2 Qd6 15. Kh1 Qh6 16. Qc3 Bf5 17. Kh2 Rad8 18. Rad1 Bh3 19. gh3 Rd3 20. Qd3 Nd3 21. Bd3 Qd6 22. f4 Qd3 0-1

223

Morphy - Chamouillet
Versailles, 1858
French

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. ed5 ed5 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. Bd3 Bd6 6. 0-0 0-0 7. Nc3 c5 8. dc5 Bc5 9. Bg5 Be6 10. Qd2 Nc6 11. Rad1 Be7 12. Rfe1 a6 13. Qf4 Nh5 14. Qh4 g6 15. g4 Nf6 16. h3 Rc8 17. a3 Re8 18. Ne2 h5 19. Nf4 Nh7 20. Ne6 fe6 21. Re6 Bg5 22. Rg6 Kf8 23. Qh5 Rc7 24. Ng5 Ree7 25. Qh6 Ke8 26. Rg8 1-0

224

Anderssen - Morphy
Paris,1858
King’s Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. e5 d5 5. Bb3 Ne4 6. Nf3 Bg4 7. 0-0 Nc6 8. Ba4 g5 9. Bc6 bc6 10. d4 c5 11. c3 Be7 12. b4 cb4 13. cb4 0-0 14. Qb3 Rb8 15. a3 c5 16. Nc3 Nc3 17. Qc3 cb4 18. ab4 Bb4 19. Qd3 a5 20. h4 h6 21. hg5 hg5 22. g3 Rb6 23. Ra2 Rg6 24. Rg2 Bh3 25. e6 Bg2 26. ef7 Kg7 27. Kg2 Qc8 28. Ne5 Rh6 29. gf4 Rfh8 30. fg5 Rh2 31. Kg1 Rh1 32. Kf2 R8h2 33. Ke3 Rh3 34. Nf3 Rf3 35. Rf3 Qc1 0-1

225

Morphy - Anderssen
Paris, 1858
King’s Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 Bg7 5. 0-0 d6 6. c3 Nc6 7. Qb3 Qe7 8. d4 Nf6 9. Ng5 Ne4 10. Bf7 Kd8 11. Ne4 Qe4 12. Bf4 Bh3 13. gh3 Nd4 14. Nd2 Ne2 15. Kf2 Qf4 16. Ke2 Qg5 17. Rae1 Bh6 18. Qd5 Re8 19. Kd1 1-0

226

Morphy - Anderssen
Paris, 1858
King’s Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 g5 4. h4 g4 5. Ne5 Nf6 6. Ng4 Ne4 7. d3 Ng3 8. Bf4 Nh1 9. Qe2 Qe7 10. Nf6 Kd8 11. Bc7

11...Kc7 12. Nd5 Kd8 13. Ne7 Be7 14. Qg4 d6 15. Qf4 Rg8 16. Qf7 Bh4 17. Kd2 Re8 18. Na3 Na6 19. Qh5 Bf6 20. Qh1 Bb2 21. Qh4 Kd7 22. Rb1 Ba3 23. Qa4 1-0

227

Anderssen - Morphy
Paris, 1858
King’s Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 g5 4. h4 g4 5. Ne5 Nf6 6. Ng4 d5 7. Nf6 Qf6 8. Nc3 Qg6 9. Qf3 Bd6 10. Bd3 Bg4 11. Qf2 Nd7 12. ed5 f5 13. Bb5 a6 14. Bd7 Kd7 15. d3 Rae8 16. Kf1 Rhg8 17. Rh2 f3 18. g3 Bh5 19. Bg5 h6 20. Qa7 hg5 21. Na4 gh4 22. Qb7 hg3 23. Nb6 Ke7 24. Re1 Kf7 0-1

228

Anderssen - Morphy
Paris, 1858
King’s Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 g5 4. h4 g4 5. Ne5 Nf6 6. Ng4 d5 7. Nf6 Qf6 8. Qe2 Bd6 9. Nc3 c6 10. d4 Qd4 11. Bd2 Rg8 12. ed5 Kd8 13. 0-0-0 Bg4 14. Qe4 Qe4 15. Ne4 Bd1 16. Nd6

16...Bh5 17. Bf4 cd5 18. Nb7 Ke7 19. Bb5 Rg2 20. Re1 Kf6 21. Re8 Bg6 22. Nd6 Nc6 23. Ra8 Rc2 24. Kd1 Nd4 25 Re8 Bh5 26. Ke1 Nf3 27. Kf1 Rb2 28. Be2 Ra2 29. Bg5 Ng5 30. hg5 Kg5 31. Re5 Kf6 32. Rh5 1-0

229

Morphy - Anderssen
Paris, 1858
King’s Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 Bg7 5. 0-0 d6 6. c3 Nc6 7. Qb3 Qe7 8. d4 a6

9. Ng5 Qg5 10. Bf7 Kd8 11. Bf4 Qe7 12. Bg8 Bg4 13. Nd2 Kd7 14. Bd5 Nd8 15. Bb7 Nb7 16. Qb7 a5 17. Bd6 Bd4 18. cd4 Qd6 19. Rf7 Ke6 20. Qb3 1-0

230

Journoud & de Riviere - Morphy
Paris, 1858
Evans Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Bc5 6. 0-0 d6 7. d4 ed4 8. cd4 Bb6 9. Bb2 Nf6 10. Nbd2 0-0 11. e5 de5 12. de5 Nd5 13. Ne4 Be6 14. Nfg5 h6 15. Ne6 fe6 16. Qg4 Kh8 17. Rad1 Rf4 18. Qe6 Re4 19. Bd5 Nd4 20. Rd4 Rd4 21. Bd4 Bd4 22. Re1 Qg5 23. Bf3 Rf8 24. Qc4 c5 25. e6 Qe7 26. Qa4 Qh4 27. Qc2 Qe7 28. Qg6 Rf6 29. Qe4 Rf8 30. g3 b5 31. Re2 b4 32. Bh5 a5 33. Bf7 a4 34. Qc2 Ra8 35. Qe4 Rb8 36. Qd5 b3 37. ab3 ab3 38. Bg6 b2 39. Bb1 Rd8 40. Qf5 g5 41. Qg6 Bf6 42. Qh6 Kg8 43. Qg6 Bg7 44. Qh7 Kf8 45. h4 Rd1 46. Kg2 Bf6 47. hg5 Bd4 48. Qf5 Kg8 49. Qg6 Kh8 50. Re4 Qb7 51. e7 1-0

231

Morphy-Bottin
Paris, 1858
Irregular

1. e4 e5 2. c3 Nf6 3. d4 Ne4 4. de5 Bc5 5. Qg4 Nf2 6. Qg7 Rf8 7. Bg5 f6 8. ef6 Rf6 9. Bf6 Be7 10. Qg8 1-0

232

Morphy - Duke of Brunswick & Count
Isouard
Paris, 1858
Philidor

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 Bg4 4. de5 Bf3 5. Qf3 de5 6. Bc4 Nf6 7. Qb3 Qe7 8. Nc3 c6 9. Bg5 b5 10. Nb5 cb5 11. Bb5 Nbd7 12. 0-0-0 Rd8 13. Rd7 Rd7 14. Rd1 Qe6 15. Bd7 Nd7 16. Qb8 Nb8 17. Rd8# 1-0

233

Morphy - Journoud
Paris, 1858
Sicilian

1. e4 c5 2. d4 cd4 3. Nf3 e5 4. Bc4 Be7 5. c3 d6 6. Qb3 dc3 7. Bf7 Kf8 8. Nc3 Nc6 9. Bg8 Rg8 10. 0-0 Qe8 11. Ng5 Bg5 12. Bg5 Be6 13. Nd5 h6

14. f4 Qd7 15. fe5 Ke8 16. Nc7 Qc7 17. Qe6 1-0

234

Journoud - Morphy
Paris, 1858
Giuoco Piano

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. Nc3 d6 5. h3 Be6 6. Bb3 Nf6 7. d3 Qd7 8. 0-0 0-0 9. Kh1 h6 10. Nh2 d5 11. f4 de4 12. fe5 Ne5 13. Na4 Bb6 14. Nb6 ab6 15. d4 Nc6 16. Rf6 gf6 17. Bh6 Rfd8 18. Qe1 Ne7 19. Qh4

19...Ng6 20. Qf6 Qd4 21. Qf1 Bb3 22. cb3 Ra5 23. Ng4 f5 24. Be3 Qd3 25. Nh6 Kh7 26. Qc1 Rd7 27. Bg5 Qg3 28. Qe3 Qe3 29. Be3 f4 30. Ng4 fe3 31. Nf6 Kg7 32. Nd7 Rd5 33. Re1 Rd7 34. Re3 Rd4 35. Kh2 Nh4 36. g4 Kf6 37. a4 Kg5 38. Kg3 Rd2 0-1

235

de Riviere - Morphy
Paris, 1858
Evans Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Bc5 6. 0-0 d6 7. d4 ed4 8. cd4 Bb6 9. Bb2 Nf6 10. Nbd2 0-0 11. h3 d5 12. ed5 Nd5 13. Ne4 Bf5 14. Ng3 Bg6 15. Ne5 Nf6 16. Ng6 hg6 17. Ba3 Re8 18. Qb3 Qd7 19. Rad1 Na5 20. Qd3 Rad8 21. Bb2 Nc4 22. Qc4 Qd5 23. Qa4 c6 24. Rd3 c5 25. Rfd1 c4 26. Re3 Bc7 27. Nf1 a5 28. Re8 Re8 29. Ne3 Qd6 30. Qc4 Qh2 31. Kf1 Ne4 32. Bc1 Bf4 33. Qc2 Be3 34. Be3 Qh1 35. Ke2 Qg2 36. Kd3 Qf3 37. Re1 Qf5 38. Ke2 Qh5 39. Kd3 Qb5 40. Qc4 Nf2 41. Bf2 Qf5 42. Kd2 Qf2 43. Re2 Re2 44. Qe2 Qd4 0-1

236

Morphy - de Riviere
Paris, 1858
Evans Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Bc5 6. 0-0 d6 7. d4 ed4 8. cd4 Bb6 9. Nc3 Nf6 10. e5 d5 11. ef6 dc4 12. fg7 Rg8 13. Re1 Be6 14. d5 Qf6 15. Bg5 Qc3 16. de6 Qd3 17. ef7 Kf7 18. Re7 Kg6 19. Qe1 Qd5 20. Rd1 Nd4 21. Rd4 Bd4 22. Qb1 1-0

237

de Riviere - Morphy
Paris, 1858
Evans Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Bc5 6. 0-0 d6 7. d4 ed4 8. cd4 Bb6 9. d5 Na5 10. Bd3 Ne7 11. Bb2 0-0 12. Nbd2 Ng6 13. Nd4 Qf6 14. N2f3 Bg4 15. Qc2 Bf3 16. Nf3 Ne5 17. Kh1 Qe7 18. Ne5 de5 19. f4 f6 20. Qc3 Bd4 21. Qa5 Bb2 22. Rab1 b6 23. Qd2 Bd4 24. f5 a6 25. Bc4 Qd6 26. a4 Rfb8 27. Rb3 Kf8 28. Qe2 b5 29. ab5 a5 30. Rg3 a4 31. Qh5 h6 32. Qg6 Qe7 33. d6 cd6 34. Qh6 Qf7

35. Qh8 Ke7 36. Rg7 Rh8 37. Rf7 Ke8 38. Rf6 a3 39. Ba2 Rc8 40. b6 Kd7 41. b7 Rc2 42. Be6 Kc7 43. Rb1 Kb8 44. Bb3 Rb2 45. Rb2 ab2 46. Ba2 Kb7 47. Rd6 Ra8 0-1

238

Morphy - Baucher
Paris, 1858
Philidor
Morphy blindfolded

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 ed4 4. Qd4 Nc6 5. Bb5 Bd7 6. Bc6 Bc6 7. Bg5 f6 8. Bh4 Nh6 9. Nc3 Be7 10. 0-0 0-0 11. Qc4 Kh8 12. Nd4 Qd7 13. Rad1 Rf7 14. f4 a5 15. f5 Rff8 16. Ne6 Rg8 17. a4 Ng4 18. Qe2 Ne5 19. Bg3 Qc8 20. Be5 de5 21. Rf3 Bd7 22. Rh3 h6 23. Qd2 Kh7 24. Qd7 Bd6 25. Rh6 Kh6 26. Rd3 Kh5 27. Qf7 1-0

239

Morphy - Bierwirth
Paris, 1858
French
Morphy blindfolded

1. e4 e6 2. d4 c6 3. Bd3 d5 4. ed5 ed5 5. Nf3 Bg4 6. 0-0 Bd6 7. h3 Bh5 8. Be3 Nd7 9. Re1 Ne7 10. Nbd2 Bf3 11. Nf3 h6 12. Qd2 Qc7 13. c4 dc4 14. Bc4 f5 15. Ne5 0-0-0 16. Be6 Be5 17. de5 Kb8 18. Qc3 Nb6 19. Qa3 Nbc8 20. Rac1 g5 21. f4 gf4 22. Bf4 Rd4 23. Qe3 Re4 24. Qf3 Qb6 25. Kh2 Re1 26. Re1 Qb4 27. Re2 Ng6 28. Bd2 Qb5 29. Bc8 Rc8 30. Bh6 Rh8 31. Bg7 Rh7 32. Bf6 Rf7 33. Qh5 Nf4 34. Qf7 1-0

240

Morphy - Bornemann
Paris, 1858
King’s Gambit Declined
Morphy blindfolded

1. e4 e5 2. f4 Bc5 3. Nf3 d6 4. c3 Bg4 5. Bc4 Nf6 6. fe5 Bf3 7. Qf3 de5 8. d3 Nc6 9. Bg5 a6 10. Nd2 Be7 11. 0-0-0 Qd7 12. Nf1 0-0-0 13. Ne3 h6 14. Bh4 g5 15. Bg3 Rdf8 16. Nd5 Ne8 17. d4 ed4 18. cd4 Bd8 19. Rhf1 Nd6 20. Bb3 Nb5 21. Qe3 f5 22. ef5 Rf5 23. Nb6 cb6 24. Be6 Rd5 25. Rf7 Ne7 26. Kb1 Re8 27. Rc1 Nc7 28. Bd7 Rd7 29. d5 Nc6 30. dc6 Re3 31. cd7 Kb8 32. Rc7 1-0

241

Morphy - Guibert
Paris, 1858
Center Counter
Morphy blindfolded

1. c4 d5 2. ed5 Qd5 3. Nc3 Qd8 4. d4 e6 5. Nf3 Bd6 6. Bd3 Ne7 7. 0-0 h6 8. Be3 c6 9. Ne5 Nd7 10. f4 Nf6 11. Ne4 Nf5 12. Bf2 Bc7 13. c3 Nd5 14. Qf3 Qe7 15. Rae1 Be5 16. de5 h5 17. Bc5 Qd8 18. Nd6 Nd6 19. Bd6 g6 20. Qg3 Ne7 21. Rd1 Bd7 22. Rd2 h4 23. Qg4 Nf5 24. Bf5 ef5 25. Qf3 Qb6 26. Kh1 0-0-0 27. c4 h3 28. g3 Be6 29. Qc3 Rd7 30. Rfd1 c5 31. Kg1 Rhd8 32. Qa3 a6 33. Bc5 Qc6 34. Bd6 f6 35. Rd5 Bd5 36. Rd5 Rd6 37. ed6 Kb8 38. Qd3 Rd6 39. Qd2 Rd5 40. cd5 Qc5 41. Kf1 Qc4

42. Kf2 Qc5 draw

242

Morphy - Preti
Paris, 1858
Sicilian
Morphy blindfolded

1. e4 c5 2. d4 cd4 3. Nf3 e5 4. Bc4 Bb4 5. c3 dc3 6. bc3 Bc5 7. Ne5 Qf6 8. Bf7 Kf8 9. Nd3 Bb6 10. Bb3 d6 11. Ba3 Nc6 12. 0-0 Nh6 13. e5 Qg6 14. Nf4 Qg4 15. Ne6 Be6 16. Qd6 Kf7 17. Qd7 Kg6 18. Be6 Qg5 19. Bd5 Ne5 20. Be4 Nf5 21. Qe6 Qf6 22. Bf5 Kh5 23. g4 Ng4 24. Bg4 1-0

243

Morphy - Potier
Paris, 1858
Boden Kieseritsky Gambit
Morphy blindfolded

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bc4 Ne4 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. Ne5 d5 6. Bb3 Be7 7. d4 c6 8. 0-0 Nbd7 9. f4 Nb6 10. Qf3 h5 11. f5 Qc7 12. Bf4 Bd6 13. Rae1 Kf8 14. Qg3 h4 15. Ng6 Kg8 16. Bd6 hg3 17. Bc7 fg6 18. fg6 gh2 19. Kh1 Bg4 20. Re7 Nbd7 21. Be5 Kf8 22. Rf7 Kg8

23. Nd5 cd5 24. Bd5 Nb6 25. Bb3 1-0

244

Morphy - Lequesne
Paris, 1858
Queen Fianchetto Defense
Morphy blindfolded

1. e4 b6 2. d4 Bb7 3. Bd3 e6 4. Nh3 Ne7 5. 0-0 d5 6. e5 Nec6 7. c3 Be7 8. f4 g6 9. g4 h5

10. gh5 Rh5 11. Qg4 Rh4 12. Qg3 Kd7 13. Nd2 Qh8 14. Ng5 Nd8 15. Ndf3 Bg5 16. fg5 Rh3 17. Qg2 Nbc6 18. Bd2 Ne7 19. Rac1 Rc8 20. b4 a6 21. a4 Qh5 22. Ne1 Nf5 23. Rf3 Rh4 24. Rf4 Rf4 25. Bf4 c5 26. bc5 bc5 27. Rb1 c4 28. Bf5 gf5 29. Nc2 Bc6 30. a5 Qh4 31. Qg3 Qh5 32. Qg2 Qh4 draw

245

Morphy - Seguin
Paris, 1858
Philidor
Morphy blindfolded

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 ed4 4. Nd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Be7 6. Bd3 0-0 7. f4 c5 8. Nf3 Nc6 9. 0-0 Bg4 10. Be3 a6 11. a4 h6 12. h3 Bf3 13. Qf3 Nb4 14. Rad1 Qc7 15. b3 Nd3 16. cd3 Rfe8 17. d4 Qc6 18. dc5 dc5 19. e5 Qf3 20. Rf3 Nh7 21. Rd7 Rab8 22. Nd5 Bf8 23. Bf2 Red8 24. Nb6 Rd7 25. Nd7 Rc8 26. Rc3 Rc7 27. Nf8 Nf8 28. Rc5 Rc5 29. Bc5

29...Ne6 30. Be3 g6 31. g4 Nd8 32. Kf2 Nc6 33. Ke2 b5 34. ab5 ab5 35. Kd3 Kf8 36. Bc5 Ke8 37. Ke4 Kd7 38. Kd5 Nd8 39. f5 gf5 40. gf5 h5 41. Bb6 Nb7 42. e6 fe6 43. fe6 Ke7 44. Kc6 Nd8 45. Bd8 Kd8 46. Kd6 Ke8 47. e7 1-0

246

Devinck - Morphy
Paris, 1858
Remove Blacks King Bishop Pawn

1. e4 e6 2. d4 c5 3. d5 d6 4. c4 g6 5. Nc3 Bg7 6. Bd3 Na6 7. a3 Nh6 8. Nge2 0-0 9. 0-0 ed5 10. ed5 Ng4 11. h3 Ne5 12. f4 Nd3 13. Qd3 Bf5 14. Qf3 Qb6 15. g4 Bc2 16. Nb5 Rae8 17. Be3 Bd3 18. b3 Be2 19. Qe2 Bd4 20. Rf3 Ba1 21. Qd3 Nc7 22. f5 Nb5 23. cb5 Re3 0-1

247

Devinck - Morphy
Paris, 1858
Remove Black’s King Bishop Pawn

1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Bd3 e5 4. de5 de5 5. Bg5 Bc5 6. Nf3 h6 7. Bh4 Bg4 8. 0-0 Nbd7 9. Nbd2 g5 10. Bg3 h5 11. Qe1 Qe7 12. h4 Nh7 13. c3 0-0-0 14. b4 Bb6 15. a4 a6 16. Qb1 Rhf8 17. a5 Ba7 18. b5 Bf3 19. Nf3 Rf3 20. gf3 gh4 21. b6 cb6 22. ab6 Bb6 23. Ra6 ba6 24. Ba6 Kc7 25. Qb5 hg3 0-1

248

LaRoche - Morphy
Paris,1859
French

1. f4 e6 2. e4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. c4 d4 6. d3 Nh6 7. Be2 Be7 8. Nbd2 0-0 9. Ne4 f5 10. Neg5 Nf7 11. Nf7 Rf7 12. 0-0 b6 13. Bd2 Bb7 14. h3 h6 15. Nh2 g5 16. Bf3 Rg7 17. a3 Qc7 18. Qe2 gf4 19. Bf4 Bg5 20. Bg5 Rg5 21. Rae1 Kh7 22. Kh1 Rag8 23. Rf2 Ne7 24. Bb7 Qb7 25. Qf3 Qc7 26. g4? Ng6 27. Qe2 Nh4 28. Nf3 Qb7 29. Kh2 Nf3 30. Qf3 Qf3 31. Rf3 fg4 32. Rf6 Rh5 33. Re6 Rh3 34. Kg2 Rd3 35. Rf1 g3 36. Rff6 Rd2 37. Kg1 Rh22 38. Rf7 Rg7 39. Rg7 Kg7 40. Rf6 Re2 41. Rf3 Re3 42. Rf1 d3 43. Kg2 d2 44. Rd1 Rd3 45. Kf1 Kf7 46. Ke2 Rd4 47. Kf3 Ke6 48. Kg3 Ke5 49. Kf3 Rd3 0-1

249

Budzinsky - Morphy
Paris, 1859
King’s Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Bc4 d5 4. Bd5 Nf6 5. Nc3 Bb4 6. d3 Nd5 7. ed5 0-0 8. Qf3 Re8 9. Nge2 Bc3 10. bc3 Qh4 11. g3 Bg4 0-1

250

Morphy - Budzinsky
Paris,1859
Petroff

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Ne5 d6 4. Nf3 Ne4 5. d4 d5 6. Bd3 Be7 7. 0-0 Nc6 8. c4 Be6 9. Qb3 Na5 10. Qa4 c6 11. Re1 f5 12. cd5 Bd5 13. Bd2 Nd2 14. Nbd2 b5 15. Qc2 g6

16. Re7 Ke7 17. Re1 Kf7 18. Bf5 gf5 19. Qf5 Qf6 20. Ne5 Kg7 21. Qg4 Kh6 22. Re3 Bg2 23. Kg2 Rhg8 24. Rh3 1-0

251

Morphy - de Riviere
Paris, 1859
Evans Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Bc5 6. 0-0 d6 7. d4 ed4 8. cd4 Bb6 9. d5 Nce7 10. e5 Ng6 11. e6 fe6 12. de6 N8e7 13. Ng5 0-0 14. Qh5 h6 15. Nf7 Rf7 16. ef7 Kh7 17. Bd3 Be6 18. Bg5 Bf7 19. Re1 Kg8 20. Be7 Ne7 21. Qg4 Qf8 22. Nc3 Bf2 23. Kh1 Be1 24. Re1 d5 25. Rf1 Rd8 26. Nb5 c5 27. Qg3 c4 28. Bc2 Nc6 29. Bg6 Rd7 30. Bf5 Re7 31. Nd6 Qb8 32. Bc8 Nd8 33. Bf5 b5 34. Bg6

34...Bg6 35. Nf5 Qg3 36. Ne7 Kh7 37. hg3 d4 38. Ng6 Kg6 39. a3 a5 40. Kg1 Nc6 41. Rf8 c3 42. Rc8 Ne5 43. Kf2 Nc4 44. Ke2 c2 0-1

252

Morphy - de Riviere
Paris, 1859
Evans Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Bc5 6. 0-0 d6 7. d4 ed4 8. cd4 Bb6 9. d5 Nce7 10. e5 de5 11. Ne5 Nf6 12. Bb5 c6 13. dc6 0-0 14. Ba3 Bf2 15. Kh1 Qb6 16. Be7 Qb5 17. Nf3 Ne4 18. Nbd2 Bc5 19. Bf8 Nd2 20. Qd2 Bf8 21. Qd8 bc6 22. Ng5 Bh3 23. Qd2 Bf5 24. a4 Qd3 25. Qa2 Bg6 26. Nf7 Qd5 27. Ne5 Be4 28. Rfe1 Qa2 29. Ra2 1-0

253

de Riviere - Morphy
Paris, 1859
Ruy Lopez

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Bc5 6. d3 h6 7. Be3 Be3 8. fe3 d6 9. 0-0 0-0 10. Bc6 bc6 11. Qe1 Be6 12. Nh4 g6 13. Rd1 Qe7 14. d4 Rae8 15. h3 Bc4 16. Rf3 ed4 17. Rd4 Bb5 18. a4 c5 19. Rd2 Bc6 20. Nd5 Bd5 21. ed5 Ne4 22. Re2 Qe5 23. c4 Rb8 24. Rf4 Rfe8 25. Nf3 Qg7 26. Nd2 Nd2 27. Qd2 Rb3 28. Qa5 f5 29. Qa6 Rb2 30. Rb2 Qb2 31. Qc6 Re3 32. Qc7 Re 1 33. Kh2 Qe5 34. Qd8 Kf7 35. Qd7 Kf6 36. Qd8 Qe7 37. Qh8 Qg7 38. Qd8 draw

254

Morphy - Schrufer
Paris, 1859
Two Knights

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d4 ed4 5. 0-0 Ne4 6. Re1 d5 7. Bd5 Qd5 8. Nc3 Qh5 9. Ne4 Be6 10. Neg5 Bb4 11. Re6 fe6 12. Ne6 Qf7 13. Nfg5 Qe7 14. Qe2 Bd6 15. Ng7 Kd7 16. Qg4 Kd8 17. Nf7 Qf7 18. Bg5 Be7 19. Ne6 Kc8 20. Nc5 Kb8 21. Nd7 Kc8 22. Nb6 Kb8 23. Qc8 Rc8 24. Nd7 1-0

255

Devinck - Morphy
Paris, 1859
Remove Black’s King Bishop Pawn

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. ed5 ed5 4. c4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Bb4 6. Bd3 Nc6 7. a3 Bc3 8. bc3 0-0 9. Ne2 Be6 10. cd5 Bd5 11. 0-0 Na5 12. h3 a6 13. Ng3 g6 14. Bg5 Qd7 15. Qc2 b5 16. Rab1 Nc4 17. Bc4 Bc4 18. Rfe1 Rae8 19. Rc5 Rc5 20. de5 Nd5 21. Re1 Qe6 22. Qd2 Re8 23. Qd4 Kh8 24. Ne4 Kg8 25. Nf6 Nf6 26. Bf6 Bd5 27. Qh4 a5 28. Qh6 Qf7 29. Re3 c5 30. Rg3 Be4 31. h4 Rb8 32. h5 b4 33. cb4 cb4 34. ab4 ab4 35. hg6 Bg6 36. Qd2 b3 37. Qb2 Qc4 38. Rc3 Qc3 39. Qc3 b2 40. Qc4 Bf7 41. Qg4 Bg6 42. Qe6 Bf7 draw

256

Morphy - LaRoche
Paris, 1859
Evans Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. d4 Nf6 7. de5 Ng4 8. Bg5 f6 9. ef6 Nf6 10. e5 h6 11. ef6 hg5 12. fg7 Qe7 13. Qe2 1-0

257

Morphy - Bousserolles
Paris, 1859
Scotch
Morphy blindfolded

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 h6 4. d4 ed4 5. c3 Nge7 6. Qb3 d5 7. ed5 Nb8 8. d6 Qd6 9. Bf7 Kd8 10. cd4 Nbc6 11. Nc3 Na5 12. Qa4 Nac6 13. 0-0 Bd7 14. Be3 Qf6 15. Bc4 Kc8 16. Rfe1 Nd8 17. Qb3 a6 18. Ne5 b5 19. Bd5 c6 20. Ne4 Qh4 21. g3 Qh5 22. Nd6 Kc7 23. Bf3 Qh3 24. Rac1 Kd6 25. Bf4 Be6 26. Nd3 Kd7 27. Re6 Ne6 28. Bg4 Qg4 29. Ne5 Ke8 30. Ng4 Nd4 31. Qe3 1-0

258

Morphy - Journoud
Paris, 1859
Evans Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 d5 5. ed5 Nb4 6. c3 Nd5 7. Qb3 c6 8. 0-0 e4 9. Re1 f5 10. d3 Ngf6 11. Bg5 Qd6 12. Bf6 Nf6 13. Nbd2 b5 14. Bf7 Kf8 15. de4 fe4 16. Ne4 Ne4 17. Re4 Bf5 18. Rd1 Qf6 19. Ne5 Bf2

20. Kh1 Rd8 21. Nd7 Bd7 22. Rd7 Rc8 23. Bh5 g6 24. Ree7 Qe7 25. Re7 Ke7 26. Bg4 Rcd8 27. Qb4 c5 28. Qe4 Kd6 29. Qf4 Kc6 30. Qf2 Rhf8 31. Bf3 Kb6 32. h3 Rd1 33. Kh2 1-0

259

Morphy - Delannoy
Paris, 1859
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e6 2. f4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. c3 Qb6 6. Bd3 d4 7. Qe2 Nh6 8. b3 Be7 9. Bb2 Bd7 10. g4 0-0 11. h3 Qd8 12. 0-0-0 Kh8 13. Bc2 Nb8 14. cd4 Bc6 15. f5 ef5 16. gf5 cd4 17. f6 d3 18. fg7 Kg7 19. Rhg1 Kh8 20. Bd3 Bf3 21. Qf3 Qc8 22. Kb1 Qe6 23. Qe4 Nf5 24. Bc4 Qc8 25. Bf7 Rf7 26. e6 Rf6 27. Qf5 Qf8 28. Rdf1 Nc6 29. Qf6 Bf6 30. Rf6 Qg7 31. Rf8 Rf8 32. Bg7 Kg8 33. Bf6# 1-0

260

Ehrmann - Morphy
Paris, 1859
Remove Black’s King Bishop Pawn;
White moves twice to begin the game

1. e4 ... 2. d4 e6 3. Bd3 c5 4. dc5 Qa5 5. c3 Qc5 6. Ne2 Nc6 7. Be3 Qh5 8. f4 Nf6 9. Ng3 Qh4 10. Qe2 Ng4 11. Bf2 Nf2 12. Qf2 Bd6 13. e5 Bc7 14. Ne4 Qe7 15. Nbd2 0-0 16. Qg3 d5 17. Ng5 h6 18. Ngf3 Qf7 19. 0-0 Bd7 20. Nh4 Ne7 21. Bc2 Nf5 22. Nf5 ef5 23. Rae1 b5 24. Kh1 Bb6 25. Qd3 a6 26. Bb3 Be6 27. Nf3 Rfb8 28. Nh4 Bd8 29. Nf3 Bb6 30. Bc2 g6 31. Re2 d4 32. b3 dc3 33. Nh4 b4 34. g4 Rd8 35. Qg3 Kh7 36. gf5 gf5 37. Qh3 Rf8 38. Rg2 Rad8 39. Nf3 Rg8 40. Ng5 Rg5 41. fg5 Qf8 42. gh6 Rd2 43. Rd2 cd2 44. Qg2 Qh6 45. Qb7 Qg7 46. Qg7 Kg7 47. Kg2 Bd4 48. Rd1 Bd5 49. Kh3 Be3 50. Bf5 Bf3 51. Bg4 Bd1 52. Bd1 Bf4 53. e6 Kf6 54. Bg4 d1(Q) 55. Bd1 Ke6 56. Kg2 Ke5 draw

261

Delannoy - Morphy
Paris, 1859

Only the final moves of this game are known.

Black to Play

1...Rfe8 2. Bc7 Rf2 3. Kf2 Re2 4. Ke2 Qg2 5. Ke1 Qg1 6. Ke2 Bh5 7. Kd2 Qf2# 0-1

Games Played During Morphy’s Return Stopover in England

262

Lowenthal - Morphy
London,1859
Ruy Lopez

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. 0-0 b5 6. Bb3 Bc5 7. c3 d6 8. d4 ed4 9. cd4 Bb6 10. Bg5 Bb7 11. Nc3 Ne7 12. Re1 h6 13. Bh4 g5 14. Bg3 Kf8 15. Qd3 c5 16. e5 de5 17. Be5 Kg7 18. Ne4 Be4 19. Qe4 Ng6 20. Qb7 Ra7 21. Qc6 c4 22. Bc2 Bc7 23. Rad1 Qe7 24. Bg6 Kg6 25. d5 Be5 26. Ne5 Kg7 27. Ng6 Qd8 28. Nh8 Kh8 29. d6 Kg7 30. a4 Rd7 31. ab5 ab5 32. Qb5 Rd6 33. Rd6 Qd6 34. Qc4 h5 35. h3 Nd7 36. Re3 Ne5 37. Re5 Qe5 38. Qc3 1-0

263

Morphy - Lowenthal
London,1859
Evans Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Bc5 6. 0-0 d6 7. d4 ed4 8. cd4 Bb6 9. d5 Nce7 10. e5 Ng6 11. e6 fe6 12. de6 N8e7 13. Ng5 0-0 14. Qh5 h6 15. Nf7 Qe8 16. Bb2 d5 17. Bg7 Rf7 18. ef7 Qf7 19. Bb2 dc4 20. Nd2 Bf5 21. Rae1 Rd8 22. Nf3 Bd3 23. Qh6 Qh7 24. Qg5 Rd5 25. Re7 Rg5 26. Rh7 Rg2 27. Kg2 Bf1 28. Kf1 Kh7 29. Nd2 Bc5 30. Nc4 b5 31. Ne5 Ne5 32. Be5 Bd6 33. Bd4 c5 34. Be3 a5 35. Ke2 a4 36. Kd3 a3 37. Bc1 Kg6 38. Ke4 c4 39. f4 b4 40. Ba3 ba3 41. Kd4 Bf4 42. Kc4 Bh2 43. Kb3 Bd6 44. Kc2 draw

264

Morphy - Lowenthal
London, 1859
Evans Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Bc5 6. 0-0 d6 7. d4 ed4 8 . cd4 Bb6 9. d5 Ne5 10. Ne5 de5 11. Bb2 Qe7 12. Bb5 Bd7 13. Bd7 Kd7 14. Qg4 f5 15. Qf5 Ke8 16. Be5 Nh6 17. Qf4 Kd7 18. Nd2 Rae8 19. Nc4 Bc5 20. Rad1 Bd6 21. Bd6 cd6 22. Rb1 b6 23. Rfc1 Qf6 24. Qe3 Ng4 25. Nb6 ab6 26. Rc7 Kd8 27. Qb6 Qf2 28. Qf2 Nf2 29. Ra7 Nh3 30. gh3 Kc8 31. Kf2 1-0

265

Morphy - Mongredian
London,1859
Benoni
Morphy blindfolded

1. e4 c5 2. d4 Nc6 3. d5 Nb8 4. f4 d6 5. Nf3 e6 6. c4 Be7 7. Nc3 Bd7 8. Bd3 f5 9. de6 Be6 10. ef5 Bd7 11. Ng5 Nf6 12. 0-0 Nc6 13. Ne6 Be6 14. fe6 Nd4 15. f5 h5 16. Be3 Nc6 17. Nd5 Ne5 18. Bf4 Nc6 19. Be2 h4 20. Nf6 Bf6 21. Qd6 Qd6 22. Bd6 Bb2 23. Rab1 Bd4 24. Kh1 b6 25. Bf3 Rc8 26. Rfd1 Rh6 27. Bf4 Rh8 28. Rd3 Na5 29. Rc1 Unfinished

266

Morphy - Jones
London,1859
King’s Gambit
Morphy blindfolded

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 g4 5. d4 Qe7 6. 0-0 gf3 7. Nc3 c6 8. Qf3 Bg7 9. Bf4 Bd4 10. Kh1 Bg7 11. e5 Bh6 12. Ne4 d5 13. ed6 Qf8 14. Rae1 Be6 15. Be6 fe6 16. Qh5 Kd7 17. Nc5 Kc8 18. Bh6 Nf6 19. Qe5 Nbd7 20. Nd7 Qh6 21. Rf6 Qh4 22. Nc5 1-0

267

Morphy - Walker
London, 1859
French
Morphy blindfolded

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. ed5 ed5 4. Nf3 Bd6 5. Bd3 Nf6 6. 0-0 0-0 7. Nc3 Bg4 8. h3 Be6 9. Be3 Nc6 10. Qd2 Qd7 11. Bf4 Rfe8 12. Rae1 Rad8 13. Ne5 Qc8 14. Bb5 Be5 15. Be5 Ne5 16. de5 Ne4 17. Ne4 de4 18. Qf4 c6 19. Be2 Bf5 20. Bc4 Re7 21. g4 Bg6 22. h4 h6 23. h5 Bh7 24. g5 hg5 25. Qg5 Qf5 26. Qe7 Qg4 draw

268

Morphy - Maude
London, 1859
Two Knights
Morphy blindfolded

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. ed5 Na5 6. d3 e4 7. Qe2 Qe7 8. Ne4 Ne4 9. de4 Qb4 10. Nd2 Nc4 11. Qc4 Qb6 12. 0-0 Bd7 13. a4 c6 14. Nf3 Bd6 15. Be3 Qc7 16. Qd4 f6 17. c4 c5 18. Qd3 Bg4 19. Nd2 Bh2 20. Kh1 Bf4 21. g3 Be3 22. Qe3 Kd7 23. f4 b6 24. e5 f5 25. Nf3 Bf3 26. Qf3 h5 27. Rad1 Qd8 28. d6 Rb8 29. Rfe1 Rh6 30. e6 Re6 31. Re6 Ke6 32. Qd5 Kf6 33. Re1 g6 34. Re7 1-0

269

Morphy - Greenaway
London,1859
Evans Gambit
Morphy blindfolded

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. d4 ed4 7. 0-0 Nf6 8. Ba3 d6 9. e5 d5 10. Bb5 Ne4 11. cd4 Bd7 12. Qb3 a6 13. Bd3 Bc8 14. Rc1 Bb6 15. Rc6

15...bc6 16. Qc2 Bb7 17. Nbd2 Nd2 18. Qd2 h6 19. Re1 Bc8 20. Qc3 Rb8 21. Qc6 Qd7 22. Qc2 Qe6 23. Nh4 g6 24. Qc3 Kd8 25. Rc1 Re8 26. Nf3 Bb7 27. h3 Rc8 28. Qd2 Rh8 draw

270

Morphy - Medley
London, 1859
Scotch
Morphy blindfolded

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 ed4 4. Bc4 Bc5 5. 0-0 d6 6. c3 d3 7. b4 Bb6 8. a4 a5 9. b5 Ne5 10. Ne5 de5 11. Nd2 Nf6 12. Qb3 Be6 13. Be6 fe6 14. Ba3 Qd7 15. Nf3 0-0-0 16. Ne5 Qe8 17. Qc4 d2 18. Rad1 Qh5 19. Nf3 Qg4 20. Nd2 Nh5 21. e5 Nf4 22. g3 Rd2 23. Qf4 Qf4 24. gf4 Bf2 25. Kg2 Rd1 26. Rd1 Bh4 27. Kh3 Bd8 draw

271

Morphy - Slous
London,1859
Philidor
Morphy blindfolded

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 ed4 4. Nd4 Be7 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. Bd3 a6 7. a4 c5 8. Nde2 Nc6 9. f4 h5 10. 0-0 Be6 11. b3 g6 12. f5 gf5 13. ef5 Bd7 14. Nf4 Ne5 15. Ncd5 Nd5 16. Nd5 Bc6 17. Be4 Bf6 18. Bb2 Bd5 19. Bd5 Qc7 20. Be5 Be5 21. Rb1 0-0-0 22. b4 cb4 23. Rb3 Qc5 24. Kh1 Bc3 25. Rf3 Rd7 26. Rf1 Re8 27. Rb1 Rde7 28. Qd3 Re5 29. Bf3 Re3 30. Qd5 R8e7 draw

272

Morphy - Jansen
London,1859
King’s Gambit Declined
Morphy blindfolded

1. e4 e5 2. f4 c6 3. Nc3 d6 4. Nf3 Be7 5. Bc4 ef4 6. d4 Nf6 7. Bf4 0-0 8. 0-0 Bg4 9. Bd3 Nbd7 10. Qd2 Bh5 11. Rae1 Bg6 12. e5 de5 13. de5 Ne8 14. Ne4 Nc5 15. Nc5 Bc5 16. Kh1 Nc7 17. Ng5 Qe8 18. e6 Ne6 19. Bg6 hg6 20. Qc3 Be7 21. Ne6 fe6 22. Qb3 Rf6 23. Re6 Re6 24. Qe6 Qf7 25. Qf7 Kf7 26. g4 Kg8 27. Re1 Kf7 draw

273

Morphy - Cremorne
London,1859
King’s Gambit Declined
Morphy blindfolded

1. e4 e5 2. f4 Bc5 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. Bc4 Bb6 7. d4 ed4 8. cd4 d6 9. Bb2 f6 10. f5 Qe7 11. 0-0 Bd7 12. Nc3 0-0-0 13. Re1 Qe8 14. Nd5 g6 15. Nb6 ab6 16. Qa4 Na5 17. Qa3 c6 18. Bd3 Qf8 19. Bc3 Kc7 20. Ba5 Re8 21. Bb6 Kb6 22. Rab1 Kc7 23. Qb3 Rb8 24. Qb6 Kc8 25. Ba6 Ne7 26. e5 de5 27. Bb7 Rb7 28. Qb7 Kd8 29. de5 1-0

274

Morphy - Kennedy
London, 1859
Evans Gambit
Morphy blindfolded

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Bc5 6. 0-0 d6 7. d4 ed4 8. cd4 Bb6 9. d5 Nce7 10. e5 Ng6 11. e6 fe6 12. de6 N8e7 13. Nc3 c6 14. Ng5 Ne5 15. Bf4 g6 16. Nf7 0-0 17. Be5 Rf7 18. ef7 Kf8 19. Bd6 Bg4 20. Qd2 g5 21. Rae1 1-0

275

Morphy - Catley
London,1859
Ruy Lopez
Morphy blindfolded

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. 0-0 Be7 6. Nc3 d6 7. d4 b5 8. Bb3 Bg4 9. d5 Nd4 10. Be3 Nb3 11. ab3 0-0 12. h3 Bh5 13. b4 Qd7 14. Kh2 c6 15. dc6 Qc6 16. Bg5 Rfe8 17. Bf6 Bf6 18. g4 Bg6 19. Qd3 Be7 20. Rfd1 Rec8 21. Ra3 Qc4 22. Rda1 d5 23. Nd5 Bb4 24. Qc4 Rc4 25. Ra6 Ra6 26. Ra6 h6 27. c3 Bc5 28. Ne5 Re4 29. Nd7 Ra4 30. Nc5 Ra6 31. Na6 1-0

276

Morphy - Hay
London, 1859
Falkbeer Counter Gambit
Morphy blindfolded

1. e4 e5 2. f4 d5 3. ed5 e4 4. Nc3 f5 5. Bc4 Nf6 6. Nge2 Bd6 7. d4 0-0 8. Be3 Kh8 9. 0-0 c6 10. dc6 Nc6 11. a3 a6 12. Qd2 Ne7 13. Ba2 b5 14. Nd1 Ng6 15. b3 a5 16. c4 bc4 17. bc4 Ba3 18. d5 Qd6 19. Nd4 Bc5 20. Nb5 Qb6 21. Bc5 Qc5 22. Qd4 Qd4 23. Nd4 Rd8 24. Ne3 Ne7 25. Rfd1 Ra6 26. Rab1 g6 27. c5 Nfd5 28. Nd5 Nd5 29. Nb5 Rc6 30. Rd5 Rd5 31. Bd5 Rc5 32. Ba2 draw

277

Morphy - Worrall
London,1859
Philidor
Morphy blindfolded

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 f5 4. d4 d6 5. de5 de5 6. Qd8 Kd8 7. Bg5 Nf6 8. Nc3 Bb4 9. 0-0-0 Bd6 10. Rhe1 h6 11. Bf6 gf6 12. Nb5 Ke7 13. Nh4 Rd8 14. ef5 Ke8 15. Re3 Rd7 16. Rg3 Ne7 17. Be6 e4 18. Bd7 Bd7 19. Rd6 Bb5 20. Rf6 1-0

278

Morphy - Cunningham
London, 1859
Bishop’s Opening
Morphy blindfolded

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Bc5 3. c3 Nc6 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. d4 ed4 6. e5 Qe7 7. 0-0 Ng8 8. cd4 Bb6 9. d5 Qc5 10. Na3 Nd4 11. Be3 Nf3 12. Qf3 Qf8 13. Bb6 ab6 14. Nb5 Kd8 15. Rac1 d6 16. ed6 cd6 17. Qe3 Ra6 18. Nc7 Qe7 19. Ne6 fe6 20. Ba6 Bd7 21. Bb5 Ke8 22. de6 Nf6 23. Rc8 1-0

279

Morphy - Thrupp
London, 1859
King’s Gambit Declined
Morphy blindfolded

1. e4 e5 2. f4 c5 3. Nf3 d6 4. Bc4 Qf6 5. Nc3 Be6 6. Bb5 Nc6 7. f5 Bd7 8. 0-0 Qd8 9. d3 Bc7 10. g4 h6 11. Be3 Nd4 12. Bd7 Qd7 13. Nd5 Nf6 14. Nf6 Bf6 15. c3 Nc6 16. c4 g5 17. Nd2 b6 18. Nb1 Ne7 19. Nc3 a6 20. Rb1 Qc6 21. b4 Kd7 22. Nd5 Nd5 23. cd5 Qc7 24. bc5 bc5 25. Qa4 Ke7 26. Rb3 Rhb8 27. Rfb1 Rb3 28. Qb3 Kf8 29. Qb7 Qb7 30. Rb7 Be7 31. Kf1 draw

280

Morphy - Barnes
London,1859
Petroff
Morphy blindfolded

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Ne5 d6 4. Nf3 Ne4 5. d4 d5 6. Bd3 Bd6 7. 0-0 0-0 8. c4 Nf6 9. Bg5 Be6 10. Qb3 dc4 11. Bc4 Bc4 12. Qc4 Nc6 13. Nc3 h6 14. Bh4 g5 15. Bg3 Qd7 16. Ne5 Qe6 17. Qe6 fe6 18. Nc6 bc6 19. Rfe1 Rfe8 20. Rac1 Rab8 21. b3 Re7 22. Na4 Rb4 23. Be5 Be5 24. de5 Nd5 25. Rc6 Rd4 26. Rc2 Nb4 27. Rce2 Nd3 28. Rd2 Ra4 29. Rd3 Ra2 30. Rc1 Rf7 31. f3 draw

281

de Riviere - Morphy
London,1859
Two Knights

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. ed5 Na5 6. d3 h6 7. Nf3 e4 8. Qe2 Nc4 9. dc4 Bc5 10. h3 0-0 11. Nh2 Nh7 12. Nc3 f5 13. Be3 Bb4 14. Qd2 Bd7 15. g3 Qe7 16. a3 Bd6 17. Ne2 b5 18. cb5 Bb5 19. Nd4 Bc4 20. Ne6 Rfe8 21. Qd4 Ba6 22. c4 c5 23. Qc3 Bc8 24. Nf4 Rb8 25. Rb1 g5 26. Ne2 Nf8 27. h4 Ng6 28. hg5 hg5 29. Qc1 Ne5 30. Bg5 Nd3 31. Kf1 Qg7 32. Qd2 Nb2 33. Qc2 Ba6 34. Bc1 Nc4 35. Qa4 Nd2 36. Kg2 Nb1 37. Qa6 Rb6 38. Qa4 Reb8 39. Nf1 Be5 40. Ne3 f4 41. Nf4 Bf4 42. Nf5 Qf7 43. Bf4 Qf5 44. Bb8 Rb8 45. Qa7 Rf8 46. Qc5 Qf3 47. Kg1 Nc3 48. Rh4 Ne2 49. Kh2 Qf2 50. Qf2 Rf2 51. Kh3 Ng1 52. Kg4 e3 53. Kh5 e2 54. Re4 Rf1 0-1

282

Morphy - Barnes
London,1859
Boden Kieseritsky Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bc4 Ne4 4. Nc3 Nc3 5. dc3 f6 6. 0-0 Qe7 7. Nh4 d6 8. Qh5 Kd8 9. f4 Be6 10. Be6 Qe6 11. fe5 de5 12. Ng6 Bc5 13. Kh1 Re8 14. Qh7 Qg8 15. Qh5 Nd7 16. b4 Bd6 17. Bd2 Qf7 18. Qg4 Qe6 19. Qe4 Nb6 20. Qb7 Qg4 21. a4 Rc8 22. Rad1 Qg6 23. Be3 Nc4 24. Qc6 Qf7 25. Ba7 e4 26. Rd4 Qh5 27. Rf4 e3 28. g4 e2 29. gh5 el(Q) 30. Kg2 Re2 31. Kh3 f5 32. Qc4 Qf1 33. Kh4 Rh2 34. Kg5 Qg2 35. Rg4 fg4 36. Qf7 Qc6 37. b5 Qd7 38. Rd6 Qd6 0-1

283

Morphy - Boden
London,1859
Scotch

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 ed4 4. Bc4 Bc5 5. 0-0 d6 6. c3 Nf6 7. cd4 Bb6 8. Nc3 Bg4 9. Be3 0-0 10. Qd3 Qd7 11. Nd2 Ne7 12. Bb3 d5 13. e5 Ne8 14. h3 Bh5 15. f4 f5 16. Kh2 c6 17. Rg1 Kh8 18. Bc2 Bg6 19. Nf3 Nc7 20. b4 Ne6 21. Nd2 Ng8 22. Nb3 Nh6 23. Na4 Qe7 24. Nac5 Nc5 25. bc5 Ng4 26. Kh1 Qh4 27. Rgf1 Ne3 28. Qe3 Bc7 29. Nd2 Qe7 30. Nf3 Rab8 31. Rab1 b6 32. Ba4 b5 33. Bc2 a5 34. Rg1 Bd8 35. g4 Qe6 36. g5 Kg8 37. h4 h5 38. gh6 Rf7 39. Rg2 Bh5 40. Rbg1 Qh6 41. Ng5 Bg5 42. hg5 Qh8 43. Rh2 g6 44. Rg3 Rh7 45. Rgh3 Rbb7 46. Kg1 Bg4 47. Rh6 Rh6 48. Rh6 Rh7 49. Rg6 Kf7 50. Rh6 Rh6 51. gh6 Qh6 draw

284

Morphy - Bird
London,1859
King’s Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 Be7 4. Bc4 Bh4 5. g3 fg3 6. 0-0 gh2 7. Kh1 d5 8. Bd5 Nf6 9. Bf7 Kf7 10. Nh4 Re8 11. d3 Bh3 12. Qh5 Kg8 13. Rf6 gf6 14. Nc3 Re5 15. Qf3 Qd7 16. Bf4 Nc6 17. Kh2 Bg4 18. Rg1 h5 19. Be5 fe5 20. Nd5 Nd4 21. Nf6 Kh8 22. Qe3 Qg7 23. Nh5 Qh7 24. Rg4 Qh5 25. Qh3

25...Kh7 26. c3 Ne6 27. Rg6 Re8 28. Re6 Re6 29. Qe6 Qh4 30. Qh3 Qh3 31. Kh3 c5 32. Kg4 Kg6 33. Kf3 Kf6 34. Ke3 Ke6 35. d4 ed4 36. cd4 cd4 37. Kd4 Kd6 38. e5 Ke6 39. Ke4 Ke7 40. Kd5 Kd7 41. e6 Ke7 42. Ke5 a6 43. a3 Ke8 44. Kd6 Kd8 45. e7 Ke8 46. Kc7 1-0

285

Lowenthal - Morphy
London,1859
Ruy Lopez

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. 0-0 Be7 6. d4 ed4 7. e5 Ne4 8. Bc6 dc6 9. Qd4 Bf5 10. Nc3 Bc5 11. Qd8 Rd8 12. Nh4 Nc3 13. Nf5 Ne2 14. Kh1 g6 15. Ng3 Ng3 16. hg3 h6 17. Rb1 Ke7 18. b4 Bd4 19. f4 Ke6 20. Rb3 h5 21. Rd3 Bb6 22. Rfd1 Rd3 23. Rd3 Kf5 24. Bb2 Rh7 25. Bd4 h4 26. Bb6 hg3 27. Kg1 cb6 28. Rd7 Ke6 29. Rb7 Rh4 30. Rb6 Rf4 31. Rc6 Ke5 32. Rc5 Kd6 33. Rg5 Rb4 34. Rg3 Ra4 35. a3 Rc4 36. Rd3 Ke6 37. Rb3 Rc2 38. Rb6 Kf5 39. Ra6 g5 40. Rb6 Ra2 41. Rb3 g4 42. Rb5 Kf4 43. Rb3 f5 44. g3 Ke4 45. Kf1 Ke5 46. Kg1 f4 47. Rb4 draw

286

Morphy - Pindar
London,1859
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 d5 2. ed5 Qd5 3. c4 Qd8 4. d4 e5 5. Bd3 Bb4 6. Bd2 Bd2 7. Qd2 Nc6 8. Ne2 Nf6 9. d5 Nd4 10. Ng3 0-0 11. 0-0 Re8 12. Rae1 Qd6 13. f4 c5 14. fe5 Re5 15. Re5 Qe5 16. Re1 Qd6 17. Qg5 Bd7 18. Rf1 Re8 19. b4 b6 20. Qh4 h6 21. bc5 bc5 22. h3 Re3 23. Ne4 Ne4 24. Qd8 Qf8 25. Qd7 Rd3 26. Re1 Nf6 27. Qc7 Nf5 0-1

Games Played Upon Morphy’s Triumphant Return to America

287

Morphy - Julien
New York, 1859
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 ed4 4. Bc4 Nc6 5. c3 Ne5 6. Ne5 de5 7. Qb3 Qe7 8. f4 dc3 9. 0-0 c6 10. fe5 Be6 11. Be6 fe6 12. Bg5 Qg5 13. Qb7 Bc5 14. Kh1 Qe5 15. Qa8 Kd7 16. Qb7 Qc7 17. Rad1 Bd6 18. Rd6 Kd6 19. Rd1 1-0

288

Morphy - Perrin
New York, 1859
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 ed4 4. Bc4 Bc5 5. 0-0 d6 6. b4 Bb6 7. b5 Ne5 8. Ne5 de5 9. f4 d3 10. Kh1 Qd4 11. Bf7 Kf7 12. fe5 Ke8 13. Qf3 Ne7 14. Qf7 Kd8 15. Bg5 Qe5 16. Rad1 Qg5 17. Rd3 Bd7 18. Qf8 Rf8 19. Rf8# 1-0

289

Morphy - Perrin
New York, 1859
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 ed4 4. Bc4 d6 5. c3 d3 6. Qb3 Qf6 7. 0-0 h6 8. Be3 g5 9. Nd4 Rh7 10. f4 g4 11. e5 Qe7 12. e6 fe6 13. Ne6 Nf6 14. Rae1 Be6 15. Be6 Rb8 16. Bf5 Kd8 17. Ba7 Na7 18. Re7 Re7 19. Bd3 Nc6 20. Bf5 d5 21. Bg4 Ng4 22. Qd5 Ke8 23. Qh5 Rf7 24. Re1 Be7 25. Qg4 Rd8 26. Qg8 Rf8 27. Qg6 Kd7 28. Qe6 Ke8 29. Qh6 Rd6 30. Qh5 Kd8 31. g3 Kc8 32. b4 Bf6 33. Re8 Re8 34. Qe8 Nd8 35. Qe3 Rc6 36. Kg2 Rc3 37. Qe4 Rc6 38. g4 Re6 39. Qf5 Kb8 40. g5 Bd4 41. Qf8 Rd6 42. f5 1-0 after some further unrecorded moves

290

Morphy - Perrin
New York, 1859
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 Nd4 4. Ne5 Nc6 5. Nf7 Kf7 6. Bc4 d5 7. Bd5 Be6 8. Qh5 g6 9. Qf3 Nf6 10. Be6 Ke6 11. Qb3 Kd7 12. Bg5 Be7 13. 0-0-0 Bd6 14. Qb7 Qe7 15. f4 h6 16. e5 hg5 17. Rhe1 Rhb8 18. Qa6 Rb6 19. Qc4 Rb4 20. Qa6 Rd4 21. ed6 Qd6 22. Qb5 Qf4 23. Kb1 Re8 24. Rf1 Nd5 25. a3 Nc3 26. bc3 Rb8 27. Rd4 Qd4 28. Qb8 Qc3 29. Rd1 Nd4 30. Qb2 1-0

291

Morphy - Stone
New York, 1859
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. 0-0 Qf6 7. Qb3 Nge7 8. d4 ed4 9. cd4 0-0 10. e5 Qg6 11. d5 Nb4 12. Bd2 Qc2 13. Qc2 Nc2 14. Ba5 Na1 15. Ra1 b6 16. Bb4 Re8 17. Be7 Re7 18. d6 cd6 19. ed6 Re8 20. Ng5 Rf8 21. Re1 Bb7

22. Nf7 Rf7 23. Re7 Raf8 24. Rd7 Bc8 25. Re7 Bf5 26. d7 1-0

292

Morphy - Stone
New York, 1859
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Bc5 6. 0-0 Bb6 7. d4 ed4 8. cd4 Qf6 9. e5 Qg6 10. d5 Na5 11. Bd3 Qh5 12. Ba3 Ne7 13. d6 Ng6 14. dc7 Nc6 15. Bd6 Nge7 16. Re1 0-0 17. Re4 Ng6 18. h4 Re8 19. g4

19...Qh6 20. g5 Qh5 21. Be2 Nge7 22. Rf4 Qg6 23. Bc4 Nf5 24. Bd3 Ne5 25. Bf5 Nf3 26. Rf3 Qh5 27. Qd5 Qh4 28. Bh7 Kh7 29. Qf5 Kh8 30. Rh3 1-0

293

Morphy - Marache
New York, 1859
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 ed4 4. Bc4 Nf6 5. 0-0 Bc5 6. e5 d5 7. ef6 dc4 8. Re1 Be6 9. Ng5 Qf6 10. Ne6 fe6 11. Qh5 g6 12. Qc5 Rf8 13. Bg5 Qf2 14. Kh1 Rf5 15. Qc4 Rg5 16. Qe6 Kf8 17. Rf1 Rg2 18. Qh3 Rg1 19. Rg1 Kg7 20. Rae1 Rf8 21. Rgf1 Qc2 22. Qd7 Kg8 23. Rf8 Kf8 24. Re8# 1-0

294

Morphy - Lichtenhein
New York, 1859
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d4 ed4 6. 0-0 Ne4 7. Bf7 Kf7 8. cd4 d5 9. dc5 Bg4 10. Ng5 Qg5 11. f3

11...Qg6 12. fg4 Ke6 13. Bf4 Qf6 14. Be3 Qd8 15. Qf3 Rf8 16. Qh3 Ng5 17. Qh5 h6 18. h4 Ne4 19. Qg6 Rf6 20. Qg7 Qe7 21. Rf6 Qf6 22. Qc7 Qf7 23. Qf7 Kf7 24. Bh6 Kg6 25. Bf4 d4 26. h5 Kh7 27. g5 d3 28. Rf1 d2 29. Bd2 Nd2 30. Rf7 Kg8 31. Rb7 Ne4 32. h6 Rc8 33. b4 Nb4 34. Rb4 Ng5 35. Rb7 Rc5 36. Ra7 Kh8 37. a4 Rc6 38. a5 Rh6 39. a6 Ne4 40. Ra8 Kg7 41. a7 Ra6 42. Re8 Ra7 43. Re4 draw

295

Morphy - Lichtenhein
New York, 1859
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. 0-0 Nf6 7. d4 0-0 8. Qc2 ed4 9. cd4 h6 10. d5 Ne7 11. Bb2 d6 12. h3 Ng6 13. Nd4 Qe7 14. Nb3 Bb6 15. Rae1 Kh8 16. Nd2 Nh5 17. Nf3 Nh4 18. Nh4 Qh4 19. Kh2 Nf4 20. Qc3 Rg8 21. Qg3 Qg5 22. Qg5 hg5 23. g3 Ng6 24. f4 gf4 25. gf4 f6 26. Kg3 Bd7 27. h4 Rae8 28. h5 Nf8 29. Rh1 Nh7 30. Kf3 Re7 31. Re2 Rge8 32. Bd3 c6 33. h6 g5 34. fg5 Ng5 35. Kf4 Nh7 36. Rg2 Rg8 37. Rg7 Rgg7 38. hg7 Kg7 39. Rh7 Kh7 40. e5 f5 41. e6 Be6 42. de6 Re6 43. Bf5 Rg6 0-1 after some further, unrecorded moves

296

Morphy - Lichtenhein
New York, 1859
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 d5 4. ed5 Bd6 5. Bc4 h6 6. d4 c6 7. dc6 Nc6 8. Bd3 Nge7 9. c4 Bb4 10. Kf1 Bd6 11. d5 Nb8 12. b4 b6 13. Qb3 a5 14. c5 bc5 15. bc5 Bc5 16. Bf4 Qd5 17. Bb5 Nd7 18. Qc2 Ba6 19. Ba6 Ra6 20. Rd1 Qf5 21. Qc4 Ra7 22. h3 0-0 23. g4 Nb6 24. Qc1 Qe4 0-1

297

Morphy - Richardson
New York, 1859
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. 0-0 d6 7. d4 ed4 8. cd4 Nf6 9. Qb3 0-0 10. e5 de5 11. de5 Nh5 12. Ba3 Ne7 13. Rad1 Qe8 14. Ng5 Bf5 15. e6 fe6 16. Be6 Be6 17. Qe6 Kh8 18. Be7 Rf6 19. Bf6 Qe6 20. Ne6 Nf6 21. Rd8 Rd8 22. Nd8 b5 23. Rb1 a6 24. a4 Bb6 25. ab5 ab5 26. Rb5 h6 27. g3 Ne4 28. Kg2 Kg8 29. f3 Nf6 30. Nc6 Kf7 31. Re5 Ng8 32. f4 g6 33. Kf3 Kf6 34. g4 Bg1 35. h4 Bb6 36. g5 hg5 37. hg5 Kf7 38. f5 gf5 39. Rf5 Kg6 40. Kg4 Be3 41. Ne5 Kg7 42. Rf7 Kh8 43. Ng6# 1-0

298

Morphy - Richardson
New York, 1859
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 c5 2. f4 d6 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. c3 e6 5. d4 cd4 6. cd4 Be7 7. Bd3 Nf6 8. 0-0 0-0 9. e5 de5 10. fe5 Nd5 11. Bd2 f6 12. Qe2 fe5 13. Ne5 Ne5 14. de5 Qb6 15. Khl Rf1 16. Rf1 g6 17. Bg6 hg6 18. Qg4 Kg7 19. Qh3 g5 20. Qh5 Nf4 21. Bf4 gf4 22. Rf4 Qd8 23. Rf7 Kg8 24. Qh7# 1-0

299

Morphy - Cheney
New York, 1859
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 d5 5. ed5 Nb4 6. 0-0 Nf6 7. d4 ed4 8. Re1 Be7 9. d6 cd6 10. Ba3 Nc6 11. Nd4 0-0 12. Nc6 bc6 13. Qe2 Qa5 14. Bb2 Rb8 15. Rab1 Bd8 16. Bc3 Qc3 17. Rb8 Ba5 18. Reb1 Bb6 19. a4 Re8 20. Qd3 Qd3 21. Bd3 Bd7 22. Re8 Be8 23. Ra1 g6 24. a5 Bc5 25. h3 Nd5 26. Rb1 Nb4 27. Be4 f5 28. c3 fe4 29. cb4 Bd4 30. Rd1 Be5 31. Re1 d5 32. f3 Bd4 33. Kf1 e3 34. Rc1 a6 35. Ke2 Kf7 36. f4 Ke6 37. Kd3 Ba7 38. g4 d4 39. Ke4 Kd6 40. f5 gf5 41. gf5 c5 42. bc5 Bc5 43. f6 Bg6 44. Kf4 d3 45. Rc5 Kc5 46. Ke3 Kc4 0-1

300

Morphy - Michaelis
New York, 1859
Remove White’s Queen Rook

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 ed4 4. Nd4 Nc6 5. Nc3 Nd4 6. Qd4 c6 7. Be3 Nf6 8. Be2 Be6 9. 0-0 Be7 10. f4 0-0 11. f5 Bd7 12. g4 c5 13. Qd2 Bc6 14. Bf3 Nd7 15. g5 Ne5 16. Be2 f6 17. h4 a6 18. Rf2 b5 19. Rg2 fg5 20. hg5 Nc4 21. Bc4 bc4 22. Qe2 d5 23. Qh5 Rf5 24. ef5 d4 25. g6 h6 26. Bh6 dc3

27. Bg7 Kg7 28. Qh7 Kf6 29. Qf7 Ke5 30. Qe6 Kf4 31. Rf2 Bf3 32. Qe2 Qd5 33. Qe7 Rh8 34. Qc7 Kg4 35. Qh7 Qd1 36. Rf1 Qf1 37. Kf1 Rh7 38. gh7 cb2 39. h8(Q) b1(Q) 0-1

301

Morphy - Michaelis
New York, 1859
Remove White’s Queen Rook

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. d4 ed4 7. 0-0 Bb6 8. cd4 d6 9. Nc3 Nf6 10. e5 Ng4 11. h3 Nh6 12. Bg5 Qd7 13. Re1 Kf8 14. e6 Qe8 15. e7 Kg8 16. Bh6 gh6 17. Ng5 hg5 18. Qh5 Ne7 19. Nd5 Bd4 20. Ne7 Kf8 21. Qh6 Bg7 22. Ng6 hg6 23. Re8 Ke8 24. Qg7 Rf8 25. g4 Bd7 26. Qf6 Bc6 27. Kh2 Kd7 28. Kg3 Rae8 29. Bf7 Re7 30. Be6 Ke8 31. Qg6 Kd8 32. Bf5 Bd7 33. Bd7 Kd7 34. Qg5 Ref7 35. Qb5 Kc8 36. Qe2 Rf2 37. Qe6 Kd8 38. g5 R2f3 39. Kg4 R3f4 40. Kh5 R4f7 41. h4 Rh7 42. Kg4 Rhf7 43. g6 Rf4 44. Kg5 R4f5 45. Qf5 Rf5 46. Kf5 Ke7 47. h5 c5 48. h6 Kf8 49. Kf6 Kg8 50. g7 Kh7 51. Kf7 1-0

302

Morphy - NN
New York, 1859
Remove White’s Queen Rook

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. 0-0 d6 7. d4 ed4 8. cd4 Bb6 9. Nc3 Bg4 10. Bb5 Bd7 11. Nd5 f6 12. Nf4 Qe7 13. d5 Ne5 14. Bd7 Qd7 15. Ne6 h5 16. Nh4 Qf7 17. Qa4 Qd7 18. Qb3 Nh6 19. Bh6 Rh6 20. Nf5 Rg6 21. Qh3 Qf7 22. a4 a5 23. Rb1 Ra7 24. Rb6 cb6 25. Nd6 1-0

303

Morphy - NN
New York, 1859
Remove White’s Queen Rook

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 g4 5. d4 gf3 6. Qf3 Qh4 7. g3 Qe7 8. Nc3 Bh6 9. Nd5 Qd6 10. e5 Qc6 11. Bb5 Qc2 12. 0-0 a6 13. Bd3 Qc6 14. Be4 Qc4 15. Bf4 Qd4 16. Kh1 Bf4 17. Qf4 Nh6 18. Qh4 0-0 19. Ne7 Kg7 20. Qf6# 1-0

304

Morphy - Mead
New York, 1859
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 Bg7 5. c3 d6 6. d4 Bg4 7. Qb3 Bf3 8. Bf7 Kf8 9. gf3 b6 10. h4 Qe7 11. Bg8 Rg8 12. Qd5 c6 13. Qf5 Qf7 14. Qg5 Nd7 15. Bf4 Bd4 16. Qh6 Bg7 17. Qd6 Ke8 18. 0-0-0 Bf8 19. Qc6 Qf4 20. Kb1 Rd8 21. Qe6 Be7 22. Qg8 Nf8 23. Rd8 Kd8 24. Rd1 Ke8 25. Qd5 Qf3 26. Qb5 Nd7 27. Qd7 1-0

305

Morphy - Mead
New York, 1859
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 Bg7 5. 0-0 d6 6. c3 Nc6 7. d4 a6 8. Qb3 Na5 9. Bf7 Kf8 10. Qd5 c6 11. Qg5 Qg5 12. Ng5 h6 13. Bf4 Ke7 14. Bg8 Rg8 15. Nf3 Nc4 16. b3 Nb6 17. a4 Bg4 18. Nd2 Rad8 19. a5 Nd7 20. Nc4 Nf8 21. Bg3 d5 22. Bh4 Kd7 23. Nb6 Ke8 24. Rae1 Ne6 25. ed5 Rd5 26. Nd5 cd5 27. h3 Bh3 28. gh3 Bf6 29. Kh1 Bh4 30. Re6 Kd7 31. Rh6 1-0

306

Morphy - Ware
New York, 1859
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 Bg7 5. h4 h6 6. d4 Nc6 7. c3 Na5 8. Bd3 d5 9. Qa4 c6 10. ed5 Qd5 11. c4 Qd8 12. Bd2 Bd4 13. Ba5 Qe7 14. Kd2 Qe3 15. Kc2 Qf2 16. Bd2 Be6 17. Rhf1 Qg2 18. Nd4 Nf6 19. Rae1 0-0 20. hg5 b5 21. gf6 ba4 22. Rg1 Qg1 23. Rg1 Kh8 24. Ne6 fe6 25. f7 e5 26. Bc3 1-0

307

Morphy - Conway
New York, 1859
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 g4 5. d4 gf3 6. Qf3 Bh6 7. 0-0 Ne7 8. Bf4 Bf4 9. Bf7 Kf7 10. Qf4 Kg7 11. Qf6 Kg8 12. Qf7# 1-0

308

Morphy - Bryan
New York, 1859
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Bc5 6. 0-0 d6 7. d4 Bb6 8. de5 de5 9. Qb3 Qf6 10. Bb5 Be6 11. Qa4 Nge7 12. Bg5 Qg6 13. Be7 Ke7 14. Bc6 bc6 15. Ne5 Qf6 16. Nc6 Kf8 17. e5 Qg5 18. h4 Qg4 19. Qa3 Kg8 20. Ne7 Kf8 21. Ng6 Kg8 22. Qf8 Rf8 23. Ne7# 1-0

309

Morphy - Perrin
New York, 1859
Remove White’s Queen Rook

1. e4 e5 2. f4 Bc5 3. Nf3 d6 4. Bc4 Nh6 5. f5 Nc6 6. b4 Nb4 7. c3 b5 8. Bb5 c6 9. cb4 Bf2 10. Kf2 Qb6 11. d4 cb5 12. Bh6 gh6 13. Nc3 Bb7 14. Qd3 a6 15. Rd1 0-0 16. Kf1 f6 17. Qd2 Kg7 18. d5 Rac8 19. Ne2 Rc4 20. Ng3 Rfc8 21. Nh5 Kh8 22. Qh6 Qc7 23. Qf6 Kg8 24. Ng5 Bd5 25. ed5 Rf4 26. Nf4 ef4 27. Qe6 Kf8 28. Nh7 Kg7 29. Qg6 Kh8 30. Nf6 Qc4 31. Kg1 Qc7 32. Qh6 1-0

310

Morphy - NN
New York, 1859
Remove White’s Queen Rook

1. e4 e6 2. f4 d5 3. e5 Ne7 4. d4 Ng6 5. Be3 Bb4 6. c3 Ba5 7. Nf3 0-0 8. Bd3 Bb6 9. Nbd2 Nd7 10. h4 c5 11. Ng5 cd4 12. cd4 Ba5 13. Nh7 Bd2 14. Bd2 f5 15. Qh5 Nf6 16. ef6 Rf6 17. g4 Nh4 18. Nf6 Qf6 19. Rh4 Bd7 20. Bc3 Be8 21. Qh7 Kf7 22. g5 Qg6 23. Qg6 Kg6 24. Rh8 a6 25. Be2 Kf7 26. g6 Kf6 27. Bh5 a5 28. Ba5 Ra5 29. Re8 Ra2 30. Rf8 Ke7 31. Rf7 Ke8 32. Rg7 Rb2 33. Rb7 1-0

311

Morphy - Montgomery
New York, 1859
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 ed4 4. Bc4 Be7 5. c3 d3 6. Qb3 Be6 7. Be6 fe6 8. Nd4 Bf6 9. Ne6 Qc8 10. f4 Nc6 11. e5 de5 12. fe5 Be5 13. 0-0 Nf6 14. Ng7 Kd8 15. Bg5 Qd7 16. Ne6 Ke7 17. Nc5 Nd4 18. cd4 Qd4 19. Kh1 Qc5 20. Rf6 Bf6 21. Re1 Kf8 22. Bh6 Bg7 23. Qe6 Bh6 24. Rf1 Qf2 25. Rf2 Bf4 26. Rf4 Kg7 27. Qf6 Kg8 28. Qf7# 1-0

312

Morphy - Lichtenhein
New York, 1859
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Bc5 6. 0-0 Nf6 7. d4 ed4 8. cd4 Bb6 9. Ba3 d6 10. e5 de5 11. Qb3 Be6 12. Be6 fe6 13. Qe6 Ne7 14. Ne5 Rf8 15. Rfe1 Nfd5 16. Qg4 g6 17. Qh4 a5 18. Qh7 Bd4 19. Ng6 c5 20. Nf8 Kf8 21. Rad1 Ke8 22. Bc5 Bc5 23. Qg8 Kd7 24. Rd5 Nd5 25. Qd5 Bd6 26. Qb7 Qc7 27. Qa8 1-0

313

Morphy - Lichtenhein
New York, 1859
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Bc5 6. 0-0 Bb6 7. d4 d6 8. de5 de5 9. Qb3 Qf6 10. Bg5 Qg6 11. Bb5 Be6 12. Qa4 Bd7 13. Rad1 f6

14. Rd7 Kd7 15. Bc6 bc6 16. Rd1 Ke7 17. Ne5 Qg5 18. Rd7 Ke8 19. Qc6 Qe5 20. Rc7 Kf8 21. Qa8 Qe8 22. Rc8 Qc8 23. Qc8 Kf7 24. c4 g5 25. c5 Ba5 26. c6 1-0

314

Morphy - Thompson
New York, 1859
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. 0-0 Nf6 7. Ng5 0-0 8. f4 h6 9. Nf7 Rf7 10. Bf7 Kf7 11. fe5 Bb6 12. d4 Ne5 13. Qh5 Ng6 14. e5 c5 15. ef6 gf6 16. Bh6 d5 17. Bg5 1-0

315

Morphy - Thompson
New York, 1859
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. c4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. 0-0 Bb6 7. d4 d6 8. de5 Ne5 9. Ne5 de5 10. Bf7 Ke7 11. Qb3 Nf6 12. Ba3 c5 13. Rad1 Qc7 14. f4 Rf8 15. Bc4 Rd8 16. Rde1 Bd7 17. Bc1 Rf8 18. fe5 Qe5 19. Bf4 Qh5 20. Rd1 Kd8 21. e5 Ne8 22. Qa4 Qg4 23. e6 Nf6 24. Rd7 Kc8 25. Qc6 bc6 26. Ba6# 1-0

316

Morphy - Thompson
New York, 1859
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. 0-0 Nf6 7. Ng5 0-0 8. f4 ef4 9. d4 Bc3 10. Nf7 Rf7 11. Bf7 Kf8 12. Bb3 Bd4 13. Kh1 Ba1 14. Bf4 Be5 15. Be5 Ne5 16. Qd5 c6 17. Qg8 Ke7 18. Qg7 Kd6 19. Rf6 Kc5 20. Rf8 Qc7 21. Rf5 Kd4 22. Qg3 Qd6 23. Qf2 Kc3 24. Qe1 Qd2 25. Qd2 Kd2 26. Re5 b5 27. g4 d6 28. Re8 Bb7 29. Re7 Rb8 30. Rd7 c5 31. Rd6 Ke3 32. Bd5 c4 0-1

317

Morphy - Thompson
New York, 1859
1. Remove 2. White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 d6 4. c3 Nf6 5. Qb3 Qe7 6. 0-0 a6 7. d4 b6 8. Bd3 h6 9. d5 Nd8 10. Bd2 Nb7 11. Qa3 Nc5 12. Bc2 Nfe4 13. Be4 Ne4 14. Qa4 b5 15. Qe4 f5 16. Qc2 g5 17. Rfe1 Qf7 18. c4 Be7 19. cb5 Qd5 20. Rad1 Qb5 21. a4 Qb7 22. Ne5 de5 23. Re5 Rh7 24. Qc4 Kf8 25. Re7 Re7 26. Bb4 Be6 27. Qc3 c5 28. Qf6 Bf7 29. Qh6 Kg8 30. Qg5 Kh7 31. Rd3 Bg6 32. Rh3 Kg7 33. Bc3 Kf7 34. Qf6 Ke8 35. Qg6 Rf7 36. Qe6 Qe7 37. Rh8 Rf8 38. Qc6 1-0

318

Morphy - Thompson
New York, 1859
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. Qc2 Nf6 7. 0-0 d6 8. d4 Bb6 9. de5 Ne5 10. Ne5 de5 11. Ba3 c5 12. f4 0-0 13. f5 Qc7 14. h3 Bd7 15. Rae1 Bc6 16. g4 Rad8 17. g5 Nh5 18. g6 Nf4 19. gf7 Kh8 20. Bc1 Nd3 21. Bg5 Ne1 22. Re1 Rd6 23. Qe2 Rf7 24. Qh5 Rff6 25. Rf1 Qd7 26. Re1 Bd8 27. Bf6 Bf6 28. Bf7 Rd3 29. Bc4 Rg3 30. Kh2 Qd2 0-1

319

Morphy - Thompson
New York, 1859
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb6 5. a4 a6 6. d4 ed4 7. c3 d6 8. Qb3 Qe7 9. 0-0 Be6 10. a5 Ba7 11. b5 Bc4 12. Qc4 Ne5 13. Ne5 de5 14. ba6 c6 15. Rb1 Rb8 16. ab7 Rb7 17. Qc6 Rd7 18. Rb7 Kd8 19. Ba3 Qe6 20. Rd7 Qd7 21. Qa8 Qc8 22. Qa7 Qc7 23. Qa8 Kd7 24. Rb1 1-0

320

Morphy - Thompson
New York, 1859
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 Nc6 4. c3 Nf6 5. Bd3 Bg4 6. 0-0 ed4 7. cd4 Bf3 8. gf3 Nd4 9. Qa4 Nc6 10. Bb5 Qd7 11. Rd1 a6 12. e5 Nh5 13. Bg5 h6 14. Rac1 Rc8

15. Qe4 f5 16. ef6 Kf7 17. Bc4 d5 18. Rd5 Qe6 19. Rd7 1-0

321

Morphy - Ware
New York, 1859
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 Bg7 5. h4 h6 6. d4 d6 7. c3 Qe7 8. 0-0 Bg4 9. Qb3 c6 10. Bd2 Bf3 11. Rf3 Nf6 12. Re1 Ng4 13. Ref1 0-0 14. hg5 hg5 15. Bd3 Nh6 16. Rh3 Na6 17. Qd1 f5 18. Qb3 Rf7 19. Re1 Qd7 20. ef5 Re8 21. Re8 Qe8 22. f6 d5 23. fg7 Kg7 24. Qd1 g4 25. Rh6 Kh6 26. Qg4 Rf6 27. Bf4 Rf4 28. Qf4 1-0

322

Morphy - Knott
New York, 1859
Remove White’s Queen Rook

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 g4 5. d4 gf3 6. 0-0 d5 7. Bd5 Bg4 8. Qd3 fg2 9. Rf2 c6 10. Bf7 Kf7 11. Bf4 Nf6 12. e5 Nbd7 13. Nc3 Bg7 14. Ne4 h6 15. ef6 Nf6 16. Be5 Rf8 17. Nf6 Bf6 18. Bf6 Qd7 19. Qh7 Ke8 20. Qg6 Rf7 21. Bg5

21...Bf3 22. Rf3 Qd4 23. Re3 Kf8 24. Bh6 Rg7 25. Bg7 Qg7 26. Qd6 Kg8 27. Rg3 1-0

323

Morphy - Napoleon
New York, 1859
Remove White’s Queen Rook

1. e4 e5 2. f4 Bc5 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. b4 Bb6 5. b5 Nd4 6. Nd4 Bd4 7. c3 Bb6 8. Bc4 Qe7 9. d4 d6 10. 0-0 Be6 11. Be6 Qe6 12. f5 Qd7 13. Qd3 c6 14. Kh1 Nf6 15. Bg5 Bd8 16. Nd2 h6 17. Bh4 Nh7 18. Bg3 Bf6 19. bc6 bc6 20. Nc4 Qc7 21. h3 Nf8 22. de5 Be5 23. Be5 de5 24. f6 Rd8 25. fg7 Rg8 26. gf8(Q) Rf8 27. Qe3 Rh8 28. Qc5 Rf8 29. Rf6 Qe7 30. Qc6 Qd7 31. Nd6 Ke7 32. Nf5 Ke8 33. Qc5 Qd1 34. Kh2 Rd7 35. Qc8 Rd8 36. Re6 fe6 37. Qe6# 1-0

324

Morphy - Broughton
Boston, 1859
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Qe2 Bc5 5. c3 d6 6. b4 Bb6 7. d3 h6 8. a4 a5 9. b5 Ne7 10. d4 Bg4 11. de5 Bf3 12. Qf3 de5 13. Ba3 Ng6 14. Rd1 Qc8 15. h3 c5 16. bc6 bc6 17. Rd6 Bd8 18. Rc6 Qc6 19. Bb5 Qb5 20. ab5 Rc8 21. 0-0 Rc4 22. Qd3 Rc7 23. b6 Rb7 24. Rd1 Rd7 25. Qb5 Bb6 26. Rd7 Nd7 27. c4 Bc7 28. c5 Kd8 29. c6 Nb8 30. Qb7 Re8 31. Bc5 Re6 32. Bb6 Bb6 33. Qb8 Ke7 34. Qb6 Kd6 35. c7 Kd7 36. Qb8 Ne7 37. Qd8 1-0

325

Morphy - Broughton
Boston, 1859
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. f4 d5 3. ed5 e4 4. Bc4 Bd6 5. d4 Nf6 6. Ne2 Bg4 7. h3 Be2 8. Qe2 c6 9. dc6 Nc6 10. c3 0-0 11. Be3 Na5 12. Bb5 a6 13. Ba4 Qc7 14. g3 Qc4 15. Qd1 Nd5 16. Kf2 Ne3 17. Ke3 b5 18. Bc2 Rad8 19. Bb3 Qc7 20. Rc1 Nc6 21. Qf1 Ne7 22. Qg2 Nf5 23. Ke2 Ng3 24. Qg3 Bf4 25. Qg2 Bc1 26. Rc1 Kh8 27. h4 f5 28. Rh1 f4 29. Qh2 f3 30. Ke3 Qh2 31. Rh2 Rf6 32. c4 bc4 33. Bc4 Rh6 34. Rc2 Rh4 35. Bf7 f2 36. Rf2 Rh3 37. Ke2 Rc8 38. Bc4 Rf3 39. b3 Rf2 40. Kf2 g5 41. Ke3 Re8 42. Be2 Kg7 43. b4 Kf6 44. a4 Kf5 45. Ba6 g4 46. a5 g3 47. Bf1 Kg4 48. a6 Rf8 49. Bg2 Rf2 50. Be4 Ra2 51. b5 h5 52. Bb7 h4 53. Bc8 Kg5 54. Bh3 g2 55. Bg2 Rg2 56. a7 Ra2 57. b6 1-0

326

Morphy - Hammond & four amateurs
Boston, 1859
Ruy Lopez

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 b5 5. Bb3 Bc5 6. c3 d6 7. d4 Bb6 8. de5 Qe7 9. Bd5 Bb7 10. Bg5 f6 11. ef6 Nf6 12. 0-0 Qd7 13. Bf6 gf6 14. Nd4 Bd4 15. Qh5 Kd8 16. cd4 Kc8 17. Rc1

17...Nd4 18. Bb7 Kb7 19. Qd5 Nc6 20. a4 Kb6 21. a5 Kb7 22. Ra3 1-0

327

Morphy - Thomas
Philadelphia, 1859
Hungarian
Morphy blindfolded

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 d6 4. c3 Be7 5. Qb3 Nh6 6. d4 Na5 7. Qa4 c6 8. Bh6 b5

9. Qc2 Nc4 10. Bc1 ed4 11. cd4 Qc7 12. b3 Nb6 13. 0-0 h6 14. Nc3 a6 15. Bf4 g5 16. Be3 g4 17. Nd2 h5 18. Nd5 Nd5 19. ed5 c5 20. dc5 h4 21. Rfe1 Kf8 22. Bd4 Rh5 23. Qe4 g3 24. fg3 hg3 25. h3 f5 26. Qf3 Rh4 27. Ne4 dc5 28. d6 Bd6 29. Nd6 Qd6 30. Bc5 Qd7 31. Qg3 Re4 32. Re4 fe4 33. Rf1 1-0

328

Morphy - Thomas
Philadelphia, 1859
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 f5 4. Bc4 fe4 5. Ne5 de5 6. Qh5 g6 7. Qe5 Qe7 8. Bb5 Bd7 9. Qh8 Bb5 10. Qg8 Qb4 11. Bd2 Qc4 12. Qc4 Bc4 13. b3 Ba6 14. c4 Nc6 15. d5 Nd4 16. 0-0-0 Ba3 17. Kb1 c6 18. Bc1 Bc1 19. Rd4 Bg5 20. Re4 Kd7 21. dc6 bc6 22. Rd1 Kc7 23. f4 Bf6 24. Re6 Rd8 25. Kc2 Rd1 26. Kd1 Bd8 27. Re8 Bc8 28. Rh8 h5 29. Rh7 Kb6 30. Kd2 Bf5 31. b4 a5 32. a3 ab4 33. ab4 Bf6 34. h3 Bb2 35. Ke3 Bc3 36. c5 Kb5 37. Rb7 Kc4 38. Rb6 Bb4 39. Rc6 Bc5 40. Kf3 Kd4 41. Ra6 Be4 42. Kg3 Ke3 43. Re6 Bb4 44. Kh4 Kf4 45. g3 Kf5 46. Re4 Ke4 47. Kg5 Kf3 48. Kg6 Kg3 49. Kh5 Kh3 draw

329

Morphy - Tilghman
Philadelphia, 1859
King’s Gambit
Morphy blindfolded

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 d6 5. h4 g4 6. Ng5 Nh6 7. d4 f6 8. Bf4 Nc6 9. 0-0 Qe7 10. Nc3 Qg7 11. Ne6 Be6 12. Be6 Ke7

13. Nd5 Ke6 14. Bh6 Qh6 15. Qg4 Kf7 16. Rf6 Qf6 17. Nf6 Kf6 18. Rf1 Ke7 19. Qg5 Kd7 20. Qf5 Ke8 21. Qf7 Kd8 22. Qf6 Ne7 23. Qh8 Ng6 24. Rf8 1-0

330

Morphy - Thomas
Philadelphia, 1859
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e52. Nf3 d63. d4 f5 4. Bc4 fe4 5. 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 f5 4. Bc4 fe4 5. Ne5 de5 6. Qh5 g6 7. Qe5 Qe7 8. Bb5 Bd7 9. Qh8 Bb5 10. Qg8 Qb4 11. Bd2 Qc4 12. Qc4 Bc4 13. b3 Ba6 14. c4 Nc6 15. d5 Nd4 16. 0-0-0 Ba3 17. Kb1 c6 18. Bc1 Bc1 19. Rd4 Bg5 20. Re4 Kd7 21. dc6 bc6 22. Rd1 Kc7 23. f4 Bf6 24. Re6 Rd8 25. Kc2 Rd1 26. Kd1 Bd8 27. Re8 Bc8 28. Rh8 h5 29. Rh7 Kb6 30. Kd2 Bf5 31. b4 a5 32. a3 ab4 33. ab4 Bf6 34. h3 Bb2 35. Ke3 Bc3 36. c5 Kb5 37. Rb7 Kc4 38. Rb6 Bb4 39. Rc6 Bc5 40. Kf3 Kd4 41. Ra6 Be4 42. Kg3 Ke3 43. Re6 Bb4 44. Kh4 Kf4 45. g3 Kf5

46. Re4 Ke4 47. Kg5 Kf3 48. Kg6 Kg3 49. Kh5 Kh3 draw

331

Morphy - Smyth
Philadelphia, 1859
French
Morphy blindfolded

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. ed5 ed5 4. Nf3 Be6 5. Bd3 Nf6 6. 0-0 h6 7. Ne5 Bd6 8. f4 Nc6 9. c3 Qe7 10. Re1 Be5 11. fe5 Nd7 12. b4 0-0 13. b5 Na5 14. Ba3 Qg5 15. Bf8 Rf8 16. Nd2 Bg4 17. Nf3 Qe7 18. h3 Be6 19. Qa4 b6 20. Rad1 g5 21. Bb1 Kg7 22. Qc2 Rh8 23. Nd2 h5 24. Nf1 h4 25. Ne3 Rh6 26. Nf5 Bf5 27. Qf5 Nf8 28. Rf1 Nc4 29. Rf3 Ne6 30. Qg4 Qe8 31. Rdf1 Qb5 32. Rf7 Kh8 33. Qe6 Re6 34. Rf8 1-0

332

Morphy - Lewis
Philadelphia, 1859
Queen Fianchetto Defense
Morphy blindfolded

1. e4 b6 2. d4 Bb7 3. Bd3 e6 4. Nh3 d5 5. e5 Ne7 6. 0-0 Ng6 7. f4 Be7 8. f5 ef5 9. Bf5 Bc8 10. Bc8 Qc8 11. Nc3 c6 12. Bg5 0-0 13. Be7 Ne7 14. Qh5 h6 15. Rf3 Ng6 16. Raf1 Qe6 17. Ne2 Nd7 18. Nef4 Nf4 19. Nf4 Qe7 20. Rg3 Kh7 21. Rff3 Rg8 22. Nh3 g6 23. Ng5 Qg5 24. Rf7 Kh8 25. Qg5 1-0

333

Morphy - NN
Baltimore, 1859
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 Bg7 5. h4 h6 6. d4 d6 7. c3 Be6 8. Be6 fe6 9. Qb3 Kf7 10. Bd2 Nd7 11. 0-0-0 b6 12. Rhf 1 Ngf6 13. hg5 Ne4 14. Bf4 d5 15. gh6 Bf6 16. g4 Ke8 17. Rde1 Qe7 18. Qc2 c5 19. g5 Bg5 20. Ng5 a5 21. Re4 de4 22. Qe4 Rc8 23. Qg6 Kd8 24. Ne6 Qe6 25. Bg5 Nf6 26. Rf6 Qa2 27. Rf7 1-0

334

Morphy - Arnold
Baltimore, 1859
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e6 2. f4 Bc5 3. d4 Bb6 4. Nf3 d5 5. e5 f6 6. Bd3 Nc6 7. c3 Bd7 8. 0-0 Qe7 9. Be3 Nh6 10. h3 0-0 11. g4 fe5 12. fe5 Nf7 13. Qe2 Qe8 14. Rf2 Ne7 15. Raf1 Ng6 16. Bg6 hg6 17. Ng5 Qe7 18. Rf7 Rf7 19. Rf7 Qe8 20. Qf2 c6 21. Qh4 1-0

335

Morphy - Nicholson
Baltimore, 1859
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 Bg7 5. 0-0 h6 6. c3 d6 7. Qb3 Qf6 8. d4 Ne7 9. Bd2 0-0 10. Bd3 Nbc6 11. Rae1 Bg4 12. h4 Bf3 13. Rf3 b6 14. hg5 hg5 15. Rh3 Na5 16. Qd1 Ng6 17. g3 fg3 18. Rg3 Bh6 19. e5 de5 20. Bg5 Bg5 21. Qh5 Ne7 22. Qh7# 1-0

336

Morphy - Thompson
New York, 1860
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. 0-0 Nf6 7. d4 ed4 8. Ba3 Bc3 9. Qb3 d5 10. ed5 Ne7 11. Rae1 Be1 12. Re1 Nfg8 13. d6 cd6 14. Bf7 Kf8 15. Ng5 Nh6 16. Be6 Qb6 17. Qf3 Nef5 18. Bf5 Bf5 19. Ne6 Kg8 20. Qd5 Qc6 21. Nd8 Qd5 22. Re8# 1-0

337

Morphy - Thompson
New York, 1860
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. f4 d5 3. ed5 Qd5 4. Nf3 Bg4 5. Be2 Bf3 6. Bf3 e4 7. Qe2 f5 8. d3 Nf6 9. de4 Ne4 10. Be3 Nc6 11. Rd1 Qe6 12. 0-0 Be7 13. g4 g6 14. Qg2 h5 15. gf5 gf5 16. Qh3 Bd6 17. Rfe1 0-0-0 18. Kh1 Rde8 19. Qf1 Qf6 20. Qb5 a6 21. Qd5 Qe6 22. Qd3 Bf4 23. Bg1 Rd8 24. Qf1 Rd1 25. Rd1 Nd2 26. Re1 Nf1 27. Re6 Kd7 28. Rf6 Ne3 29. Be3 Be3 30. Rf5 Nd4 31. Rf7 Kc8 32. Bd1 Rg8 33. Rf1 h4 34. c3 Nc6 35. Re1 Bb6 36. h3 Bf2 37. Rf1 Bg3 38. b4 Ne5 39. Be2 Rd8 40. Bd1 Rd2 41. Bb3 Rf2 42. Be6 Kb8 43. Rf2 Bf2 44. c4 c6 45. a4 Kc7 46. Kg2 Be1 47. b5 ab5 48. cb5 cb5 49. ab5 Kd6 50. Bc8 b6 51. Kf1 Bg3 52. Ke2 Kc5 53. Ba6 Nc4 54. Kd3 Nd6 55. Ke3 Nb5 56. Bc8 Nd6 57. Be6 b5 58. Kd3 Nc4 59. Kc3 Be5 60. Kb3 Na5 61. Kc2 Kb4 62. Bg8 Ka3 63. Bf7 b4 64. Bd5 b3 65. Kb1 Kb4 66. Bg8 Nc4 67. Bh7 Kc3 68. Kc1 Bf4 69. Kd1 Ne3 70. Kc1 Ng4 71. Kb1 Nf2 72. Bf5 Nd3 73. Bh7 Ne5 74. Bf5 Nc4 75. Ka1 Bc1 76. Kb1 Bb2 77. Bh7 Nd2# 0-1

338

Morphy - Thompson
New York, 1860
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Be5 4. b4 Bb6 5. a4 a6 6. d4 ed4 7. c3 d3 8. 0-0 d6 9. Qb3 Qe7 10. a5 Ba7 11. b5 ab5 12. Qb5 Nf6 13. e5 de5 14. Ba3 Qd7 15. Rad1 e4 16. Bd3 Qf5 17. a6 Qb5 18. Bb5 Nd7 19. Rfe1 f5 20. Rd5 Ne7 21. ab7 Bb7 22. Rd7 Bf2 23. Kf2 Ra3 24. Rc7 Kf7 25. Rb7 1-0

339

Morphy - Thompson
New York, 1860
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 ed4 4. Bc4 Nc6 5. c3 Ne5 6. Ne5 de5 7. Qb3 Qe7 8. 0-0 c6 9. f4 b5 10. Bd3 Be6 11. Qc2 dc3 12. fe5 Qc5 13. Kh1 cb2 14. Qb2 Rd8 15. Rd1 Bc4 16. Qe2 Qd4 17. Bg5 Bd3 18. Bd8 Be2 19. Rd4 Bc5 20. Rd2 Bg4 21. Ba5 Bb6 22. Bb6 ab6 23. h3 Be6 24. Rad1 Ke7 25. Rd8 f6 26. ef6 Kf6 27. Ra8 g5 28. Rd6 Kf7 29. Rdd8 h5 30. Rdb8 Kg7 31. Ra7 Kf6 32. Rb6 Ne7 33. e5 Kf7 34. Rc6 Rc8 35. Rb6 Bc4 36. Rf6 Ke8 37. Rh6 g4 38. e6 Ng8 39. Rg6 1-0

340

Morphy - Perrin
New York, 1860
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. f4 d5 3. ed5 ef4 4. Nf3 Qd5 5. Be2 Nf6 6. 0-0 Bd6 7. d4 c5 8. c4 Qc6 9. Ne5 Be5 10. de5 Nfd7 11. Bf3 Qb6 12. e6 fe6 13. Bh5 g6 14. Bf4 Nc6 15. Qg4 Ne7 16. Bg5 gh5 17. Qf3 Ne5 18. Qf6 N7g6 19. Rad1 Bd7 20. Qg7 Qc7 21. Rde1 Qd6 22. Rd1 Nf3 23. gf3 Qc6 24. f4 Rf8 25. Qh7 e5 26. Rd7 Qd7 27. Qg6 Qf7 28. Qd6 Rg8 29. Re1 1-0

341

Morphy - Perrin
New York, 1860
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d4 ed4 5. 0-0 Ne4 6. Bd5 Nf6 7. Ng5 Nd5 8. Re1 Be7 9. Qh5 Rf8 10. Nh7 Nf6 11. Nf6 gf6 12. Qh7 Ne5 13. Bh6 Ng6 14. h4 d5 15. h5 Rh8

16. hg6 Rh7 17. gh7 Kd7 18. Bg7 Kd6 19. h8(Q) Qh8 20. Bh8 Bf5 21. Bg7 Rg8 22. Bh6 Bc2 23. Bf4 Kd7 24. Bc7 Be4 25. Bg3 Bd6 26. Bd6 Kd6 27. f3 Bf3 28. Kf2 Be4 29. Rg1 d3 30. Ke3 Ke5 31. Rac1 f5 32. Rc7 f4 33. Kd2 f3 34. g4 f5 35. g5 Kf4 36. g6 Rg6 37. Rg6 f2 38. Rc1 Kf3 39. Rh1 Kf4 40. Rf1 Kf3 41. Rg7 d4 42. a4 a6 43. b4 b5 44. a5 Bd5 45. Rg6 Kf4 46. Rc1 Be4 47. Ra6 Bg2 48. Kd3 f1(Q) 49. Rf1 Bf1 50. Kd4 Bc4 51. Rf6 Kg5 52. Ke5 Bd3 53. a6 Be4 54. a7 Kg4 55. Rf5 1-0

342

Morphy-Meunier
New Orleans, 1860
Remove White’s Queen Rook

1. e4 e5 2. f4 d5 3. ed5 ef4 4. Nf3 Bd6 5. Be2 Bg4 6. 0-0 Bf3 7. Bf3 Ne7 8. d4 0-0 9. c4 c6 10. dc6 Nbc6 11. c5 Bb8 12. d5 Ne5 13. d6 Nf3 14. Qf3 Nc6 15. Bf4 a5 16. Nc3 Ba7 17. Be3 a4 18. Nd5 Qa5 19. Rc1 Kh8

20. Nf6 g6 21. Qh3 h5 22. Nh5 gh5 23. Qh5 Kg7 24. Qg5 Kh8 25. Qh4 Kg8 26. Qg3 Kh7 27. Rc4 1-0

343

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1861
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. b3 e5 2. Bb2 Nc6 3. e3 d5 4. g3 f5 5. Bg2 Nf6 6. Ne2 Be7 7. 0-0 0-0 8. Rc1 e4 9. Nf4 g5 10. Ne2 Ne8 11. d3 Qd6 12. c4 Ne5 13. c5 Qe6 14. Nd4 Qg6 15. de4 de4 16. Nb5 Nd3 17. Bd4 Nc1 18. Qc1 Bf6 19. f3 ef3 20. Bf3 c6 21. Nc3 Bd4 22. ed4 Be6 23. d5 cd5 24. Nd5 Qg7 25. c6 Qd4 26. Ne3 bc6 27. Rd1 Qb6 28. Kh1 Rd8 29. Re1 Ng7 30. Nd1 Bd5 31. Bd5 Rd5 32. Qg5 f4 33. Qg4 f3 34. Rf1 f2 35. Qe2 Qd4 36. Nf2 Qd2 37. Ng4 Rf1 38. Qf1 Rf5 39. Qc4 Qd5 40. Qd5 cd5 41. Nh6 Kf8 42. Nf5 Nf5 43. Kg2 Kf7 44. Kf3 Kf6 45. Kf4 Ke6 46. g4 Nd6 47. h4 Ne4 48. a3 h6 49. b4 Nf2 50. Kf3 Nd3 51. Ke3 Ne5 52. Kf4 Ng6 53. Kg3 Kd6 54. h5 Ne5 55. Kf4 d4 56. g5 d3 57. Ke3 d2 58. Ke2 hg5 59. h6 Nf7 60. h7 Ke6 61. b5 Kf6 62. a4 Kg7 63. a5 Ne5 64. b6 Nc6 65. Kd2 ab6 66. ab6 Kh7 67. Kd3 Kg6 68. Ke4 Kf6 69. Kd5 Na5 70. Kc5 Ke6 71. Kb5 Nb7 72. Kc6 Nd6 73. Kc5 g4 74. Kd4 g3 75. Ke3 Kd7 76. b7 Kc7 77. Kf3 Nf5 0-1

Later Games

344

F. Sicre - Morphy
Havana, 1862
Ruy Lopez

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. d3 Bc5 6. 0-0 b5 7. Bb3 d6 8. c3 h6 9. Be3 Be3 10. fe3 0-0 11. Nbd2 d5 12. ed5 Nd5 13. Qe2 Be6 14. Bd5 Qd5 15. Ne4 f5 16. Nf2 Qd8 17. b3 g5 18. Kh1 g4 19. Ng1 Qg5 20. Rad1 Ne7 21. Qd2 Rad8 22. d4 c5 23. e4 Qd2 24. Rd2 cd4 25. Rfd1 fe4 26. Ne4 Bd5 27. cd4 Be4 28. de5 Rd2 29. Rd2 Rf1 30. e6 Kg7 31. Rd4 Re1 32. Rd2 Nd5 33. e7 Kf7 34. Rf2 Ke7 0-1

345

Morphy - J. M. Sicre
Havana, 1862
French
Morphy blindfolded

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. ed5 ed5 4. Nf3 Bd6 5. Bd3 Nf6 6. 0-0 0-0 7. Nc3 c6 8. Bg5 Bg4 9. h3 Bf3 10. Qf3 Nbd7 11. Rfe1 Qc7 12. g4 Rfe8 13. Be3 Kh8 14. g5 Ng8 15. Qf7 Re7 16. Qh5 Nf8 17. Qg4 Ne6 18. Bh7 Nf6 19. gf6 gf6 20. Bg6 Rg7 21. Qh5 Kg8 22. Kh1 Nf8 23. Bf5 Bf4 24. Rg1 Be3 25. fe3 Rg5 26. h4 Nh7 27. hg5 Ng5 28. Rg5 fg5 29. Rg1 1-0

346

Morphy - Medina
Havana, 1862
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e6 2. f4 d5 3. e5 Bc5 4. d4 Bb6 5. Be3 Ne7 6. Nf3 Nf5 7. Bf2 Qe7 8. c3 c5 9. g4 Nh6 10. Bh4 Qc7 11. h3 Nc6 12. Be2 cd4 13. cd4 Ba5 14. Kf2 Bd7 15. a3 Qc8 16. b4 Bd8 17. Bg3 Bb6 18. Rc1 Qd8 19. Kg2 f6 20. Bh4 Qe7 21. Rf1 Qf7 22. Kh2 Ng8 23. Qd2 Nge7 24. g5 f5 25. g6 Ng6 26. Ng5 Qg8 27. Bh5 Kf8 28. Rc6 bc6 29. b5 c5 30. dc5 Bc5 31. Rc1 Be7 32. Rc7 Be8 33. Bg6 hg6 34. Re7 Rh4 35. Qb4 Rh3 36. Nh3 1-0

347

Mongredian - Morphy
Paris, 1863
King’s Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Bc4 d5 4. ed5 Nf6 5. Nf3 Nd5 6. 0-0 Be6 7. Bd5 Bd5 8. d4 Nc6 9. Bf4 Be7 10. Nbd2 0-0 11. c4 Bf3 12. Nf3 Bf6 13. d5 Ne7 14. Be5 Nf5 15. Qd3 g6 16. Bf6 Qf6 17. Qb3 Rfe8 18. Rae1 Nd4 19. Nd4 Qd4 20. Kh1 Re1 21. Re1 Qd2 22. Rf1 Re8 23. Qf3 f5 24. Qd1 Re2. The remaining moves were not recorded.

348

Morphy - Maurian
Paris, 1863
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. b3 e5 2. Bb2 Nc6 3. e3 d5 4. g3 f5 5. Nh3 Nf6 6. Bb5 Bd6 7. f4 Qe7 8. 0-0 0-0 9. c4 a6 10. Bc6 bc6 11. fe5 Be5 12. d4 Bd6 13. c5 Qe3 14. Kg2 Be7 15. Re1 Ng4 16. Bc1 Qc3 17. Bd2 Qd4 18. Re7 Qc5 19. Qe2 d4 20. b4 Qd5 21. Kg1 d3 22. Bc3 Rf7 23. Re8 Rf8 24. Qe7 Qf7 25. Ng5 Qe7 26. Re7 Nf6 27. Rae1 a5 28. Rc7 Re8 29. Rd1 ab4 30. Bf6 gf6 31. Nh7 Re6 32. Rd3 Ba6 33. Rdd7 Bc4

34. a4 ba3 35. Rg7 Kh8 36. Nf8 1-0

349

Morphy - de Riviere
Paris, 1863
Giuoco Piano

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Qe7 5. d4 Bb6 6. 0-0 d6 7. h3 Nf6 8. Re1 h6 9. a4 a5 10. Na3 Nd8 11. Nc2 Be6 12. Ne3 Bc4 13. Nc4 Nd7 14. Ne3 g6 15. Nd5 Qe6 16. Bh6

16...f6 17. Bg7 Rh5 18. g4 Rh3 19. Nf6 Nf6 20. Ng5 Qd7 21. Bf6 Rh4 22. f3 ed4 23. cd4 Rh6 24. Kg2 Nf7 25. Rh1 Ng5 26. Rh6 Nh7 27. Qh1 Nf6 28. Rh8 Ke7 29. Ra8 Bd4 30. Qh6 Qc6 31. Rc1 Qb6 32. Rc7 Ke6 33. Re8 Ne8 34. Qg6 Ke5 35. Qf5# 1-0

350

Morphy - de Riviere
Paris, 1863
Ruy Lopez

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. 0-0 d6 5. d4 ed4 6. Nd4 Bd7 7. Bc6 bc6 8. Nc3 Be7 9. h3 c5 10. Nde2 0-0 11. f4 Bc6 12. Ng3 Nd7 13. Qd3 Rb8 14. b3 Bf6 15. Bd2 Bd4 16. Kh1 g6 17. Rae1 Qh4 18. Nce2 Bg7 19. c4 Nf6 20. Nc3 Bd7 21. Nge2 Nh5 22. Kh2 f5 23. e5 Bc6 24. g3 Qd8 25. e6 Re8 26. Ng1 Qc8 27. Nd5 Nf6 28. Bc3 Nd5 29. Bg7 Nf4 30. Rf4 Kg7 31. Qc3 Kg8 32. e7 Qa6 33. Re2 Kf7 34. g4 Re7 35. Re7 Ke7 36. Qg7 Kd8 37. Qg8 Kd7 38. Qh7 Kc8 39. Rf2 fg4 40. hg4 Be4 41. Qe7 Qc6 42. Re2 d5 43. cd5 Bd5 44. Nh3 Kb7 45. Nf4 Rh8 46. Kg3 Bh1 47. Re3 g5 48. Qg5 Qa6 49. Qc5 Qa2 50. Qb5 Ka8 51. Re8 Re8 52. Qe8 Kb7 53. Qb5 Kc8 54. g5 c6 55. Qf5 Kb7 56. Qf7 Kb6 57. g6 Qd2 58. g7 Qe1 59. Kg4 Qg1 60. Kf5 Qc5 61. Kf6 Qd4 62. Ke7 Qc5 63. Kd7 Qd4 64. Kc8 1-0

351

de Riviere - Morphy
Paris, 1863
Giuoco Piano

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d3 d6 6. h3 h6 7. b4 Bb6 8. a4 a6 9. Na3 0-0 10. Nc2 Be6 11. Qe2 d5 12. ed5 Bd5 13. 0-0 e4 14. Bd5 Qd5 15. de4 Ne4 16. c4 Ng3 17. cd5 Ne2 18. Kh2 Ne7 19. Re1 Nc1 20. Re7 Nd3 21. a5 Ba7 22. g3 Rfe8 23. Rc7 Re2 24. Ncd4 Rf2 0-1

352

de Riviere - Morphy
Paris, 1863
Giuoco Piano

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. d3 Nf6 5. 0-0 h6 6. c3 d6 7. b4 Bb6 8. a4 a5 9. b5 Ne7 10. Bb3 0-0 11. Nbd2 Ng6 12. Nc4 Bg4 13. Nb6 cb6 14. Qe2 Nh4 15. Kh1 Qc8 16. Bd2 Bf3 17. gf3 Qh3 18. Rg1 Nf3 19. Rg2 Ng4 20. Rag1 g5 21. Bd1 Ngh2 22. Rg3

22...Qh4 23. Kg2 g4 24. Rh1 f5 25. ef5 Rf5 26. Qe4 Raf8 27. Bf3 Rf3 28. Qg6 Kh8 29. Qh6 Qh6 30. Bh6 Rf2 31. Kg1 Rf1 32. Kh2 R8f2 33. Rg2 g3 34. Kg3 Rf3

35. Kg4 Rh1 36. Kf3 Rh6 37. c4 Kh7 38. Ke4 Rh4 39. Kf5 Rf4 40. Ke6 Rd4 41. Rg3 e4 42. Rg4 Rd3 43. Re4 Kg6 44. Rg4 Kh7 45. Kd7 Ra3 46. Kd6 Ra4 47. Kc7 Rb4 48. Kb6 a4 49. Ka5 Rb1 50. c5 a3 51. Ra4 Rb3 52. Kb6 Kg6 53. Ra5 Rc3 54. Ra7 Kf5 55. Rb7 1-0

353

Morphy - de Riviere
Paris, 1863
Two Knights

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d4 ed4 5. 0-0 Be7 6. Nd4 0-0 7. Nc3 Ne5 8. Be2 d5 9. f4 Nc6 10. Nc6 bc6 11. e5 Bc5 12. Kh1 Nd7 13. Bd3 Re8 14. Bd2 Nf8 15. Qh5 g6 16. Qh6 Ne6 17. f5 Bf8 18. Qh3 Nc5 19. e6

19...fe6 20. f6 e5 21. f7 Kh8 22. fe8(Q) Qe8 23. Bg6 Bh3 24. Be8 Bg2 25. Kg2 Re8 26. Rae1 1-0

354

de Riviere - Morphy
Paris, 1863
Two Knights

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. ed5 Na5 6. d3 h6 7. Nf3 e4 8. Qe2 Nc4 9. dc4 Bc5 10. h3 0-0 11. Nh2 Nh7 12. Nd2 f5 13. Nb3 Bd6 14. 0-0 Bh2 15. Kh2 f4 16. Qe4 Ng5 17. Qd4 Nf3 18. gf3 Qh4 19. Rh1 Bh3 20. Bd2 Rf6 0-1

355

Morphy - de Riviere
Paris, 1863
Evans Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Bc5 6. 0-0 d6 7. d4 ed4 8. cd4 Bb6 9. Nc3 Qf6 10. Nd5 Qg6 11. Nf4 Qf6 12. e5 de5 13. de5 Qf5 14. e6 f6 15. Nh4 Qc5

16. Be3 Qg5 17. Nf3 Qa5 18. Bb6 Qb6 19. Nd5 Qa5 20. Nd2 Nd4 21. Nb3 Nb3 22. ab3 Qc5 23. Qh5 Kd8 24. Rad1 1-0

356

de Riviere - Morphy
Paris, 1863
Evans Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Bc5 6. 0-0 d6 7. d4 ed4 8. cd4 Bb6 9. Nc3 Bg4 10. Bb5 Bd7 11. Bg5 Nce7 12. Bc4 Be6 13. Qa4 Qd7 14. Bb5 c6 15. Bd3 f6 16. Bh4 Ng6 17. Bg3 N8e7 18. d5 Bf7 19. Nb5 Bc5 20. Rac1 0-0 21. Nbd4 Kh8 22. Bc4 Ne5 23. Ne5 fe5 24. dc6 bc6 25. Nb3 Bb6 26. Rfd1 Bh5 27. Rd2 a5 28. Qa3 Rad8 29. Be5 Rf2 30. Kh1 Rd2 31. Bg7 Kg7 32. Nd2 Qa7 33. Qg3 Bg6 34. Rf1 Bd4 35. Nf3 Qc5 36. Bb3 Rf8 37. h4 Be5 38. Qg4 Qe3 0-1

357

Morphy - de Riviere
Paris, 1863
Evans Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Bc5 6. 0-0 d6 7. d4 ed4 8. cd4 Bb6 9. Nc3 Bg4 10. Bb5 Kf8 11. Be3 Nce7 12. h3 Bh5 13. Bd3 f6 14. a4 c6 15. Qb3 Bf7 16. Qa3 Ba5 17. Ne2 Nc8 18. Rab1 b6 19. Ba6 Nge7 20. e5 Bd5 21. Nf4 fe5 22. de5 de5 23. Nd5 cd5 24. Ne5 Qd6 25. Qb2 Nf5 26. Bf4 Qe7 27. Nc6 Qe4 28. Bb7 Qf4 29. Ba8 Qa4 30. Rbd1 Qe4 31. Qa3 Kf7 32. Na5 ba5 33. Rfe1 Qb4 34. Bd5 Kg6 35. Re6 Kg5 36. Qc1 Of4 37. h4 Nh4 38. Re5 Nf5 39. Rf5 Kf5 40. Be6 1-0

358

de Riviere - Morphy
Paris, 1863
Four Knights

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Nc3 Bc5 5. d3 h6 6. Qe2 0-0 7. Na4 Be7 8. a3 d5 9. ed5 Nd5 10. 0-0 Bg4 11. Be3 Kh8 12. Nc3 Nc3 13. bc3 f5 14. Bc1 Bd6 15. Rb1 e4 16. de4 Ne5 17. Ne5 Be2 18. Ng6 Kh7 19. Nf8 Qf8 20. Be2 fe4 21. Rb7 Ba3 22. Be3 a5 23. Rc7 Bd6 24. Rd7 Be5 25. f3 Qc8 26. Re7 Qc3 27. Bf2 a4 28, f4 Bd4 29. Re4 Bf2 30. Rf2 a3 31. Bd3 g6 32. f5 a2 33. fg6 Kh8 0-1

359

Morphy - de Riviere
Paris, 1863
King’s Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 Bg7 5. 0-0 h6 6. c3 d6 7. d4 Ne7 8. h4 Ng6 9. h5 Ne7 10. g3 Bg4 11. gf4 Bh5 12. fg5 Qd7 13. Ne5 Qh3 14. Qd3 Qd3 15. Nd3 hg5 16. Na3 c6 17. Bg5 Bd4 18. cd4 Rg8 19. Rf6 Rg5 20. Kf2 Nd7 21. Rd6 0-0-0 22. Rg1 Rg1 23. Kg1 Kc7 24. Rh6 Bg6 25. Nf4 Be4 26. Bf7 Bf5 27. Be6 Nf8 28. d5 Ne6 29. Ne6 Be6 30. de6 Rd5 31. Kf2 b5 32. Kf3 Rd2 33. Nb1 Rb2 34. Nc3 Kd6 35. Kf4 Nd5 36. Nd5 cd5 37. e7 Ke7 38. Ra6 Re2 39. a3 Kd7 40. Ra7 Kc6 41. Kf3 Re4 42. Ra8 Ra4 43. Rc8 Kd6 44. Rc3 d4 45. Rb3 Kc5 46. Ke4 Ra8 47. Kd3 Rh8 48. Kd2 Rh2 49. Kc1 Kc4 50. Rg3 d3 51. Rg8 Ra2 52. Rc8 Kb3 53. Rb8 Rc2 54. Kd1 Rc5 55. Kd2 Ka3 56. Kd3 b4 0-1

360

de Riviere - Morphy
Paris, 1863
King’s Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Nc3 Bb4 5. Nf3 0-0 6. Nd5 Nd5 7. ed5 Re8 8. Kf2 d6 9. d4 Qf6 10. c3 Ba5 11. Qa4 Bd7 12. Qa5 b6 13. Qa3 g5 14. h3 h5 15. Bd2 g4 16. hg4 hg4 17. Ng1 b5 18. Bd3 Bf5 19. Bb5 Nd7 20. Qa4 Rab8 21. Bd7 g3 22. Kf3 Be4 23. Kg4 Bd5 24. Be8 Qg6 25. Kf4 Qe4 26. Kg5 Kg7

27. Rh6 Be6 28. Re6 Qe6 29. Qd7 Rb2 30. Nf3 1-0

361

Morphy - St. Leon
Paris, 1863
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 g4 5. d4 gf3 6. Qf3 Bh6 7. 0-0 Qf6 8. e5 Qg7 9. Bf4 Bf4 10. Qf4 Nh6 11. Rf3 Rg8 12. Rg3 Qf8 13. Rg8 Ng8 14. Rf1 Nh6 15. g4 d6 16. e6 f6 17. g5 Qg7 18. Qf6 Qf6 19. Rf6 Ng8 20. Rf7 c6 21. Rg7 Ne7 22. Rh7 Kd8 23. Rh8 Kc7 24. Re8 d5 25. Re7 Kd6 26. Re8 dc4 27. Rc8 Ke6 28. h4 Kf5 29. Rg8 1-0

362

Morphy - Golmayo
Havana, 1864
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 Bg7 5. 0-0 d6 6. c3 h6 7. Qb3 Qd7 8. d4 Nc6 9. Qc2 Nge7 10. h4 g4 11. Nh2 g3 12. Nf3 Qg4 13. h5 Qh5 14. Bf4 Nd4 15. Qd1 Nf3 16. Rf3 Qh2 17. Kf1 Qh1 18. Ke2 Qg2 19. Ke1 Bg4 0-1

363

Morphy - Golmayo
Havana, 1864
Evans Gambit
Morphy blindfolded

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Bc5 6. 0-0 d6 7. d4 ed4 8. cd4 Bb6 9. Nc3 Nf6 10. e5 de5 11. Ba3 Bd4 12. Qb3 Be6 13. Be6 fe6 14. Qe6 Ne7 15. Nd4 ed4 16. Rfe1 Qd7 17. Qe7 Qe7 18. Re7 Kd8 19. Rd1 b6 20. Rd4 Kc8 21. Nb5 Kb8 22. Rc7 Re8 23. g3 a6 24. Bd6 Ne4 25. Re4 Re4 26. Re7 Kc8 27. Re4 ab5 28. Re8 Kb7 29. Ra8 1-0

364

Morphy - Dominguez
Havana, 1864
Two Knights
Morphy blindfolded

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d4 ed4 5. 0-0 Bc5 6. e5 Ne4 7. Bd5 f5 8. ef6 Nf6 9. Bg5 Be7 10. Bf6 Bf6 11. Re1 Ne7 12. Ne5 Be5 13. Qh5 g6 14. Qe5 Rf8 15. Nd2 c6 16. Ne4 d6 17. Nd6 Kd7 18. Be6 Kc7 19. Nc8 Qd6 20. Qd6# 1-0

365

Morphy - F. Sicre
Havana, 1864
Philidor
Morphy blindfolded

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 ed4 4. Bc4 h6 5. c3 c6 6. 0-0 dc3 7. Qb3 Qc7 8. Nc3 g5 9. Bc3 Bg7 10. Rac1 Bc3 11. Qc3 Rh7 12. e5 Nd7 13. Bd3 Nf8 14. ed6 Qd8 15. Rfe1 Be6 16. Ne5 Nf6 17. Bh7 N8h7 18. Bc5 Nd7 19. Ng4 b6 20. Qg7 Nhf8 21. Bd4 1-0

366

Morphy - McConnell
New Orleans, 1866
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Bc5 6. 0-0 d6 7. d4 ed4 8. cd4 Bb6 9. d5 Ne5 10. Ne5 de5 11. Bb2 Qe7 12. Qb3 Nf6 13. Kh1 Ng4 14. Qg3 Qc5 15. Bb3 Nf2 16. Rf2 Qf2 17. Qe5 Kd8 18. Qg7 Re8 19. Bf6 Kd7 20. Qf7 Kd6 21. e5 Re5 22. Qf8 1-0

367

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1866
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. f4 d5 3. ed5 Qd5 4. Nf3 Bg4 5. Be2 Bf3 6. Bf3 e4 7. Qe2 Nf6 8. d3 Qb5 9. c4 Qb4 10. Bd2 Qb2 11. 0-0 Nc6 12. Be4 Ne4 13. Qe4 Be7 14. Be3 Qf6 15. d4 0-0 16. d5 Rfe8 17. dc6 Bc5 18. cb7 Rad8 19. Qe8 Re8 20. Bc5 Qc6 21. Ba7 Qb7 22. Bf2 f5 23. a4 Re2 24. a5 Re6 25. Rab1 Qc8 26. Rb5 g6 27. Re5 Ra6 28. Rfe1 Ra8 29. Bd4 Qa6 30. Re7 Qc4 31. Rd7 Kf8 32. h3 1-0

368

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1866
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Bc5 6. 0-0 d6 7. d4 ed4 8. cd4 Bb6 9. Bb2 Bg4 10. Bb5 Kf8 11. Bc6 bc6 12. h3 h5 13. Qd3 Bf3 14. Qf3 Rh6 15. a4 a5 16. Rac1 Ne7 17. Qe3 f5 18. Qg5 fe4 19. Rfe1 Nd5 20. Qf5 Nf6 21. Re4 Qd7 22. Re6 Qf7 23. d5 Nd5 24. Bg7 Kg7 25. Qf7 Kf7 26. Rh6 Nf6 27. g4 hg4 28. hg4 Ng4 29. Rh7 Kg6 30. Rh3 Bf2 31. Kg2 Bc5 32. Rg3 Kf5 33. Rf1 Kg5 34. Rf7 Rg8 35. Kf3 Kg6 36. Rf4 Kh5 37. Rh3 Kg6 38. Rg4 Kf7 39. Rh7 Kf8 40. Rf4 Ke8 41. Rc7 Kd8 draw, after further, unrecorded moves

369

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1866
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nh3 de4 4. Bc4 Nf6 5. 0-0 b6 6. f3 e3 7. Be3 Be7 8. Qe2 0-0 9. Rad1 Nd5 10. Bc1 Nc6 11. c3 Bd6 12. Bd3 f5 13. Bb5 Nce7 14. c4 Nb4 15. a3 c6 16. Ba4 b5 17. c5 Bc7 18. Bb3 Nbd5 19. Bg5 Qe8 20. Be7 Qe7 21. Bd5 cd5 22. Qb5 e5 23. Qc6 Be6 24. de5 Rac8 25. Ng5 Qg5 26. Qe6 Kh8 27. f4 Qg4 28. Rf3 Bb6

29. b4 Bc5 30. bc5 Rc5 31. Qd6 Rfc8 32. Rd5 Rc1 33. Rd1 h6 34. h3 Qh4 35. Rc1 Rc1 36. Kh2 Qe1 37. Qf8 Kh7 38. Qf5 Kg8 39. Rd3 Qg1 40. Kg3 Qe1 41. Kg4 Qe2 42. Kh4 Qf2 43. g3 Qb6 44. Rd6 Qc7 45. Rd7 1-0

370

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1866
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Bc5 6. 0-0 d6 7. d4 ed4 8. cd4 Bb6 9. d5 Na5 10. e5 Nc4 11. Qa4 Qd7 12. Qc4 Ne7 13. Re1 de5 14. Ne5 Qd5 15. Qa4 Bd7 16. Nd7 Qd7 17. Re7 Ke7 18. Ba3 Ke8 19. Re1 Be3 20. Qb3 Kd8 21. Qb7 Rc8 22. fe3 Qd3 23. Bb4 f5 24. Re2 Re8 25. Rd2 Re3 26. Rd3 Rd3 27. Be7 1-0

371

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1866
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Bc5 6. 0-0 d6 7. d4 ed4 8. cd4 Bb6 9. d5 Na5 10. e5 Nc4 11. Qa4 Bd7 12. Qc4 Ne7 13. e6 fe6 14. de6 Bc6 15. Bg5 h6 16. Qh4 Bf3 17. gf3 d5 18. f4 Bd4 19. Rad1 c5 20. f5 Qd6 21. Rfe1 g6 22. Rd4 cd4 23. f6 Nf5 24. Qh3 Rc8 25. f7 Kf8 26. Bf6 Qf4 27. Bh8 Rc6 28. Qf5 Qf5 29. e7 Kf7 30. e8(Q)# 1-0

372

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1866
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d4 ed4 5. 0-0 Ne4 6. Bd5 Nc5 7. Ng5 Ne6 8. Re1 Be7 9. Qh5 Ng5 10. Bg5 0-0 11. Re7 Ne7 12. Re1 g6 13. Qf3 c6 14. Be7 Qa5 15. Re5 Qd2 16. h3 d6 17. Bg5 de5 18. Bd2 cd5 19. Qf6 1-0

373

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1866
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. 0-0 Nf6 7. Ng5 0-0 8. Qb3 Qe7 9. Ba3 d6 10. d4 Bb6 11. f4 Na5 12. Qa4 Nc4 13. Qc4 h6 14. Nf3 Ng4 15. fe5 Ne5 16. Qe2 Bg4 17. Kh1 Nf3 18. gf3 Bd7 19. Rg1 Rfe8 20. Rg3 Qh4 21. Rag1 g5 22. Bc1 f6 23. Qd3 Re7 24. c4 Kh8 25. Qc3 Re4 26. c5 dc5 27. dc5 Rf8 28. fe4 Qe4 29. R1g2 Bc6 30. cb6 Qf5 31. h3 Qf1 32. Kh2 Bg2 33. Rg2 cb6 34. Qc2 Kg7 35. Rf2 Qb5 36. Bb2 Qc6 37. Qd3 Qc5 38. Qd7 Kg6 39. Bd4 Qc6 40. Qf5 Kg7 41. Be5 b5 42. h4 Rf7 43. h5 Kf8 44. Bf6 Qc7 45. Kh3 Qc4 46. Rc2 Qh4 47. Kg2 1-0

374

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1866
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 g4 5. d4 gf3 6. Qf3 Nc6

7. Bf7 Kf7 8. Qh5 Ke7 9. Bf4 Nf6 10. Bg5 Bg7 11. e5 Qe8 12. Qh4 Qg6 13. 0-0 d5 14. ef6 Kf7 15. fg7 Kg7 16. Rf6 Bf5 17. Rg6 hg6 18. Bf6 1-0

375

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1866
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Bc5 6. 0-0 d6 7. d4 ed4 8. cd4 Bb6 9. Bb2 Na5 10. Bd3 Ne7 11. Ng5 0-0 12. f4 f6 13. Nf3 c5 14. Kh1 cd4 15. f5 d5 16. Nh4 Nc4 17. Bc4 dc4 18. Rf3 Qd6 19. Rg3 Bd7 20. Bc1 d3 21. Bh6 Rf7 22. Qh5 Bf2 23. Rg4 d2 24. Rd1 c3 25. Rf4 c2 26. Rf2 cd1(Q) 27. Qd1 Ba4 28. Qd2 Qd2 29. Bd2 Rd8 30. Nf3 Nc6 31. h4 Rfd7 32. Bf4 Nd4 33. Nd4 Rd4 34. Re2 Bc6 0-1 after some further, unrecorded moves

376

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1866
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Bc5 6. 0-0 d6 7. d4 ed4 8. cd4 Bb6 9. d5 Na5 10. e5 Nc4 11. Qa4 Bd7 12. Qc4 Ne7 13. Re1 0-0 14. Bg5 Re8 15. e6 Bc8 16. ef7 Kf7 17. Qf4 Kg8 18. Qh4 Kf8 19. Qh7 Qd7 20. Be7 Re7 21. Ng5 Bf2 22. Kh1 Re1 23. Re1 Be1 24. Qh8 Ke7 25. Qg7 Kd8 26. Ne6 Qe6 27. de6 Be6 28. Qf8 Kd7 29. Qa8 1-0

377

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1866
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. d4 ed4 5. c3 Bb6 6. Ng5 Nh6 7. Qh5 Qf6 8. 0-0 0-0 9. Kh1 Qg6 10. Qe2 d6 11. h3 Kh8 12. g4 f6 13. Nf3 Ng4 14. hg4 Bg4 15. Qd3 Bf3 16. Qf3 f5 17. Rg1 fe4 18. Qf8 Rf8 19. Rg6 hg6 20. Bg5 Rf2 21. Rg1 Rf3 22. Rg4 Rh3 23. Kg2 Rh5 0-1 after some further, unrecorded moves

378

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1866
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. 0-0 Nf6 7. d4 0-0 8. Qc2 ed4 9. cd4 d5 10. ed5 Ne7 11. Ba3 Bf5 12. Qa4 Bb6 13. Rfe1 Ne4 14. Be7 Qe7 15. Bd3 Rae8 16. Qc2 Qb4 17. Be4 Be4 18. Re4 f5 19. a3 Qa5 20. Re8 Re8 21. Qf5 Bd4 22. Rb1 Re2 23. Qc8 Kf7 24. Qg4 Rb2 25. Qe6 Kf8 26. Rb2 Bb2 27. Ng5 1-0

379

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans,1866
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. 0-0 Nf6 5. b4 Bb4 6. c3 Be7 7. Ng5 0-0 8. d4 d5 9. ed5 Nd5 10. Qh5 Bg5 11. Bg5 Nf4 12. Qh4 Qd7 13. de5 Ng6 14. e6 Qd6 15. ef7 Kh8 16. Qg3 Qg3 17. fg3 Na5 18. Bd5 c6 19. c4 cd5 20. cd5 Nc4 21. Rae1 Nd6 22. Be7 Ne7 23. Re7 Bf5 24. h3 Rad8 0-1

380

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1867
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. f4 c6 2. Nf3 g6 3. e3 Bg7 4. Be2 Nh6 5. 0-0 f5 6. d3 0-0 7. h3 b6 8. Kh2 Bb7 9. Rg1 c5 10. Qe1 Na6 11. c3 Qc7 12. g4 Nf7 13. gf5 ef5 14. Bd2 Rae8 15. h4 Re6 16. Qf2 Rfe8 17. Rg2 Bh6 18. Re1 Re3 19. Be3 Re3 20. Ng5 Bg5 21. hg5 Qc6 22. Rgg1 Qe6 23. Bd1 Re1 24. Re1 Qd6 25. Bb3 Nc7 26. Re3 Ne6 27. Kg1 Qf4 28. Qf4 Nf4 29. Re8 Kg7 30. Re7 Nh3 31. Kh2 Nhg5 32. Rd7 Bc6 33. Ra7 f4 34. Bf7 Nf7 35. Ra6 Bb5 36. Rb6 Bd3 37. a4 Kh6 38. a5 Ne5 39. Re6 Nf3 40. Kg2 Ng5 41. Re5 f3 42. Kg3 Ba6 43. b4 Bb7 44. Re7 Bd5 45. bc5

45...Nh3 46. Re1 f2 47. Rc1 Bc4 48. Kg2 Nf4 49. Kf3 f1(Q) 50. Rf1 Bf1 51. Kf4 g5 52. Kf3 Kh5 53. c6 Ba6 0-1

381

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1867
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Bc5 6. 0-0 d6 7. d4 ed4 8. cd4 Bb6 9. d5 Na5 10. e5 Nc4 11. Qa4 Qd7 12. Qc4 Ne7 13. Re1 Qg4 14. Re4 Qg6 15. ed6 cd6 16. Qe2 Bd8 17. Nh4 Qf6 18. Bb2 Qg5 19. Qb5 Kf8 20. Rae1 a6 21. Qe2 Bd7 22. Nf3 Qd5 23. Re7 Be6 24. Bg7 Ke7 25. Rd1 Qa2 26. Qe4 Bc7 27. Qh4 Kd7 28. Ne5 Ke8 29. Ng4 Bd8 30. Nf6 Bf6 31. Bf6 Rg8 32. Qb4 Qc2 33. Qd6 Rg2 34. Kg2 Qc6 35. Qc6 bc6 36. Kg3 Bd5 37. Kf4 Kd7 38. Rg1 Re8 39. Rg7 Re2 40. Rh7 Rf2 41. Ke5 a5 42. Rh8 a4 43. Ra8 Bb3 44. h4 Re2 45. Kf4 Rg2 46. Ke5 Re2 47. Kf4 Bd1 48. Rd8 Ke6 49. Rd1 Of6 50. Rd6 Kg7 51. Rc6 a3 52. Ra6 Ra2 53. Kg5 Ra1 54. Ra7 a2 55. Kh5 Kf6 56. Kh6 Rh1 57. Ra6 Ke5 58. Ra2 Rh4 59. Kg5 Re4 60. Rf2 draw

382

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1867
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 Bg7 5. d4 d6 6. h4 h6 7. c3 g4 8. Bf4 gf3 9. Qf3 Qe7 10. 0-0 Nf6 11. e5 de5 12. Be5 0-0 13. Rae1 Be6 14. Bf6 Bf6 15. Bd3 Bg7 16. Qe4 f5 17. Qb7 Nd7 18. Qc6 Ne5 19. de5 Rae8 20. b4 Qd7 21. Qf3 Bd5 22. Bf5 Bf3 23. Bd7 Re7 24. gf3 Rd7 25. f4 Rd3 26. f5 Rc3 27. f6 Bf6 28. ef6 Rc4 29. a3 Rh4 30. Re7 Rf7 31. Rf7 Kf7 32. Rc1 Kf6 33. Rc7 Rg4 34. Kf2 Rg7 draw

383

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1867
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. 0-0 Nf6 7. d4 0-0 8. Ne5 Ne4 9. Nf7 Rf7 10. Bf7 Kf7 11. d5 Ne5 12. Qh5 Ng6 13. d6 c6 14. Qf5 Nf6 15. Qc2 Qe8 16. Bb2 Qe4 17. Qb3 Qe6 18. Qa4 b6 19. Rfe1 Qg4 20. Qb3 Kf8 21. h3 Qg5 22. Bc1 Qb5 23. Qc2 Ba6 24. Re3 Re8 25. Rf3 Qf1 26. Kh2 Nh4 27. Rf6 Kg8 28. Kg3 Qg2 29. Kh4 gf6 30. Qb3 Kh8 31. Bf4 Re4 0-1

384

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1867
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. g3 d5 2. e3 e5 3. Bg2 c6 4. Ne2 Bd6 5. b3 Ne7 6. Bb2 0-0 7. d3

7...Na6 8. 0-0 f6 9. Qd2 Be6 10. h3 Qd7 11. Kh2 Rae8 12. Rg1 Nc7 13. c4 dc4 14. dc4 Bc5 15. Qc3 Rd8 16. Rad1 Qc8 17. b4 Bb6 18. c5 Rd1 19. Rd1 Ncd5 20. Qa3 Bd8 21. e4 Nc7 22. f4 Nb5 23. Qe3 ef4 24. gf4 Ba2 25. Ng3 Bf7 26. Rg1 Bc7 27. Bf3 Qb8 28. e5 fe5 29. f5 Nd5 30. Bd5 Bd5 31. Nh5 Rf7 32. Rg4 Nd4 33. f6 g6 34. Kg1 Nf5 35. Qg5 Be6 36. Rg2 Qd8 37. Rd2 Nd4 38. Kf2 Qd5 39. Ng3 Qf3 40. Ke1 Qf6 41. Qf6 Rf6 42. Bd4 ed4 43. Ne4 Rf4 44. Re2 Bc4 0-1

385

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans,1867
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 Bg7 5. h4 h6 6. d4 d6 7. c3 g4 8. Bf4 gf3 9. Qf3 Be6 10. d5 Bd7 11. 0-0-0 b5 12. Bb3 Qf6 13. Rde1 h5 14. e5 Qf4 15. Qf4 Bh6 16. ed6 Kf8 17. Qh6 Rh6 18. dc7 Na6 19. d6 Rd6 20. Rd1 Rd1 21. Rd1 Ke7 22. Bf7 Nf6 23. Bd5 Rf8 24. Re1 Kd6 25. Bf3 Nc7 26. Rd1 Ke7 27. Re1 Kf7 28. Re5 Bg4 29. Rc5 Rc8 30. Bb7 Nd7 31. Rh5 Bh5 32. Bc8 Ke6 33. Kd2 Nd5 34. b3 Kd6 35. c4 bc4 36. bc4 N7b6 37. Ba6 Nc7 0-1

386

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans,1867
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Bc5 6. 0-0 d6 7. d4 ed4 8. cd4 Bb6 9. d5 Na5 10. e5 Nc4 11. Qa4 Bd7 12. Qc4 Ne7 13. e6 fe6 14. de6 Bc6 15. Bg5 h6 16. Qh4 Bf3 17. gf3 Rg8 18. f4 hg5 19. Qh5 g6 20. Qh7 Rf8 21. fg5 Nf5 22. Qg6 Ke7 23. Rae1 Qe8 24. Qh7 Kd8 25. Kg2 Qe7 26. Qh5 Bd4 27. Qg4 c6 28. h4 Kc7 29. h5 Rg8 30. f4 Ne3 31. Re3 Be3 32. g6 Raf8 33. f5 Qg5 34. Kg3 d5 35. Qg5 Bg5 36. Kg4 Bf6 37. h6 d4 38. h7 Rg7 39. Kh5

39...c5 40. Re1 Kd6 41. Kh6 d3 42. e7 Re7 43. Re7 Ke7 44. g7 Bg7 45. Kg7 Rf7 46. Kg6 Rh7 47. Kh7 Kf6 0-1

387

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1867
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. 0-0 Nf6 7. Qc2 0-0 8. Ba3 d6 9. d4 Qe7 10. Rae1 Bb6 11. h3 Nh5 12. Bc1 ed4 13. Bg5 Qe8 14. cd4 Nd4 15. Qd1 Nf3 16. Qf3 Qe5 17. Qh5 h6 18. h4 hg5 19. hg5 Be6 20. Be2 Ba2 21. g3 Be6 22. Kg2 g6 23. Qh4 Qh8 24. f4 Qh4 25. gh4 f5 26. h5 fe4 27. hg6 Kg7 28. Bh5 Bf5 29. Kg3 Rh8 30. Bg4 Kg6 31. Rh1 Raf8 32. Rd1 Bc5 33. Rb1 b6 0-1

388

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1869
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 Bg7 5. 0-0 h6 6. c3 d6 7. Qb3 Qd7 8. d4 Nc6 9. Bd3 Nge7 10. Bd2 0-0 11. Rae1 Qd8 12. h4 g4 13. Nh2 f3 14. gf3 g3 15. Ng4 Bg4 16. fg4 Ng6 17. h5 Qh4 18. Kg2 Qh2 19. Kf3 Qd2 20. hg6 Qd3 21. Kg2 Kh8 22. gf7 Nd4 23. cd4 Qb3 24. ab3 Bd4 25. Rf5 Kg7 26. g5 hg5 27. Ref1 Bf2 28. Rg5 Kh6 29. Rg4 Kh5 30. Rg7 Kh6 31. Rg4 Kh5 draw

389

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1869
Remove Whites Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb6 5. a4 a6 6. d4 Bd4 7. Nd4 Nd4 8. 0-0 d6 9. Ra3 Ne7 10. f4 Be6 11. Be6 Ne6 12. f5 Nd4 13. Rg3 Kd7 14. c3 Ndc6 15. Rg7 f6 16. Qb3 Qf8 17. Rf7 Qg8 18. Qe6 Ke8 19. Rf6 Nd8

20. Qg8 Ng8 21. Bg5 Nf6 22. Bf6 Rg8 23. h3 Kf7 24. Bh4 h5 25. Kf2 Nc6 26. Rg1 Rg7 27. Kf3 Rag8 28. g3 Nb8 29. Rd1 Nd7 30. c4 Nf6 31. c5 Rd8 32. b5 ab5 33. ab5 d5 34. Ke2 Rd7 35. ed5 Nd5 36. Rc1 Nf6 37. Ke3 Rg8 38. c6 bc6 39. Rc6 Ne8 40. Rh6 Rd5 41. Rh7 Rg7 42. Rh5 Rb5 43. Rh8 Nf6 44. Bf6 Kf6 45. g4 Rb4 46. Rh6 Kf7 47. Rh5 Rf4 48. Rh6 Rb4 49. Rh5 c5 50. g5 Rf4 51. f6 Rg8 52. h4 c4 53. Rh7 Kf8 54. Kd2 Rf3 55. Rc7 Rd3 56. Kc2 Rd4 57. Rh7 Rg4 58. Kc3 Rg6 59. Rh8 Kf7 60. Kb4 Rg8 61. Rh7 Ke6 62. Re7 Kf5 63. Rg7 Rb8 64. Kc5 Rh4 65. f7 Rf8 66. Kd6 c3 67. Ke7 Rhh8 68. g6 c2 69. Rh7 Kg6 0-1

390

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1869
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Bc5 6. 0-0 d6 7. d4 ed4 8. cd4 Bb6 9. d5 Ne5 10. Ne5 de5 11. Bb2 Qf6 12. Bb5 Kf8 13. Kh1 Nh6 14. Be2 Qf4 15. f3 f6 16. Rc1 Nf7 17. Rc3 Qh6 18. Ba3 Ke8 19. Qc2 Bd7 20. Rb1 Qg6 21. Bb5 f5 22. Bd7 Kd7 23. Qa4 c6 24. dc6 bc6 25. ef5 Qf6 26. Rd1 Bd4 27. f4 Kc7 28. fe5 Ne5 29. Rd4 Rhd8 30. Qa5 Kc8 31. Qa6 Kc7 32. Rb3 Rdb8 33. Qa5 Kc8 34. Bd6 1-0

391

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1869
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d5 3. ed5 e4 4. Qe2 Be7 5. Qe4 Nf6 6. Qa4 Bd7 7. Qb3 Bg4 8. Ne5 0-0 9. Bc4 Bh5 10. d4 Re8 11. 0-0 Ne4 12. Qb7 Nd7 13. Nc6 Qc8 14. Qc8 Rac8 15. Ba6 Rb8 16. Nb8 Nb8 17. Bb5 Rd8 18. Re1 f5 19. f3 Bb4 20. c3 Nc3 21. bc3 Bc3 22. Bf4 Bd4 23. Kh1 Ba1 24. Ra1 Bf7 25. Bc7 Rd5 26. Bc41-0

392

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1869
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. b3 e5 2. Bb2 Nc6 3. e3 d5 4. g3 Nf6 5. Bg2 Be7 6. Ne2 Be6 7. 0-0 0-0 8. f4 ef4 9. Nf4 Ne4 10. d3 Bf6 11. de4 Bb2 12. Rb1 de4 13. Ne6 Qe7 14. Nf8 Rd8 15. Qh5 Qe5 16. Qf7 Kh8 17. Nd7 1-0

393

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1869
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 ed4 4. Bc4 Nf6 5. 0-0 Be7 6. e5 Ne4 7. Bd5 Nc5 8. Nd4 Nd4 9. Qd4 c6 10. b4 Ne6 11. Be6 de6 12. Qg4 g6 13. Bh6 f5 14. Qh3 Kf7 15. f4 b6 16. Rad1 Qc7 17. g4 c5 18. Qc3 Bb7 19. Rd6 Rad8 20. Kf2 Qc8 21. gf5 gf5 22. Qh3 Bd6 23. Qh5 Ke7 24. b5 Rdf8 25. Rd1 Kd7 26. Rd6 Kc7 27. Bf8 Qf8 28. Re6 Qg7 29. Qg5 Qg5 30. fg5 Kd7 31. Rd6 Ke7 32. Ke3 f4 33. Kf4 Rf8 34. Rf6 Rf6 35. ef6 Ke6 36. h4 Bc8 37. h5 Bd7 38. f7 Kf7 39. Ke5 Bg4 40. g6 hg6 41. hg6 Kg6 42. Kd6 Bd1 43. c3 Kf5 44. Kc7 Ke4 45. Kb7 Kd3 46. Ka7 Kc3 47. Kb6 Kd4 0-1

394

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1869
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. 0-0 Nf6 7. d4 ed4 8. cd4 d6 9. Qc2 0-0 10. Bg5 h6 11. Bh4 Bg4 12. d5 Nb8 13. Nd2 g5 14. Bg3 Nh5 15. h3 Bb6 16. hg4 Ng3 17. Rfb1 Bf2 18. Kf2 Qf6 19. Kg3 Qf4 20. Kh3 h5 21. g3 hg4 22. Kg2 Qe3 23. Re1 Qc5 24. Qd1 f5 25. ef5 Rf5 26. Ne4 Qc4 27. Qg4 Qd5 28. Rad1 Qe6 29. Rf1 Re5 30. Nf6 Kg7 31. Qh5 Re2 32. Kh1 1-0

395

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1869
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. 0-0 Nf6 7. d4 0-0 8. Qc2 ed4 9. cd4 d5 10. ed5 Ne7 11. Ba3 Bf5 12. Qb3 Ne8 13. Ne5 Nd6 14. g4 Bg6 15. f4 Be4 16. f5 f6 17. Nd3 Nc4 18. Qc4 Bd3 19. Qd3 Re8 20. Qb3 Kh8 21. d6 cd6 22. g5 Qb6 23. Qd3 Nc6 24. Rad1 Qd4 25. Qd4 Nd4 26. gf6 gf6 27. Bb2 Bc3 28. Bc3 Ne2 29. Kh1 Nc3 30. Rd6 Rad8 31. Rf6 Rg8 32. Re6 Rde8 33. Rfe1 Re6 34. Re6 Rf8 35. Re7 Rf5 36. Kg2 Na2 37. Rb7 a5 0-1

396

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1869
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 Nd4 4. Ne5 Nc6 5. Nf7 Kf7 6. Bc4 d5 7. Bd5 Ke8 8. Qh5 g6 9. Bc6 bc6 10. Qe5 Qe7 11. Qh8 Qg7 12. Qg7 Bg7 13. c3 Ba6 14. Bf4 Rb8 15. 0-0-0 Bh6 16. Bh6 Nh6 17. h3 Rb5 18. f4 Ra5 19. Kb1 Nf7 20. Rd2 Ra4 21. Re1 Nd6 22. e5 Re4 23. Red1 Nb7 24. Rd7 Rf4 25. e6 Nc5 26. Rc7 Bd3 27. Ka1 Bc2 28. Rg1 a5 29. Rh7 Rf6 30. b3 a4 31. ba4 Ba4 32. Rb1 1-0

397

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1869
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. d4 Bd4 5. 0-0 Nf6 6. c3 Bb6 7. Ng5 0-0 8. Kh1 h6 9. f4 d6 10. f5 Na5 11. Nf7 Rf7 12. Bf7 Kt7 13. g4 Bd7 14. g5 Bc6 15. h4 hg5 16. Bg5 Ne4 17. Qh5 Kg8 18. Kh2 Qe8 19. Qe2 Ng5 20. hg5 e4 21. g6 Qe5 22. Kh3 Kf8 23. Qh5 e3 24. Qh8 Ke7 25. Qa8 e2 26. Qg8 ef1(Q) 27. Rf1 Bc5 28. Qh7 Qe3 29. Kh4 Qe4 30. Kh5 Qe2 31. Kh4 Qh2 32. Kg4 Qg2 33. Kh4 Bf2 34. Rf2 Qf2 35. Kg4 Qf3 36. Kh4 Qf4 37. Kh3 Qf5 38. Kh4 Qf4 39. Kh3 Qh6 40. Kg3 Nc4 41. b3 Ne5 0-1

398

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1869
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Ne5 d6 4. Nf7 Kf7 5. Bc4 Be6 6. Be6 Ke6 7. d4 Be7 8. Qd3 d5 9. e5 Ne4 10. 0-0 Kf7 11. f3 Ng5 12. f4 Ne4 13. Qh3 Nc6 14. c3 Qc8 15. f5 Ne5 16. de5 Bc5 17. Be3 Be3 18. Qe3 Rf8 19. c4 c6 20. Rad1 Qd8 21. Rf4 Qa5 22. cd5 cd5 23. Rg4 Kg8 24. Rf4 Qa2 25. Qd4 Rac8 26. f6 Qb3 27. Qd5 Qd5 28. Rd5 draw after further, unrecorded moves.

399

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1869
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 Bg7 5. 0-0 d6 6. c3 Ne7 7. Qb3 0-0 8. d4 Nbc6 9. Bd3 d5 10. e5 Bf5 11. Bf5 Nf5 12. Qb7 Qd7 13. Qa6 Rae8 14. b4 Re6 15. Qd3 Rg6 16. a4 h5 17. a5 h4 18. b5 Nce7 19. Bd2 h3 20. gh3 g4 21. hg4 Rg4 22. Kh1 Ng6 23. Rg1 Nfh4 24. Raf1 Qf5 25. Qf5 Rg1 26. Ng1 Nf5 27. Bf4 Nf4 28. Rf4 Ne3 29. Rf3 Bh6 30. Rf6 Kh7 31. Rc6 Rg8 32. Rc7 Rg7 33. Ra7 Nd1 34. Nh3 1-0

400

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1869
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. 0-0 Nf6 7. Ng5 0-0 8. Ba3 d6 9. d4 h6 10. Nf7 Rf7 11. Bf7 Kf7 12. f4 ed4 13. e5 Ng4 14. e6 Be6 15. f5 Bd5 16. f6 Nf6 17. Qh5 Kg8 18. Rf6 Qf6 19. Qd5 Qf7 20. Qb5 Rf8 21. cd4 Qf2 22. Kh1 Nd4 23. Qb3 Be1 0-1

401

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1869
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 Bg7 5. c3 h6 6. Qb3 Qe7 7. d4 d6 8. 0-0 c6 9. Bd2 Be6 10. d5 Bg4 11. e5 cd5 12. Bd5 Nc6 13. ed6 Qd7 14. Rae1 Kf8 15. Nd4 Nd4 16. cd4 Bd4 17. Kh1 Bc5 18. Qc3 Qd6 19. Qh8 Qd5 20. Bc3 Be3 21. Re3 fe3 22. Bb4 Ke8 23. Qg8 Kd7 24. Rf7 Kc6 25. Rc7 1-0

402

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1869
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 Bg4 4. Bc4 Nd7 5. c3 Bf3 6. gf3 Nb6 7. Bd3 f5 8. Qb3 f4 9. de5 de5 10. Qb5 Nd7 11. Bf4 c6 12. Qb7 ef4 13. Qc6 Ne7 14. Qa4 Nc8 15. Bb5 Ncb6 16. Qd4 Kf7 17. Bc4 Nc4 18. Qc4 Ke8 19. 0-0-0 Rc8 20. Qa4 Qc7 21. e5 Qc6 22. Qf4 Ba3 23. Qd2 Qc3 24. Qc3 Rc3 25. Kb1 Rf3 26. ba3 Rf2 27. Rd6 Ke7 28. Ra6 Rb8 29. Ka1 Rbb2 30. Ra7 Ra2 31. Kb1 Rh2 32. Rh2 Rh2 33. a4 Re2 34. a5 Re5 35. Kb2 Kd6 36. Kb3 Rb5 37. Ka4 Rb1 38. a6 h5 0-1

403

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1869
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. f4 Bc5 3. Nf3 d6 4. Bc4 Nc6 5. b4 Bb6 6. a4 a6 7. c3 Bg4 8. h3 Bf3 9. Qf3 ef410. d4 Qh4 11. Kd1 Qg3 12. Qh5 g6 13. Qd5 Nd8 14. e5 Ne7 15. Qe4 Qc3 16. ed6 cd6 17. Re1 Qd4 18. Kc2 Qe4 19. Re4 Kd7 20. Bb2 Re8 21. Rae1 Be3 22. Bc1 f5 23. Rf4 Bf4 24. Bf4 d5 25. Bd3 Nec6 26. Rb1 Ne6 27. Bd2 Ne5 28. Bf1 Rac8 29. Kd1 Nc4 30. b5 Nd2 31. Kd2 a5 32. b6 Nd4 33. Bb5 Nb5 34. Rb5 Kc6 35. Ra5 Ra8 0-1

404

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1869
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 g4 5. d4 gf3 6. Qf3 d6 7. 0-0 Be6 8. d5 Bc8 9. Bf4 Qd7 10. e5 Qg4 11. Qe3 Be7 12. ed6 cd6 13. Rae1 h5 14. Bd6 Qd7 15. Be7 Ne7 16. Bb5 1-0

405

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1869
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. f4 e6 2. Nf3 g6 3. e3 Bg7 4. Be2 Ne7 5. 0-0 f5 6. Qe1 b6 7. d3 Bb7 8. c3 Nbc6 9. e4 fe4 10. de4 0-0 11. Qg3 Qe8 12. Be3 e5 13. fe5 Nd8 14. Bc4 Kh8 15. Ng5 Bh6 16. Qh4 Kg7 17. Ne6 Ne6 18. Bh6 Kh8 19. Be6 1-0

406

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1869
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 d5 2. e5 c5 3. f4 Nc6 4. d3 Nh6 5. Be2 Nd4 6. c3 Ne2 7. Qe2 Bg4 8. Nf3 e6 9. 0-0 Nf5 10. h3 h5 11. hg4 hg4 12. Ng5 Ng3 13. Qg4 Rh1 14. Kf2 Nf1 15. f5 Qe7 16. fe6 fe6 17. Bf4 Ne3 18. Ke3 Ra1 19. Ne6 Rf1 20. Qg6 Kd7 21. Ng5 Re8 22. Qf5 Kc6 23. Qg6 Kb5 24. d4 c4 25. b3 Ka5 26. Nf3 Rc1 27. Ke2 Ra1 28. Nd2 Ra2 29. bc4 dc4 30. Qb1 Ra4 31. Nc4 Rc4 32. Qa2 Ra4 33. Qd5 Ka6 34. Bd2 Qe6 0-1

407

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans,1869
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 Ne7 4. Bc4 Ng6 5. d4 Be7 6. 0-0 d6 7. Ne1 0-0 8. Qh5 c6 9. Bf4 Nf4 10. Rf4 g6 11. Qf3 Be6 12. Be6 fe6 13. Nd3 Bg5 14. Rf8 Qf8 15. Qh3 Qe7 16. e5 Nd7 17. ed6 Qd6 18. Re1 Rf8 19. c3 Rf5 20. Qg4 c5 21. Qe4 Qd5 22. g4 Qe4 23. Re4 Rd5 24. Re6 Kf7 25. Re1 cd4 26. c4 Rd6 27. b4 Re6 28. Rb1 Re3 29. Rd1 Re2 30. Rb1 Rd2 31. Rb3 Ke6 32. a4 b6 33. a5 Ne5 34. Ne5 Ke5 35. ab6 ab6 36. Ra3 Rb2 37. c5 Rb4 38. cb6 Rb6 39. Ra5 Kf6 0-1

408

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1869
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d4 ed4 5. e5 d5 6. ef6 dc4 7. 0-0 Qf6 8. Bg5 Qg6 9. Re1 Be6 10. Qd2 Bd6 11. Nh4 Qh5 12. f4 h6 13. Nf5 Kf8 14. Ng3 Qg4 15. Re4 Bd5 16. Rae1 hg5 17. fg5 Be4 18. Re4 Qd7 0-1

409

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1869
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. f4 e6 2. Nf3 f5 3. e3 Nf6 4. Be2 Be7 5. 0-0 b6 6. b3 0-0 7. Bb2 Bb7 8. h3 h6 9. Kh2 c5 10. Rg1 Nc6 11. g4 fg4 12. hg4 Qc7 13. g5 hg5 14. Ng5

14...Nd4 15. Bd3 Nf5 16. Qf1 g6 17. Qh3 Rf7 18. Nf7 Kf7 19. Bf5 ef5 20. Bf6 Bf6 21. Qh7 Ke6 22. Rg6 Qd8 23. Rag1 Kd6 24. Rf6 Kc7 25. Rf7 Bc6 26. Rgg7 Qe8 27. Qf5 Qh8 28. Rh7 1-0

410

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1869
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. b3 e5 2. Bb2 Nc6 3. e3 d5 4. g3 f5 5. Nh3 Nf6 6. Bg2 Be7 7. 0-0 0-0 8. Rc1 e4 9. f3 Ne8 10. d4 Bf6 11. c4 Ne7 12. cd5 Nd5 13. Qe2 Nd6 14. Ba3 Re8 15. fe4 Ne4 16. Kh1 Kh8 17. Nf4 Nf4 18. gf4 Be6 19. Be4 fe4 20. Rg1 Bd5 21. Qg4 c6 22. Rg3 g6 23. f5 Qd7 24. Rf1 gf5 25. Qh5 Rg8 26. Rf5 Bf7 27. Qh3 Be6 28. Qh6 Bg7 29. Rg7 Qg7 30. Qg7 Rg7 31. Rf2 Rag8 32. h4 Rg4 33. Be7 Kg7 34. Bf6 Kg6 35. Bg5 Bf5 36. b4 h6 37. Be7 Rg3 38. h5 Kh7 39. Bd6 Rf3 40. Re2 Rh3 41. Bh2 Bg4 0-1

411

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1869
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. d4 Bd4 5. c3 Bb6 6. Ng5 Nh6 7. 0-0 0-0 8. Kh1 Kh8 9. f4 ef4 10. Bf4 d6 11. h3 Ne5 12. Bb3 f6 13. Nf3 Nf3 14. Rf3 Nf7 15. Qd2 Qe7 16. Raf1 Be6 17. Bc2 Ne5 18. Rg3 g5 19. Be5 de5 20. Rgf3 Rad8 21. Qe2 Qg7 22. g4 Rd6 23. b4 c5 24. b5 Rfd8 25. Bb3 Bg4 26. hg4 Rd2 27. Qd2 Rd2 28. Rf6 Rd8 29. Bd5 Qd7 30. R1f5 Qb5 31. Rf7 Qd3 32. Rf3 Qd1 33. Kh2 c4 0-1

412

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1869
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 Bg7 5. h4 h6 6. d4 d6 7. c3 g4 8. Bf4 gf3 9. Qf3 Be6 10. d5 Bd7 11. 0-0 Qf6 12. Qe3 Qh4 13. e5 de5 14. Be5 Qe7 15. Rae1 Be5 16. Qe5 Qe5 17. Re5 Ne7 18. Rfe1 Kd8 19. Re7 Be8 20. b4 Nd7 21. Kf2 f6 0-1

413

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1869
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. 0-0 Nf6 7. d4 0-0 8. Ne5 Ne4 9. Nf7 Rf7 10. Bf7 Kf7 11. d5 Ne5 12. d6 Nf6 13. Qb3 Ke8 14. Ba3 cd6 15. Bd6 Bc7 16. Be5 Be5 17. Rae1 d6 18. Kh1 Ng4 19. f4 Qh4 20. Qg8 Ke7 21. Qg7 Kd8 22. Qg8 Kc7 23. h3 Bf6 24. Rc8 Nf2 25. Kg1 Nd3 26. Qf7 Kc6 27. Qc4 Nc5 28. Rb1 Qh5 29. Rf8 Qg6 30. Qf1 Bf5 31. Qb5 Kc7 32. Ra8 Bb1 33. Qa5 Kd7 34. Qb5 Ke7 35. Rc8 Bd3 36. Qa5 Ke6 37. Qc7 Bc3 0-1

Miscellaneous

The following two positions occurred in games between Morphy and anonymous amateurs (probably games played at odds) at unknown times and venues. Only the final moves are known.

414

Morphy - NN

White to Play

1. Qc6 Qd7 2. Qa8 Qd8 3. Qc6 Kf8 4. Qf6 Ke8 5. Qc6 Kf8 6. Qf6 draw

415

NN - Morphy

White to Play

1. c3 Re4 2. Qe4 Ng3 3. Qd4 Ne2 4. Kh1 Qh2 5. Kh2 Rh8 0-1

The following position is commonly ascribed to Morphy. Best evidence is that he composed it while still a young boy.

416

Mate in Two

1. Ra6! etc.

Thomas Wilson Barnes

Morphy - Lewis Elkin, Philadelphia, 1859

Morphy - Paulsen, Ferst Amercain Chess Congress

PART III - Perspective

11

Paul Morphy and the Play of His Time

[This essay was published as a serial in The International Chess Magazine, January - April, 1885. It appears here in its original form except for minor corrections and conversion of Steinitz’s descriptive notation to the algebraic equivalent. - M.S.]

by Wilhelm Steinitz

The pride and sorrow of chess, as Paul Morphy has been called, is gone for ever. One of the greatest masters in “the art of human reason” has solved the grand problem of human existence, and with profound grief we remember that the key-move in the solution was dissolution of his powerful intellect during a great part of his life time. What an irony of fate.

Great wit and madness
nearly are allied,
And thin partitions their
boundaries divide.

Though several months have passed since the lamented chess giant departed from us, his death forms such an important event in the records of last year, as well as the history of our game, that it is surely due to his memory to devote in our first number some reflections on his extraordinary chess career, which commenced with such dazzling brilliancy, and yet ended so sadly.

We have, we are aware, a very difficult task before us, and in the first place we propose to investigate the combination of favorable circumstances which have helped to raise Morphy’s chess reputation to an almost legendary height in popular opinion, and which undoubtably are very creditable to the departed chess hero. His youth and marvelous precocity gained him universal favor during the most flourishing part of his chess career, and his personal qualities were such as to excite the admiration of everyone who came in contact with him. Being fortunately well off, he was a true amateur who had no other interest in acquiring mastery of the game than that of fame and the promotion of chess for the general benefit. He was quiet and modest in his demeanor, and generous towards a vanquished opponent. As an instance we may state an incident which we have never seen published yet, but which we are positively assured of by the late Mr. Zytogosky. After Morphy had won his match with Lowenthal, and had received the stakes of £100, the noble youth had made his defeated opponent a present of a suit of furniture which he had bought for the purpose at a cost of £120. In estimating this fine act of generosity, it should be borne in mind that the youthful master had no means of his own, and was only living on an allowance from his parents. It has also transpired since his death that he devoted the winnings of his match with Harrwitz towards paying the expenses of Professor Anderssen’s journey to Paris. All these traits of personal character and bearing, combined with the grand impression, which his wonderful blindfold play was sure to create on popular imagination, elevated Morphy’s fame among the general public to a degree which never before was, and hardly ever will be acquired by any chess master.

But however much we admire Morphy’s personality, and the fine corollaries of his chess powers, such as clearness, the elegance and brilliancy of his blindfold play and off-hand games, we feel bound to separate extraneous side issues from the main point of his actual strength, which shall be the subject of our investigation, in as true critical light as we can see it to the best of our ability and judgment. It would be misleading if we were to represent Morphy’s play as a model for our time, when, as a matter of fact, the game has made progress since his period in all directions, and on the other hand we believe his reputation will shine in a more lasting light, if divested of the coloring of imagination, which surrounded his yet wonderful performances.

We shall not argue with pseudo critics, who endeavor to obtain a cheap popularity by sacrificing the living to the dead, but there are undoubtably some able and conscientious chess writers, especially among his countrymen, who earnestly believe in the indisputable superiority of Morphy over all his successors. Various pleas have been advanced in support of the claim for Morphy’s supremacy, of which the most important is, in our opinion, the allegation that his play was more free of errors than that of any other master before or after him. We strongly doubt the correctness of this assertion, and though we are not prepared with any absolute proof to the contrary, it will probably be admitted that we are handicapping ourselves in our demonstration, by relying chiefly on the evidence of Morphy’s friend and panegyrist Lowenthal. As a matter of course, we refer principally to tournament and match games, for it is in these encounters that blunders mostly crop up. Just for the very reason that the best play is generally drawn out in serious contest, flagrant errors are not uncommon, owing to the ambition of the players being spurred to overwork and excitement. A horse that has never stumbled before is likely to break down completely after a few seconds of over-exertion on the race course. Now if we take the testimony of Lowenthal, who, as is well known, is quite profuse in his praise of Morphy, we find that “a slip,” whereby a clearly won game is thrown away and ends in a draw, is acknowledged in Morphy’s second game with Paulsen, the next best player in the New York tournament of 1857. The two masters contested altogether eight games on the occasion, and one was lost by Morphy, owing to weak play in the opening and in the middle part.

Next, in his first match in Europe with “Alter,” to whom he gave pawn and move, Morphy in the 6th game, (altogether seven games were played between the two opponents) is already a clear piece ahead, but probably getting overconfident, he loses first of all the exchange by “a palpable blunder,” as Lowenthal calls it, on the 21st move. The vexation over such a mishap may have irritated Morphy, for five moves later on in the same game he commits “another error,” which allows a winning position to be changed into a draw. We make no reproach. All this is no more than human, but we only disclaim the superhuman inaccuracy which has been ascribed to Morphy.

With Lowenthal himself, Morphy played fourteen match games, of which the older master, who, by the way, was already fifty-five years of age, won three and drew two. In the three games Morphy lost, he was no doubt outgeneraled somewhere. Lowenthal screens his friend with remarks such as in game five, move 19: “The game is now in favor of White; his adversary on the previous move should rather have taken the bishop with the queen or rook.” In game eight, with a clear draw in hand, Morphy tries “a venture which loses the game.” The venture is in reality nothing more than a grave miscalculation. In game eleven we read the note on Morphy’s 12th move, ... one5: “a hazardous sacrifice, but Mr. Morphy prefers making it than incur the cramped game which he would have obtained by retreating the ...Ng7.” As the proof is perfectly clear and brief, we cannot refrain from remarking that the piece was lost anyhow, for in reply to the move proposed, Qf6 would win at once. The real truth is that already Morphy’s 8th move, ...Nf6 was bad costing a pawn at least, and his 9th move was a blunder. But what would be said nowadays if any first class player would compromise his game so early in the open’ing to the extent of losing a piece for two pawns on the 12th move? Moreover, there can be no doubt of the correctness of Lowenthal’s claim, that on the 19th move he could have won the second game, which he afterward lost. It is equally certain that Lowenthal, as he asserts, could have drawn the third game by proper play, though Morphy at one time was two clear pawns ahead after the exchange of queens and all the minor pieces, only one rook remaining on each side, and that Morphy, as acknowledged, overlooked an easy win on the 54th move. Again, in the thirteenth game of the match, Lowenthal, in consequence of some admittedly weak play on Morphy’s part, comes out with a piece ahead for one pawn, and with a clear victory in hand which he throws away by a ridiculous oversight.

Before entering now on a cursory review of Morphy’s match with Harrwitz, for the purpose of our investigation, it is due to notice that in this encounter there is already a marked general improvement in the play of the young master, whose power had apparently been steeled by his coming into contact with one of the old European veterans in the previous contest. Nevertheless, in eight games of which the match consisted, three palpable errors on Morphy’s part are pointed out by the panegyrist, two in the first game, respectively on the 15th and 23rd move, and one in game seven on the 30th move. Besides, no satisfactory explanation is given how Morphy lost the second game of the match and a preliminary game played before the contest is not recorded at all, though it may be assumed, that against such a formidable antagonist, Morphy played it for all he was worth.

And now we come to the most important of Morphy’s great matches, the one with Anderssen which was virtually his last, for the one with Mongredian is hardly of sufficient account to be taken into consideration. Again, we record great progress in Morphy’s display of style and force, as compared with the preceding match, and this goes far to support the speculation that he might have done much greater things had not his career prematurely terminated. However, respecting the correctness of Morphy’s play in the eleven games of the match with Anderssen, his enthusiastic admirer, Lowenthal finds that his first game of the contest was already lost on the 16th move, and only prolonged by an omission of his opponent. In the second game Morphy is a clear rook ahead on the 23rd move, in consequence of unsound sacrifices, first of the exchange and next of a piece, on which Anderssen had ventured. Morphy fails to take proper advantage of the position, and allows his adversary to escape with a draw. In game four, Lowenthal charges the great master with an oversight in the analysis which the latter had furnished in order to justify his rejection of the capture of a pawn on the 19th move. In justice we have to point out that Lowenthal’s remark this time is incomplete and misleading, for, in reality, Morphy had only given a wrong reason for his good judgment in actual play (Lowenthal’s criticism is the reverse), since his very error supports his original proposition that the capture might have been in favor of the opponent. In the fifth game Morphy’s warmest advocate notices an omission on the part of the young master to win the game much quicker on the 29th move. This ends the statistics of shortcomings in Morphy’s match play as traced from Lowenthal’s criticism. Once more we may lay stress on the manner in which we have hampered our demonstration by only following the points which were spotted by Morphy’s greatest eulogist, without our adding any independent analysis on other parts of his games. Lowenthal’s annotations are scanty compared to those of modern analysts, and how much room there may be for further investigation, may be concluded from the fact that the eighth game of the Morphy-Anderssen match, one of the best in the contest extending to fifty moves, is only endowed with four brief notes hardly of an analytic character

Turning now to the records of Morphy’s successors, we meet with many obstacles in drawing a comparison on the question of relative correctness and freedom from error. No collection of games of any modern masters exists, and the reports of their best efforts in matches and tournaments are scattered about in various periodicals at different times. Some of the best players of our day have served the chess world for more than twenty years sometimes under unfavorable conditions of life which Morphy never had to contend with during his brilliant career, and the former had their ups and downs in play as well as in life. Considering that Morphy had the terrible misfortune to break down completely, some allowance may be claimed for the more or less frequent falling off in the form of his successors. On the other hand, we only know Morphy’s play at his best, as far as it can be positively ascertained from his actual record which has been faithfully preserved. In addition to this, the correctness and accuracy of match and tournament competitors of our time, are influenced by an arrangement that did not exist at all in Morphy’s day, namely, the time limit. This is a necessary evil, but no one who has not played a match game under that restriction can conceive how often and to what extent the finest calculations are disturbed or blunders engendered by the warning of the clock hand that a bad move is better than not to move at all. But, nevertheless, speaking from mere recollection, which may possibly be wrong, we make bold to assert that, on the average, the errors, blunders, omissions, etc., are actually smaller in number and proportion in the match and tournament games of the best modern masters than in Morphy’s most important contests. As a matter of course, the play of Morphy’s opponents shows more numerous and greater defects in that respect than that of the youthful master.

In a similar manner as in reference to the accuracy and correctness of Morphy’s game, much confusion prevails regarding his brilliancy as compared to the dullness of modern match and tournament games. We may preface that the dashing sacrifices which mostly excite popular admiration, are in reality only possible against weak play, whether of the adept or the tyro. It has been proved, especially in first-class correspondence games, such as the match between London and Vienna, that the most deep laid dazzling schemes can almost always be prevented by simple moves when the position is sound in general, and mostly in games between great masters the variations discarded are more brilliant than those actually played. Yet the real connoisseur will often perceive greater finesse in the maneuvering for weakening an adverse pawn than in many sacrifices which lead to mating positions. However, by mixing up Morphy’s blindfold, off-hand and odds games with those of his serious encounters with strong masters, popular prejudice has credited Morphy with the faculty of creating positions against his strongest opponents, in which brilliant sacrifices formed a distinct feature, and the games of his successors were derided as tedious in comparison. On sifting the matter by a sort of statistical research, we were rather amused to find, and probably our readers will be astonished to learn that out of all Morphy’s match games with Paulsen, Lowenthal, Harrwitz and Anderssen, nay, even including his matches with “Alter” and Mongredian, therefore in fifty-six games altogether, there were only two that can lay claim to being called brilliant, namely the ninth with Anderssen and the fourth with Harrwitz. As regards the former, Morphy leaves a bishop to be taken on the 9th move, for which he might gain a clear rook, coming out with the exchange ahead. He prefers instituting an apparently vehement attack, which might have resulted in an exchange of queens, Morphy remaining only with one pawn ahead, and with two knights against the adverse two bishops, and we do not agree that the game was so absolutely lost for Anderssen as represented by Lowenthal. Winning the exchange was more sure. Doubt has also been thrown by the Chess Monthly on the soundness of the sacrifice, on the ground that on the 14th move Anderssen might have played ...Ke7, a move which would have been heresy to think of at that time, because it blocks up queen and bishop, but nowadays any second class player would give it his first consideration if he has the chance of remaining a piece ahead; knowing that it has been often enough successful even with a pawn behind. However, Anderssen plays ...Kg6, overlooking a very brilliant winding up, of which his ingenious opponent fully avails himself. As regards the game with Harrwitz, the latter had lost a pawn unnecessarily by a miscalculation, and Morphy’s leading up to the crisis shows in reality much higher chess than the final firework which, though very elegant, is no more than four moves deep. As for the rest of the match games, in no case does Morphy venture any real sacrifice of a piece. He just once, in the second game with “Alter,” gives up a knight and two rooks in succession, in order to gain the adverse queen, and this does not turn out well, for he has great difficult afterward merely to draw the game. Only twice, viz: in the third game with “Alter” and in the fourth with Lowenthal, does an elegant temporary sacrifice of the exchange occur, which he is sure to recover shortly, owing to the enormous superiority of position already acquired. Just once a rook is given up against Paulsen in the ending, in order to obtain three well supported passed pawns, the advance of which cannot be stopped, as could be foreseen without much difficulty En passant, we may mention that the celebrated game with Paulsen, in which Morphy makes his wonderfully ingenious sacrifice of the queen, does not occur in the match, as is commonly supposed, but belongs to the casual or off-hand encounters of which more anon. [This is incorrect; the game in question was indeed from the American Chess Congress final. Steinitz subsequently acknowledged his mistake, which he attributed to “a misleading arrangement in Lowenthal’s book.”-M.S.] But otherwise Morphy, in his serious contests, very rarely gives up more than one pawn in the ordinarily established gambits, which he does not often adopt as the first player, and in the large majority of cases the youthful master “sacrifices his opponents’ pawns and pieces.”

So far from finding fault with this, we can only express our profound admiration for the youthful genius, who, in important trials, with a fortitude and self-control beyond his years, could thus hold the reins tightly over his proclivities for dashing and brilliant sacrifices, which are so strongly manifested in his lighter sort of games. But moreover, there are clear indications in his match style of that steady pressure and studious regard for the balance of position, which requires an almost instinctive judgment in its application, and which has been cultivated and trained to a much higher degree since the Morphy period. There is strong evidence in his play of that strategical generalship and circumspection, which has been developed in the modern system, and his formation of wings, as well as his maneuvering, foreshadows more than that of any other master of his day, the improvements of our time. It appears therefore that Morphy, as far as his match play is concerned, has received creditand praise for faults which he never possessed, while his really admirable qualities have been almost ignored. On the other hand we may point out in reply to the charge of dullness brought against the players of our time, that the proportion of brilliant games, or so-called gems, is higher for instance in the play of several first class masters in the last London tournament, than in Morphy’s match games, according to the above statistics, and to the best of our recollection, we are inclined to think that the proportion of brilliancies in heavy games has rather increased than otherwise, in all the various subsequent matches and tournaments as compared with Morphy’s average. As explained before, we attach little credit on the whole to sacrificing tactics, for they are often unsound, and even if correct, they are only based on previous weak play of the other party. But as there is generally more than one way of utilizing the adverse weak play, we may assume that there are hardly more opportunities lost for a display, which, after all, chiefly attracts the novice, than were in Morphy’s time.

It is a striking feature of Morphy’s match play, that he shows greater knowledge of the openings than any of his opponents, but it is still more curious that he did not introduce a single innovation in the early part of the game. This is warranted by the author of the German Handbuch, Baron von Heydebrandt und der Lasa, than whom there can be no more conscientious critic. It appears therefore certain, according to that authority, that Morphy left the openings exactly as they stood before him. If therefore no progress had been made since Morphy’s advent, in that branch of our pastime, we would have to burn our books and other periodical commentaries subsequently published on the principle of the notorious Sultan, who destroyed the Alexandria Library, as either untrue or superfluous in comparison with the Koran. It may be taken for granted that the reasoning out of each move in the early part of the game in its relations to the principles of development, was hardly known at that date, and that the analysis of variations has also made great progress since. Let us give a brief illustration to explain our meaning. It is taken from the opening of game six, between Morphy (White) and Lowenthal (Black) in their match, and goes no further than the 7th move on each side, thus: 1. e4 c5 2. d4 cd4 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. Nd4 e5 5. Nc6 bc6 6. Bc4 Nf6 7. 0-0. Morphy offers here to give up a pawn, a strong center pawn. Any first class player would grasp at it now without wasting much of his time allowance, and probably a second rate man, who has followed the notes of modern analysts, would not hesitate much. The particular variation has not been analyzed to our knowledge otherwise than by Lowenthal’s remark anon, but anyone used to the reasoning method applied on general grounds, would argue at once from analogy with similar positions, which have often arisen since, and as often have been commented upon thus: experience and analysis have proved that it is best to get rid of the adverse middle pawns in the opening, unless there be any particular danger in a very few moves. In this instance Black is sure to gain time by ...d5 attacking the bishop, and even if he should lose the pawn already gained, the game can be no more than even, which is actually more than the second player can expect on the 7th move in the majority of openings. Lowenthal however rejects the capture, and thinks it is not good enough. Morphy must have thought the same, or else he would have played 7. Qe2 instead of castling; or perhaps better still he would have posted on the 6th move his bishop at d3 instead of c4 as Rosenthal does in similar positions. In the actual game Lowenthal plays 7...d5 which he admits is a bad move, but he explains “that there are also strong objections to Black’s playing 7...Ne4 e.g., 8. Re1 and if 8...d5 9. Re4,” and should Black take the rook his queen is lost by Bf7. True, but a glance at the position would show that White’s rook and bishop remain attacked and both cannot escape if Black plays 9...f6. “An unorthodox move,” says the old school, “it usually weakens the kingside.” True again, if White had enough pieces in play. But Black’s position is strong enough to withstand any tricks and traps by proper play, and in the meanwhile he is a pawn ahead. “But here is a brilliant coup,” shouts a bystander of the dashing tendency, “10. b3, and still he dare not capture the rook on account of Bf7 and Ba3.” Yes, but Black dryly answers 10...Be7 and leaves the adverse rook and bishop in status quo. “But supposing we sacrifice the rook, either by 10. Re5 first, or commencing with 10. Qh5,” exclaims one of the bold analysts. Steady, if 10. Re5 fe5 11. Qh5 Kd7, and we need go no further, for Black will remain at least the exchange ahead. Or 10. Qh5 g6 11. Re5 Be7 and wins. White’s best plan is therefore 10. Bd5 cd5 11. Re1, and the second player has evidently the much superior game early in the opening with a strong center and two bishops that can be brought into excellent play, while White’s undeveloped two minor pieces have not much scope for action. But such was the style of the period. Tricks and traps chiefly directed against the adverse king were in fashion, and trains of play were practiced on both sides, which would now be rejected without further examination by any expert, as being contrary to established principles of the game. On the other hand, as in the above example unsound moves were adopted for the attack, and sound ones discarded for the defense without regard for the entity of the position, if a few variations showed any danger for the king of either party. It would take too long to show still more striking instances in the middle game. But there can be no doubt that Morphy adopted the best opening moves, so far as they were then known, and that he exhibited consummate mastery in the complications of the middle, as well as in the nice calculations of the ending. It is also due to state that the young genius forestalling the tactics of our time, once moves his king voluntarily to e2 on the 11th move while nearly all the pieces are on the board on both sides (Game 2, with Lowenthal) and he afterwards defeats an unsound sacrifice of the opponent by entering a march with his Royalty to the queen’s wing. Forced as that movement was, it evidently took Lowenthal by surprise, for it was a very rare resource for that period. But Morphy never once, as far as we can remember, crossed with his king to the third row before it came to an ending.

In summing up Morphy’s match results it ought not to be ignored that his record was greatly favored by a fortunate combination of chances. “Luck is on the side of the strongest battalions,” and in order not to be misunderstood, we state at once our opinion that Morphy was stronger than anyone 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.

But like the first Napoleon in his early campaigns, Morphy found his principle adversaries unprepared and rusty, and in consequence his victories were more decisive than they probably would have been otherwise. It may be fairly doubted whether more than the name of Paulsen was so easily defeated by the youthful hero in the New York tournament, for the play of the former only developed subsequently, and his whole career would well indicate that he might have made a better score when he was at his real best, though no doubt, as already stated, Morphy would have been his superior anyhow.

In his triumphant European course, Morphy first of all met Lowenthal, a veteran already on the shady side of life, who, though successful in tournament and short encounters, had previously failed in the only two matches of importance he ever played, viz., against Harrwitz and Buckle. Lowenthal was a nervous player, who lacked stamina even when he was at his best. Though one of the masters of the day, he was the weakest of the great trio whom Morphy encountered. But his first victory - a rather easy one - afforded the youthful genius excellent practice for his next two serious trials with Harrwitz and Anderssen.

Whether Harrwitz, any more than Lowenthal, would have improved on his actual score against Morphy, had he been at his best, is very doubtful. Harrwitz won the first two games of the match after also winning a preliminary game, and he then lost five games in succession, with only one draw in between. He felt himself overpowered, as in reality he was, and he threw up the contest, albeit he had on previous occasion come out victorious from a much more desperate situation, viz., in his match with Lowenthal, where he fought on against a score of nine to two and finally won the stipulated eleven by the odd game. There is strong evidence that Harrwitz was already on the decline, for within eighteen months after he met Morphy he lost a match against Hamppe in Vienna by a score of seven to five and some draws; and he also came out second to the Austrian master in the local Vienna tournament, after which he finally retired from the chess arena. But, on the other hand, as already stated, Morphy only reached the climax of his strength, as far as it can be ascertained, during his match with Anderssen. As regards the latter, however, there can be little doubt that in his prime, he could have made a better score against the youthful master, albeit he could not have averted defeat. But the German champion had erroneously assumed, to use his own words, “that he could bottle up his chess strength and put it in a glass case,” for he had been almost entirely out of practice since the tournament of 1851 up to the time when he met Morphy in 1858. Yet Morphy’s superiority on the whole is manifest, not alone from the match, but also from his off-hand games with Anderssen. Minor importance must generally be attached to the latter sort of encounters, but in the case of Anderssen against Morphy an exception may be claimed; for the German master played very nearly up to his full strength in casual games against opponents worthy of his steel, and his most brilliant inspirations are recorded in efforts of that description. The match with Morphy must have given him already sufficient practice for recovering at least his best form for off-hand games, and naturally after his decisive defeat he must have been anxious to make the best possible score. But yet, with all his dash and ingenuity, Anderssen could only win one game against five of his young opponent.

It is noteworthy that Morphy in his three great matches did not play up to his mark in the early part of the contests, and he either drew or lost the first and second games in each. This peculiarity of his play may have been due to inability to summon his full force at once at the outset, or else it may have been part of his style to reconnoiter first the individual characteristics in the strategy and tactics of his different opponents before directing his full powers against the weaknesses he thus discovered in the methods of his adversaries. This feature of Morphy’s style would evidently have been detrimental to his success in tournaments consisting of short encounters with different competitors. Morphy may have apprehended such a failure when he refused to stake his reputation in the tournament at the Birmingham meeting. This in no way detracts from his credit, for even nowadays, after the tournament systems have been much improved upon, a general contest is held by real connoisseurs to be much inferior to a set match, as a test. But at that time not even the all-round play had been instituted, and the competitors were paired in sections on the condition that the losers up to the final rounds were to be thrown out altogether. Morphy was, therefore, fully justified in refusing to run the risk of his not gaining any prize at all, owing, perhaps, to the loss of a couple of games, to which, probably, he thought himself liable against a stranger at starting.

Such is Morphy’s match record, and considering his youth, it is wonderful. Here we may preface - especially in answer to some comments on the first portion of our essay - that the question of Morphy’s genius, involving what he might have done if he had personally progressed with the time, is one quite separate from that of the actual strength he really attained, which is the subject of our present investigation. With the view of arriving at a fair estimate in that respect, we must set aside the consideration of his extraordinary precocity in comparing the number and quality of his scores with those of other successful match players. As our main object is to show that great advances have been made in the game since the Morphy period, and also for other reasons which we need not perhaps detail, we do not propose to draw any parallel between Morphy direct and other rivals for the claim of championship before or after him. But we may fairly point out that not a single one of Morphy’s opponents remained unconquered, and the large majority of them have never come to the front since his time. Anderssen was undoubtably a grand tournament player; but, with the exception of a short match of four games against Kolisch, which he won by a bare majority of one, he was unsuccessful in his other set encounters. Paulsen unquestionably became a great match player after he met Morphy. He subsequently defeated Kolisch, if the match in which he had a game ahead at the time it was abandoned as drawn is taken in conjunction with his winning the higher prize and two games in the personal encounter against the same competitor in the Bristol tournament. He also came out victorious in matches against Anderssen, Neuman, and Schwartz, and on the whole, fought with good success in the German tourneys. Against such a fine record any occasional or even repeated defeat in a personal encounter by one or two opponents, or his failure to gain a high prize in one or two international tournaments, could not be set off with justice. But Paulsen systematically fell into the rear, and failed to win any prize in five international tournaments where the British or Austrian schools were well represented, viz., at Baden, the two Vienna tournaments, Wiesbaden, and Berlin; and he has also been repeatedly defeated in the personal score by several first-class players who have been reared in the modern system. In lieu of any direct match, for which there was no opportunity it is therefore quite legitimate to draw the conclusion that his best play did not keep pace with the march of time.

With regard to Harrwitz and Lowenthal, no direct line can be drawn in order to compare them with modern players. Cross-play is, no doubt, a very unreliable proof - somewhat like circumstantial evidence - unless a great many strong facts point in one direction. We shall not enter into details, and we only wish to indicate the line of investigation which, in our opinion, would have to be pursued in order to arrive at some approximate comparison. But one of the questions which we would have to submit to a jury of chess experts would be whether the names of Harrwitz and Lowenthal, whom Morphy defeated, would outweigh in quality those whom Morphy never came in contact with, and who have since his time entered into public competition with more or less frequent or marked success. Such, for instance, as Blackburne, De Vere, Englisch, Kolisch, Mackenzie, Martinez, Mason, Neuman, Potter, Rosenthal, Sellman, Schwartz, Tchigorin, Wisker, and Winawer, besides numerous others who could well be compared with some of the minor stars in Morphy’s time. We might also fairly inquire whether better scores have not been made by modern masters against better players than Harrwitz and Lowenthal.

In turning now to Morphy’s off-hand games against more or less strong opponents, as well as his play at odds and his blindfold and simultaneous performances, it will generally be admitted that, however brilliant his record is in every respect, those miscellaneous efforts cannot rank as high as tests of strength, as match results, or tournament scores against first-class masters. Yet as the characteristics and qualifications of his powers have been mostly estimated by critics of the period from those sundry trials of skill, which no doubt form strong factors in judging his general style, it is of course necessary for us to offer some comments on his record outside the New York tournament and his European matches as far as the scope of our essay and the difficulty of drawing comparisons will permit. A few preliminary remarks about the conditions under which such games are generally played may not be out of place. Off-hand games with and between first-class masters were more in fashion during and before the Morphy period than at present. They generally consisted of a series of free-and-easy contests, taking place at no fixed dates yet frequently in succession, it being understood that no immoderate time for answering the moves would be taken by either party and that at the option of the loser the contest should be continued until a decisive majority is attained by one of the players. There is generally neither stake nor prize, or only a small nominal stake pending on the result, and they are generally not intended for publication except by mutual consent. Those sort of games have fallen into disuse in modern times, at least in Europe, owing to various causes, but chiefly, we believe, on account of unpleasant experiences with some players who would not observe the lex non scripta with the chivalrous consideration due in the absence of stipulated conditions. Only comparatively recently a renewal of practice with and between strong players has taken place, and is due chiefly to the excellent examples set by chess clubs on this side of the Atlantic, who have paid liberal fees to chess masters for a certain term. The games thus produced may as a test be regarded as much superior to the old off-hand games, though they cannot come up quite to the match standard, for the visitor is generally also taxed with tiring exertions like blindfold and simultaneous performances as well as with contests against many different strong players who are comparatively fresh. However there is good reason to believe that in Morphy’s time the off-hand games very rarely degenerated into careless skittles, and may be taken as a fair specimen of the average strength of the parties. The encounters with Anderssen, as already remarked, are even of a higher sort. They are, we believe, the best of the off-hand contests in Morphy’s record giving evidence of his high strategical genius as well as his brilliant tactics. As instances of each respectively we may single out Morphy’s 27th move ...Qc8 in the 1st game and the 17th move Bd6 in his 5th. They are all lively and elegant games, but that they were not taken quite as seriously as the match is proved alone from the fact that all are King’s Gambits of which not a single instance occurs in their more important contests. But not the whole of Morphy’s games even with strong players have been preserved, nor is their chronological order certain, as is apparent from the fact that, for instance, in Lowenthal’s collection Morphy has the first move in three consecutively published games against Bird. It is, therefore, difficult to ascertain whether in the early part of his meetings with any strong player he at once entered on his dashing policy which characterizes the most of his off-hand as well as odds and blindfold play, or whether he preferred such cautious maneuvering and struggling for position as, for instance, marks his series of eight games with Boden. We are inclined to think that most likely he stretched out a “feeler” at first in order to reconnoiter the adversary’s strength, and he only began his sacrificing tactics when he had secured a good score or was otherwise sure of his superiority. But, on the whole, there can be no doubt that Morphy’s tendencies outside of his matches leaned towards the boldest course. In two of his most brilliant games, viz., against Barnes and Bird he adopts as second player a risky form of the Philidor Defense, viz.: 1.e4 e52.Nf3 d6 3.d4 f5, which has justly become obsolete as it has been proved analytically unsound. Being the greatest player of the old school Morphy naturally exhibits most profound mastery in the sacrificing tactics directed against any weakness in the adverse king’s quarters once he holds the grip of the game. But he sometimes also hazards impetuously for the purpose of precipitating a crisis, especially against a player whom he knows to be below his force. To use a philosophical illustration he employs the subjective in preference to the objective reasoning for the purposes of getting the best of the argument. This tendency toward adopting dashing and even risky sacrifices becomes more pronounced in his games at odds. Piece after piece he would throw away in order to puzzle and bewilder his much weaker opponent, and he generally succeeds in winding up with an ingenious termination, owing of course to the failure of his opponent to take proper advantage of the position. This is legitimate, though, for our part, we prefer, even when giving odds, to play a sound and careful game, and to accumulate small advantages until the position is ripe for breaking in, or unless pressed desperately hard by the adverse numerical superiority. But it becomes the duty of the critic to point out for the benefit of the student when a sacrifice is only relatively sound in consideration of the opponent’s weakness; but generally in Morphy’s odd games the comments have led to the belief that the sacrifices he instituted would have been also sound against best play in the position in which they were adopted. But it should also be stated that in some beautiful games in which Morphy gave the odds of a knight to Mr. Thompson, the youthful genius gives clear proof that he could also adopt waiting tactics when giving large odds.

In reference to exhibition games against more than one player at a time, it is noteworthy that Morphy only gave one singular performance of playing against no more than five opponents over the board not blindfold, which exhibition is, however, quite unique up to the present, and is likely to remain so for a long time, unless perhaps special prizes should be given for other similar trials on fitting occasions like the conclusion of a tournament. For though the number of Morphy’s adversaries was small his effort was a very fine one, considering the array of strength contained in the opposing team which consisted of Messrs. Barnes, Bird, Boden, Lowenthal, and De Riviere. In the final result Morphy won two, viz., against De Riviere and Bird, drew two against Boden and Lowenthal, and lost against Barnes. This was certainly a very creditable score under the circumstances, but there can be no doubt that Morphy would have made a superior score against any one of his adversaries on the occasion had he played five single handed consecutive games, and the result may therefore be taken as proof that the single player is much handicapped by having his attention divided on different boards. It would also show that the simultaneous performances against a large number of opponents - such as are now in vogue - are by no means an easy task even if the single player had always only a very weak team against him, which is not the case. One of the most astounding features in Morphy’s extraordinary career is his wonderful faculty for playing as many as eight games simultaneously blindfold with a bright clearness of memory and conception, which is hardly surpassed by his own masterly combinations over the board. He has, no doubt, to deal mostly with weak players who leave themselves open to attacks, which, however, Morphy with his marvelous powers of picturing the whole chess board before his mental vision conducts with dazzling brilliancy in the middle part and accurate reckoning in the ending. But as the capacity for playing even a greater number of blindfold games correctly, or even exceptionally well, is now generally acknowledged as one which undoubtably is of great assistance in forming a great player, but is by no means an absolute test of superiority, it may be appropriate to refer to similar efforts of the two greatest living masters in that branch of the “art of human reason,” namely, Messrs. Zukertort and Blackburne. We put the former first in the short list, as he has successfully accomplished the task of playing the highest number of blindfold games simultaneously that has ever been attained, namely, sixteen. On that occasion Zukertort had among the opposing team three players - Messrs. Ballard, Minchin and Wayte, each one of whom, we believe, is at least equal to Barnes, the strongest opponent Morphy ever had in blindfold play. The result was that Zukertort won 12, lost 1 and drew 3. Blackburne has played as many as twelve games blindfold simultaneously with facility, and his elegant style against weaker players has produced some fine specimens of brilliant combinations in such exhibitions, which, we think, are on a par with those of Morphy’s best blindfold games. Both Blackburne and Zukertort seem to think lightly of the effort of mind in playing many games from memory, and, we believe, they underrate their own marvelous powers in that respect. Speaking from personal experience we are inclined to think that the difficulty is almost multiplied with each additional game beyond the number which a player can carry in his memory without apparent great exertion. However that may be, it is certain that Morphy never exceeded the number of eight games simultaneously blindfold, while since his time at least one great master has successfully conducted double that number of games, and others like Paulsen and Fritz, besides Blackburne, have added half more to the highest number of games which Morphy ever did carry on without sight of the board or men.

Before now giving our opinion about Morphy’s off-hand odds and blindfold games in comparison with those of modern masters, we may remark that the sweeping assertions which have been made in reference to Morphy’s unapproachable superiority were based on the general impression which the majority of his insufficiently examined games, including those with much weaker players, had created. Gross exaggerations have crept into the criticism of the time, and many instructive points have been left unnoticed which would have thrown a clearer analytical light on Morphy’s play and those of his opponents. We can only give a very few examples, but we think that our selection will be found a fair one for the purpose of showing that the critical views of the Morphy period, which occasionally are indiscriminately echoed in our day, must be taken with a grain of salt. It will probably be admitted that we are again severely handicapping ourselves in our demonstration if we take for our examination in the first place one of Morphy’s most famous blindfold games, in fact the one which some of his public admirers have pronounced to be the finest on record in Morphy’s own blindfold performances, and therefore naturally in comparison with those of his successors in the art of blindfold play. It is a game against Dr. Freeman, played among eight simultaneously blindfold at the Birmingham meeting. We trust we shall not be misunderstood. It is a truly beautiful game on the whole, and if on the one hand we dispute its absolute correctness throughout, even on Morphy’s part, we propose on the other hand to show some points hitherto ignored, which, in our opinion, redounded more to the credit of the youthful master than those which have been so much admired.

Morphy-Freeman Birmingham 1858

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Bc5 3. b4 (Probably with the intention of playing the double gambit by 4. f4, if this pawn be taken.) Bb6 4. Nf3 d6 5. d4 (Bold and even hazardous, as it leaves the king pawn weak. 5. c3 followed by d3 is more solid.) ed4 6. Nd4 Nf6 7. Nc3 0-0 (He might also have taken the king pawn at once.) 8. 0-0 (We should have preferred 8. f3.) Ne4 (Well played.) 9. Ne4 d5 10. Bg5 Qe8 (By this move Black throws away a well earned advantage. 10...Qd7 would have been an unorthodox move at the time, for it blocks up the pieces on the queenside temporarily, but nevertheless it was the correct play, and it would have left the game in Black’s favor. Evidently White could not then sacrifice the knight at f6 checking, for Black could safely take the knight, and afterwards also the bishop, having the powerful defensive move ...Qg4 in reserve. The answer 11. Bd5 would have also cost a piece. Therefore White had nothing better than either to retreat 11. Be2 or 11. Ng3, and in either case Black remained with a pawn ahead and an excellent game.) 11. Bd5 c6 12. Re1 (Threatening to win the queen by Nf6.) Qd7 13. Nf6 (Splendid play. Owing to Black’s omission on the 10th move, the blindfold player has now obtained a winning position of which he avails himself in the most ingenious manner.) gf6 14. Bf6 Qd6 (Lowenthal, points out that if Black had taken the bishop with either the pawn or with the queen, the answer 15. Re5 would have won in a few moves.)

Position after 14...Qd6

15. Ne6 (And here is the point. White had a won game by force had he played here the little less shining but more solid 15. Be6. If then 15...fe6 it would lead to a similar line of play as might have actually occurred, and which we shall further examine anon. Suffice it to say now that White could then win by 16. Qg4 Kf7 17. Qg7 and 18. Ne6. Again if 15...Be6 the answer 16. Re5 wins in a few moves, and if 15...Qf4 White wins by 16. Be5 and Re3. The move in the text is the initiation of a finely conceived problem, beautiful and accurate alike in many variations, but defective in one main line of play. No more, and not even as much could be expected in the actual game, especially under the circumstances that the youthful master conducted eight games simultaneously blindfold at the time. But considering that the present game has been held to be and probably is Morphy’s best effort in blindfold play, and that there is an error in his calculations this time, as we propose to show later on, it may be fairly doubted whether the practicably impossible has not been ascribed to Morphy when it was asserted that even his sans voir play rose to analytical exactitude.) Be6 (The best move. Yet no credit has been given by Lowenthal, and we believe by other commentators, for this point of the game, which we think contains the main line of play Morphy had in view. He evidently must have prepared for the defense 15... fe6 and the combination which would have followed, clearly forms the essence of Morphy’s beautiful combination. The game would no doubt have proceeded thus: 15...fe6 16. Qg4 Kf7 17. Qg7 Ke8 18. Be6. Truly wonderful, whether as the result of exact calculation or the still higher gift of intuitive positional judgment. It was undoubtably contemplated as there is no other sensible way of proceeding with the attack. 18...Bf2 (best for if 18...Be6 19. Rad1 Bf2 20. Kh1 and Black with two pieces ahead cannot save the game) 19. Kf2 Qd4 (if 19...Qf4 20. Kg1) 20. Kg3 Qf6 21. Bc8 Kd8 22. Rad1 Kc8 23. Re8 and wins. It should be observed that, as already indicated in our remarks on White’s 15th move, this line of play in the main would have been forced by best play on both sides had White adopted the really strongest move 15. Be6 instead of Ne6.) 16. Qh5 Bf2

Position after 16...Bf2

This is bad. Black, however, could have strengthened his counterattack and broken the hostile onslaught in a few moves. The proper play was 16...Qf4 If then 17. Re6 Nd7 18. Be4 (this seems best; if 18. Bb2 Black may answer simply 18...cd5 being well guarded against any attack by having ...Qf2 in reserve) Nf6 19. Rf6 Qe4 and should win speedily. Again if 17. Be4 h6 18. Be5 Qg5 etc., or 17. Be5 Qf2 18. Kh1 Qf5 and wins. The rest is excellently played on Morphy’s part, and we may only remark that after the further moves, 17. Kh1 Qf4 18. Re6 Nd7 19. Bb2 Black who answered 19...Bd4, which ultimately lost a piece by the ingenious reply 20. g3 need only have come out a pawn behind and with knight against bishop in the ending, which would have made it exceedingly difficult for the opponent to win. He ought to have played 19...fe6 and the game might have proceeded thus: 20. Be6 Rf7 21. Rf1 (we see nothing better; if 21. Rd1 Black also answers 21... Re8) Re8 22. Qf7 and after the exchange of queens an ending of the above description ensues.

In the next place it will probably be conceded as fair enough for the purpose of illustrating the inefficiency of the criticism in the Morphy period when we point out a very grave error on both sides hitherto almost unnoticed in the first game on record between Morphy and Boden, who was probably the strongest opponent of the youthful master outside of his matches. On the 14th move the following position occurred:

White to Play

Morphy here plays, deliberately it seems, 14.Nh2, and Boden answers 14...Ne6. Lowenthal naively remarks to this; “14...Ng3 followed by ...Qf2 would have secured two pawns, but Black thought it better to develop his game by bringing out his pieces on the queenside.” Staunton passes the two moves without the least comment. Both critics seem to have taken it for granted that no gross error could have been committed so early in the game by Morphy, or that Boden would have failed to take immediate advantage of it. Yet a cursory examination would be sufficient to show that such is the case. For after 14...Ng3 15.fg3 Qf2 16.Kd1 Qg2 17.Kc2 (this is forced. He has not a show of an attack beyond one check if he attempt to give up the knight by 17. Rf1.) Be3 18.Rad1 Bh3 (better than 18...Bd2, in which case White might harass the queen, commencing with Rdg1) White’s only chance to avoid the loss of a piece, now threatened by ...Bd2, seems to be 19.Nf1 giving up the exchange besides the two pawns. [Here too Steinitz unwittingly falls victim to a clerical error by Lowenthal, who transposed White’s 14th and 15th moves in his record of the game score. That is, Morphy actually played 14. 0-0-0 in the position diagramed above, Boden answered 14...Ne6, and then 15. Nh2 followed. Clearly this obviates all of Steinitz’s analysis. Steinitz acknowledged the mistake in a subsequent issue of The International Chess Magazine. He also reported that according to the Times-Democrat of New Orleans, the error was originally brought to light by Morphy himself from a review of Lowenthal’s book in 1860. - M.S.] This, we think, considering the importance of the game between Boden and Morphy, ought to be a fair representation of the criticism and in some manner, the play of the time. Tangible material advantages were frequently offered, especially in the opening, and often rejected on the mere suspicion that the queen would get out of play or that there would be some ultimate attack against the king, as seems to have been the case in the instance last pointed out, but we maintain that the analysis as well the practice of the game have greatly improved in our day.

In the above remarks and analytical illustrations we have more reviewed Morphy’s reviewers than his own play, for it would be well nigh impossible to institute any direct comparison of his sundry games outside of matches with similar ones of modern masters. As already explained in reference to the heavier contests Morphy’s games are presented in a compact collection, while those of modern first-rates are scattered about in different periodical. But as regards miscellaneous chess efforts the immense majority of examples in the practice of the strongest players in the last twenty years have not even been recorded. It would moreover be an extremely laborious task to attempt a parallel, for in order to collate fairly it would, we believe, be necessary for competent judges to agree upon a measure of merit in a manner similar to the one which has been adopted in the adjudication of problems where certain points are given for different qualifications. If, however, such a test could be applied, and the games of Morphy, as well as those of other masters, were to be judged according to originality and difficulty of idea, the number of variations or complications, brilliancy, soundness, etc., we, for our part, would unhesitatingly in the first place award the palm for brilliancy alone, and of course quite apart from Morphy’s superior solidity, to Anderssen’s immortal game with Kieseritsky, and his no less famous Evans Gambit against Dufresne above all other games on record. In all other respects we confidently believe that at least quite as good examples of all kinds of play could be produced from the practice of several first class masters, who only came to the front within the last twenty-five years, as any that can be found in Morphy’s collection.

There can be no doubt that in many respects the style of our time has become almost antagonistic to that of the Morphy period. To use the ingenious contradistinction adopted by the elegant critic of the [New Orleans] Times-Democrat, “the attacking defense” has in great measure given way to “the defensive attack.” The assault against the kingside forms the exception, whereas in former days it was made the rule. Generally at the outset the attack is directed chiefly towards the center or the queen’s wing, which is mostly the one farthest away from the adverse king. To what extent this is the case may be gathered from the fact that out of twenty-one games which Zukertort scored in the last London tournament, there are only two at the utmost - namely, one against Tchigorin and the other against Blackburne, both in the first round - in which he takes up a kingside attack in the first instance. In the first-named game Zukertort, as second player in the Ruy Lopez, having obtained the advantage of two combined bishops, institutes an onslaught early after the development with a compact majority of center pawns against the king’s side, as this presented his best chance of victory, for his queen’s wing had been broken up in the opening. In the other against Blackburne, the first maneuvering takes place on the queenside and in the center, and the final crisis, which leads to a most brilliant termination, is brought about by extremely feeble play on the part of Blackburne, who almost forced his opponent to resort in self-defense to his successful counter attack. In all the other games which Zukertort won on the occasion, he gained his first advantage either on the queen’s side, or in repelling an adverse kingside attack when the opponent had overshot the mark, or else in the ending after exchanging pieces.

All this is only in accordance with principles which are firmly established in the practice of our time, while they were little known in the Morphy period. The main idea underlying the change of method is the recognition of the fact that the king is in reality a strong piece, which not alone possesses great powers for defensive purposes, but can even be made use of for the attack early in the game with the object of his being posted more favorably for the ending in the center of the board, whence he can be made more easily available on both wings. This change of system is not confined to a more circumspective and harmonious development in which the action of the king often forms an important item, but it affects the middle game and the endings even to a greater extent. From analogies of the positions in the practice of old and modern masters, certain maxims have been deducted [sic] which dispense with a good deal of analysis, and are generally accepted by experts as scientific laws. The indiscriminate and chiefly tactical king’s side attack has been superseded by strategical maneuvers, marches and counter marches for gaining and accumulating small advantages at any point of the board, and the calculations and combinations are made subservient to the delicate shades of difference in the application of position judgment like the melody is melted into the harmony and dramatic expression of Richard Wagner’s music. The game has become more of a studious campaign in which the preparation and disposition of forces for the battle require greater science than the generalship of the actual fight. In like manner as the subtle coup de repose has been more extensively cultivated in problems of our time than the brilliant checks and sacrifices, the waiting maneuvers and the classical pressure of interdependent and mutually supporting forces has been made an additional study in the resources of our intellectual pastime.

It will be readily conceded that the number of masters and students has not alone increased since Morphy’s retirement, but has even been multiplied. It is more than natural that a great many improvements should have been made by the combined efforts of so many keen-witted intellects during such a long period. This in no way detracts from the question of Morphy’s genius, of which there is overwhelming evidence in his phenomenal precocity alone. All we maintain in reference to the relation of Morphy’s play and style towards that of our time is that if the great master were alive and were to be the leading spirit of our day, as he was the superior of his own, he would of necessity cultivate and extend the system which has been developed since his time. He would probably have been the first to make improvements or to perceive and acknowledge them in the practice of others, instead of reverting to the methods of the old school as maintained by some critics.

Nor could it be otherwise. Provided that the game does not come to a standstill and that general progress be made in its cultivation, the best methods of each succeeding generation must of necessity be superior to those of the preceding one. This law undoubtably holds good as regards the relative styles of Philidor, Labourdonnais, Staunton, Anderssen, and Morphy, and there can be no question that even greater proportionate advances have been made in the theory and practice of the game since Morphy’s retirement than during the intervals which passed between the respective ascents of the above-named masters. Each new comer profits easily from the hard earned experiences of his predecessors, and as a matter of course Morphy’s play forms the groundwork whereupon the structure of the modern style has been built and extended. His career marks a grand epoch in the history of our pastime, and careful study of his games will always be essential for the purpose of acquiring a complete knowledge of the direct attack against the king, which no doubt forms a most important element in mastering our science. As one of the pioneering explorers in the unknown regions of logical thought, he left his indelible landmarks in the wilderness as a guidance for researches beyond the distance he had cleared. And now a few words about Morphy’s genius, which is no more affected by acknowledging the progress since his time than it would diminish from the glory of Columbus to state that millions of people know more about America nowadays than its first discoverer We believe, on the contrary, that the youthful master’s fame will be placed on a more solid basis by those who appreciate the advance made since his day, as of necessity they will be more capable of understanding his play than those who indulge in imaginary exaggerations.

Genius has been variously defined as the capacity for taking pains, and as of the poëta nascitur non fit character We believe that as usual the truth lies in the middle. Some innate powers are indispensable for attaining the proficiency in chess as in other accomplishments, but study and practice must be combined to form the master. That Morphy had a profound knowledge of the theory as well as of the practical examples up to his day is beyond question, and is proved from the fact that he made the best recognized moves in the opening without adding any new inventions of his own. But of course he could have had little guidance beyond his genius in exercising his independent judgment in the complications of the middle part, or in the calculations of the ending. The merit of priority or originality must, however, stand by itself, and must be judged separately, and we think it is almost as irrelevant to inquire what Morphy could have done if his course had not come to a most unfortunate termination, as to investigate the question whether Columbus could have also discovered Australia. For our part we believe that the talent for chess in various degrees up to genius is more latent in the human intellect than is commonly supposed, and it only wants proper training in order to make proficiency in the game more general. Our mental exercises are governed by the same laws which rule corporate gymnastics and physical exertions, and what has been done before apart from the credit due to the first examples can be done over again, and even improved upon. We, therefore, as much disclaim the overpraise which has been lavished on modern players as we wish to apply normal measures to the standard of the old school. We believe in the first place that with fair natural capacities to start with excellence in the game may be acquired gradually by steady though very regular practice with much stronger players on even terms, and by moderate though continued study of fine games played by great masters, as well as comments and analytical researches by first-class chess authorities. In the first place we believe it alike erroneous and injurious to the popularity which our noble game ought to achieve as a healthy mental exercise to represent mastery as unattainable excepting by the privileged few. It is by no means as difficult as it has been described, and by proper methods of tuition and practical training in its intricacies and its enjoyments can be made accessible to a large number of intelligent minds, who now shun its cultivation on account of its alleged insurmountable difficulties.

We have no doubt that if the game rises into its place as a popular intellectual pastime, and when the tests of strength will be more frequently and more fairly applied than nowadays new masters will come to the front, who by nature will be better qualified for their tasks than any of the leaders of the present or past. The game is still inexhaustible, and there is plenty of room for improvement. For our part we shall only be glad for the sake of common progress to see chess mastery become still more general, and to greet the rise of talents who will put the best players of the present generation into the shade. And with these reflections we may conclude our remarks in general on the subject of our essay.

There is only one more matter in reference to Morphy’s career which we feel bound to touch upon with an extreme sense of responsibility. It has been asserted that he beat all his opponents with the greatest facility, and that albeit his youth he possessed a reserve power which had never been called upon. We think that this verdict cannot be sustained in the least by the internal evidence of the games in his matches with Lowenthal, Harrwitz, and Anderssen, and, on the contrary, painful as the subject is we consider it our duty to record our opinion that over-exertion at an early age may have been at least a contributory cause of the calamitous breakdown of Morphy’s intellect. Much as we would recommend the practice of chess even for children as a healthy mental exercise in moderation, we deem it incumbent upon us to warn the rising youth and its guardians that in intellectual as well as in physical training it is extremely dangerous to attempt too much, especially early in life. It is outside of the scope of this article to dwell further on the subject at least for the present, but we may take a future opportunity of giving from personal inquiries and observations a description of the form which Morphy’s malady took as well as our views about its cause.

12

Alexander Alekhine and Eugene Znosko-Borovsky Debate the Chess style of Paul Morphy

[The following letters appeared originally in the January 15, 1914 issue of the magazine Shakmatny Vestnik (“Chess Bulletin”). They have been edited slightly for this volume, to improve readability and to excise some extraneous material. To fully appreciate the masters’ remarks, it will be useful to know of the events which precipitated their writing. Alekhine had previously annotated a game Breyer-Englund, Scheveningen 1913, his notes appearing in the newspaper Novoye Vremya (“New Times”), Nov. 7, 1913. On that occasion he concluded his commentary as follows:

One foreign commentator ended his remarks concerning this game with the trite phrase that Breyer conducted his attack “in the Morphy style.” Such a statement is in my opinion an indication of lack of understanding of the nature of the talents of one of the most gifted chess players of the last century. Yes, Morphy sometimes played “beautifully” (if by this you mean the creation of cheap effects like sacrificing a queen with a calculation of two or three moves, etc.), but for the most part he succeeded in doing this only against opponents having a very remote idea of the necessity for a normal development of the pieces, and in general rather weak in consideration. When he encountered players of his own class, he no longer achieved victories with these rattles. His strength (and the real beauty is in this strength) consisted in deeply thought out position play, chiefly of an aggressive character (see, for example, his matches with Anderssen and Harrwitz), and no longer, of course, in “effects” capable of bringing indescribable rapture only to beginners or those who, right up to old age, were unable to advance from a corresponding stage of chess development.

Znosko-Borovsky took issue with these comments and formulated his objections in the first letter below. Shakmatny Vestnik offered Alekhine an opportunity to respond, which prompted the second letter. - M.S.]

by Eugene Znosko-Borovsky

I ask you in kindnesss not to refuse to spare me a few lines in your section for some comments on the occasion of the concluding remarks published by you of A. A. Alekhine about the game between G. Breyer and F. Englund. Fully understanding and sharing the motives causing Mr. Alekhine to write these remarks protesting against the appropriation of the sobriquet “in the Morphy style” to every chance sacrifice, and acquiescing to the particular irrelevance of such a sobriquet in the given game, I cannot, however, acknowledge as just the appraisal which Mr. Alekhine gives to the play of Morphy himself, whose beauty and strength he sees in “deeply thought out positional play, chiefly of an aggressive character” Taking the risk of being looked upon as a “beginner” by the author of the remarks, or as one who “right up to old age has been unable to advance from a corresponding stage of chess development” (which one applies better to me is not for me to judge), nevertheless, I think that such an appraisal is essentially erroneous, very harmfully alluring to “these fellows” the “beginners,” and more than that, very out of date, so that Mr. Alekhine himself in the given case is not advancing from that stage of development which chess players had reached way back in the days of Steinitz (for it was the view of the latter that Morphy played “beautifully” only against weak players). And when I so recently in your very section characterized “contemporary chess feeling” as not valuing the “crackling outbursts of artificial fireworks” in different sacrifices, etc., I had no idea that in a few months similar words and identical expressions (“cheap effects,” “rattles,” for example) might be applied to “one of the most gifted chess players of the last century,” and besides, by nobody else but Mr. Alekhine, whose opinions are listened to, of course, by all Russian players, including myself.

When it is said that “there can be no other play than position play,” that only “that is correct play,” then nobody can dispute it, everyone is always in agreement; when we demand such play of every player and always find it with the strongest (for Steinitz as early as 1889 wrote about Tschigorin, that stubborn enemy of the “new” school, that he attacks “in real contemporary style”), then we do not err even here for we are talking about the most elementary things, the rudiments of the game of chess. And if we speak of all traits of a player, then it is possible to make mention even of this, just as in noting a position for pedagogical considerations in a game full of combinations and brilliancies. But all of this is inapplicable when it is required to determine the principal “beauty” or “strength” of a player’s talent, where he differs from others (that is, the most valuable thing he possesses), and not what he has in common with them. It is then necessary to determine his individuality concretely And when that player is Morphy, then the words about “position” play expose only “complete lack of understanding of the nature of his talents,” and the application to his play of such words as “rattles,” appears blasphemous and attesting to an inability to discriminate in these questions.

When a poet with every flourish of his pen brings forth new consonance, unexpected rhythm, captiviating form, when the thought of a dramatist, some Moliere, impulsively creates one comic situation after another, witticisms alternate with puns and banter - shall we call them “cheap effects” and require rules of versification for one, and the observance of three unities for the other? It is possible to make up a whole program of requirements which a composition should satisfy: [the composition should] be the development of one thought...; [its various themes] should be subordinate to the principal one; the action should develop without jumps and with a psychological basis. But will they not all fly to the devil, will anybody call them to mind, inquire whether they are fulfilled or not when some Oscar Wilde spreads out the golden brocade of his “Dorian Gray” and sprinkles it with gems?

All writers are literate, but besides that, one is witty, another is deep, a third is picturesque, the fourth one, finally apparently has a sonorous speech as his principal virtue. It is impossible to equalize them all in one line, to appraise them all by their literacy, their speech ...

And so it is with Morphy. Combinations, sacrifices and threats must have flashed in this mind during a game like showers of sparks. Where another would have seen nothing, where everything appeared boring and void, he found transfused hues of unexpected attacks. Out of nothing he created magic worlds of irresistible assaults, and what is there to say here of position play? Moliere did not invent witticisms: he was witty and for him they are not merely contrived effects. In the same way, to take away the indicated traits of Morphy would not be taking away his strength; it would be annihilating his whole talent, himself, for he is in them. If somebody thinks of Dostoyevsky as a standard for everything, and if he undertakes, nevertheless, to form a judgement of Wilde, then it would be better for him simply to revile the latter because he is not like Dostoyevsky, rather than to impose alien qualities, and especially to give them out as his “real beauty.”

In Defense of Morphy from his “Defender”

by Alexander Alekhine

Having found it possible to become acquainted with Mr. Znosko-Borovsky’s “letter” before its publication, I consider it necessary to say a few words about it. It should be acknowledged, first of all, that the object of this letter and its tone are not entirely comprehensible to me. The author starts out by saying that he “fully understands and agrees” with the opinions expressed in my remarks about the inappropriateness of hanging Morphy’s name like a label on mediocre games in general, and on the game under discussion in particular.

But that is just what I wanted to explain in my concluding remarks! With those few lines which I wrote blunderingly about the play of Morphy himself, I had no intention of giving the characteristics of his game in a comprehensive way (for that is impossible in two words), and only wanted to call attention to one of its highly gifted qualities. I am aware, by the way that in making use of the term “position play” and not defining in the given case what I mean by it (in general I have spoken of this repeatedly in commentaries on individual games), I actually gave some stimulus to a wrong interpretation of my words. But just the same, one would least of all expect to hear such an interpretation from such a connoisseur of the game as Mr. Znosko-Borovsky

For what reason does the honorable author of the letter reproach me? I will analyze it in sequence. First of all, there is the charge that my words will lead beginners astray and, therefore, are harmful from a “pedagogical” point of view. My answer to that is the following: I have always considered that one unfounded unproved statement, even proceeding form an accepted authority on the given question (and I do not consider myself as such, by any means) is less than insufficient to convince anybody, and even less to change the conviction of one who is convinced of the opposite. Mr. Znosko-Borovsky himself evidently adheres to the contrary opinion, if we judge by the indignation with which he recalls his article, inserted a month before in the present section, and is honestly amazed that after that I could write something in disagreement with it. My God, what a crime! As far as similar statements are concerned, which Mr. Znosko-Borovsky has found in my writings, I dare say that these are simple coincidences, since, to tell the truth, I did not read Mr. Znosko-Borovsky’s article, and even now do not know of what it treats.

The second accusation - and a more serious accusation - is of not being up-to-date. Mr Znosko-Borovsky says that I have “not advanced from that stage of development which chess players had reached way back in the days of Steinitz” and that I adhere to his views on the substance of Morphy’s game. This conclusion is basically incorrect.

Steinitz was, undoubtedly, a very great figure, to such an extent that he gave much to the theoretical side of our royal game in the prime of his life, and much that is very remote from chess to our home-bred philosophers, but it is impossible, to be sure, to agree with his views of Morphy, whom he definitively tries to take down from his pedestal. The most curious of all, however, is the fact that Mr. Znosko-Borovsky, who had reproached me for solidarity with Steinitz, in his understanding of the essence of Morphy stands much closer to the latter than he suspects: both of them (that is Steinitz and Znosko-Borovsky) see the center of gravity of Morphy’s game in its “beauty,” and on the basis of only that token construct their diametrically opposite conclusions: the first throws Morphy down in the dust, the second exalts him to the skies. Which one of these two conclusions is nearer to the truth is uninteresting and unimportant, since in both cases erroneous points of departure are taken. The incorrectness of such an evaluation, in my opinion, consists in the fact that it contemplates Morphy outside of time and space, striving to adapt him to contemporary conceptions and outlooks, when he belongs wholly to chess history and is a part of it. And only in this way can we judge Morphy, and only in this way do I approach him myself. How much brighter and richer his figure rises before us, how much clearer the secret of his success and charm appears, if we transport ourselves mentally to the time when he lived and worked, if we take the trouble to study his contemporaries even just a little! Then, in the sixties and seventies of the last century in London, and principally in Paris where the traditions of Philidor were alive, where the immortal works of Labourdonnais and McDonnell were still remembered, at the time, finally, when Anderssen was living - beauty alone could scarcely have astonished anyone. Strength, Morphy’s unconquerable strength - that is the reason for his success and the guarantee of his immortality

And that the essence of that strength consists of the fact that Morphy always played positionally goes without saying, in the broad sense of the word (and not in Steinitz’s interpretation of later years). The assumption of Mr. Znosko-Borovsky that I understood the word “positional” namely in that sense is somewhat naive, in my opinion, that is, he clearly pictured to himself in each separate instance just what the given position required, and adapted himself to these requirements.

Only because of that quality of his game, exceptional for those times, was he able to conquer in matches such opponents as Harrwitz, Lowenthal, and principally Anderssen, whose imagination and talent for combinations were no less than those of Morphy himself. Let Mr. Znosko-Borovsky look over those games once more, even though he doesn’t see any special “beauty” in them (with some rare exceptions), he will see, however, the real Morphy, the master of all phases of the game, stronger than any of his opponents, even the strongest of them ...

These are the objections that I felt forced to make to Mr. Znosko-Borovsky. I have touched only upon those parts of his letter in which he speaks of the question broached by me. All the rest, as, for instance, the characteristics of Morphy with the sacrifices flashing in his mind like showers of sparks, and attacks seen by him in transfused hues, his discussions of Wilde, etc., are also very interesting, but do not concern the given question directly, so I prefer not to appraise that part. Only one thing can be remarked: Mr. Znosko-Borovsky is so disturbed by “rattles” and “cheap effects.” And what are all these arguments if not the same kind of literary “rattles?”

Errata

Simple and significant corrections

p. 26, last paragraph: strike the words “in full”

p. 29, first column: the result of the game was 0-1, not the typo 1-0

p. 113, note to move 31: change “mate next move” to simply “mates.”

p. 120: two references to “Morphy-Kennedy” ought to read “Morphy-Freeman”

p. 161: change punctuation for Black’s 10th move from ?! to simply ?

p. 181, game #7: the result of was 0-1, not 1-0

p. 209, game #90: reverse the colors (i.e. P. Morphy was White) and change date to 1850 (Lawson)

p. 211, game #98: change the name of Maurian’s partner from “Le Carp” to “Le Carpentier”

p. 226: strike game #153 as it duplicates #155

p. 259, game #273: Black’s 20th move was Ra8, not Re8

p. 293, game #400: White’s 23rd move was Qd3, not Qb3

Some more-involved or less-important corrections

p. 23, note following the second diagram: GM Kavalek pointed out that 41 Kc2! (instead of 41 Kd4) draws. If then 41...b4 (41...d4 42 Kd3 b4 43 Kxd4) 42 axb4 d4 43 b5 a3 44 b6! a2 45 Kb2 d3 46 b7

p. 42, second paragraph: strike the words “had previously” and indicate the date of the referenced Ledger column as September 10, 1859

p. 101: The note beginning “We can only hope...” is completely wrong; GM Kavalek again indicated to me (gently!) that 49... Kh5 is better than any of the possibilities considered.

p. 155, first paragraph: change “appeared” to “appears”

p. 165, first column, last paragraph: the recommendation 11 Nf6 gf6 12 Bf6 is refuted by 12...e3! (Kasparov)

p. 244: Lawson considered games #218 and 219 to be spurious and they ought to be dropped

p. 272: Game #328 is the wrong score, a mere repeat of #330. The correct score is: 1 e4 e5 2 f4 d5 3 exd5 Qxd5 4 Nf3 e4 5 Ne5 Be6 6 Bc4 Qd6 7 Qe2 Nc6 8 Bb5 Nf6 9 b3 Bd7 10 Bb2 Be7 11 0-0-0 a6 12 Bc4 Be6 13 d4 exd3 14 Rxd3 Bxc4 15 bxc4 Qe6 16 f5 Qxf5 17 Nxc6 bxc6 18 Re3 Qg5 19 h4 Qh6 20 Kb1 0-0 21 Rxe7 Rab8 22 Ka1 Qf4 23 Rf1 Qd6 24 Re3 Rfd8 25 Be5 Qd7 26 Bxf6 gxf6 27 Rg3+ Kh8 28 Rd3 Qe8 29 Rxd8 Qxd8 30 Qf3 Kg7 31 Qg4+ Kh8 32 Qf4 Kg7 33 h5 f5 34 h6+ Kh8 35 c3 Qf6 36 Qd4 Qxd4 37 cxd4 Rb4 38 Rxf5 Rxc4 39 Rxf7 Kg8 40 Rg7+ Kf8 41 Rxh7 Rxd4 42 Rxc7 Rd1+ 43 Kb2 Rd2+ 44 Kb3 Rxg2 45 a4 a5 46 h7 Rh2 47 Kc4 Rh5 48 Ra7 Rh4+ 49 Kc5 Rh5+ 50 Kxc6 Rh6+ 51 Kb5 Rh5+ 52 Kb6 Rh6+ 53 Kxa5 1-0

Addendum

In preparing the “Complete Games” section of Paul Morphy and the Evolution of Chess Theory, I mostly assembled material from well-known sources: Morphy books by J. J. Lowenthal, Geza Maroczy, Phillip Sergeant and David Lawson. The result was the largest Morphy game collection ever published. However, the possibility remained that additional games would turn up. Indeed, it would have been surprising if not a single other example ever came to light.

David Lawson’s 1976 biography Paul Morphy: The Pride and Sorrow of Chess focused upon the affairs of Morphy’s life rather than his chess per se, but it also offered several previously unknown games, which I of course included in Paul Morphy and the Evolution of Chess Theory. It turns out that Lawson had unearthed some additional unpublished or forgotten games that, for whatever reason, he omitted from his book. However, he presented them in the August 1978 and September 1979 issues of The British Chess Magazine. Subsequently, some of these games were reprinted elsewhere, but I remained ignorant of all but about a dozen until the BCM articles were called to my attention in the wake of my book’s publication.

While the games herein are not “important” in the sense of shedding new light on Morphy’s theoretical or stylistic attitudes, it is naturally my hope that they can be integrated into a subsequent edition. In the meantime, I want to thank Caissa Editions for the opportunity to issue this addendum, by which Paul Morphy and the Evolution of Chess Theory can remain the most complete collection of Morphy’s chess possible.

Macon Shibut
July, 1993

A1

Morphy - Amateur
New Orleans, 1848
Irregular

1. e4 e5 2. h3 d5 3. ed5 Bc5 4. Bc4 c6 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. d3 a5 7. Bg5 Nbd7 8. dc6 bc6 9. Nf3 0-0 10. 0-0 h6 11. Bh4 Qc7 12. d4 ed4 13. Nd4 Bd6 14. Nf5 Bh2 15. Kh1 Ne5 16. Bb3 Ba6 17. Re1 Ng6 18. Bf6 gf6 19. Qh5 1-0

A2

Morphy - Le Carpentier
New Orleans, 1849
Remove White’s Queen Rook

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 ed4 4. Bc4 Bb4 5. c3 dc3 6. 0-0 cb2 7. Bb2 Bf8 8. e5 d6 9. Re1 de5 10. Ne5 Qd1 11. Bf7 Ke7 12. Ng6 Kf7 13. Nh8# 1-0

A3

Morphy - McConnell
New Orleans(?), 1849
Irregular

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Qf6 3. Nc3 c6 4. d4 ed4 5. e5 Qg6 6. Bd3 Qg2 7. Rg1 Qh3 8. Rg3 Qh5 9, Rg5 Qh3 10. Bf1 Qe6 11. Nd4 Qe7 12. Ne4 h6 13. Nf5 Qe6 14. Nfd6 Bd6 15. Nd6 Kd8 16. Bc4 Qe7 17. Nf7 Kc7 18. Qd6 Qd6 19. ed6 Kb6 20. Be3 c5 21. Bc5 Ka5 22. Rg3 b5 23. Ra3# 1-0

A4

Morphy - McConnell
New Orleans(?), 1849
King’s Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 Be7 4. Bc4 Bh4 5. Kf1 d6 6. d4 Qf6 7. e5 de5 8. de5 Qe7 9. Bf4 Bg4 10. Nc3 c6 11. Ne4 1-0

A5

McConnell - Morphy
New Orleans(?), 1849
King’s Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 Bg7 5. d3 h6 6. 0-0 Nf6 7. c3 b5 8. Bb5 c6 9. Bc4 d5 10. ed5 cd5 11. Qe2 Be6 12. Bb3 0-0 13. d4 Ne4 14. Bc2 f5 15. Nbd2 Nc6 16. c4 Bd4 17. Nd4 Nd4 18. Qd3 Qb6 19. Kh1 Nc2 20. Qc2 Nf2 21. Kg1 Nh3 22. Kh1 Qg1 23. Rg1 Nf2# 0-1

A6

Morphy - Rousseau
New Orleans(?), 1849
King’s Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 g5 4. h4 g4 5. Ng5 h6 6. Nf7 Kf7 7. Qg4 Qf6 8. Bc4 Ke7 9. Nc3 c6 10. e5 Qe5 11. Kd1 Kd8 12. Re1 Qc5 13. Bg8 d5

14. Re8 Ke8 15. Qc8 Ke7 16. Nd5 Kd6 17. Qc7# 1-0

A7

Morphy - McConnell
New Orleans, 1849

Lawson gave no moves but indicated the position as “White to move and win.” No clear forced win is apparent. For example, 1. Qd4 Kg7 2. e5 Rf8 3. e6 Kg6 4. Qd6 Ra8 5. e7 Kf7 6. Qd7 Re8.

A8

Morphy - Amateur
New Orleans(?),1849(?)
King’s Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 g5 4. h4 g4 5. Ne5 h5 6. Bc4 Nh6 7. d4 d6 8. Nd3 f3 9. gf3 Be7 10. Bf4 Bh4 11. Kd2 gf3 12. Qf3 Bg4 13. Qe3 Be7 14. Nc3 c6 15. Raf1 f5 16. ef5 Nf5 17. Qe6 Nd4 18. Qg4 hg4 19. Rh8 Kd7 20. Rd8 1-0

A9

Morphy - Amateur
New Orleans(?),1850
Remove White’s Queen Rook

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. ed5 Nd5 6. Nf7 Kf7 7. Qf3 Ke6 8. Nc3 Nce7 9. 0-0 c6 10. d4 ed4 11. Re1 Kd7 12. Nd5 Nd5 13. Bd5 cd5 14. Qd5 Kc7 15. Bf4 Bd6 16. Qc5 Kb8 17. Qd6 Qd6 18. Bd6# 1-0

A10

Morphy - Amateur
New Orleans(?),1850
Scotch

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 Nd4 4. Ne5 Ne6 5. Bc4 Nf6 6. Nf7 Kf7 7. Be6 Ke8 8. Bb3 Bc5 9. e5 Qe7 10. 0-0 Ng8 11. Nc3 c6 12. Ne4 b5 13. Nd6 Kd8 14. Bg5 1-0

A11

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1854
Remove White’s Queen Rook and
Queen Knight

1. e4 e6 2. f4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. Nf3 Ne7 5. c3 Nec6 6. Be2 Be7 7. 0-0 f5 8. ef6 Bf6 9. g4 e5 10. g5 e4 11. Nh4 Be7 12. f5 0-0 13. f6 Bd6 14. Bh5 gf6 15. g6 f5 16. gh7 Kh8 17. Ng6 Kh7 18. Nf8 Qf8 19. Kh1 f4 20. Rg1 f3 21. Bg6 Kh8 22. Rg3 Bg4 23. Rg4 Qh6 24. Qg1 Qh2 25. Qh2 Bh2 26. Kh2 Nd7 27. d4 1-0

A12

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1854
Remove White’s Queen Rook and
Queen Knight

1. e4 e6 2. f4 d5 3. e5 Ne7 4. Nf3 Nec6 5. g4 Be7 6. d4 0-0 7. c3 f5 8. ef6 Bf6 9. h4 Na5 10. g5 Be7 11. h5 Nd7 12. Bd3 Nb6 13. Qc2 h6 14. gh6 gh6 15. Rg1 Kh8 16. Rg6 Rf6 17. Qg2 Qf8 18. Nh4 Qf7 19. f5 Bd7 20. Bh6 Rg8 21. Bg5 Rfg6 22. Ng6 Rg6 23. hg6 Qg7 24. Qh1 Kg8 25. f6 1-0

A13

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1854
Remove White’s Queen Rook and
Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 ed4 4. Bc4 Bc5 5. 0-0 Nge7 6. Ng5 d5 7. ed5 Nd5 8. Nf7 Kf7 9. Qh5 Kf8 10. Bd5 Qf6 11. Re1 Bf5 12. h4 Bg6 13. Qg4 Qf5 14. Qf5 Bf5 15. Bc6 bc6 16. Re5 Bc2 17. Rc5 d3 18. Rc6 Kg8 19. Rc7 h6 20. Bd2 Re8 21. Kf1 Re2 22. Rc2 dc2 23. Ke2 Kh7 24. Kd3 Rc8 25. Bc1 Kg6 26. b4 Kf5 27. a4 a6 28. b5 ab5 29. ab5 Rc5 30. b6 Rb5 31. Kc2 Rb6 32. f3 Rc6 33. Kd1 Rc1 34. Kc1 Kf4

35. Kd2 Kg3 36. Ke3 Kh4 37. Kf4 g6 38. g4 h5 39. g5 Kh3 40. Ke5 Kg3 41. Kf6 Kf3 42. Kg6 h4 43. Kf6 h3 44. g6 h2 45. g7 h1(Q) 46. g8(Q) draw

A14

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1854
Remove White’s Queen Rook and
Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Bc5 3. d4 Bd4 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. c3 Bb6 6. Ng5 Nh6 7. Qh5 Qf6 8. Rf1 0-0 9. f4 Qg6 10. Qf3 d6 11. f5 Qf6 12. Qg3 Bd7 13. Nh7 Kh7 14. Bg5 Qg5 15. Qg5 f6 16. Qh5 1-0

A15

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1854
Remove White’s Queen Rook and
Queen Knight

1. e4 c5 2. f4 Nc6 3. Nf3 e6 4. c3 d5 5. e5 Nh6 6. Bd3 f5 7. Ng5 Nf7 8. h4 c4 9. Bc2 Bc5 10. b4 Bb6 11. b5 Ne7 12. Ba3 0-0 13. g4 h6 14. gf5 Ng5 15. hg5 ef5 16. Qh5 Qe8 17. Qh2 Bc6 18. gh6 g6 19. h7 Kh8 20. Qh4 Rf7 21. Qg5 Rh7 22. Rh7 Kh7 23. Qh4 Kg7 24. Be7 Bd8 25. Qf6 Kh7 26. Bd8 Rd8 27. b6 ab6 28. Ba4 Bd7 29. Bd1 b5 30. Kf2 Bc6 31. Be2 d4 32. a4 d3 33. ab5 de2 34. bc6 bc6 35. Ke2 Qd7 36. d4 cd3 37. Kd2 Qd5 38. c4 Qd4 39. Qh4 Kg8 0-1

A16

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1854
Remove White’s King Rook and
King Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Bc5 3. b4 Bb4 4. c3 Ba5 5. Ba3 d6 6. Qb3 Qe7 7. Qa4 Nc6 8. Bb5 Bd7 9. Bc6 Bc6 10. Qa5 Nf6 11. d3 0-0 12. 0-0 b6 13. Qb4 a5 14. Qb2 Unfinished

A17

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1854
Remove White’s Queen

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. 0-0 d6 5. c3 Nf6 6. b4 Bb6 7. a4 a6 8. a5 Ba7 9. b5 ab5 10. Bb5 0-0 11. d4 Ne4 12. Re1 f5 13. Bb2 Qf6 14. a6 Ne7 15. ab7 Bb7 16. Na3 Ng5 17. Nd2 e4 18. Nac4 f4 19. Na5 e3 20. Nf1 ef2 21. Kf2 Ne4 22. Kg1 f3 23. Nb7 f2 24. Kh1 fe1(Q) 25. Re1 Nf2 26. Kg1 Nd3 0-1

A18

Maurian - Morphy
New Orleans, 1854
Remove Black’s Queen Rook and
King Bishop Pawn

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Bd3 de4 4. Be4 Qh4 5. Nc3 Bb4 6. Qe2 Ne7 7. Nf3 Qh5 8. 0-0 0-0 9. Ne5 Qh4 10. Qg4 Qg4 11. Ng4 Nd7 12. Ne5 Nf6 13. Bd3 b6 14. Bc4 Nf5 15. d5 Bd6 16. de6 Ne7 17. Nd7 Bd7 18. ed7 Kh8 19. Bf7 Nd7 20. Bb3 Nf5 21. Nb5 Bc5 22. c3 Ne5 23. Be3 c6 24. Bc5 bc5 25. Na3 Nh426. Nc4 Nd3 27. Rad1 1-0

A19

Maurian - Morphy
New Orleans, 1854
Remove Black’s Queen Rook and
King Bishop Pawn;
White moves twice to begin the game

1. e4 ... 2. d4 e6 3. Bd3 g6 4. Nf3 c5 5. c3 d5 6. e5 Nc6 7. Qa4 c4 8. Bg5 Qb6 9. Bc4 dc4 10. b3 cb3 11. ab3 Bd7 12. Nbd2 Ne5 13. Qa7 Nd3 14. Ke2 Qb5 15. c4 Qf5 16. Qb7 Ne7 17. Ra8 Nc8 18. Rc8 Bc8 19. Qc8 Kf7 20. Qc7 Kg8 21. g4 Qg4 22. Kd3 Qf5 23. Ke2 h6 24. Bf4 g5 25. Bd6 Rh7 26. Qd8 Rf7 27. Rf1 Qc2 28. Ne5 Rf4 29. f3 g4 30. Ng4 Rd4 31. Qf8 Kh7 32. Qf7 1-0

A20

Maurian - Morphy
New Orleans, 1854
Remove Black’s Queen Rook and
King Bishop Pawn;
White moves twice to begin the game

1. e4 ... 2. d4 e6 3. c4 Nc6 4. d5 Ne5 5. f4 Ng6 6. Be3 Bb4 7. Nc3 e5 8. Qh5 Nf6 9. Qg5 Be7 10. f5 Nd5 11. Qh5 Ne3 12. Kf2 0-0 13. Ke3 Bg5 14. Kf3 Nf4 15. Qg4 h5 16. Qg3 Bh4 0-1

A21

Maurian - Morphy
New Orleans, 1854
Remove Black’s Queen Rook and
King Bishop Pawn;
White moves twice to begin the game

1. e4 ... 2. d4 e6 3. Bd3 d5 4. e5 c5 5. Nf3 c4 6. Be2 b5 7. 0-0 Nh6 8. Be3 Nf5 9. a4 b4 10. Nbd2 Be7 11. h3 h5 12. Nh2 g6 13. Nc4 dc4 14. Bc4 Na6 15. d5 Ne3 16. fe3 Qb6 17. Bb5 Kd8 18. de6 Kc7 19. Rf7 Qe6 20. Qd6 Qd6 21. ed6 Kd6 22. Rd1 Ke6 23. Bc4 Ke5 24. Re7 Kf5 25. Rf7 Ke5 26. Nf3 Ke4 27. Rd4 Ke3 28. Re7 Be6 29. Re6# 1-0

A22

Morphy - Amateur
New Orleans, 1856
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. Nf3 d6 4. d4 d5 5. ed5 Bg4 6. de5 Bf3 7. gf3 Nfd7 8. 0-0 Bc5 9. e6 Ne5 10. ef7 Nf7 11. Bb5 c6 12. dc6 bc6 13. Re1 Be7 14. Bd3 0-0 15. f4 Bd6 16. Qh5 h6 17. Qg6 Re8 18. Bd2 Nd7 19. Bc3 Nf6 20: Re8 Ne8 21. Re1 Be7 22. Bc4 Bf6 23. Qf7 Kh7 24. Qg8 Kg6 25. Bd3 Kh5 26. Qf7 Kg4 27. Qg6 Kh4 28. Qg3 Kh5 29. Bg6# 1-0

A23

Morphy - Amateur
New Orleans(?), 1856
Remove White’s Queen Rook

1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. Nge2 Nf6 5. f4 Ng4 6. Ng3 Nf2 7. Qh5 0-0 8. f5 Nh1 9. d4 Nd4 10. Bg5 Be7 11. Be7 Qe7 12. Nd5 Qd6 13. f6 Ne6 14. Ne7 Kh8 15. Be6 Qe6 16. fg7 Kg7 17. Ngf5 Kh8 18. Qg5 Qg6 19. Ng6 fg6 20. Qe7 Rf5 21. ef5 Kg8 22. f6 1-0

A24

Morphy - Amateur
New Orleans(?), 1856
Remove White’s Queen Rook

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 d6 4. c3 Be6 5. Bb5 a6 6. Ba4 Nge7 7. 0-0 h6 8. a3 Ba2 9. Bc2 Ng6 10. d4 d5 11. Nbd2 de4 12. Ne4 ed4 13. b3 b6 14. cd4 Nh4 15. Bb2 Nf3 16. Qf3 Nd4 17. Bd4 Qd4 18. Rd1 Qb2 19. Nf6 gf6 20. Qa8 Ke7 21. Re1 Kd6 22. Qd8 Kc6 23. Be4 Kb5 24. Qd5 Bc5 25. Qc4 Ka5 26. Qa4# 1-0

A25

Morphy - Amateur
New Orleans(?), 1856
Remove White’s Queen Rook

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Bc4 Qh4 4. Kf1 g5 5. Nc3 Bg7 6. d4 Nc6 7. Nf3 Qh5 8. Nd5 Kd8 9. c3 Nf6 10. Nf6 Bf6 11. e5 Bg7 12. h4 f6 13. Kg1 g4 14. Nh2 fe5 15. Ng4 ed4 16. Bf4 Rf8 17. Bg5 Ne7 18. Qe2 Re8 19. Ne5 Qe2 20. Nf7# 1-0

A26

Maurian - Morphy
New Orleans, 1856
Remove Black’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. NF3 d5 3. Ne5 Nf6 4. ed5 Bd6 5. Bb5 c6 6. dc6 0-0 7. Nf3 Re8 8. Be2 Qe7 9. Nc3 Bb4 10. d4 Nd5 11. Bd2 Bc3 12. bc3 bc6 13. Ne5 f6 14. Nd3 Ba6 15. f3 Rad8 16. Rf1 Rd6 17. Rf2 Re6 18. Kf1 g5 19. Nc1 Qa3 20. c4 Nc3 21. Bc3 Qc3 22. d5 Re3 23. Nb3 Bc4 24. Bc4 Qc4 25. Kg1 cd5 26. Qd2 Re2 27. Qd3 R8e3 28. Qc4 dc4 29. Nd2 Re1 30. Re1 Re1 31. Rf1 Re2 32. Rd1 c3 33. Kf1 Rd2 34. Rd2 cd2 35. Ke2 Kf7 36. Kd2 Ke6 37. Kd3 Kd5 38. c4 Kc5 39. Ke4 Kc4 40. Kf5 Kc3 41. Kf6 h6 42. Kg6 Kb4 43. Kh6 Ka3 44. Kg5 Ka2 45. h4 a5 46. h5 Kb1 47. h6 a4 48. h7 a3 49. h8(Q) a2 50. f4 al(Q) 51. Qa1 Ka1 52. f5 1-0

A27

Morphy - Amateur
New Orleans, 1857
Remove White’s Queen Rook

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Bc5 6. 0-0 d6 7. d4 ed4 8. cd4 Bb6 9. Nc3 Na5 10. Bd3 Bg4 11. Be3 Qf6 12. Nd5 Qd8 13. h3 Bf3 14. Qf3 Nf6

15. Bg5 Bd4 16. e5 Be5 17. Re1 0-0 18. Re5 de5 19. Nf6 gf6 20. Bf6 1-0

A28

Morphy - Kennicott
New York, 1857
Evans Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Bc5 6. 0-0 d6 7. d4 ed4 8. cd4 Bb6 9. Bb2 f6 10. Re1 Nce7 11. e5 d5 12. ef6 Nf6 13. Ba3 Ne4 14. Re4 de4 15. Ne5 Qd4 16. Qh5 g6 17. Bf7 Kd8 18. Be7 Ke7 and 1-0

A29

Morphy - Perrin
New York, 1857
Remove White’s Queen Rook

1. e4 e6 2. f4 d5 3. e5 Nc6 4. d4 Nh6 5. Nf3 f6 6. c3 Be7 7. Bd3 0-0 8. 0-0 Na5 9. a3 a6 10. Kh1 b5 11. Rg1 Qe8 12. g4 fe5 13. de5 Qf7 14. Qf1 Bd7 15. Qh3 Bg5 16. Ng5 Qe7 17. Nh7 Be8 18. g5 Nf5 19. Nf6 Rf6 20. gf6 Qf7 21. Rg7 Ng7 22. Qh7 Kf8 23. Qh8 Qg8 24. fg7 Kf7 25. Bg6 1-0

A30

Morphy - Reif
New York, 1857
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 ed4 4. Bc4 Bc5 5. c3 dc3 6. 0-0 d6 7. Qb3 Qe7 8. Bg5 Nf6 9. Rae1 0-0 10. Kh1 Ne5 11. Ne5 de5 12. f4 Bb6 13. Qc3 Bd4 14. Qg3 Be6 15. fe5 Bc4 16. Bf6 Qf6 17. ef6 g6 18. Qg5 Bf1 19. e5 Bg2 20. Kg2 Kh8 21. Re4 Rad8 22. Qh6 Rg8 23. Qh7 Kh7 24. Rh4# 1-0

A31

Richardson - Morphy
New York, 1857
Remove Black’s King Bishop Pawn;
White moves twice to begin the game

1. e4 ... 2. d4 d6 3. Bd3 Bc6 4. Nf3 Bg4 5. h3 Bh5 6. g4 Bf7 7. Ng5 Nh6 8. d5 c6 9. Nc3 Qd7 10. Qf3 g6 11. Bc4 Qc8 12. Nf7 Nf7 13. dc6 Ne5 14. Qe2 Nbc6 15. Be3 Bg7 16. 0-0-0 Qd7 17. Bb3 Na5 18. Ba4 Nac6 19. f4 Nf7 20. e5 0-0 21. Bd4 e6 22. Bc6 Qc6 23. Rhe1 de5 24. Be5 Ne5 25. fe5 Qc5 26. Qb5 Rac8 27. Rd7 a6 28. Qb7 Bh6 29. Kb1 Rb8 30. Qc7 Qb4 31. b3 Rbc8 32. Qd6 Qc3 33. Qe6 Kh8 34. Red1 Qc2 35. Ka1 Bc1 0-1

A32

Schulten - Morphy
New York, 1857
King’s Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Bc4 d5 4. ed5 Nf6 5. Nc3 Bd6 6. Nf3 0-0 7. 0-0 Bg4 8. d4 Nbd7 9. Ne2 Nb6 10. Bb3 Nbd5 11. c4 Ne3 12. Be3 fe3 13. Qd3 Re8 14. Bc2 Bh5 15. Nh4 Bg6 16. Ng6 hg6 17. c5

17...Bh2 18. Kh2 Ng4 19. Kg3 Qg5 20. Rf5 gf5 21. Qf5 Qf5 22. Bf5 Nf6 23. Kf3 g6 24. Bc2 Rad8 25. Rd1 Kg7 26. Nf4 Nd5 27. Nd5 e2 28. Re1 Rd5 0-1

A33

Schulten - Morphy
New York, 1857
King’s Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Bc4 d5 4. Bd5 Nf6 5. Nc3 Bb4 6. Nge2 Bc3 7. bc3 Nd5 8. ed5 Qh4 9. Kf1 f3 10. Ng3 fg2 11. Kg2 Bh3 12. Kf2 0-0 13. Qh5 Qf4 14. Qf3 Qh4 15. d4 f5 16. Ba3 Rf7 17. Rhe1 Nd7 18. Qh5 Qf4 19. Qf3 Qd2 20. Re2 Qg5 21. Rae1 Nf6 22. Re7 f4 23. Nf1 Ng4 24. Ke2 Re7 25. Be7 Qe7 26. Kd2 Qh4 27. Qf4 Rf8 28. Qg3 Qh6 29. Ne3 Ne3 30. Re3 Re8 31. c4 Bf1 32. c5 Bc4 33. d6 cd6 34. cd6 Re3 35. Qe3 Qe3 36. Ke3 Kf7 0-1

A34

Morphy - Schulten
New York, 1857
Evans Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Bc5 6. 0-0 d6 7. d4 ed4 8. cd4 Bb6 9. d5 Nce7 10. e5 Bg4 11. h3 Bh5 12. g4 Bg6 13. Re1 h5 14. Nc3 hg4 15. hg4 Qd7 16. e6 fe6 17. de6 Qd8 18. Ng5 Rh4 19. Nf7 Qb8 20. Bg5 Rh3 21. Rc1 Nf6 22. Kg2 Rh7 23. Qf3 d5 24. Bf6 gf6 25. Nd5 Nd5 26. Qd5 Rh2 27. Kh2 c6 28. Nd6 Ke7 29. Qd2 Bc7 30. Rcd1 Bd6 31. Kg2 b5 32. Bb3 Qc7 33. Qh6 Rg8 34. Re2 Qb8 35. Red2 Be4 36. f3 Rg4 37. Kf1 Qg8 38. fg4 Qg439. Rd6 1-0

A35

Schulten - Morphy
New York, 1857
King’s Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Nc3 Bb4 5. e5 d5 6. ef6 dc4 7. fg7 Rg8 8. Ne4 Nc6 9. b3 Qd4 10. Qe2 Qa1

11. Nf6 Kd8 12. c3 Qc1 13. Kf2 Bc5 14. Kf3 Ne5 15. Qe5 Qf1 16. Ke4 Qd3 17. Kf4 Bd6 0-1

A36

Morphy - Schulten
New York, 1857
Evans Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Bc5 6. 0-0 d6 7. d4 ed4 8. cd4 Bb6 9. Nc3 Bg4 10. Bb5 Kf8 11. Be3 Bf3 12. gf3 Ngc7 13. Kh1 h5 14. Rg1 Ng6 15. f4 Qh4 16. f5 Nf4 17. Qf3 Bd4 18. Bf4 Ne5 19. Be5 Be5 20. Rg2 Bc3 21. Qc3 Qe422. Re1 1-0

A37

Schulten - Morphy
New York, 1857
King’s Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Bc4 d5 4. ed5 Nf6 5. Nc3 Bd6 6. Nf3 0-0 7. 0-0 Bg4 8. d4 Nbd7 9. Ne2 Nb6 10. Bb3 Nbd5 11. Ne5 Ne3 12. Be3 Be5 13. de5 Qd1 14. Rad1 Be2 15. Rf4 Bd1 16. ef6 b6 17. fg7 Kg7 18. h4 f5 19. Bd4 Kg6 20. Be5 c5 21. Bd6 Rfe8 22. Ba4 Re6 23. Bc7 Rc8 24. Bd7 Re1 25. Kf2 Re2 26. Kf1 Rc7 27. Bf5 Kg7 28. Rg4 Kf6 29. Bd3 Re1 30. Ke1 Bg4 0-1

A38

Morphy - Schulten
New York, 1857
King’s Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 Bg7 5. 0-0 d6 6. c3 Bg4 7. Qb3 Nh6 8. Qb5 Nd7 9. Qg5 Qg5 10. Ng5 Ne5 11. Bb3 Bf6 12. h4 Nd3 13. Bc2 Nc1 14. Rc1 0-0-0 15. Rf1 Rdg8 16. Rf4 Bg5 17. hg5 Rg5 18. Kf2 Rhg8 19. Na3 Be6 20. Rg1 Ng4 21. Ke2 h5 22. d4 Ba2 23. b3 Nh6 24. Kf2 Rg3 25. Rf6 Bb3 26. Bb3 Rc3 27. Rh6 Rb3 28. Nc4 Rg4 29. Nd2 Rd3 30. Ke2 Rd4 31. Rh5 Rg3 32. Rf5 Rg7 33. Ke3 c5 34. Nf3 Ra4 35. Rd1 Kc7 36. Ng5 b5 37. Rf7 Rf7 38. Nf7 b4 39. Nd6 b3 40. Nb5 Kb6 41. Nc3 Ra3 42. e5 b2 43. Kd2 Ra1 44. Kc2 Rd1 45. Nd1 b1(Q) 46. Kb1 Kc6 47. Nb2 Kd5 48. Nc4 a5 49. Ka2 1-0

A39

Perrin - Morphy
New York, 1857
Remove Black’s King Bishop Pawn;
White moves twice to begin the game

1. e4 ... 2. d4 e6 3. Bd3 c5 4. e5 g6 5. c3 Nc6 6. Be3 Qb6 7. Qd2 d5 8. ed6 Bd6 9. Na3 cd4 10. Bd4 Nd4 11. Nc4 Qc7 12. Nd6 Qd6 13. cd4 Ne7 14. Nf3 0-0 15. 0-0 Bd7 16. Be4 Rf4 17. Rae1 Raf8 18. Ne5 Bb5 19. g3 Re4 20. Re4 Bf1 21. Kf1 Qd5 22. Qc2 Nf5 23. Qc4 Qe4 24. Qe6 Kg7 25. Qd7 Kh6 26. Nf7 Kh5 27. Ne5 Ne3 28. Ke2 Nc4 29. Kd1 Qb1 30. Ke2 Qc2 31. Ke1 Qd2 32. Kf1 Qf2# 0-1

A40

Morphy - Amateur
New York(?) 1857

Only the final moves of this game are known

White to Play

1. Nc5 Qe6 2. Qe6 Kd8 3. Qe8# 1-0

A41

Morphy - Julien
New York, 1857
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 c5 2. d4 cd4 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. Bc4 e5 5. c3 Bc5 6. b4 Bb6 7. b5 Na5 8. Bf7 Kf7 9. Ne5 Kf8 10. Qh5 Qf6 11. Ba3 Ne7 12. f4 d3 13. 0-0-0 Be3 14. Kb1 Bf4 15. Rhf1 g6 16. Rf4 Qf4 17. Ng6 hg6 18. Qh8 Kf7 19. Qh7 Kf8 20. Qe7 Kg8 21. Qd8 Kg7 22. Qa5 1-0

A42

Morphy - Amateur
New Orleans, 1858
King’s Gambit
Morphy blindfolded

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 g4 5. d4 gf3 6. 0-0 d5 7. Bd5 c6 8. Bf7 Kf7 9. Qf3 Nf6 10. c3 Bh6 11. Bf4 Bf4 12. Qf4 h5 13. e5 Be6 14. Nd2 Nbd7 15. Ne4 Qe7 16. ef6 Nf6 17. Nf6 Kf8 18. Nd5 Qf7 19. Qd6 1-0

A43

Morphy - Lowenthal
London, 1858
Petroff

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. d4 ed4 4. e5 Ne4 5. Bd3 d5 6. Nd4 c5 7. Ne2 Nc6 8. f3 Ng5 9. f4 Ne6 10. 0-0 Qb6 11. Kh1 Be7 12. Nbc3 Nc7 13. b3 Nb4 14. Ng3 Nd3 15. Qd3 Qc6 16. f5 g6 17. Bf4 Bf5 18. Nf5 gf5 19. Qf5 Qg6 20. Bg3 h5 21. Qg6 fg6 22. e6 Ne6 23. Rae1 Rf8 24. Rf8 Nf8 25. Nd5 1-0

A44

Morphy - Lowenthal
London, 1858
Philidor

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 ed4 4. Qd4 Be7 5. Bc4 Nc6 6. Qd1 Bd7 7. 0-0 Nf6 8. Nc3 0-0 9. h3 a6 10. Bf4 b5 11. Bd3 Qc8 12. Qd2 Nd8 13. Nd5 Nd5 14. ed5 f5 15. Rae1 Bf6 16. c3 Nf7 17. b3 h6 18. h4 Qb7 19. Bc2 Rae8 20. g3 Ne5 21. Be5 de5 22. c4 c5 23. Re2 e4 24. Ne1 Qb6 25. Ng2 Be5 26. a3 Qf6 27. Nf4 g5 28. Ng2 Re7 29. f4 ef3 30. Rf3 Rfe8 31. hg5 hg5 32. Ne3 Bd4 33. Kf1 f4 34. gf4 g4 35. Ng4 Bg4 36. Rg3 Qh4 37. Reg2 Re1 38. Qe1 Qh1 39. Rg1 Re1 40. Ke1 Bg1 41. Rg4 Kf8 0-1

A45

Morphy - Lichtenhein
New York, 1859
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Bc5 6. 0-0 Bb6 7. d4 d6 8. de5 Ne5 9. Ne5 de5 10. Bf7 Ke7 11. Qb3 Nf6 12. Ba3 c5 13. Rad1 Qc7 14. f4 Bg4 15. Rde1 Rhf8 16. Bc4 Bh5 17. h3 Bf7 18. Bf7 Rf7 19. fe5 Qe5 20. Rf5 Qe6 21. c4 Rc8 22. Bb2 Nd7 23. Qg3 Bc7 24. Qh4 Ke8 25. Ref1 Rf5 26. Rf5 Qh6 27. Qf2 Bd8 28. Rf7 Bf6 29. Qf5 Be7 30. Rg7 Qd6 31. e5 1-0

A46

Morphy - Amateur
Venue unknown, 1859
Evans Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Bc5 6. 0-0 d6 7. d4 ed4 8. cd4 Bb6 9. Nc3 Bg4 10. Bb5 Bd7 11. Re1 Nge7 12. e5 de5 13. d5 Nd4 14. Bd7 Qd7 15. Ne5 Qd6 16. Qa4 c6 17. Ba3 Bc5 18. Ne4 Qe5 19. Nc5 Ne2 20. Kh1 Qd4 21. Qd4 Nd4 22. Nb7 0-0 23. Be7 1-0

A47

Morphy - NN
Venue unknown, 1860
King’s Gambit

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 g4 5. d4 gf3 6. Qf3 Bh6 7. 0-0 c6 8. Bf7 Kf7 9. Bf4 Bf4 10. Qf4 Kg6 11. Qf7 Kh6 12. Rf5 Qh4 13. Nd2 Ne7 14. Nf3 Qg4 15. Rg5 Qg5 16. Ng5 Kg5 17. Qe7 Kg6 18. Rf1 1-0

A48

Morphy - Capdevielle
New Orleans, 1864
Evans Gambit
Morphy blindfolded

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Bc5 6. 0-0 Nf6 7. d4 ed4 8. cd4 Bb4 9. e5 Ne4 10. Bd5 Bc3 11. Be4 Ba1 12. Bg5 f6 13. ef6 gf6 14. Bc6 dc6 15. Re1 Kf7 16. Ne5 Kg7 17. Bh6 Kh6 18. Nf7 Kg7 19. Nd8 Rd8 20. Qh5 Rd7 21. Nd2 Rf7 22. Ra1 Be6 23. Re1 Bd5 24. Re3 Kh8 25. Ne4 Rg7 26. Nf6 Rg2 27. Kf1 Rg7 28. Re8 Re8 29. Qe8 Bg8 30. h4 h6 31. Qf8 h5 32. Ng8 Kh7 33. Nf6 Kh6 34. Ne8 Kg6 35. Qf6 Kh7 36. Qg7 1-0

A49

NN - Morphy
Venue unknown, 1865
Remove Black’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Bc5 3. Nf3 d6 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Bc5 6. Qb3 Qf6 7. 0-0 Nh6 8. d4 Bb6 9. de5 Qg6 10. Ng5 0-0 11. e6 fe6 12. Be6 Kh8 13. Bc8 Rac8 14. Qe6 Qh5 15. Nf3 Ng4 16. h3 Nf2 17. Rf2 Rce8 18. Qd5 Qd5 19. ed5 Re2 20. Kh2 Bf2 21. Nbd2 Be3 22. Nc4 Be1 23. Rc1 Rf3 0-1

A50

Morphy - Maurian
New Orleans, 1866
Remove White’s Queen Knight

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb4 5. c3 Bc5 6. 0-0 d6 7. d4 ed4 8. cd4 Bb6 9. d5 Na5 10. e5 Nc4 11. Qa4 Bd7 12. Qc4 Bf5 13. Re1 Ne7 14. Bg5 de5 15. Be7 Qe7 16. Re5 Qe5 17. Ne5 0-0 18. g4 Rae8 19. Re1 Bc8 20. Kg2 f5 21. g5 f4 22. Nf3 Rd8 23. d6 Kh8 24. Ne5 f3 25. Kg3 1-0

A51

Amateur - Morphy
New Orleans, date unknown
Ruy Lopez

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. d3 Bc5 5. 0-0 0-0 6. Bc6 dc6 7. Ne5 Qd6 8. Bf4 Ng4 9. Ng4 Qf4 10. h3 f5 11. d4 fg4 12. g3 Qe4 13. dc5 gh3 14. f3 Qe3 15. Kh2 Be6 16. Nc3 Rad8 17. Qe1 Rd2 18. Kh1 Rf3 19. Rd1 Rd1 20. Qd1 Rf1 21. Qf1 Qg3 22. Qg1 Bd5 23. Nd5 Qg1 24. Kg1 cd5 0-1

A52

Morphy - Hart
Venue and date unknown
Scotch

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 ed4 4. Bc4 d6 5. c3 dc3 6. Qb3 Qe7 7. 0-0 b6 8. Nc3 Na5 9. Qb4 Nc4 10. Qc4 Bb7 11. Re1 0-0-0 12. Bf4 f6 13. Rac1 Kb8 14. Nd5 Bd5 15. ed5 Qd7 16. Nd4 Ne7 17. Re7 Be7 18. Qa6 c5 19. dc6 Qc8 20. c7 Ka8 21. cd8(Q) Qd8 22. Nb5 Qb8 23. Rc7 1-0

Addendum Index

Games are listed by Morphy’s opponents’ names. Numbers refer to game #s.

Amateur/NN 1, 8, 9, 10, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 40, 42, 46, 47, 49, 51

Capdevielle 48

Hart 52

Julien 41

Kennicott 28

Le Carpentier 2

Lichtenhein 45

Lowenthal 43,44

Maurian 11, 12, 13, 14,15, 16, 17, 18,19, 20, 21, 26, 50

McConnell 3,4,5,7

Perrin 29,39

Reif 30

Richardson 31

Rousseau 6

Schulten 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38

Postscript from the Original Publisher

Anyone who has researched Morphy’s games is bound to be struck by the difficulties and the slipshod nature of much of what has been reported. In part this situation is caused by the evolution of reporting chess games and the circumstances then prevailing where chess playing was scarcely accepted as a profession. In Morphy’s case his family, or at least his mother, seemed determined to assert that Paul’s chess playing skills should never be accorded the status of a vocation, and in time this became a strong factor in his emotional problems—especially since his career at law never succeeded, while the thing he did best was regarded as something akin to a freak of nature.

At that time it was not unusual that a reported game was between “Mr. R.” and Mr. Morphy, or whoever the other opponent happened to be, as if to say that it was unkind to disclose that Mr. R. got crunched in fifteen moves. In addition, games given in books seldom ever gave the source for the score. In cases where the game was not part of a major tournament or match there is often dispute in published versions as to just where the game ended since some editors were willing to forego the last ten moves or so in a hopeless position and wind up with a final “and Black lost after several more moves”, or something similar. Furthermore, where the editor had only a scribbled original score sheet, one must often wonder if the score was even accurate—a situation that continues to this day.

So great was Morphy’s reputation that several unscrupulous amateurs were all too eager to claim victories that never occurred. The subject of spurious Morphy games has been reviewed in Lawson’s book on Morphy. It is rather well accepted that at least the Deacon “games ”and the Ruggles “game” were fakes, but how many more which have been accepted as genuine are also concoctions will probably never be known. Of course, it is those games which Morphy lost which are most subject to question.

Games given by Löwenthal in his 1860 book Morphy’s Games are virtually certain as being genuine in every particular since they were presumably checked by Morphy himself. His well-known fabulous memory and irreproachable character are likely as good a guarantee as one could get for the accuracy of those games.

As examples of the difficulties facing Morphy researchers, I shall cite two instances. In Els Escacs a Catalunya for November 1934 a game (Partida 1312) is given as “Tudzinsky” - Morphy played in Paris in 1854. Of course, Morphy was never in Paris in 1854, and the game is really versus Budzinsky and was played in Paris in 1859 (Game 249 in this book). In Game 98: Morphy - Maurian and “Le Carp”, as given already by Maroczy in the 1909 edition of his book of Morphy’s games, it seems virtually certain that “Le Carp” must be “Le Carpentier” since that was his mother’s maiden name and because the game appears, from its date and the consultation with Maurian, to have been a friendly local game. Somewhere the full name was undoubtedly truncated.

In view of the determined efforts made to locate other Morphy games even over a hundred years ago, and the relatively sparse number of sources in Morphy’s day, it seems unlikely that many more genuine games will be unearthed, except possibly from presently dormant caches of private papers. Morphy did indeed play many more casual games than are presented here, but in many cases it is unlikely that any records were kept. Morphy himself was a very modest man not given to blowing his own trumpet over one-sided wins against rank amateurs. Naturally, it is questionable how much value there is in lop-sided routs of weak neophytes.

Dale A. Brandreth

CAISSA EDITIONS
P. O. BOX 151
YORKLYN, DE 19736

Index of Morphy Games

All of Morphy’s opponents are listed alphabetically. Normal type references are to game numbers in Part II (Chapters). Some entries include a bracketed group of boldfaced references; these indicate page numbers for annotated games in Part I (Chapters).

Amateur / NN

Anderssen

Arnold

Avery

Ayers

Barnes

Baucher

Bierwirth

Bird

Boden

Bornemann

Bottin

Bousserolles

Broughton

Brunswick

Bryan

Budzinsky

Carr

Catley

Chamouillet

Cheney

Conway

Cremorne

Cunningham

Delannoy

de Riviere

Devinck

Dominguez

Ehrmann

Elkin

Fiske

Freeman

Fuller

Golmayo

Greenaway

Guibert

Hammond

Hampton

Harrwitz

Hay

Isouard

Jansen

Jones

Journoud

Julien

Kennedy

Kennicott

Kipping

Knight

Knott

LaRoche

Le Carp

Lequesne

Lewis

Lichtenhein

Lowenthal

Lyttelton

Marache

Maude

Maurian

McConnell

Mead

Medina

Medley

Meek

Meunier

Michaelis

Mongredian

Montgomery

Morphy, A.

Morphy, E.

Napoleon

Nicholson

Owen

Paulsen

Perrin

Pindar

Potier

Preti

Raphael

Rhodes

Richardson

Rousseau

Salmon

Schrufer

Schulten

Seguin

Sicre, F.

Sicre, J.

Slous

Smyth

St. Amant

St. Leon

Stanley

Staunton

Stone

Thomas

Thompson

Thrupp

Tilghman

Walker

Ware

Wills

Worrall

Index of Openings

Normal type references indicate game numbers in Part II (Chapters). Bracketed, boldface references indicate page numbers for annotated games in Part I (Chapters). Games played at odds are listed separately.

Anderssen Opening

Benoni

Bird’s Opening

Bishop’s Opening

Boden Kieserirtsky Gambit

Center Counter Defense

Dutch Defense

Evans Gambit

Evans Gambit Declined

Evans Gambit Reversed

Falkbeer Counter Gambit

Four Knights Game

French Defense

Giuoco Piano

Hungarian Defense

Irregular

King’s Gambit

King’s Gambit Declined

Nimzowitsch Defense

Petroff Defense

Philidor Defense

Queen Fianchetto Defense

Queen Pawn Counter Gambit

Queen’s Gambit Declined

Ruy Lopez

Scotch Game

Sicilian Defense

Three Knights Game

Two Knights Defense

Vienna Game

Odds

Pawn & Move

Pawn & Two Moves

Knight ,

Rook

Rook, Pawn & Move

Rook & Knight

Index of Games Not Involving Morphy

References indicate page numbers. Parentheses indicate a game fragment.

Anderssen

Belyavsky

Bilguer

Blackburne

Capablanca

Dufresne

Fernandez

Fraser

Hamppe

Kennedy

MacDonnell

Maliutin

Mestel

Nurmi

Philidor

Rosanes

Short

Smith

Sorokin

St. Amant

Staunton

Steinitz

von der Lasa

Williams

Wyville