Talk:Paul Morphy

"Unofficial world champion"
This term is basically bullshit. If you're talking about the strongest player in the world, there were plenty of "unofficial world champions" before him (e.g. Philidor, Labourdonnais). I propose we excise it from the lead. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The cited reference says: "According to David Lawson, in Paul Morphy, The Pride and Sorrow of Chess, Mckay, 1976. Lawson says that Morphy was the first world champion to be so acclaimed at the time he was playing. Most chess historians, however, place the first official world chess championship in 1886."
 * In old edits, the lead paragraph said "He is considered to have been the greatest chess master of his era and is often considered the unofficial World Chess Champion." I agree that's clunky and vague and doesn't really say anything. Therefore I changed the sentence to: "He is considered to have been the greatest chess master of his era. He was the first player to have been regarded as the World Chess Champion, despite the first official world championship taking place in 1886." (This leaves no room for interpretation.)
 * Currently the user MaxBrowne2 is arguing that the entire segment should be removed, but it's been there since at least 2012 uncontested until my edit.
 * IAmNobody24 is also pushing for MaxBrowne2's revision on grounds that the source is unreliable. 24.68.69.54 (talk) 08:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Length of time is irrelevant. "Unofficial world champion" is still meaningless. "World's leading chess player" means something. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The current contested revision of the article doesn't actually use the wording "unofficial world champion". It explains he was regarded by people as being the world champion at the time of his career, despite the official world championships not existing yet. This was the true sentiment of the time as explained by Lawson. People actually called him the World Champion as competitive chess existed back then. It was partly his influence in the sport that gave rise to official world championships, so his life is inexorably tied together with the world championship title. 24.68.69.54 (talk) 10:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I kicked over this hornet's nest (with this edit), and I think that my edit was correct, but it will be at least half a day, if not more, before I can get around to defending it in this space. Bruce leverett (talk) 12:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * My only problem with your version is that it says he "was sometimes described" as the World Chess Champion but links the page for the actual objective concept of the World Chess Champion. At least when it says he was "the first player to have been regarded as the World Chess Champion", it matches the cited reference, and it feels less like a general description and more like the actual thing that he was, which the official championships were built to formalize. World Champion was not a nickname or anything, he was actually regarded as the world champion of chess as a competitive sport before the title was formalized. 24.68.69.54 (talk) 12:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Your point about the wikilink to World Chess Championship is well taken. This article is a biography of Morphy, not a history of the WCC.  It doesn't help the reader, and may even confuse the reader, to refer to the Steinitz-Zukertort match of 1886, and to link to the article about events that proceeded from that match.
 * I also don't think the words "official" and "unofficial" belong here. We tend to take for granted that we have a governing body for chess and that it jealously guards the rights to the World Champion title, but that's only since 1948.  The only thing Steinitz and Zukertort could use to back up up their claim that it was a WC match was their own credibility.  That, and the fact that world travel was by then slightly less time-consuming, arduous, risky, and expensive than it had been before.  Zukertort actually traveled to the United States for the match.  Before then, e.g. at the time of Staunton's match with St. Amant, the claim that it was a World Championship match was occasionally made, but it didn't get traction.  What about the Germans?  Or even the Russians?
 * Any sport is more prestigious if it is organized enough to have a World Champion. As noted by Lawson, various people claimed that Morphy was the World Champion, and in doing so, they were not just saying how strong he was, but how well-developed the chess scene was.  Morphy made great strides toward creating a World Championship, not only by beating everybody, but also by crossing the Atlantic, .  But for his own reasons, he didn't want the title, and so things generally lapsed until after he had died.
 * Lastly, the word "first" is not accurate. See Winter's article for examples of people claiming that Staunton was WC, or (in 1850) that the winner of the upcoming 1851 tournament would be WC.  I don't know if this inaccuracy is due to Lawson, or whether we are just misquoting him, as I don't have Lawson's book handy, but in any case, we can't use that word. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the information should not be removed or softened, but rather moved further down into the article. It would be more interesting to include it alongside Morphy's own apprehension about the title, since, like you said, it's an article about Morphy, not the WCC. I think at this point there's at least enough consensus to keep the information in the article, the form it's in doesn't matter much. 24.68.69.54 (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I have edited the opening paragraphs. I didn't add anything (about, for example, the later Steinitz-Zukertort match) to the body of the article, but you are welcome to try to do it in a way that helps the reader to understand Morphy's legacy. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:41, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm unhappy with the edit, I feel it removes a lot of information, and the reference was completely gutted. I disagree that what you removed was unjustified. "Sometimes described as" (described by who?) is far too vague without the specific claims from the reference. But I'll leave it to someone else to fix it if they wish. There are too many cooks now, all I originally wanted to do with my original edit was touch up the wording. 24.68.69.54 (talk) 09:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've went ahead and removed the sentence altogether, since it's been diluted by these edits to the point where it's vague and unfocused, and I feel like the previous sentence (that he was considered the greatest chess master of his era) is sufficient. I just don't feel comfortable with the statement in its current form being in the introduction, it feels sloppy.
 * For what it's worth, I believe there's evidence that this whole debate was useless. I've found a page titled List of World Chess Championships. It turns out "unofficial world champion" was perfectly fine all along (despite MaxBrowne2's protests) since that is an actual specification used when describing the history of chess. I of course never had any problem with this language.
 * I will therefore suggest that another editor restores one of the earlier versions of the lead paragraph if there's consensus in the future. But I say the controversial sentence should just be removed for now, since it's negatively affecting the quality of the article. 24.68.69.54 (talk) 00:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This outcome is OK with me. I was no fan of the stuff about "was sometimes described as the World Champion", I was only trying to make it less obtrusive, but I didn't have the nerve to remove it altogether as you have done. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Working on the article
I have acquired a copy of the 2010 edition of Lawson, and I am trying to use it to improve the citations in the article.

Other things being equal, a secondary source such as Lawson is a better reference than a tertiary source. However, the first edition of Lawson, which was published in 1976, may have been harder to obtain when this article was first written than some tertiary sources. So at that time, editors may have been tempted to cite tertiary sources, but now, Lawson should be routinely cited.

As detailed by Lawson on pages 226-7, the pamphlet by Buck about Morphy introduced a number of historical errors, which have been widely copied (even by Sergeant), and can be found in some of our tertiary sources; for example, as I write this, we are quoting some article that gave 1882 as the date of the incident in which Morphy's family tried to take him to the "Louisiana Retreat". This is another reason to cite Lawson whenever possible. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Löwenthal game score issue
Two different scores for a game played between Morphy and Löwenthal in 1850 have been published. In one score, submitted by Ernest Morphy to various chess periodicals in 1856, Morphy won the game; in the other score, published by Löwenthal in his collection of Morphy's games in 1860, Morphy achieved a winning endgame but went astray and allowed a draw.

Sergeant (Sergeant 1957, pp. 210-212) uses the version published by Löwenthal. Lawson (Lawson 2010, pp. 21-32) discusses the discrepancy at length, strenuously arguing that Löwenthal's version must be incorrect, and referring to it as a "gross error", while implying that it may not have been just an error, but the result of outright dishonesty. But Lawson apparently does not even consider the possibility that it might have been Ernest Morphy, not Löwenthal, who fudged the game score.

I have modified the article to take a neutral position between Sergeant and Lawson on this question, in accordance with WP:N. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Tables of results
I have organized the single table of results into several tables, while trying to verify entries against reliable sources. I have removed entries about blindfold games and consultation games. The following entries have been changed or removed:
 * T. Ayers -- We were calling him "A.D. Ayers", presumably copied from chessgames.com. The link indirected to an article mentioning a baseball umpire by that name of the 1870's.  Lawson identifies him only as "Dr. Ayers".  Edo identifies him as "T. Ayers"; I do not know which primary source, if any, they got that name from.
 * Fiske, Fuller, and Perrin -- This was of course a consultation game.
 * Jean Adolphe Laroche -- We were calling him "H. Laroche", and Lawson identifies him only as "Laroche" or "M. Laroche", but Edo identifies him as "J.A. Laroche", and chessgames.com has an entry for "Jean Adolphe Laroche" that aligns him with Lawson's references to Laroche.
 * Chamouillet -- This was a blindfold consultation game (mentioned by Edge).
 * St. Amant -- The only known game is a consultation game.
 * De Riviere and Journoud -- A consultation game.
 * Bousserolles -- A blindfold game.
 * Schrüfer -- I have corrected the spelling by adding an umlaut, and by spelling his first name. Sergeant does not give his full name, only quoting a source that calls him "S---r", but chessgames.com identifies him as Schrüfer.
 * George Hammond, 1859 -- this was a consultation game.
 * Augustus Mongredien, 1863 -- Lawson says that Morphy played games with Mongredien in Paris in 1863, but I cannot find a source for the results and/or scores.
 * (added later:)
 * Löwenthal, 1859 -- We were giving a score of 1 win, 1 loss, and 2 draws, but I do not see any source that gives that score; I have gone with 1 win, 1 loss, and 1 draw.
 * Arnous de Rivière, 1863 -- We were giving a score of 9-3, but Edo scorns this in favor of 13-5. The games presented in Sergeant are 9 wins and 2 losses.

I have avoided using the term "casual". Nowadays this means any game not played for stakes or played in a tournament or formal match. But in Morphy's day, tournaments were not common. Games serious enough to warrant keeping score, and publishing the score in a magazine, were played in settings that we would now call "casual". Bruce leverett (talk) 02:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Euwe on Morphy
We are quoting Euwe saying that Morphy was "... a chessgenius in the complete sense of the word." However, we aren't citing Euwe directly, but are citing him as quoted by Valery Beim. I would like to find the original source of this quotation -- perhaps it is in Euwe's book "The Development of Chess Style"? It would be better to cite something by Euwe than to cite somebody else quoting Euwe, because one could be sure that Euwe's words were correctly quoted, and one would have a publication date and other context. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, I see from re-reading Beim that he cites a 1937 issue of the Soviet periodical 64 to quote Euwe. As a practical matter, this may not be easily accessible to readers, so it would be OK that we are citing Beim instead. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

World Championship
Upon reflection, I agree that the lead paragraph should not mention future events like the chess world championship, but should concentrate on what made Morphy notable. I correct people all the time about putting inappropriate things in lead paragraphs.

I am not entirely comfortable with the phrase "world's greatest", but I will let it sit for a while, maybe someone else can think of something better.

It might be appropriate to bring up the World Championship in the body of the article, perhaps in the "Hailed as champion" section. First, because readers and other editors are always bringing it up. The grating phrase "unofficial world champion" frequently appears in this article and others. Second, because I have been struck by the fact that organized and professional chess were just getting started in this part of the 19th century: the first international tournament in 1851; national championships; the world championship formally in 1886; successful professional players and writers such as Steinitz and Blackburne. Sports, such as American baseball, were likewise starting to get organized and professionalized in the late 19th century. When Morphy told his audience during the New York testimonial dinner that "Chess never has been and never can be aught but a recreation", he wasn't taking an extreme or eccentric position, but was giving his listeners what he and they thought was hard-headed career advice; but the advice seems strange to us nowadays, because people have routinely made serious careers out of chess and sport, and that started happening soon after Morphy's retirement from chess. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't see why it wouldn't be appropriate. Historical figures and events are placed in proper retrospect all the time in sources, and therefore in an encyclopedia. His prefiguring of the WCC is a really important part of his legacy. Remsense  留  03:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Well maybe "inappropriate" was not the most exact word.
 * The general rule, as noted in MOS:LEAD, is that "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." So when I dropped that bit about the World Championship into the first paragraph, I should at minimum have put a discussion of the future World Championship into the body of the article, as I suggested above.
 * But that has its own problems. As also noted in MOS:LEAD, "The lead is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article, and may be the only portion of the article that they read."  I might add that many, many readers can be expected to know nothing about Morphy except his first and last name, and while those readers are annoyingly difficult to write for, they are the ones who have the keenest need for what Wikipedia has to offer.  One must be extraordinarily careful about what goes into a lead section and in what order, in order that it be accessible to, and useful for, readers who are starting entirely from scratch.  In particular, I am not sure I want to talk at this early part of the article about the distinction between having a "world's best chess player" and having a formal World Champion.
 * I like your word "prefiguring". I guess that by taking chess as seriously as he did, Morphy enabled his contemporaries, and later chess players, to contemplate seriously the idea of a formal World Championship. I do not know if one can make this point in the lead section. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Morphy and 1.e4
In the 'Style of Play' section it states that Morphy 'usually opted for [1.e4]'. My understanding was that Morphy was exclusively a 1.e4 player, and reference to the databases at chesstempo.com and chessgames.com supports this idea.

I wonder if any editors have access to a definite source for the complete games of Paul Morphy and can confirm the issue one way or the other? Or, failing that, if anyone knows of any games where Morphy did not open with 1.e4? Axad12 (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)


 * You are probably right. I'm looking at the "Index of Openings" at the end of Sergeant.  Nothing but 1.e4 among the games in which he played White, except possibly those classified as "Irregular" -- I will look them up later when I have time.
 * Of course, to be prudent, one would have to look at the complete collection. There is a link to Krabbe's complete collection in the External Links, but it does not have an opening index, it's just a .PGN file. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have Sergeant's book on Morphy's games, which I believe is fairly comprehensive. I'll check to see if there's any record of Morphy ever playing a move other than 1.e4. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the responses above. Just a brief note to say that I've located some Morphy games where he played non 1.e4 openings when playing at odds. Others may disagree, but my feeling is that odds games don't really count for the purposes of the discussion here (on the basis that the 'Style of Play' section is talking about standard games, or at least would be construed to be doing so by most readers). Axad12 (talk) 23:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * He played 1.f4 in a few games against Thompson and 1.b3 in a few games against Maurian. Apparently he didn't like facing 1.e4 e6 when giving knight odds. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, those were the casual odds games I was referring to. I'm not convinced that they would invalidate a minor re-write along the lines of 'With the White pieces, Morphy opted exclusively for the King's Pawn Game [...]' (current version says 'usually opted'). Axad12 (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I generally agree that "odds games don't count" in evaluating the claim that he always played 1.e4. It's good that you have brought this up, because it is pretty silly for us to be saying that he "usually" opted for 1.e4.  (I probably wrote that.)  In those days, 1.d4 and 1.c4 were much less frequently seen than they are now, and Morphy may not have been the only leading player who always used 1.e4. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bruce (and thanks for all your work on this page). Before making the suggestion above I made a not unrelated point about the White repertoire of Johannes Zuckertort. If yourself and Max have the time to look at the suggestion on Zuckertort's talk page it would be appreciated. Axad12 (talk) 03:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

"Kings Pawn Game", "Queen's Pawn Game", "Open Game"
These are not so much the names of openings as umbrella terms for whole families of openings. Saying "I played the King's Pawn Game" instead of just "I played 1.e4" sounds very odd to a chess player. It's like saying "I have a pet mammal" instead of "I have a pet dog". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, I tend to agree. In this case (prior to your edit) it used to say something like 'Morphy usually opted for the King's Pawn Game, often favouring gambits like the King's Gambit and Evans Gambit', which I suppose is sufficiently specific. If it had just said 'King's Pawn Game' then that wouldn't have been very helpful.
 * Seems to be a wider issue on Wikipedia. Perhaps it relates to the fact that there are articles called King's Pawn Game and Queen's Pawn Game, which as article titles are probably better than '1.e4' and '1.d4'. But that shouldn't get in the way of stating in natural language that 'a certain player played 1.e4', with a link to King's Pawn Game as you have done in your edit.
 * I do have slight reservations however, on the basis that most Wikipedia readers probably don't know algebraic notation. In which case 'Morphy usually opened with the King's Pawn' may be more accessible than 'usually opened with 1.e4'.
 * Agree however that 'King's Pawn GAME' is now probably an antiquated term that ought not to appear in article text when more natural alternatives are available. Axad12 (talk) 04:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I wrote "King's pawn game" in this article. I do not remember clearly why I wrote it that way, but I may well have been concerned that, as suggested above, algebraic notation is not self-explanatory and not understandable to most Wikipedia readers.  But that's what Wikilinks are for, so calling it "1.e4" and wikilinking to King's Pawn Game at least ameliorates that problem.  In retrospect I agree that "king's pawn game" is not a suitable thing to say here, for the reason given by . Bruce leverett (talk) 05:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)