CHANGE OF PACE

Instead of all the petty bickering and mindless character assassination
that often takes place on this forum, it's a pleasure to find something
real about chess history for a change.

"This play premiered last November at The Players' Ring in
Portsmouth, New Hampshire, and the full text is presented with the
author's permission. It spans Morphy's triumphant trip to Europe, the
sad and often funny details of his unplayed match with Howard Staunton,
the rift with his biographer and his demise in a bathtub. "The Pride
and Sorrow of Chess" was a Creole aristocrat in New Orleans fluent in
several languages who could not escape the curse of his own genius. He
ended his days as a paranoid recluse, an eerie echo of Bobby Fischer
who also walked out at the height of his fame.The play received
critical acclaim and deserves a wide audience." -- GM Larry Evans

http://wcn.tentonhammer.com/modules....cle&sid= 1049

wrote:
CHANGE OF PACE

Instead of all the petty bickering and mindless character assassination
that often takes place on this forum,

Oh, don't be so hard on yourself, Mr. Parr. No one is perfect.




it's a pleasure to find something
real about chess history for a change.

"This play premiered last November at The Players' Ring in
Portsmouth, New Hampshire, and the full text is presented with the
author's permission. It spans Morphy's triumphant trip to Europe, the
sad and often funny details of his unplayed match with Howard Staunton,
the rift with his biographer and his demise in a bathtub. "The Pride
and Sorrow of Chess" was a Creole aristocrat in New Orleans fluent in
several languages who could not escape the curse of his own genius. He
ended his days as a paranoid recluse, an eerie echo of Bobby Fischer
who also walked out at the height of his fame.The play received
critical acclaim and deserves a wide audience." -- GM Larry Evans

[Link snipped]

This link, as it appears on my computer, when clicked
leads to a message that I "do not have authorization" to
view the story. Here is another link which may work
better, but the extreme length could potentially be an
issue:

http://wcn.tentonhammer.com/modules....cle&sid= 1051

If so, then simply use cut-and-paste, ala the Blairbot.

-- help bot

Instead of all the petty bickering and mindless character assassination
that often takes place on this forum, it's a pleasure to find something
real about chess history for a change.

Come on! It is soooo obvious that the goat must be
taken across the river, then go back and fetch the fox
and the cabbage. Take both across the river, then go
back *with the goat* and get your chessboard and men.
This requires multiple trips, but how else are you going
to do it and not let something get eaten? Obviously,
the fox will gladly eat the goat, the goat will eat the
cabbage or the chessmen, and the cabbage is the
sole item which presents no tactical danger, being
a vegetable. Mr. Morphy must have been *very* sick.

-- help bot

PART TWO OF MORPHY PLAY

In the summer of 1956, during a visit to England, I discussed Bobby
with Ernest Jones, the famous analyst who wrote the classic paper on
Paul Morphy. This was before I had any really personal knowledge of the
boy. Jones replied with almost prophetic insight: "Leave him alone;
he'll become a second Paul Morphy." -- GM Reuben Fine


http://wcn.tentonhammer.com/modules....cle&sid= 1050

wrote in message
oups.com...
PART TWO OF MORPHY PLAY

In the summer of 1956, during a visit to England, I discussed Bobby
with Ernest Jones, the famous analyst who wrote the classic paper on
Paul Morphy. This was before I had any really personal knowledge of the
boy. Jones replied with almost prophetic insight: "Leave him alone;
he'll become a second Paul Morphy." -- GM Reuben Fine

Does the play refer to the Creole solicisms? Especially repeating 'the
shoes' anecdote? I wonder also if it is heavily drawn from Fine? Personally
I didn't think Fine was a disinterested reporter, and rather clouded
Morphy's success, even as a successful retired player, with his own less
than happy circumstances of 'retirement' to editor.

I also wonder if family-Morphy would agree with the gist of the play?

With some others I have specualted what would make a viable TV documentary
featuring chess players, [and putting Fischer aside a moment] it seems to be
that the outstanding candidate would be Morphy, as American Genius, and his
short, but complex existance need not rely on a limited interest in chess,
but the broader prospect of American engagements in Europe, and indeed ont
he world stage - who had really appeared elsewhere before him to occupy the
#1 spot in Europe's attention? Franklin?

Then again, there are the miasmic circumstances of the Civil War, the
putative spying missions, of which, I greatly suspect we do not know the
whole thereof. I am currently listening to Roosevelt & Churchill, Men of
Secrets, by the excellent historian David Stafford. We know so little of
these things, so it seems!

But mostly, the contribution from family-Morphy itself would be of greatest
interest, and if substantiated, the half-hour telephone conversation with
the great-nephew which I organised [his request], and which Dr. Bill Hyde
who often wrote in these threads conducted, would 'set on its head if
substantiated', according to Bill, much of what we 'know' of Morphy.

I should be interested, Larry Parr, to learn more of Jones's analysis, and
especially the means by which it was conducted.

Cordially, Phil Innes


http://wcn.tentonhammer.com/modules....cle&sid= 1050

READ THE PLAY, PHIL!

It's remarkably free of psychobabble or Freudian interpretation.

(1931). International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 12:1-23

The Problem of Paul Morphy-A Contribution to the Psycho-Analysis of
Chess

By Ernest Jones

Paul Morphy was born at New Orleans on June 22, 1837; he had a sister
six and a half years older than himself, one two and a quarter years
younger, and a brother two and a half years older.2 His father was a
Spaniard by nationality, but of Irish descent; his mother was of French
extraction.

When Paul was ten years old his father, who was himself no mean
player, taught him chess. In a year or two he proved himself the
superior of his elder brother Edward, his father, his mother's father,
and his father's brother who was at that time the chess king of New
Orleans. A game is preserved which, according to an eye-witness, he is
said to have played victoriously against his uncle on his twelfth
birthday while blindfolded. At the same age he played against two
masters of international renown who happened to be in New Orleans at
the time. One of these was the famous French player Rousseau, with whom
he played some fifty games, winning fully nine-tenths. The other was
the Hungarian ....

[This is a summary or excerpt from the full text of the book or
article. The full text of the document is available to subscribers.]



Chess One wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
PART TWO OF MORPHY PLAY

In the summer of 1956, during a visit to England, I discussed Bobby
with Ernest Jones, the famous analyst who wrote the classic paper on
Paul Morphy. This was before I had any really personal knowledge of the
boy. Jones replied with almost prophetic insight: "Leave him alone;
he'll become a second Paul Morphy." -- GM Reuben Fine

Does the play refer to the Creole solicisms? Especially repeating 'the
shoes' anecdote? I wonder also if it is heavily drawn from Fine? Personally
I didn't think Fine was a disinterested reporter, and rather clouded
Morphy's success, even as a successful retired player, with his own less
than happy circumstances of 'retirement' to editor.

I also wonder if family-Morphy would agree with the gist of the play?

With some others I have specualted what would make a viable TV documentary
featuring chess players, [and putting Fischer aside a moment] it seems to be
that the outstanding candidate would be Morphy, as American Genius, and his
short, but complex existance need not rely on a limited interest in chess,
but the broader prospect of American engagements in Europe, and indeed ont
he world stage - who had really appeared elsewhere before him to occupy the
#1 spot in Europe's attention? Franklin?

Then again, there are the miasmic circumstances of the Civil War, the
putative spying missions, of which, I greatly suspect we do not know the
whole thereof. I am currently listening to Roosevelt & Churchill, Men of
Secrets, by the excellent historian David Stafford. We know so little of
these things, so it seems!

But mostly, the contribution from family-Morphy itself would be of greatest
interest, and if substantiated, the half-hour telephone conversation with
the great-nephew which I organised [his request], and which Dr. Bill Hyde
who often wrote in these threads conducted, would 'set on its head if
substantiated', according to Bill, much of what we 'know' of Morphy.

I should be interested, Larry Parr, to learn more of Jones's analysis, and
especially the means by which it was conducted.

Cordially, Phil Innes


http://wcn.tentonhammer.com/modules....cle&sid= 1050

help bot wrote:
wrote:

it's a pleasure to find something
real about chess history for a change.

I don't know which comment is more pathetic, Parr's belief that
historical fiction is "something real", or Innes bleating about the
importance of some alleged Morphy relation's opinions "if
substantiated."

"The Historian" wrote in message
ups.com...

help bot wrote:
wrote:

it's a pleasure to find something
real about chess history for a change.

I don't know which comment is more pathetic, Parr's belief that
historical fiction is "something real", or Innes bleating about the
importance of some alleged Morphy relation's opinions "if
substantiated."

That's right, you don't know.

Many people say 'historical fiction' to indicate a dramatised history, such
as in the Patrick O'Brian books, where the drama is deployed to bring alive
real historical events across the span of some 20 books, and actually
requires very deep understanding of the historical background in order to
/transfer/ some understanding of the /times/ to our current time.

Of course, the rest of the message above is a miscomprehension called in the
north, Kingstonite Syndrome, and in the North-Middle Wilderness,
Blair-Muddying, by which you cut the reference then ask questions doubting
it - but without the cut, the question would be seen as, new Term,
Brennunisation - something idiotic on its face.

In this case it is Bill Hyde who interviewed the family-member who is
disparaged, denied, rejected and excised.

Together these two factors Kinstonitism and B-Mudification combine to form
Neue Hystree, which is to understanding the past via Brennunisation, and
provide what Eubonics is to present speech, and bones are to science in
Alabam.

If you got bones, shake 'em! I say. What else can ya do? Maybe throw them at
the monolithy, see what happens?

MORPHY MORPHED BACK IN TIME

What is interestering about the Morphy presentation is to contrast his life
with those around him, so that while he may seem somewhat eccentric as a
character, those around him form the real comparison, and which indeed is
the only way to properly examine historical characters, lest we fall into
the trap of retro-fitting the mores of our own time onto them.

Certainly the populariser of modern chess to ordinary working class people
in England was quite equally 'eccentric', and without significant or marked
contribution to our knowledge of the Bard, shucked chess to become a
Shakespeare researcher.

Meanwhile, all around Morphy, in the North and in the South, highly
repectable and 'sane' people were deciding why and how they should prosecute
a war to kill as many of their fellow-countrymen as possible in order to win
a war of ideas, which only allowed for one idea to exist in the entire
nation - factory-slaves in the North or Plantation life via bond-slaves in
the south, as primary means of economic activity.

Phil Innes

FICTION?

The author denies that his play about Paul Morphy is fictional.

http://wcn.tentonhammer.com/modules....cle&sid= 1051

The Historian wrote:

I don't know which comment is more pathetic, Parr's belief that
historical fiction is "something real", or Innes bleating about the
importance of some alleged Morphy relation's opinions "if
substantiated."

P.S. It's good to see that Neil Brennen ("The Historian") is observing
his pledge to ignore Phil Innes. Let us count the ways he has ignored
him since taking the pledge....

Chess One wrote:
"The Historian" wrote in message
ups.com...

help bot wrote:
wrote:

it's a pleasure to find something
real about chess history for a change.

I don't know which comment is more pathetic, Parr's belief that
historical fiction is "something real", or Innes bleating about the
importance of some alleged Morphy relation's opinions "if
substantiated."

That's right, you don't know.

Many people say 'historical fiction' to indicate a dramatised history, such
as in the Patrick O'Brian books, where the drama is deployed to bring alive
real historical events across the span of some 20 books, and actually
requires very deep understanding of the historical background in order to
/transfer/ some understanding of the /times/ to our current time.

Of course, the rest of the message above is a miscomprehension called in the
north, Kingstonite Syndrome, and in the North-Middle Wilderness,
Blair-Muddying, by which you cut the reference then ask questions doubting
it - but without the cut, the question would be seen as, new Term,
Brennunisation - something idiotic on its face.

In this case it is Bill Hyde who interviewed the family-member who is
disparaged, denied, rejected and excised.

Together these two factors Kinstonitism and B-Mudification combine to form
Neue Hystree, which is to understanding the past via Brennunisation, and
provide what Eubonics is to present speech, and bones are to science in
Alabam.

If you got bones, shake 'em! I say. What else can ya do? Maybe throw them at
the monolithy, see what happens?

MORPHY MORPHED BACK IN TIME

What is interestering about the Morphy presentation is to contrast his life
with those around him, so that while he may seem somewhat eccentric as a
character, those around him form the real comparison, and which indeed is
the only way to properly examine historical characters, lest we fall into
the trap of retro-fitting the mores of our own time onto them.

Certainly the populariser of modern chess to ordinary working class people
in England was quite equally 'eccentric', and without significant or marked
contribution to our knowledge of the Bard, shucked chess to become a
Shakespeare researcher.

Meanwhile, all around Morphy, in the North and in the South, highly
repectable and 'sane' people were deciding why and how they should prosecute
a war to kill as many of their fellow-countrymen as possible in order to win
a war of ideas, which only allowed for one idea to exist in the entire
nation - factory-slaves in the North or Plantation life via bond-slaves in
the south, as primary means of economic activity.

Phil Innes

Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 21 Dec 2006 14:39:56 GMT):

7 ... Blair-Muddying, by which you cut the reference then ask
7 questions doubting it - but without the cut, the question
7 would be seen as, new Term, Brennunisation - something
7 idiotic on its face. ...

_
Phil Innes, of course, identifies no specific examples of me
doing this.