Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

Louis Paulsen – Paul Charles Morphy
1st American Chess Congress; New York, November 3, 1857
Four Knights Game C48

Before the 6th game, the game involving Morphy’s most famous Queen sacrifice, Morphy and Fuller were dining together and Fuller recounted: “... His patience was worn out by the great length of time Paulsen took for each move. His usually equable temper was so disturbed, that he clenched his fists and said, ‘Paulsen shall never win another game from me while he lives’. And he never did”.

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bb5 Bc5 5. 0-0 0-0 6. Nxe5 Re8! Garry Kimovich Kasparov recommends 6. ... Nxe5 7. d4 Bd6 8. f4 Nc6 9. e5 Be7! with roughly equal chances. 7. Nxc6!? Theoretically speaking, sounder is 7. Nf3! Nxe4 8. d4 Nxc3 9. bxc3 Bf8! 10. d5 Ne5 11. Nxe5 Rxe5 12. Bf4 with a slight plus for White, but the text is also playable. 7. ... dxc6 8. Bc4!? More prudent would have been 8. Be2 Nxe4 9. Nxe4 Rxe4 10. d3 Re8 11. c3 followed by d3-d4. 8. ... b5!? A fancy move! Clearly not 8. ... Nxe4? on account of 9. Nxe4 Rxe4 10. Bxf7+!, “But Black has another resource”, writes Philip W. Sergeant in his book “Morphy’s Games of Chess”, New York, Dover Publications, 1957, p. 57. “A correspondence game in 1909 between Messrs. H. Erskine and C. E. C. Tattersall continued 8. ... Ng4, and Black obtained a winning attack”. 9. Be2. Not 9. Bb3? Bg4 10. Qe1 b4 when White is in trouble. 9. ... Nxe4 10. Nxe4. Not 10. Bf3?? Nxf2! 11. Rxf2 Qd4 and wins. 10. ... Rxe4 11. Bf3. 11. d3 followed by c2-c3 and d3-d4 was worth considering. 11. ... Re6 12. c3. “A somewhat elaborate process for so simple an object. First, 12. d3 was the proper play”, Dr. Emanuel Lasker wrote in his book “Common Sense in Chess”, New York, Dover Publications, 1965, p. 73. 12. ... Qd3! A paralyzing move! 13. b4?! “One more inaccuracy, the immediate 13. Re1 Rxe1+ 14. Qxe1 was better. Kasparov gives the following continuation: 14. ... Bf5! 15. Bxc6 (15. Qe2 Rd8! according to Kasparov, but after 16. Qxd3 Bxd3 17. Bxc6 Rd6 18. b4 Black’s advantage would be slight) 15. ... Rd8 16. Qe5 Qc2 17. Bf3 Bd6 18. Qxb5 Bd3 19. Qc6 Kf8! (Kasparov) 20. h3 Re8 when White is worse; but this variation is not forced for White”, Valeri Beim wrote in his book “Paul Morphy Una Prospettiva Moderna”, Roma, Prisma Editori, 2008, pp. 62-63. 13. ... Bb6 14. a4 bxa4 15. Qxa4 Bd7? As Géza Maróczy later demonstrated, correct was 15. ... Bb7! (preventing Qa4-a6) as after 16. Ra2 Rae8 17. Qd1 Ba6 White would have been forced to give up the Exchange. 16. Ra2? Intending Qa4-c2, but called by Wilhelm Steinitz “A silly move”. White had to play the immediate 16. Qa6 as after 16. ... Qf5 17. d4 Rae8 18. Be3 c5 19. bxc5 Bxc5 20. Qe2 (not 20. Qa5? Qxf3! and Black’s attack triumphs) 20. ... Bb6 21. Bg4 Rxe3 22. Bxf5 Rxe2 23. Bxd7 Rd8 the ending appears quite even (Lasker’s analysis). 16. ... Rae8. Threatening ... Qd3xf1+. 17. Qa6. Too late, but 17. Qc2 is refuted by 17. ... Qxf1+! and mate next move, while if 17. Qd1 there follows 17. ... c5! and Black is defenceless against ... Bd7-b5.

17. ... Qxf3!! A superb Queen sacrifice! 18. gxf3 Rg6+ 19. Kh1 Bh3 20. Rd1. Not 20. Rg1 Rxg1+ 21. Kxg1 Re1+ and mate next move. If, instead, 20. Qf3 then 20. ... f5! 21. Qc4+ Kf8! (preventing Qc4-f7) 22. Qf4 Bxf2! and wins. 20. ... Bg2+ 21. Kg1 Bxf3+ 22. Kf1 Bg2+. The “indirect” 22. ... Rg2! would have forced mate in three moves, as Johannes Hermann Zukertort then showed: 23. Qd3 Rxf2+ 24. Kg1 Rg2+ 25. Kh1 Rg1#. 23. Kg1 Bh3+. As Johann Hermann Bauer later pointed out, the most forcing line was 23. ... Be4+! 24. Kf1 Bf5! 25. Qe2 Bh3+ 26. Ke1 Rg1#. 24. Kh1 Bxf2 25. Qf1. What else? 24. ... Bxf1 26. Rxf1 Re2 27. Ra1. “Total demoralization. Black would still have had to do some heavy lifting after 27. Rb2”, writes Valeri Beim (op. cit., p. 64). Black would have won easily after 27. ... Be1. 27. ... Rh6 28. d4 Be3! 0 : 1. For if 29. Bxe3 then 29. ... Rhxh2+ 30. Kg1 Reg2#. “Time, four hours. A record of the time consumed was only kept through a portion of the game. The first player’s longest move was his sixteenth, thirty-eight minutes. None of the second player’s moves exceeded five minutes, except his seventeenth, on which he considered twelve minutes”, writes Daniel Willard Fiske in his “The Book of the First American Chess Congress”, New York, Rudd & Carleton, 1859, p. 255.

First American Chess Congress, New York, 1857. Morphy (right) seated playing Paulsen (left). Photo: Cleveland Public Library Special Collections Department.

Iupiter tonans

Paul Charles Morphy – Louis Paulsen
1st American Chess Congress; New York, October 29, 1857
Sicilian Defence B40

1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. Nf3! Morphy’s favourite move order against the Sicilian Defence. 3. ... e6 4. Nxd4 Bc5 5. Nb3. 5. Be3! might be even stronger, since 5. ... Qb6 6. Nc3! Qxb2?? is refuted by 7. Ndb5!+- Morphy – Paulsen, New York, November 8, 1857. 5. ... Bb6 6. Nc3 Ne7 7. Bf4 0-0? This indifferent move leads to a very cramped position. Correct was 7. ... d5! 8. exd5 exd5 with a playable game for Black. 8. Bd6! f5 9. e5 a6. If 9. ... Nbc6 might follow 10. Qd2 f4 11. 0-0-0 Rf7 12. Bd3 Nf5 13. Rhe1 Qh4 14. Ne4 Bd8 15. g3 Qh6 16. gxf4 Nxd6 17. Nxd6 Rxf4 18. Kb1 Bc7 19. Bb5 Bb6 20. Nc1 Qh4 21. Nd3 Rf3 22. Re4 Qh5 23. c3 a6 24. Ba4 Ba7 25. Rg1 Qxh2 26. Qg5 g6 27. Rh4 Qxg1+ 28. Qxg1 Rxd3 29. Qh2 1 : 0 Timman – Basman, 49th International Chess Congress, Hastings 1973/1974. Géza Maróczy suggests instead 9. ... Bc7 10. Nb5 Na6. 10. Be2. Morphy plays nonchalantly. Grandmaster Valeri Beim rightly recommends 10. Qd2 Nbc6 11. f4 followed by Queenside castling. 10. ... Nbc6 11. 0-0. Again Beim prefers 11. f4, but Morphy probably didn’t suit 11. ... Be3. 11. ... Rf7 12. Kh1 f4!? Paulsen sharply speculates on the weakness of the White e-Pawn. A more circumspet way to play was 12. ... Bc7 13. f4 b6 followed by ... Bc8-b7 (Maróczy’s analysis). 13. Ne4 Nf5 14. Bh5 g6 15. Bg4 Ng7? This is a gross error. After 15. ... Nxd6! 16. exd6 (else 16. Nxd6 Rf8 and Black is fine) 16. ... Ba7 (or even 16. ... Ne5) Black’s position is perfectly playable. 16. Qf3 h5? This is already the decisive mistake. Nolens volens, Black now should have played 16. ... Bc7 17. Qc3 Ne8 (Beim’s analysis). 17. Bh3 Qh4. 17. ... g5 is met by 18. g4! (Beim’s analysis). 18. Nf6+ Kh8 19. Qe4 Qg5 20. g3 f3. If 20. ... fxg3 there follows 21. fxg3 Nf5 22. Bxf5 gxf5 23. Qe2 h4 24. Rf4! hxg3 25. hxg3+- (Beim’s analysis). 21. Nd2! Not difficult, but very pretty. 21. ... Bd8. Obviously 21. ... Qxd2?? 22. Qxg6 would lead to mate in short order. If, instead, 21. ... Nxe5 22. Bxe5 Rxf6 then 23. Rae1! d5 24. Nxf3 and White must win. 22. Nxf3 Qh6

23. Rg1!! Morphy’s way of bringing the Rook into play without open lines is a true flash of genius! More than a hundred years later, Robert James Fischer – a great admirer of Morphy – will employ the same idea in a partie sans façon: R. J. Fischer – U. Andersson, Siegen 1970. 23. ... Bxf6 24. exf6 Ne8. A little better is 24. ... Rxf6, though after 25. Bf4 d5 26. Qe2 Qh7 27. Ne5! White dominates the board (Beim’s analysis). 25. Bf4 Nxf6 26. Qxc6! Qxf4. 26. ... bxc6 fails to 27. Bxh6 Ne4 (or 27. ... Ng8 28. Bf4+-) 28. Ng5! Nxf2+ 29. Kg2 Rf6 30. Rgf1+- (Maróczy’s analysis). 27. Qxc8+ Rxc8 28. gxf4 Rxc2 29. Rac1! Morphy’s impressive technique triumphs. 29. ... Rxf2 30. Rc8+ Ng8 31. Ne5 Rg7 32. Nxg6+ Kh7 33. Nf8+ Kh6 34. Nxd7 Rxd7 35. Rcxg8 Rxf4 36. Bxe6 Re7 37. R8g6+ Kh7 38. Bg8+ Kh8 39. Rh6+ Rh7 40. Rxh7 mate.

Paul Charles Morphy (right) vs. Louis Paulsen
Photo: Chess.com

Serafino Dubois vs. Louis Paulsen

Nel Torneo Internazionale di Londra del 1862 Serafino Dubois si compiacque del lusinghiero successo contro il Maestro tedesco Louis Paulsen con mirabile modestia: “Debbo però confessare per la pura verità, che con questo sommo giuocatore io rimasi molto al di sotto nelle partite d’Accademia che giocammo più tardi al Divano”. E... per la pura verità, desunta dalla monografia multimediale/telematica di Sid Pickard “The Collected Works of Wilhelm Steinitz” (Pickard & Son, Publishers, 2003), ecco allora una delle loro partite sans façon:

S. Dubois – L. Paulsen
Londra, 1862
Gambetto di Re C39

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Cf3 g5 4. h4 g4 5. Ce5 Ag7 La variante di Paulsen. 6. Cxg4 Steinitz è lapidario: “Considerata azzardata da tutti i teorici; lo svolgimento della partita conferma l’opinione”. 6. ... d5 7. exd5? Comunque dopo 7. Cf2 dxe4 8. Cxe4 Cf6 9. Cbc3 De7 10. De2 0-0 11. d3 Cxe4 12. Cd5 Dc5 13. dxe4 Te8 14. Cxf4 Af5 15. Ae3 Db4+ l’attacco del Nero è veemente, Steinitz – Gorham & Lester, per corrispondenza 1888. 7. ... De7+ 8. Rf2 Commenta Steinitz: “Che s’interponga l’Alfiere o che s’interponga la Donna naturalmente il Nero risponde con 8. ... Axg4”. 8. ... Ad4+ 9. Rf3 Axg4+ Oppure 9. ... h5 10. Ab5+ Rd8 11. Cf2 Ag4+ 12. Cxg4 hxg4+ 13. Rxg4 Cf6+ 14. Rh3 Txh4+! 15. Rxh4 Ce4+ 16. Rg4 Cf2+ 17. Rh5 De5+ 18. Rh4 Df6+ 19. Rh5 Dg6+ 20. Rh4 Af6 matto, Mackenzie – Paulsen, Londra 1862. 10. Rxg4 Cf6+ 11. Rh3 Se 11. Rg5 allora 11. ... De5+ 12. Rh6 Cg8 matto; se invece 11. Rf3 allora 11. ... De4 matto, Gossip – Bird, Londra 1873. 11. ... Tg8 12. g4 Txg4 13. Ab5+ c6 14. dxc6 Txh4+ 15. Rxh4 Ce4+ “E vince”, chiosa Steinitz. 0 : 1. Se infatti 16. Rh3 allora 16. ... Cf2+ dopodiché: (I) 17. Rh2 Dh4+ 18. Rg2 f3+! 19. Dxf3 (19. Rxf3 Dg4 matto) 19. ... Dxh1+ 20. Rg3 Dh3+ 21. Rf4 Dh4+ 22. Rf5 Df6 matto; (II) 17. Rg2 Dg5+ 18. Rf1 Cxd1 19. c7+ Dxb5+ 20. Re1 Dc6 -+.

Louis Paulsen vs. Paul Morphy (New York, 1857)