In Die Schachspieler and the Morphy Anecdote, Part I and Part II, Sarah Beth Cohen reproduces multiple interpretations of a fascinating painting by Friedrich Moritz August Retzsch depicting the familiar theme of a chess game with the devil. She then goes on to reproduce the interesting Paul Morphy anecdote that became attached to that painting by a series of articles in the Columbia Chess Chronicle (which can be found online at Google Books). According to the "Anecdote of Morphy" (August 18, 1888, p. 60), the American chess champion joined a dinner party at a home in Richmond, Virginia, where a copy of Retzch's painting hung on the wall. After studying the painting for some time, Morphy said that he could "take the young man's game and win," which he proceeded to prove several times to the other dinner guests in turn. The story provoked some controversy in the Chronicle, and Ms. Cohen reproduces the letter exchange that followed in its pages. She neglects to include, however, the letter of Charles Gilberg (see below, from September 22, 1888) which purports to reproduce the game position that Morphy defended.
Of course, a comparison of the position with the painting should prove to anyone that Gilberg's rendition is completely incorrect. Just for starters, he does not notice that all of the devil's remaining pieces stand on dark squares (since he represents the dark side, of course). In fact, the one thing he could get right about the position -- which is the situation of the pieces -- he gets completely wrong.
However, while it seems possible to reconstruct the situation of the pieces (see below), a close examination of the pieces themselves quickly reveals that no definitive statement can be made about the chess pieces they represent. After all, the pieces are intended to depict a battle between the seven (or eight) virtues and the seven deadly sins, and chess seems to function in the painting mostly as a metaphor. However, in my opinion, the fact that no definitive statement can be made about the chess pieces depicted only lends credence to the "Anecdote of Morphy," since it seems entirely possible to construct a chess position (and probably several) that would be quite competitive or even winning for White using the situation of the forces given in the painting.
Unfortunately, the only view of the painting I have available is the one online at ArtFact that Ms. Cohen references and reproduces with her article. But even from this rather limited view I think I can reconstruct the situation:
We can say only a few things definitively, however, about the pieces depicted:
- the board is set up correctly, with a light square on the right;
- the small pieces are clearly intended to represent pawns;
- since all of the Black pieces remaining stand on dark squares, the piece that the young man has captured must be the light-squared Bishop;
- and the painting does not depict a full set of pieces and pawns for both sides.
I think from that position, Morphy would have offered his challengers a sporting chance (Fritz thinks Black still has a slight edge after 1.Qxd4+). And he might even have held that "Modern Mephistopheles," the chess computer, to a draw. Below is one possible continuation (or see PGN) with best play for Black--something Morphy would certainly not have encountered in Richmond.