Charles A.

Buck,
Or,
Daring to Contradict Lawson
Charles A. Buck, though hardly a household name among chess players today, is well
known to Morphy scholars, because of a piece he wrote on Paul Morphy in the year 1900.
This entertaining newspaper article, later published as a pamphlet titled Paul Morphy: His
Later Life, has resulted in a great deal of confusion in chess historical literature. The
confusion starts with the question of just who Charles A. Buck was.

New Stories about

Old Chess Players
Jeremy P. Spinrad

Charles A. Buck is sometimes confused with another minor figure in chess history, the
very similarly named Charles F. Buck (1841-1918). Charles Francis Buck was the stakeholder for the world championship match between Steinitz and Zukertort. The stakeholding Buck was a well-known man in his time, a United States Congressman from
Louisiana. Chess-related references to him can be found from both his time in New
Orleans, and in Washington D.C. Buck is a common name, and I see no reason to believe
that Congressman Charles F. Buck has any relation to the subject of this article.
Charles A. Buck (born 1866) came from a family of newspaper men. His father, Napoleon
B. Buck, worked in the newspaper business from age sixteen until the day he died.
Being a newspaper man in the nineteenth century was rather different from working in
journalism today. Todays American journalists strive for impartiality, at least ideally.
Sometimes this can go to ridiculous lengths; if a political candidate tells an outright lie, a
newspaper will often try to present this as one side of an issue, giving accusations and
denials equal weight. In the nineteenth century, newspapers generally had a partisan
political agenda, and were associated with a party or cause. They would support their
cause to almost unbelievable extremes, accusing the opposite party of heinous crimes
without any supporting evidence. According to his biography in the History of Allen and
Woodson County, Napoleon Buck held an important position on the New York Tribune
when its editor Horace Greeley was at the height of his power. Greeleys Tribune was very
much anti-slavery. It is said that Greeley was responsible for giving the Republican Party
its name, and Greeley was associated with its more radical wing before and during the
Civil War. Napoleon Buck moved west in 1882, eventually settling in Toronto, Kansas,
where he took charge of the Toronto Republican until his death in 1894. He had five
children, of whom four survived into adulthood, including Charles A. Buck.

Play through and download the games

from ChessCafe.com in the DGT
Game Viewer.
The Complete
DGT Product Line

This summary is taken from the biography mentioned above, and is probably accurate.
There is one disquieting detail that makes matters a bit uncertain. Charles A. Buck is given
in the same biography as being born in St. Louis, Missouri on October 27, 1866, and
educated in Nashville; this is unusual if his father Napoleon moved west to Kansas in
1882. There is probably some simple explanation, but it may mean that Napoleon Buck
could have had political views very different from Greeleys. Among newspapers of the
time which are now available online, the only hits for a name like Napoleon Bucks are
from the Chicago Tribune. These deal with an N.B. Buck who was arrested for running a
pro-Confederate newspaper in Missouri (May 20, 1861). On January 8 and 9, 1865, the
Tribune calls the same N.B. Buck the late foreman of the Republican office, and says he
was arrested for violating his parole for running a rebel newspaper. Although this may be
a coincidence, the associations with the newspaper business, when combined with
Charles birth in St. Louis, make it quite possible that the pro-Confederate N.B. Buck is
Napoleon.
Charles Bucks older brother Edward was also in the newspaper business with a wide
variety of papers. Edward was no stranger to political controversy, one of which is
reminiscent of Mark Twains story on the violent journalism of the American West. The
dispute is discussed in the Los Angeles Times in August 1896. On August 4 the Times
explains that there may soon be two competing San Bernardino Suns, due to an attempt to
force out editor E.N. Buck because he has not kept the paper in harmony with the
Republican platform. The issue became quite heated, being settled by force, as described
on August 5:
The morning Sun made its appearance as usual today, but new names appeared at
the head of the editorial page. The name of E.N. Buck was supplanted by that of R.
C. Harbison, as editor, and R.E. Norton appeared as the new business manager. The
conflict that determined the result was short, but emphatic. Early in the evening,
when but two men were on guard for Mr. Buck, a force of men made a rush on the
office, captured the two guards and forced them into the street, Mr. Harbison and

Mr. Norton taking possession. During the night and all day today, three men, armed
with Winchester rifles, have occupied the editorial room ready to receive boisterous
visitors, but they came not. After his men had been ejected, Mr. Buck sought to
have his opponents ejected for riot, but under the advice of the District Attorney,
Justice Soule refused to issue the warrant. It is denied by the holders of the
foreclosed mortgage that politics had anything to do with their actions. They say
that they were governed solely by business interest, Mr. Buck having failed to meet
his obligations. Be that as it may, the paper came out this morning in harmony with
Republican ideas, set forth in the national platform and with the names of
McKinley and Hobart at the head of their editorial page.
Edward Buck played some chess; he was part of a San Bernardino team that scored a win
and a draw in a postal match against the Los Angeles Athletic Club, the latter being led by
Charles Pierce, the top player in southern California.
Edward Buck appears in the Los Angeles Times primarily as a reporter, with chess as a
sidelight. Although Charles Buck was also a working newspaper man, he appears more
frequently as a chess player.
On January 11, 1892, an article in the Times says that C.A. Buck of Kansas, an amateur
player, wants to organize a chess club. He seems to have been successful in this. On April
4, 1892, there is an announcement of a club handicap tournament, with Buck as one of the
entries. The full entry list appears on April 18. One player, Charles Pierce, is put in class
1, and one other in class 2. Buck is one of five players in class 3; fifteen players are listed
in all. Class 3 player receive P+1 odds from class 2, P+2 from class 1; they give P+1 to
class 4, and knight odds to class 5. The tournament was won by George Thompson, the
lone class 2 player, with a score of 11-2. A class 4 player named Cooke finished
second at 11-3, while Buck placed third with a 10-4 score. Other notable scores include
Pierce at 9-5, though he was giving odds of knight or rook in more than half of his games.
I believe that one of the class 4 players, who had a score of 7-6, was Richard J.
Hambrook, who became chess champion of the territory of Arizona in 1895.

Paul Morphy

Charles Buck returned to Kansas when his father died in 1894, and took over the job of
running the Toronto Republican. He kept his enthusiasm for chess, but apparently had a
hard time finding good opposition in this small Kansas town. Bucks return home works to
the advantage of historians, however; if a chess player named Charles Buck has an address
of Toronto, Kansas, we can feel quite confident that it is the same Charles A. Buck from
Toronto, Kansas who wrote the Morphy article!
It is hard to trace any over-the-board chess by Buck from this time, but we do know that
he became an enthusiastic correspondence player. The Brooklyn Eagle became the official
organ of the Pillsbury Correspondence Chess Association at the end of 1899, and Bucks
name appears regularly in its tournament lists. The Eagle of January 17, 1901, in a
positive review of his Morphy article, calls Buck a well-known player in the Midwest and
a member of the Pillsbury National Correspondence Chess Association. Buck has a plus
score in all the correspondence tournaments that are listed in the Eagle, at least through
the years that are currently available online, ending in 1902. They give one game played
by Buck, in the Eagle of January 7, 1900. According to the notes, this is Bucks first
correspondence chess game. Notes are from the Eagle.
C.C. Hunt (Montezuma, IA) - C.A. Buck (Toronto, KS)
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5
The old time continuation that has been generally voted as too slow, but it crops up
occasionally and contributes some excellent specimens of play.

3exd5 4.Bd3 Bd6 5.Ne2

Probably done to avoid the pinning by the QB, though, as it transpires, this occurs later on
with telling effect. 5.Nf3 has been found to yield the most satisfactory result.
5Nf6 6.c3 0-0 7.0-0 Be6 8.f4
8.Bg5 is not feasible here, because of Blacks
rejoinder Bxh2+, followed by Ng5+. 8.Bf4 was
to be considered here, but chiefly as a defensive
measure. White, on the other hand, has an eye
mainly to advancing his attack.
8c5 9.Nd2
He might now have cut off the subsequently
annoying bishop with 9.f5, though, of course, his
own bishop would likewise have been withdrawn
from action thereby.
9c4
As a rule, this pawn formation is not to be recommended, as it lacks strength. In the
present case the advance of the QBP furthers Blacks contemplated combination, at the
same time cramping his opponents game.
10.Bc2 Bg4 11.Qe1
White would now find it convenient to have his QB out and to post his Q duly on d2. His
position begins to be slightly embarrassing.
11Re8 12.Nf3 Nbd7 13.Ne5?

An error, but not altogether obvious, inasmuch as

the sacrifice in reply involves quite a series of
interesting moves. 13.Qf2 should have been
played.
13...Nxe5! 14.fxe5 Bxe5 15.dxe5 Rxe5 16.Rf2
Qe7 17.Bd1 Re8 18.Kf1 Ne4

Having piled on all the agony he could Black

now proceeds to remove one of the adverse
supports, after which the crushing process
becomes merely a matter of time.
19.Rf4 Bxe2+ 20.Bxe2 Nc5 21.Qh4
The rook cannot return to the defense because of
21Nd3.
21Qxh4 22.Rxh4 Rxe2 23.g3 Re1+ 24.Kg2
Nd3 0-1
The clincher. This being Mr. Bucks debut in the correspondence arena, he deserves
special credit for his conduct of his side of the game. It lasted but fifty days.
The Pillsbury Association bulletins gave full scores of many games from their
correspondence tournaments, so it seems likely that more games by Charles A. Buck can
be found.
Bucks main importance to chess, however, comes from his writings on Morphy, so the
rest of this article will be devoted to a fresh examination of Bucks claims. Bucks full
article can be seen here. Buck had other, less important, contributions to Morphy lore; for

example in the Eagle of September 22, 1901, he discussed a theoretical dispute between
Harry Nelson Pillsbury and John Finan Barry, in which Barry claimed that the Ruy Lpez
line 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 is refuted by 4.d4, and that this was a reason that
Morphy had invariably played 3a6. Buck showed that Morphy had in fact played 3
Nf6 in at least five games, the same number of time he was known to play 3a6, plus he
had also played 3Bc5 and 3Nge7 at least once each.

Lawson, in his deservedly praised biography Paul Morphy: The Pride and Sorrow of
Chess, is scathing towards Paul Morphy: His Later Life, saying Buck apparently just
talked to old-timers and did little research for his article. In my opinion, Lawson is far
too critical. I have read many accounts of Morphy, from his own time period, from the
early 1900s, and from current sources. They often contain ridiculous statements, obviously
incorrect to anyone with any background on Morphy. Buck, on the other hand, researched
Morphy for quite some time, but Lawson is overly critical of small errors in dates and
scores which do not affect the general truthfulness of Bucks account.
Sarah Beth Cohen gives Lawsons summary of Bucks alleged errors at her website
Sarahs Chess Journal. Well discuss them individually here. Lawson uses these to justify
rejecting Bucks article as any source for historical facts on Morphy:
1) Stanley did not win one of his match games against Morphy at P+1 odds.
The correct score was +4 0 =1 in Morphys favor when Stanley resigned the match. The
fact that Buck reported the score as 4-1 is a minor error, and Buck correctly conveys
Morphys dominance over other American players of this time.
2) Morphy annotated thirty-five Labourdonnais-McDonnell games, not fifteen as Buck
said.
Actually, Buck said the New York Ledger published about fifteen of the games. Bucks
point was that Morphy did not come close to the original goal of publishing all eighty-five
games of the series. It is true that fifteen is a poor underestimation of thirty-five, but Buck
did convey to the reader the correct general idea that the project failed because Morphy
did not keep at the work.
3) Morphy did complete his contract with the Ledger, although Fuller helped.
This point is highly debatable. Morphy was hired at great expense to run a chess column,
and the editors had to bring in another person to help with the column. I am not sure that
Morphy really completed the contract.
4) Fiske wrote a letter claiming that Buck errs when he said that Morphy did little of the
work on the American Chess Monthly despite being listed as editor.
I believe that Fiske wrote such a letter, but I also believe that Buck was reporting
accurately the belief of many people who had been associated with the Chess Monthly. For
example, the Chess Players Chronicle of 1861, page one, says Messrs. Fiske and
Morphy retire [from the Chess Monthly]; although the latter, it seems, only gave his name
to the paper. It is hard to quantify what is meant by little, in any case. It is hard to see
Morphys contribution from reading the magazine, and we are not sure what Morphy is
supposed to have contributed. At worst, Buck was bringing to light a viewpoint that was
common in the chess community; I do not feel this can be called an error by Buck.

5) There is no evidence that Morphy was rejected by anyone because he was a mere
chess player.
If there is any erroneous statement by Buck that has become widely accepted, it is this; its
even a major plot element in The Chess Players, a pseudo-biographical 1960 novel by
Frances Parkinson Keyes, in which Morphy suffers the heartbreaking rejection of a
marriage proposal for this reason. This legend seems to originate with Buck. Personally, I
would side with Lawson on this, in that I doubt the story was true. On the other hand, I
doubt that Buck simply made it up; that would not be in keeping with his relatively serious
treatment of Morphys life. I feel this was a story which was going the rounds in some
chess circles of the time, and was brought to the attention of the larger world by Buck.
Lawson also gives credence to stories he finds believable which I find unlikely; for
example, the notion that Morphys chess fame hindered his law career, or that Morphys
actions during the Civil War were responsible for his lack of success. Lawson, as a
historian, gives sources for these claims, while Buck does not. I wish Buck gave sources
here, but I feel that he is reporting speculation from his time period, and if so I am glad
that this rumor was preserved for history.
I have a completely unprovable guess as to how the story of Morphys marital rejection
arose. The Handy Book of Curious Information, published in 1913, asserts without giving
sources that Morphy would often say that if he had not played chess he would have
married a rich girl and been happy. This totally reasonable statement could easily have
been misunderstood by a listener to mean that if Morphy had not played chess, he would
have married a specific rich girl, and passed on to Buck as coming from Morphy himself.
6) Morphy returned to New Orleans in 1864, not 1865.
I am sure that Lawson is correct, but this is a very minor point.
7) Morphy did play some chess after 1869.
Very few people knew of this in Bucks time. Lawson discovered it only through diligent
research. Buck reported as accurately as he was able.
8) Zukertort did not meet Morphy in 1882, as Buck states, nor is it likely that they ever
met. Zukertort first visited New Orleans in 1884.
Although Buck is wrong on the date, Zukertort claimed in 1884 that he had met Morphy
during his visit to New Orleans. He discusses this in an interview with a reporter for the
Salt Lake City Tribune, which appeared on June 28, 1884. Thus, Buck is more accurate in
his claim than Lawson in his denial, unless Zukertort (who was known to tell a whopper or
two) lied about meeting Morphy. In any case, Buck cannot be faulted for believing
Zukertorts account of the meeting.
9) Buck mentions an incident concerning a lawyer, a piece of candy, and a remark
Morphy supposedly made, of which nothing can be authenticated.
As in point six, Buck was probably told this story, and believed it. We all wish sources
had been given. The gist of the story seems consistent with Lawsons view of Morphy, but
we have no way of knowing whether it is true or false.
10) The New York Chess Club never acquired Morphys chessmen as Buck states it did.

Again, Buck cannot be faulted for this one. The New York Times of July 25, 1886 reports
that the set was sold for $1,550 to Mr. Walter Denegre, who, it is said, was acting for the
New York and Brooklyn Chess Club.
11) The apocryphal game was played between Lwenthal and a Mr. Murphy of London
in 1855.
I thank Lawson for pointing this out, but it does not contradict Bucks article. Buck claims
that this game was not played by Morphy, despite claims by Max Lange that it had been. If
there were people who had seen articles claiming this was a Morphy game, Buck is right
to discuss the claim in his article.
12) Morphy was co-editor of the Chess Monthly for three years, not five.
Another minor point; worthy of correction, but not one that casts a general cloud over the
article.
13) It is not difficult to determine the first symptoms of Morphys psychological malady.
Rumors started in 1875, not 1871 as Buck states. Maurian says he first noticed something
wrong with Morphy in 1875.
I must side with Buck on this dispute. It is always arguable what type of behavior should
be classified as mental illness. Lawson himself prints a letter by Woodbury on The
Eccentricity of Paul Morphy (this can be found online in the Brooklyn Eagle of March
14, 1873) which gives examples of abnormal actions by Morphy. Despite Maurians
claim, there can be little doubt that such a letter would give rise to rumors of mental
illness. Some of the behavior had clearly been going on for some time, and I have little
doubt that rumors of his illness would have started by 1871.
14) Morphy was taken to the Louisiana Retreat in 1875, not in 1882.
Lawson corrects the date, but the essence of the story remains correct.
15) Colonel Mead, in his address of welcome at the testimonial held in Morphys honor in
New York City, May 25, 1859, did not refer to chess as a profession. Morphy did not
resent anything Mead said. Mead did not retire in confusion and mortification, but
remained as chairman throughout the proceedings as previously stated.
This seems to be a true error by Buck. These speeches are all preserved, and they are not
consistent with Bucks account.
Although Lawson, as perhaps the greatest authority on Morphy, is obviously a more
reliable source for verified facts than Buck, I think he went overboard in attacking Bucks
article so strongly. I feel that only one statement by Buck, point fifteen, can legitimately
be called a serious error. I think that Buck was more correct than Lawson on points eight,
ten, and thirteen. Point eleven is an addition to a true statement by Buck. Four of the
criticisms, points three, four, five, and nine, are debatable issues. All other statement are
valid corrections of the historical record, but not serious errors by Buck, and are much
more minor than errors found in other histories of Morphy.
Therefore, I propose that we stop remembering Charles A. Buck as an author of a
ridiculous pamphlet, and give him a new image. Buck was an enthusiastic chess player,
and a newspaperman who produced an entertaining and largely correct picture of Morphy
for the reading public. If Kansas has a Hall of Fame for chess, I nominate Charles A. Buck
for membership.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists]

[Endgame Study] [The Skittles Room] [Archives]
[Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe.com] [Contact Us]
Copyright 2007 Jeremy P. Spinrad and CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
"ChessCafe.com" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.