Merry Christmas chess world,
I thought I had a handle on descriptive notaton, but i was reading my new copy of Paul Morphy And The Evolution Of Chess Theory, when I read in the text :“in nothing was Morphy so fortunate as the frequency with which his opponents played P-R3.” I get that it is pawn to took three but which side it doesn’t mention K or Q. A little help please.
Is it not clear from the context? Also the color.
Alex Relyea
Maybe the author was being deliberately ambiguous? That is, some opponents played P-QR3, some played P-KR3, and the author thinks they were all doing Morphy a favor.
A little context. Several decades after Morphy, the then world champion Steinitz, when he annotated games for magazines or books, liked to criticize the moves P-KR3 and P-QR3 whenever he could. He pedantically scolded even the strongest players of his day for wasting time, weakening squares with these moves when they were not part of some clear plan. You could say he was too dogmatic, but at least he kept his readers awake and provoked them to think independently about positional ideas. But perhaps the author of your book was a little too heavily influenced by Steinitz’s idea (which to this day is often quoted).
Thank you both for your replies. Merry Christmas.
The comment is made as a quote of Philip Sergeant’s analysis, in this context:
Morphy - de Riviere Paris 1863
1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bb5 Nf6
4. 0-0 d6
5. d4 ed4
6. Nd4 Bd7
7. Bc6 bc6
8. Nc3 Be7
Position after 8…Be7
-
h3
I think the phrase “particular move in a specific position” is key. When I play through the games of great players past and present, I’m surprised at how often I see moves that, to me, make no sense because they seem to defy some fundamental principle that my books tell me to always keep in mind.
But then I just conclude that the player must have had some deeper plan that I’m not skilled enough to understand. 
Assuming that the statement quoted referrs to opening moves,
using the Chessbase Big Database 2010, it contains the following:
1.e4 a6 1,673 games from 1821-2007
1.e4 h6 74 games from 1858-2009
1.a3 2112 games from 1839-2009
1.h3 322 games from 1880-2009
1.d4 a6 192 games from 1906-2009
1.d4 h6 143 games from 1981-2009
Mr. Bachler points out a great advantage of using descriptive notation. Imagine how those sentences would read if “P-R3” were replaced with “a3, a6, h3, and h6”.
Alex Relyea
This wrongheaded dogmatism carries over into “contemporary” books for amateurs such as Chernev’s Logical Chess: Move by Move, now sixty years old. Still, beginners and even intermediate players will generally do well to follow this “bad” advice. It’s often hard for us amateurs to tell when the tradeoff of time for positional advantage is worthwhile. One can get away with extravagances in the Giuoco Pianissimo (d2-d3) that one can’t afford in the Giuoco Piano (d2-d4).
Here’s a paradox: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6! is of course the “Morphy Defense” to the Ruy Lopez. 
Indeed! I grew up with descriptive, and it was a big shock when I returned to chess 4-5 years ago to find that it’s not used anymore. Still, I’m not going to throw away any of my old books!
It could a reference to Adolph Anderssen and what is known as Anderssen’s opening. That is 1 a3 by White.
Larry Cohen
The original reference is already given above. Sergeant’s original statement came when annotating Meek-Morphy, American Chess Congress. Here is the game quoted from Sergeant’s book:
GAME VI
2nd Rounds Oct. 17, 1867
SCOTCH GAMBIT
Meek - Morphy:
1 P—K4 P-K4
2 Kt—KB3 Kt—QB3
3 P—Q4 PxP
4 P—B3
The Goring Gambit, which Morphy cheerfully accepts. 4..P—Q6 is considered the safe reply. 4.. Kt—B3 transposes into an inferior variation of the Ponziani. Probably 4..P—Q4 is the best move of all.
4... PxP
5 KtxP B-B4
In reply to White's unusual 6th move (6B—QB4 being correct) Black might well have pinned the Knight.
6 B—QB4 P-Q3
7 P-KR3And this is a Gambit opening! In nothing was Morphy so fortunate as in the frequency with which his opponents played P—R3.
7 .... B—K3
8 B—QKt6 Kt—K2
9 Kt—Kt6 Castles
10 Q—R6 P—KR3
11 Kt—B3 Kt—Kt3
12 P—KKt4 QKt—K4!
13 KtxKt PxKt
14 P—Kt6 Q—05
15 B—K3 Q—Kt5
White must surely have recognized by this time that it was Black who had the attack.
16 BxB QxKtP!
17 Castles QxKt
18 BxR RxB
19 QR—B1 Q-Kt7
20 B—B4 Kt-B5
21 Q—Q1
If 21 Q—R4, PxP; 22 Q—Kt3, BxB, etc.
21........ KtxPch
22 K—Kt2 Kt—B5ch
23 K—R1 Q—Kt3
24 PxP
24 B X B, Q X B ; 25 Q—B3 would have prolonged the game.
24..... BxB
25 P—R7ch KxP
26 Q—Kt4 Q-R3ch
27 K—Kt1 BxR
28 RxB RxB
29 P—R4 R-Q3
30 P—B3 R-KKt3
31 K—B2 Black mates in 3 moves[1.5 hours]
LOL. Funny, and really off the point.
No. Please see the quotes I’ve posted in this thread, both of Shibut quoting Sergeant, and also Sergeant’s original writing.
As an aside - Anderssen looked better against Morphy when he played 1 a3 and closed the position.
When Paul Morphy plays the move h3, it is designed to be what we now call a “prophylactic move”, preventing or inhibiting the plan of an opponent. In the de Riviere game, 9.h3 prevents Black from playing …Bg4 or …Ng4. While these moves by themselves are not earth shattering, in preventing them White restricts the ideas that Black can play and allows White to make his next few moves undisturbed. Morphy’s opponents were not aware of the weakening quality of their moves when they played h3 or …h6. The waste of a tempo plus providing him a target for sacrifice was a real gift to Morphy. Several of Morphy’s opponents were also given to playing …e6 and …g6 together while trying to set up Indian systems or the French Defense. Opening theory was only just beginning to be explored in a more organized or scientific fashion by Howard Staunton, the Paulsen brothers, and German players. Players were given to experimenting a lot and did not have to worry about ratings. Morphy, on the other hand, was “accused” of being a “book” player who knew all of the contemporary opening by heart. That might seem funny today given what we know of the lack of chess books available for players to use, but Morphy’s superior knowledge and understanding of chess was quickly recognized. Steinitz perhaps was the quickest to see that Morphy’s play had rigor, rules and deep calculation behind them. His explanation of Morphy’s combinations was to influence future generations of not only how but why must play for an attack.
Poor Judge Meek! His games with Morphy are models of what happens when one wastes a tempo. Meek was to become one of Morphy’s great supporters along with being instrumental in setting up the first US championship. Meek fared okay against all but Paul Morphy. See the “Oxford Encyclopedia of Chess.”