Indeed it does,assuming he is who I think. I`m beginning to veer towards whole sign houses.
Even equal houses could not explain what I know of him

And for those who like secondary progressions, here is the progressed chart at age 20. Ages 21 and 22 can be eyeballed.

Tom wrote:Try a different viewpoint, if you wish. The following is the same chart, but using whole signs instead of the more typical Placidus. It does some interesting things.

moon in 10th from fortune its exalted sign,jupiter in 4th
fortune ruler in 3rd from fortune-the mind

If you put that Mars on angle ruling the 8th and the ASC ruler receiving it, then I would wager a short life and probably a violent death, so I would argue it does make a difference. Richie Valens didn't make it to 18 with Mars square ASC ruler from the 1st and received by the ASC ruler. Jupiter normally would mitigate the 1st ruler with a sextile a bit but it cannot from the 12th. Also, Saturn retro in the 3rd can be difficult to overcome, especially when young, and could stunt otherwise easy mental aptitude and you said this person is very intelligent.

If career is unreadable, we could argue other areas are as well, so what is the point? I know plenty of people (in fact most of the people I know) who think astrology is hogwash altogether.

Some people have clear relationship areas and the chart describes the partner even, while others have multiple partners and you cannot pick them all out. It is just the way it is - some charts are more focused than others. That doesn't make an area undecipherable entirely.

Tanit3333 wrote:If you put that Mars on angle ruling the 8th and the ASC ruler receiving it, then I would wager a short life and probably a violent death, so I would argue it does make a difference. Richie Valens didn't make it to 18 with Mars square ASC ruler from the 1st and received by the ASC ruler. Jupiter normally would mitigate the 1st ruler with a sextile a bit but it cannot from the 12th. Also, Saturn retro in the 3rd can be difficult to overcome, especially when young, and could stunt otherwise easy mental aptitude and you said this person is very intelligent.

If career is unreadable, we could argue other areas are as well, so what is the point? I know plenty of people (in fact most of the people I know) who think astrology is hogwash altogether.

Some people have clear relationship areas and the chart describes the partner even, while others have multiple partners and you cannot pick them all out. It is just the way it is - some charts are more focused than others. That doesn't make an area undecipherable entirely.

Wow now I am getting worried,I have 8th ruler conjunct asc ruler in 9th

If you put that Mars on angle ruling the 8th and the ASC ruler receiving it, then I would wager a short life and probably a violent death,

There are a few things to say about this. Let's start with, "You're right," Died young. Violent? If we're thinking murder or accident, then no. But if we think a stroke is violent, and some might argue that, you're right again.

The above clarifies the following point.

If career is unreadable, we could argue other areas are as well, so what is the point?

My objection is not that career is unreadable. I object to the idea that career is predetermined and can be pinpointed time after time. The chart is not that limited and our will is freer than that. The kind of career should be able to be determined or the characteristics of the individual that fit certain careers should be able to be determined. We've determined that this native is best suited for a career or profession that requires mental abilities.
His small stature would render him unfit for more physical labor. But I don't think that we can look at a chart and say: A will be a doctor and B will be a nurse. We should be able to spot something in the chart that says "medical profession." But even that is no guarantee. There are probably plenty of people who have the necessary talents to become a doctor that never went near the medical profession for one reason or another.

Our native, arguably, didn't have a profession or even a job. Does that show? Not really, or I can't find it. What does show is that his nature might have steered him to a particular kind of career. It's tougher to see if he took it up or not.

I've given enough hints. I'll reveal the native later today.

Tanit3333 wrote:If you put that Mars on angle ruling the 8th and the ASC ruler receiving it, then I would wager a short life and probably a violent death, so I would argue it does make a difference. Richie Valens didn't make it to 18 with Mars square ASC ruler from the 1st and received by the ASC ruler. Jupiter normally would mitigate the 1st ruler with a sextile a bit but it cannot from the 12th. Also, Saturn retro in the 3rd can be difficult to overcome, especially when young, and could stunt otherwise easy mental aptitude and you said this person is very intelligent.

If career is unreadable, we could argue other areas are as well, so what is the point? I know plenty of people (in fact most of the people I know) who think astrology is hogwash altogether.

Some people have clear relationship areas and the chart describes the partner even, while others have multiple partners and you cannot pick them all out. It is just the way it is - some charts are more focused than others. That doesn't make an area undecipherable entirely.

https://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Valens,_Ritchie

but mars didnt rule the 8th

REVELATION

NOTE: If anyone still wants to play with this and not know the native, I'll tip you off before I give the name. Do not be surprised, if upon learning the name, you have no idea who he was.

The purpose of this exercise and of all the mystery charts that I do is to apply astrological knowledge in kind of a blind test. The name is unimportant. The other part that is not as important as it would be with a real live client sitting in front of us, is the data. What does the chart tell us, and does it fit the native? That is the point. The birth date and location are accurate in this case. The time is rectified, but some of the astrology offered here validates it beautifully.

Our native was about 5'4" tall with small hands and feet and fine features. He was described by some who knew him as "sensitive" and "delicate," although he would perform great feats of emotional and mental endurance that left him physically exhausted and even ill. He was by all accounts a perfect gentleman at all times, and while virtually unknown today, he attracted the attention of two eminent Freudian psychologists long after his death. The reason for the attraction was his psychosis that became apparent in his mid 20s.

If you've heard enough but don't want the name, stop here and come back later.


The native is the first American (unofficial) world chess champion Paul Morphy who was born on June 22, 1837 in New Orleans, Louisiana. The rectification, I believe, was performed by Issac Starkman, and he came up with 11:38 AM LMT. As we've seen, it works.

Morphy was born to a wealthy New Orleans family. His father was an eminent judge. I've found little on his mother. I did find a single reference in a book review of a recent biography that said his parents were "domineering." I have not read the book, although I might now. He had an older brother and sister and a younger sister. Morphy's father died in 1856 just prior to Paul's chess triumphs. He would predecease his mother.

Paul must have been singularly intelligent as he finished law school and passed the bar at age 20 and it was said of him that he had memorized nearly the entire Louisiana State code. Chess players need good memories, but this was and is beyond most. He had no chess teacher. Rather we have the writings of family members who claim he learned the game at age 10 by watching his father and uncle play. His uncle was considered a very strong player in his day. It is also said that he never opened a chess book in his life, and that is probably true. If he had, he might have been influenced by them and not turned out to be the major influence on chess that he became.

At 20, he was too young to practice law and too well off to have to work. His uncle urged him to go to New York and enter the First American Chess Congress in October of 1857, which he did, reluctantly, and, as we used to say when I was a kid, he "creamed" the opposition. His style of play was, in once sense typical of his contemporaries, but he developed so much of it that it seemed new and his opponents simply were out of their depth. He was hailed as a hero and given gifts and adulation not seen in the US again until Bobby Fischer (with whom Morphy has been compared for other reasons) won the World Championship in 1972.

Morphy next would travel to Europe to play the best European players and he expected to get a match with the Englishman, Howard Staunton, the sort of unofficial world champion. While Morphy defeated everyone he played in match play, and some have argued that he beat players stronger than Staunton. Staunton taunted Morphy and ducked the challenge even going so far as to insinuate that Morphy lacked the financial resources to put up a stake (which was mandatory in this day). To their everlasting credit the British chess world was so embarrassed and infuriated with Staunton's behavior, that they put up the money rather than wait for Morphy to have the money transferred to Europe from the US, and told Staunton, in effect, "Now, put up or shut up." He shut up.

Morphy went back to the US world famous, announced he would play anyone in the world, but only at odds. No one took him up on it, and he never played again. His chess career lasted about 18 months. He didn't know it but, for all intents and purposes, his life was over, too.

He tried to establish a law practice but failed. Apparently chess had been his undoing. He was seen as a chess player and not a serious person, like a lawyer. In his mid 20s his psychosis became apparent. He wasn't violent and could care for himself. His family was sufficiently well off that he didn't have to work to support himself. He died of a stroke on July 10, 1884 just about 3 weeks after his 47th birthday.

Why did Morphy go mad? The suggestion has been that he became mad because the world that adored him as a chess player, could not take him seriously as a professional. This is a bit simplistic, but it might have played a role. It's also been suggested that Staunton was a kind of subconscious father figure and the rejection contributed to Morphy's madness. Two Freudian analysts, Ernest Jones and Reuben Fine, both strong chess players wrote professional papers about Morphy (see links below).

Fine was a candidate for World Champion, but had to choose between psychology and chess and chose the former. Fine sees the game of chess as a sublimation of Morphy's psychosis. That is it was a way to hide his budding mental illness. Eventually he could no longer hide it. He once sued his brother-in-law claiming he was after Morphy's inheritance. It was immediately tossed out of court. He became fastidious in the extreme in his dress and in the orderliness of his life. At noon precisely each day he would come out of his home and walk through New Orleans stopping and staring at women's faces. He went to the opera daily and did the same thing. Upon returning from his walk one hot July day, he decided to take a bath to cool off. He was found dead in the tub by his mother.

Morphy's intellect is pretty obvious in his 9th house which is the house of both chess and the law. He disdained the idea of chess as a profession and never made a living with the law. In short: he had no career. Rumors have circulated that he was once rejected by a female interest because she would never marry "a mere chess player." That apocryphal story has never been documented, but fits, given his failure at law and his bachelorhood. It's doubtful that any woman at his level of New Orleans society would marry a crazy man either. One does wonder about family secrets (Jupiter, lord 4 in 12).

The Fischer comparisons are obvious. Both Americans walked away from the game at their peak and both became reclusive. Both exhibited paranoid behavior.

Being good at chess does not render one insane. There all sorts of sane world class players, but chess sure has its share of eccentrics and crazies. The first world champion Steinitz once announced he could call God on a telephone and beat Him at chess. Aaron Nimzovitch once jumped on the chess table, kicked the pieces off the board while shouting, "Why must I lose to this idiot?" When crossing an international border, Alekhine was asked to produce his papers. He replied "I am Alekhine, chess champion of the world. I have a cat named Chess. I have no need of papers." He married women who were excessively overweight and old enough to be his mother. Alcohol sublimated his problems. And then there is Fischer.

Much of the above is encapsulated in the delineations offered in the posts. His madness is not as obvious. Do the charts of the insane tell us the native is insane?

The above is sketchy, but with a better idea of the native's background, we might be able to fill in even more. For more on Paul Morphy see below.

The Exploits and Triumphs in Europe of Paul Morphy, by Fredrick Milne Edge
A contemporary account written before Morphy's death by his secretary

Paul Morphy: Pride and Sorrow of Chess by David Lawson
21st century biography with a lot of original papers included

Most Morphy Biographies are discussions of his games of varying quality written by chess players for chess players

The Problem of Paul Morphy by Ernest Jones http://www.edochess.ca/batgirl/Jones.html

Shrink talk by an eminent psychologist

Reuben Fine on Paul Morphy
http://www.edochess.ca/batgirl/Fine.html

but mars didnt rule the 8th

That doesn't matter, although it certainly can make the influence worse. Angular, difficult malefics in aspect to the asc ruler at all are difficult, especially if unmitigated and if the asc ruler receives it rather than vice versa. You do not require every bad condition to be met but it certainly increases the chances of it being activated under the right scenario. If the luminaries are not well placed or afflicted, all the worse.. Do you know anything about classical astrology, or do you just post random ideas/theories that you come up with?

Wow now I am getting worried,I have 8th ruler conjunct asc ruler in 9th

Forget the 8th ruler - that isn't the only issue and the primary issue would be if the malefic were angular and I have no idea if it is if the time is incorrect. I am talking about a malefic. Is the 8th ruler a malefic? Is asc ruler received by the 8th ruler, is it mitigated by a benefic? Are the luminaries under the earth and/or afflicted? I have looked at loads of charts on premature deaths and they don't always have asc ruler afflicted by a malefic on an angle, but it is common and especially with the luminaries afflicted/weak (cadent, both below the earth, etc.), but this is already in traditional texts.

especially if unmitigated

A bit off topic but important. My own guess is that about 75% or more charts have disastrous aspects or placements, but the real tragedies are a lot less frequent because of mitigation. This topic isn't covered in too many places in my experience, but it can make the difference between accurate and inaccurate predictions.

Tanit3333 wrote:

but mars didnt rule the 8th

That doesn't matter, although it certainly can make the influence worse. Angular, difficult malefics in aspect to the asc ruler at all are difficult, especially if unmitigated and if the asc ruler receives it rather than vice versa. You do not require every bad condition to be met but it certainly increases the chances of it being activated under the right scenario. If the luminaries are not well placed or afflicted, all the worse.. Do you know anything about classical astrology, or do you just post random ideas/theories that you come up with?

Wow now I am getting worried,I have 8th ruler conjunct asc ruler in 9th

Forget the 8th ruler - that isn't the only issue and the primary issue would be if the malefic were angular and I have no idea if it is if the time is incorrect. I am talking about a malefic. Is the 8th ruler a malefic? Is asc ruler received by the 8th ruler, is it mitigated by a benefic? Are the luminaries under the earth and/or afflicted? I have looked at loads of charts on premature deaths and they don't always have asc ruler afflicted by a malefic on an angle, but it is common and especially with the luminaries afflicted/weak (cadent, both below the earth, etc.), but this is already in traditional texts.

yes,saturn conjunct Mercury in saturn sign in day chart

Tom ,why is chess ruled by 9th house?